Anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller is outraged that the USC Shoah Foundation, a genocide history project founded by Steven Spielberg, is giving an award to President Obama at its upcoming “Ambassadors for Humanity” gala.
Geller, who believes Obama is “single-handedly paving the way for the next holocaust,” told WorldNetDaily that the award “is illustrative of the willful blindness of liberal Jews” who have “traded their religion” and “traded G-d (and their morality)” for political clout.
“Shame on Steve Spielberg for rendering ‘never again’ an empty slogan, devoid of meaning,” she said.
WND editor Joseph Farah, evangelist Ray Comfort and Laurie Cardoza Moore of the Christian Zionist group Proclaiming Justice to the Nations also denounced the USC Shoah Foundation, likening the group to Nazi appeasers.
“With all the work Steven Spielberg has done in increasing awareness of the Holocaust, and not just ‘Schindler’s List’ but his Shoah project as well, he just doesn’t get it. It’s astonishing,” she told WND.
Geller said the attitude “is illustrative of the willful blindness of liberal Jews.” “They have traded their religion for their politics. They have traded G-d (and their morality) for whomever is carrying the torch for human secularism. And now it is Obama,” she said.
She warned that Obama, through his action, or inaction, regarding Iran, is “single-handedly paving the way for the next holocaust.”
Geller said for the Jewish people, it’s “the late ’30s all over again.”
“Then too, the record of the establishment American Jews was shameful,” she said. “Then, too, Jewish leadership in America went along with the delusion that keeping the Jews out of Israel was the best course – because FDR said so. The American Jews went along then and they are going along with Obama now. Shame on Steve Speilberg [sic] for rendering ‘never again’ an empty slogan, devoid of meaning.”
Farah said no U.S. president since Israel was reborn in 1948 has been less of a friend to Israel or the Jewish people than Barack Obama.
“He seeks to redraw the nation’s borders in a way that would leave Israel unable to defend itself. He has sought to freeze building by Jews in and around Israel’s capital. He seeks a so-called peace agreement that would involve ethnic cleansing of Jews in a future Palestinian state. Obama is not operating in the spirit of Oscar Schindler. On the contrary, he is operating in the spirit of those who appeased Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. He is operating in the spirit of those who looked the other way as six million Jews were exterminated.”
Moore said that only are Spielberg’s comments “an insult to Jews around the world, but they are also an affront to the thousands of Christians and Muslims in the Middle East who are being slaughtered as a result of Obama’s failed foreign policy.”
“In giving this award to Obama, Spielberg and the Shoah Foundation have been shown to be both contemptible and irrelevant,” she said.
Evangelist Ray Comfort, whose projects include “180 The Movie,” said it’s “a tragedy beyond words that a man who produced ‘Schindler’s List,’ a producer who said ‘I ‘was put on this earth to tell the story of the Holocaust,’ would now honor a president that has done more than any other president to further the American holocaust of the killing of babies in the womb.”
John Biver, the political editor of Matt Barber’s BarbWire website , warns in a column today that marriage equality will lead to legal protections for bestiality and the letter Z (for “zoophilia”) being “added to the LGBTQIA (etc.) abbreviation.”
Biver bases his argument on law review article by a Cornell student which he admits he only read four pages of and has “no idea what his argument is.” The article in question is in fact devoted to strengthening laws against bestiality by arguing that the reasoning behind current laws doesn't withstand scrutiny and offering “a potentially new rationale for justifying bestiality prohibitions.”
But according to Biver, the article is proof that there will be “a future well-funded marriage ‘equality’ effort for zoophiliacs.”
One reader brought a 2012 article to our attention written by Antonio M. Haynes, a Cornell University law student: “’ Dog on Man’: Are Bestiality Laws Justifiable?” Just to be clear, I only read the first four pages so I have no idea what his argument is. It wasn’t easy getting that far — and those four pages are mostly filled with footnotes at the bottom of each page (which I skipped completely). Download it if you dare and see how much of it you can stomach.
