Right-Wing Activists Urge Catholic Church To Deny Communion To Pro-Choice Politicians

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 Says Going To Correspondents Dinner Was Like Being 'Raped,' Warns of Concentration Camps Led By Biden And Pelosi

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.”

He likened his dislike of the correspondents’ event it to his harsh criticism of the movie Noah, saying that people in the film industry now fear his disapproval. The movie was a box office success.

Florida Man Requests To Marry 'Porn Filled Apple Computer' In Super-Clever Marriage Equality Protest

Many anti-gay activists are strangely obsessed with the idea that marriage equality might someday lead to legalized human-object marriage, whether that object is a car, a turtle, or the Eiffel Tower.

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: Racist Outbursts From Don Sterling & Cliven Bundy Are Obama's Fault For Putting Whites In 'The Back Of The Bus'

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.”

Maybe Klayman will blame his slew of racially charged columns on Obama too.

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.

Supreme Court Upholds Sectarian Prayer At Official Meetings: Religious Right Cheers

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today overturned a ruling by the Second Circuit appeals court and upheld the practice of an upstate New York town that begins its council meetings with prayers that are almost always given by Christian clergy. Religious Right groups are celebrating the ruling; Ralph Reed announced that his Faith and Freedom coalition would use the ruling to “redouble its efforts” to encourage more prayers at city and county government meetings. Both the decision and the Religious Right's responses are likely to invite more religiously divisive church-state conflicts.

Justice Clarence Thomas used his concurring opinion to argue, as he has before, that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not apply to the states at all; in other words, he believes there is no constitutional reason that a state cannot have an official religion. Fortunately, the decision in this case is far narrower than that.

It is, as Justice Stephen Breyer says in the opening sentence of his dissent, a “fact-sensitive” case. It did not revolve around the question of whether legislative prayer is unconstitutional – the Court has previously upheld legislative prayer in Marsh v Chambers – but in part whether the way clergy were invited to give prayers to open town council meetings was sufficiently inclusive. In Breyer’s words,

“The question in this case is whether the prayer practice of the town of Greece, by doing too little to reflect the religious diversity of its citizens, did too much, even if unintentionally, to promote the ‘political division along religious lines’ that ‘was one of the principal evils against which the First Amendment was intended to protect.’” [quoting from the Court’s 1971 decision in Lemon v Kurtzman]

Also at issue was whether a town council meeting, at which members of the public are appealing to councilmembers for specific action, is more susceptible to being a coercive environment than a prayer given by a chaplain to a group of lawmakers about to start their legislative day. For example, the council hears debates on individual applications from residents and business owners seeing zoning permits and other licenses. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan recognizes that the Court has upheld the historical tradition of legislative prayer, but writes that the town hall meetings in Greece are a kind of hybrid, “occasions for ordinary citizens to engage with and petition their government, often on highly individualized matters.” That, she says, requires special care that each member of the community is respected as an equal citizen, something the Town of Greece has not done.

While the plaintiffs in the Town of Greece case did not argue that town leaders were motivated by religious bias, they argued that the selection process led almost exclusively to prayers being given by Christian ministers, and to prayers that were not just ceremonial invocations but quite explicitly sectarian. Kagan writes that town meetings need not be religion-free zones, saying that “pluralism and inclusion in a town hall can satisfy the constitutional requirement of neutrality,” but concluded that the board of the Town of Greece did nothing to recognize religious diversity, and that its practice “does not square with the First Amendment’s promise that every citizen, irrespective of her religion, owns an equal share in her government.” She offers a hypothetical of a Muslim resident coming before the board to see a zoning variance to build an addition on her home:

“But just before she gets to say her piece, a minister deputized by the Town asks her to pray ‘in the name of God’s only son Jesus Christ.’ She must think – it is hardly paranoia, but only the truth—that Christian worship has become entwined with local governance. And now she faces a choice—to pray alongside the majority as one of that group or somehow to register her deeply felt difference….She does not wish to be rude to her neighbors, nor does she wish to aggravate the Board members whom she will soon be trying to persuade. And yet she does not want to acknowledge Christ’s divinity, any more than many of her neighbors would want to deny that tenet. So assume she declines to participate with the others in the first act of the meeting—or even, as the majority proposes, that she sands up and leaves the room altogether…At the least, she becomes a different kind of citizen, one who will not join in the religious practice that the Town Board has chosen as reflecting its own and the community’s most cherished beliefs. And she thus stands at a remove, based solely on religion, from her fellow citizens and her elected representatives.

Everything about that situation, I think, infringes the First Amendment…That the Town Board selects, month after month and year after year, prayergivers who will reliably speak in the voice of Christianity, and so places itself behind a single creed. That in offering those sectarian prayers, the Board’s chosen clergy members repeatedly call on individuals, prior to participating in local governance, to join in a form of worship that may be at odds with their own beliefs. That the clergy thus put some residents to the unenviable choice of either pretending to pray like the majority or declining to join its communal activity, at the very moment of petitioning their elected leaders. That the practice thus divides the citizenry, creating one class that shares the Board’s own evident religious beliefs and another (far smaller) class that does not. And that the practice also alters a dissenting citizen’s relationship with her government, making her religious difference salient when she seeks only to engage her elected representatives as would any other citizen.”

Kagan writes that the Court majority opinion reflected “two kinds of blindness.” First, it missed the difference between traditional legislative prayer and the setting of the town council, a difference she described as a “chasm,” and the fact