To our basic and important questions:
- How will society respond when zoophiliacs start clamoring for their “rights”?
- How will society respond to After the Ball -type efforts to normalize zoophilia and demonize those who disapprove of it?
- How will society respond to a future well-funded marriage “equality” effort for zoophiliacs.
- If someone were to donate to an organization that prohibits hiring of zoophiliacs, will this donor be fired?
- Will the expression of disapproval of zoophilia be deemed bullying or hate speech?
- How will schools respond to requests to start pro-zoophilia clubs to support students who experience unwanted zoophilia feelings and who seek to come out of the zoophiliac closet? Will the Day of Silence expand to include zoophiliacs?
- Will therapies to help minors change their unwanted zoophilia desires be banned?
- Will “zoophiliac orientation” be added to enumerated anti-discrimination policies and laws?
- Will the letter Z be added to the LGBTQIA (etc.) abbreviation?
- Will we see prime time television programs and movies with lovable zoophilia-oriented characters?
- Will wannabe zoophiliac journalists form professional journalism associations (such as this one) to monitor and exploit the Fourth Estate in the service of breaking down barriers and normalizing zoophilia?
- Will zoophiliacs join “pride parades”?
- Will loud and proud zoophiliacs “out” those who prefer to remain in the zoophiliac closet?
Up next we’ll take a look at another example of the ways people experience “intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, or individuals.” If America is to be truly free, shouldn’t all sexcentric-identified individuals be treated equally under the law?
A new analysis by a campaign finance watchdog group has revealed that wealthy donors could have flooded Wisconsin with $6 million each to candidates in 2010 and 2012 elections if the state’s $10,000 aggregate annual limit had not existed.
The Money Out/Voters In Wisconsin Coalition, of which PFAW is a member organization, highlighted the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign’s findings at a press conference last week reacting to the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, which was announced early last month. In McCutcheon, the court struck down aggregate federal limits on the amount wealthy donors can give to candidates, political parties, and political action committees per election cycle.
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign’s analysis found that without Wisconsin’s state limit of $10,000, in 2012 millionaire and billionaire donors could have given an estimated 680 times more, at least $6.8 million each to candidates in about 4,700 state and local elections, 386 PACs and 157 political committees. In 2010, the comparable number is as high as $6.1 million.
Most notably, Money Out/Voters In Wisconsin and Wisconsin Democracy Campaign noted that only about 299 individuals gave $10,000 or more to state candidates in 2010 and 2012—about .005 of 1% of Wisconsin’s 2012 population. That number included 173 people who don’t even live in Wisconsin.
Check out the video of the press conference here:
American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer said on his radio program today that he loved Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in Town of Greece v. Galloway so much that after reading an excerpt to his audience, he remarked, “I’m reading this and I’m thinking, man, I’m listening to myself.”
“Clarence Thomas is sounding like me,” Fischer said. “There’s no restrictions on what states can do, according to the First Amendment.”
On her radio show today, Mission America’s Linda Harvey absurdly stated that LGBT rights groups like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network and the Human Rights Campaign refuse to condemn child abuse.
Discussing the case of a Boy Scouts of America scoutmaster in Virginia who was sentenced last month to 30 years in prison for 36 counts of child sex abuse, Harvey said that groups like GLSEN and HRC are “empowering such adults” by “promoting gay identities to kids.”
LGBT rights groups, she alleged, “set some kids up to this kind of abuse” and “make it easier for those who prey on teens and preteens to convince the vulnerable child, ‘Hey maybe you were born to do this.’”
“No matter what homosexuals claim, their movement is quite friendly to pedophilia,” Harvey continued. “Where’s the condemnation from the Human Rights Campaign or GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network?” she asked.
She then linked the scoutmaster case to days honoring the life and legacy of Harvey Milk: “On May 22nd, California schools will observe Harvey Milk Day and this is an example of the corruption the left is able to get away with.”
Dozens of anti-choice activists meeting in Rome this week are urging Catholic bishops to deny communion to politicians who support abortion rights.
Speaking at the International Pro-Life Conference in Rome, the American Catholic leader Cardinal Raymond Burke renewed his call for bishops to deny communion to pro-choice politicians. Fifty-two activists joined the cause, signing a petition asking “the Bishops of the Catholic Church to withhold Holy Communion from pro-abortion politicians as an act of love and mercy towards those same politicians.”
Among the American signers of the declaration were Preston Noell, director of Tradition, Family and Property, Marie Meaney of Heartbeat International, Joseph Meaney of Human Life International (the group that spawned the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, and which organized the Rome conference), “conceived in rape” activist Rebecca Kiessling, Dawn Eskew of Personhood New York, Michael Hichborn of the American Life League, Carlos Polo of the Population Research Institute, and Bernice and Brian Follett of The Life Foundation. Also signing the petition was Luis Losada of CitizenGo, a Spanish organization whose board includes National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown.
The declaration reads in part:
WHEREAS Catholic politicians who support abortion are already in grave sin, and in receiving Holy Communion their sin is compounded by sacrilege;
WHEREAS by being given Holy Communion such Catholic politicians may well believe that they are spiritually healthy and thus not in need of any remedy;
WHEREAS distributing Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians causes scandal to the rest of the faithful in that they come to believe that support for abortion is not too serious a sin, and thus undermines pro-life work;
WHEREAS being refused Holy Communion is an effective wake-up call to return to an authentic life of faith;
WHEREAS it is unmerciful to allow our brothers living in obstinate public sin to languish there without warning;
We the undersigned ask the Bishops of the Catholic Church to withhold Holy Communion from pro-abortion politicians as an act of love and mercy towards those same politicians.
Glenn Beck said on his show today that while he hasn’t actually seen the White House Correspondents Dinner video with Julia Louis-Dreyfus featuring Joe Biden, Michelle Obama and John Boehner, he knows for a fact that it wasn’t funny and is outraged that his own website, The Blaze, ran an article with the headline: “Biden Mocks Himself in Hilarious Comedy Skit for White House Correspondents Dinner.”
Beck insisted that the video he had not seen was definitely “not hilarious” as “only the blind, deaf, dumb or those in the administration think it is hilarious.”
He proceeded to discuss a clip from the video in which Louis-Dreyfus and Biden walk in on Pelosi — whom Beck mocks as wearing “a giant clown jumpsuit” — in a tattoo parlor. “Why are they getting tattoos?” Beck asked. “Don’t they know that they’re the ones that are going to be running the camps? They don’t get the tattoos, they give the tattoos,” he said, alluding to the tattoos that prisoners were given at Nazi concentration camps.
Beck also said he went to the White House Correspondents Dinner once but will never return: “My wife and I left and said, should we go and take a shower because I feel like I’ve just been raped.”
“It’s an awful, awful experience, filled with just some of the worst people ever assembled in one building.”
A Florida man has taken this obsession to a new level, filing a motion to intervene in the case challenging the state’s marriage equality ban, purporting to seek the right to marry his “porn filled Apple computer.”
The Broward/Palm Beach New Times provides this quote from the motion of Chris Sevier, which it notes is “Short on sound legal grounding (and even shorter on wit)”:
Recently, I purchased an Apple computer. The computer was sold to me without filters to block out pornography. I was not provided with any warning by Apple that pornography was highly addictive and could alter my reward cycle by the manufacturer. Over time, I began preferring sex with my computer over sex with real women. Naturally, I 'fell in love' with my computer and preferred having sex with it over all other persons or things, as a result of classic conditioning upon orgasm.
Unsurprisingly, Sevier’s motion was rejected last week by the clearly unamused Judge Robert L. Hinkle:
Chris Sevier has moved to intervene, apparently asserting he wishes to marry his computer. Perhaps the motion is satirical. Or perhaps it is only removed from reality. Either way, the motion has no place in this lawsuit. Mr. Sevier has alleged nothing that would support intervention.
The New Times notes that Sevier has tried this sort of thing before:
A Chris Sevier sued Apple because it sold him a computer without telling him about the evils of porn. A Chris Sevier sued A&E after it fired Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson after he was caught spewing antigay talk. And just recently, a Chris Sevier tried to butt his way into Utah's gay marriage legal case . In a 50-page motion, he claimed he was there to make the court "put up or shut up" on the gay marriage issue.
In his motion in the Utah case, Sevier laid out his totally air-tight argument, warning that marriage equality and the “slippery slope” he warns will ensue will result in Americans “becoming salves of our glands, not slaves of virtue”:
Either (1) we will be reduced to a Nation that hypocritically enforces the equal protection and due process clause to suit the interest of the largest minority, which yields discrimination against the true minority classes of sexual orientation, causing hypocrisy to undermine foundation laws, yielding instability; (2) we will remain a Christian Nation that protects traditional marriage, as a relationship set apart because it has the potential of bearing life between two people, who are in a legally binding relationship, who have naturally corresponding sexual organs with the exclusive potential to produce children with DNA that matches theirs; which, of course, makes that relationship both scientifically and factually distinct from all others-religious aside; or (3) we will progress into a Nation that gives equal protection to all classes of sexual orientation allowing everyone to marrying anyone and anything to suit their appetite in the name of tolerance, equality, and love -becoming slaves of ourglands, not slaves of virtue. There is no other possible alternative.
Larry Klayman insists Americans had “stopped thinking in racial terms” until Barack Obama was elected president, which is why Klayman says that Obama is to blame for recent racist statements made by Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling.
Klayman, who is working with Bundy on his foundering legal dispute with the federal government, warned in his Friday WorldNetDaily colum that Obama is trying to extract “reparations” from “whitey.” “[W]hites, and particularly rich ones, are now at the back of the bus,” as “Obama has set back the civil rights movement to the days preceding King and the advancement in race relations that followed his death.”
“While I cannot with certainty explain the recent outbursts of what the mainstream media perceived as racism by Cliven Bundy, owner of the Bundy ranch in Nevada, and Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, this feeling and latent resentment by whites that they do not have a president who represents their interests, but instead is prejudiced against them, may be a large part of the underlying cause,” Klayman said.
“Much as blacks experienced in the years leading up to Obama’s election, and even to today, whites now feel disenfranchised by our chief executive, and they may be striking back subconsciously with this resentment.”
We Americans had thought we had come a long way since the days of the civil rights movement lead by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Over the decades since his tragic death, freedom for African-Americans had been increasing, and their upper movement among all strata of society has been clear for all to see and experience. In effect, the American people by and large stopped thinking in racial terms; the words of Martin Luther King increasingly had taken hold in deeds.
While I for one did not vote for President Barack Obama in 2008 (nor in 2012), I felt good as an American that We the People had elected an African-American, something even our “enlightened” European white ancestors had never done. Indeed, while Obama obviously had received a large percentage of the African-American vote, it was white people who put him over the top and in effect elected him in both 2008 and 2012. As a result, both the African-American and Caucasian races had much to be proud of. They also had a right to expect that the new president would seek to represent all of us, not just his own people, in his new job.
But things did not turn out as hoped for. Obama and his cronies spent the next five years favoring African-Americans and people of color over all other groups of society, and it became painfully obvious that this socialist saw himself as the one person who could extract a pound of flesh for all the years of insidious discrimination against blacks, dating back to even the years before the founding of the republic. In effect, Obama and his friends – ranging from black Muslims, to anti-Semites, to anti-Christians, atheists and other ultra-leftists – saw his presidency as an opportunity to “settle the score” with not just conservatives but rich whites. If this meant bankrupting the country with higher taxes on rich whites and other means to extract what in effect were reparations, then this was the price that needed to be paid for past discrimination. It was time for “whitey” to pay up, and to hell with the economic and social health of the nation.
In this context, and as I have written before, the irony is that under the Obama presidency there has been a role reversal; whites, and particularly rich ones, are now at the back of the bus. While it is not politically correct in today’s world for whites to raise this feeling in public, there has developed regrettably and tragically an undercurrent of deep resentment among whites, which is now starting to manifest itself in major ways.
While I cannot with certainty explain the recent outbursts of what the mainstream media perceived as racism by Cliven Bundy, owner of the Bundy ranch in Nevada, and Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, this feeling and latent resentment by whites that they do not have a president who represents their interests, but instead is prejudiced against them, may be a large part of the underlying cause. Much as blacks experienced in the years leading up to Obama’s election, and even to today, whites now feel disenfranchised by our chief executive, and they may be striking back subconsciously with this resentment.
These remarks are wrong and offensive and certainly not politically correct, but regrettably they may be understandable given the highly resentful mood among whites created by Obama and his friends.
The atmosphere of racial divide President Obama and his comrades have fomented is extremely unhealthy if not cancerous for the body politic of this nation. It runs counter to the words and deeds of the person he attributes for his rise to the presidency, Martin Luther King Jr. Obama has set back the civil rights movement to the days preceding King and the advancement in race relations that followed his death.
If Obama does not start to show that he represents all Americans, expect more Cliven Bundys and Donald Sterlings to reactively bring race into the national dialogue.
In a blog post Friday, World Congress of Families communications director Don Feder tackled the conservative debate over whether President Obama is an evil genius or a “dumb-bunny,” and concludes that the president is somewhere in between. Alongside his “ideological soul-mates" like “Stalin, Hitler, Al Capone [and] Meyer Lansky," Feder writes, Obama is “cold, calculating, ruthless, and diabolically clever at advancing his agenda.”
Feder goes on to argue that the president wants Americans to be poor and jobless: “Obama hates American preeminence. He hates economic growth. He hates energy production. He hates the private sector and middle-class prosperity. He hates a system where consumers can shop for health insurance and have real choices.
“He wants to leave America poorer, job growth stagnant, our people more dependent, and our economy gasping for air. That will be his enduring legacy to our national decline. America's failure is Obama's success.”
Feder has previously argued that Obama and gays in the military are a bigger threat to American national security than Russian President Vladimir Putin.
I keep getting e-mails from clueless conservatives about what a dumb-bunny our president is. This bromide has been rattling around the right since 2008: Obama can't walk and chew gum without the aid of a teleprompter. He'd need a brain transplant to achieve the IQ of dirt.
Okay, Obama isn't a bloody genius. Neither was Stalin, Hitler, Al Capone or Meyer Lansky. But like his ideological soul-mates, Obama is cold, calculating, ruthless, and diabolically clever at advancing his agenda. He also keeps a low profile. To quote Al Pacino as the Prince of Darkness in "The Devil's Advocate" – "They never see me coming."
Obama wants to do more – raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that will annihilate another 500,000 jobs. Bill Gates observes: "If you raise the minimum wage, you're encouraging labor substitution and you're going to go buy machines and automate things.... It does cause job destruction."
The president is counting on it. High unemployment is a symphony for the party of plunder. It gets to play lord bountiful with regular extensions of long-term unemployment benefits (now up to 99 weeks) which heartless Republicans will be castigated for opposing. As more Americans slip below the poverty line, the Democrats' base grows, and the president has another opportunity to demagogue about the "growing problem of income-inequality" and push new programs from the playbook of Marx and Engels.
Unlike employment, food stamps has had banner growth in the Obama years, up from 26 million in 2007 to 47 million this year. According to the Census Bureau, by 2011, more Americans were receiving one or more means-tested federal programs than were employed full-time, year round. These programs, which cost almost $1 trillion annually, cover over 100 million Americans.
Democratic power grows from dependency. The left wants a swelling army of the dole-addicted looking to Washington for food, housing, health care and other necessities – a mob which will storm the polls every two years to vote their perceived interests.
Obama hates American preeminence. He hates economic growth. He hates energy production. He hates the private sector and middle-class prosperity. He hates a system where consumers can shop for health insurance and have real choices.
He wants to leave America poorer, job growth stagnant, our people more dependent, and our economy gasping for air. That will be his enduring legacy to our national decline. America's failure is Obama's success.
Stupid, inept, incompetent, hapless? The president and his supporters hope you'll keep right on underestimating him.
In a blog post Friday, anti-gay activist Scott Lively speculated that President Obama and the “New World Order” oppose Russia’s seizure of Crimea because of President Vladimir Putin’s “unequivocal stand against homosexual perversion.” Lively urged his fellow conservatives to back Putin in the Ukrainian conflict because Russia is “the only world power that is standing up to the LGBT agenda and embracing Biblical values on family issues.”
Lively – who has tried to take personal credit for Russia’s “gay propaganda” ban – was responding to the Daily Beast’s report that Putin had imposed secret sanctions on “Obama campaign fundraisers tied to the LGBT community.” Putin has used opposition to LGBT rights as a powerful form of political currency in his campaign in Ukraine.
I personally think Obama’s motives and timing in the Ukrainian coup (and subsequent push for war) are influenced at least in part by Putin’s unequivocal stand against homosexual perversion.
When the US and EU sponsored Ukraine coup occurred, following the Ukrainian government’s refusal to move closer to the EU, I pointed out that a significant factor for the Ukrainians was probably the LGBT agenda of the EU vs the pro-family agenda of the Russian Federation.
I think today’s story provides a slight boost to my hypothesis.
I caution US conservatives not to fall into line with Obama against the Russians. There is far more to this crisis than the war-propaganda and spin of the western media (including some conservative outlets) would have us believe. I for one will not take sides with the New World Order crowd against the only world power that is standing up to the LGBT agenda and embracing Biblical values on family issues. At least not over a geo-political crisis in which (IMHO) the Russians are clearly in the right.
Back in 2011, Pat Robertson derided Republican primary voters as extremists who are causing the GOP to lose elections by pushing candidates too far to right.
Today, the 700 Club host warned that the party is facing a takeover by “radicals on the right” who will nominate candidates who “aren’t capable of beating the Democrats.”
Of course, the Religious Right movement spearheaded by televangelists like Robertson has been one of the forces moving the GOP toward the conservative fringe.
You know how the Republicans are, they can snatch defeats from the jaws of victory with great ease. The next thing you know, there’s a whole bunch of radicals on the right knocking off established figures and saying, we’re going to call on them to be responsible. Before long, the candidates the Republicans put out aren’t capable of beating the Democrats and so the Democrats laugh all the way to the ballot box and beyond. In any event, it’s theirs to lose right now, we’ll see what happens. The people have had enough of what’s going on in Washington and they will show their displeasure at the polls unless the Republicans screw up, which they’re perfectly capable of doing.
Last week, the American Legislative Exchange Council – better known as ALEC – held its 2014 Spring Task Force Summit in Kansas City. The annual Summit provides a venue for corporate lobbyists to woo state lawmakers and hatch the dangerous right-wing, pro-corporate sample legislation the group plans to vote on at its main conference (this year's will be held over the summer in Dallas).
On Friday, People For the American Way staff and members joined hundreds of protestors and ally organizations to rally outside the Kansas City Marriott Downtown, and speak out against ALEC's corruptive influence on state lawmakers.
PFAW and our affiliate PFAW Foundation have long been committed to standing up to ALEC's extreme agenda. Read PFAW Foundation's report, "ALEC: The Voice of Corporate Special Interests," for more information on how ALEC sells out citizens' best interests to the highest bidder.
Washington Times columnist Robert Knight is upset that the Southern Poverty Law Center has decided to “persecute” the ex-gay therapy organization Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH) by suing it for consumer fraud.
Knight claims that suing JONAH over its offer to turn gay people straight – a practice discredited by all of the country’s major counseling and psychiatric groups – is like suing Alcoholics Anonymous or Weight Watchers.
“If the SPLC’s argument is valid that all temptations must cease for counseling to be legitimate,” Knight writes, “Alcoholics Anonymous, Weight Watchers and other groups assisting with behavioral change should be charged with fraud because some clients fall off the wagon.”
The Alabama-based SPLC has a project called Teaching Tolerance, with a website and print periodical of that name aimed at educators. Much of it deals with countering bullies.
Yet the SPLC itself, with a $281 million endowment and scores of attorneys, is the consummate bully in a case involving a tiny New Jersey organization.
Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH) counsels people with unwanted desires, including same-sex attraction. The SPLC’s lawsuit contends that the group is committing fraud under New Jersey’s consumer law.
Their argument? People are born with same-sex desires, they cannot possibly change in any way and, therefore, any counseling to reduce temptations or re-channel them toward the opposite sex is fraudulent. This preposterous claim is based on the same thinking behind laws in New Jersey and California that punish licensed counselors for trying to help parents deal with their children’s unwanted same-sex desires.
The SPLC’s lawsuit, like those laws, violates the basic right to self-determination. They are dictating that a person cannot seek licensed help in overcoming an unwanted temptation. The SPLC has trotted out some disaffected people who tried counseling and say it failed. They ignore voluminous evidence of people who say they were helped.
If the SPLC’s argument is valid that all temptations must cease for counseling to be legitimate, then Alcoholics Anonymous, Weight Watchers and other groups assisting with behavioral change should be charged with fraud because some clients fall off the wagon.
The SPLC is throwing the kitchen sink at this for a reason: If they win, it will set the stage for outlawing all counseling that the left does not like, including counseling by clergy. Jesus said, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you.” That’s never easy, especially when someone is trying to use the law to abolish God-given moral standards and persecute good people who are trying to help others.
Religious Right activist “Coach” Dave Daubenmire is sick and tired of people talking about racism…unless they’re talking about President Obama and liberals, who of course are the real racists and must be called out.
Daubenmire, who last year penned a column about how he is “proud to be a white man,” in which he claimed that African Americans and Latinos are the real racists, elaborated on this view in a column last week.
Discussing the Donald Sterling controversy, Daubenmire accuses President Obama, black pastors and “liberal-black” commentators such as “house negro” Juan Williams of being “race barkers” who are ruining America.
“Obama has done more to fuel racism than George Wallace could have ever done,” Daubenmire writes. “If you criticise [sic] him you are (all together now) RACIST!”
I am not going to fall into the trap. I refuse to apologize for LA Clipper owner Donald Sterling. I refuse to wear the yolk of “racist” that the media is trying to throw over the neck of white Americans. His beliefs have nothing to do with me. Permit me to skip the “I am not a racist” confession normally required for a white man to speak to the issue of blackness and race in America. The constant bellowing of “racist” has worn thin with me. I think it is time to bark back.
Our media have become race-barkers, as obnoxious as the carnival-barkers who drove customers to the bearded lady...or the Siamese twins...or the sword swallower for a fee on the midway. Today they are race-barkers who see racism behind every action...every thought...it is now “thought” that destroys people.
2. Obama has done more to fan the flames of racism than any man in history. Millions of white faces voted for him hoping to prove Americans weren't racist. He has made racism worse. He uses it to escape responsibility. He blames all criticism on his skin color. Others bark for him as well. Especially the media. He is nothing that he told us he was. Obama has done more to fuel racism than George Wallace could have ever done. If you criticise [sic] him you are (all together now) RACIST!
3. Fox News is a sellout. O'Reilly, Hannity, Van Susteran [sic] fall all over themselves apologizing for whitey. Their lead “house negro” is Juan Williams. He is their expert on all thinks black. Why doesn't “conservative” Fox News have a stable of conservative blacks to make the conservative position? Where are Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Alan Keyes, Jesse Lee Peterson, Pastor James David Manning, Mychal Massie...black voices who can speak to “conservative” solutions to race in America? If Juan Williams was white we would never have heard his name. Only liberal-blacks' opinions are heard on Fox. Criticism of Obama is racism. Who wants to be called racist? Can't you see it?
4. Institutional racism is a code word for extortion and corporate shakedown. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have made millions riding that horse. They make powerful white men kneel and beg. The head of the NAACP is a man named Benjamin Jealous...Jealous...need I say more? Racism is big business and business is good. The race-barkers have created a feeding frenzy. The media creates their own “experts” who make whites feel guilty for simply being white.
11. Black pastors in America are still on the plantation...they keep their people slaves. They support their racist brothers and blame race rather than morality for the condition of their people. Black men don't father their children nor marry their “baby mommas.” Pastors blame the white man rather than rescue their sheep. They support the government as a surrogate father. The pastors are black first and Christian second. Government is a poor god. It enslaves people to handouts.
12. This may be hard for you to believe but the battle in America is not black/white, Republican/Democrat, rich/poor, or conservative/progressive. The battle has never changed. It is good versus evil. Right versus wrong. Donald Sterling is gone. How will that help poor black kids?
13. Hear me Christian...black and white...Jehovah is our Father. The barkers want you to forget that. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book. They must keep stirring the pot of racism if they are going to control us. They fear the power of Christians united under God's banner. Yahweh has no skin color. Some folks race to heaven and some race for hell. That's the real racism...not skin color.
Fischer told one caller — who said that Obama is a Muslim “double agent” — that he’s “talked to people that are insiders in D.C. and they’ve told me that everybody here thinks that, they won’t say it in public, but almost everybody here believes that secretly he is a follower of the Islamic faith.”
“I just know for an absolute fact that he has an antipathy toward Christianity but an inordinate fondness and affection for the Islamic religion,” he said.
BarbWire columnist Bill Muehlenberg is worried that Subway may “soon remove female employees, or at least cover them in burqas.”
Why? Because of a Daily Mail story about Subway restaurants in the United Kingdom and Ireland serving halal meat in their stores.
As The Blaze notes, the Daily Mail’s article deals with a halal restaurant program that Subway launched in 2007. Snopes adds:
Since 2007, Subway's corporate policy has been to permit menu item substitutions in areas where the local customer base follows dietary restrictions. In India, many franchises substitute lamb and chicken items for beef and pork throughout their menus, and some do not sell any meat products at all. In the United States, Subway has several kosher franchises that do not carry pork products or serve dairy with meat. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, fewer than 200 out of 1,500 Subway sandwich franchises conform to Muslim dietary restrictions: their meat suppliers are certified halal, and no pork products are used. Instead, those locations use turkey products to substitute for ham and bacon.
But Muehlenberg warns that halal Subway restaurants are signs of “stealth jihad” and “the loss of freedom and democracy.”
Whether in Western nations or in supposed moderate Muslim nations, the spread of sharia continues unabated. And the loss of freedom and democracy is the inevitable result. As Islam continues to conquer by force of arms or stealth jihad, the liberties of the rest of the world continue to shrink.
Cases of this occurring are never ending it seems, and you finish one article on this, only to find new, even more frightening examples of creeping sharia. The capitulation of the Western world to the demands of Islam is hugely worrying, and places like Europe and the UK seem just about gone.
Consider the latest move in the UK to placate and appease Islam, even if it means snubbing your nose at Englishmen themselves. The headline reflects a growing trend to do everything to accommodate Islam, no matter what the consequences for everyone else: “Subway removes ham and bacon from nearly 200 stores and offers halal meat only after ‘strong demand’ from Muslims.”
And what next? Will Subway bow to further Islamic pressure and stop serving altogether during Ramadan? Will it soon remove female employees, or at least cover them in burqas to keep Muslims happy? Will they soon be lying out Islamic prayer mats for any devout Muslim seeking to do his daily religious duties while munching on his sub sandwich?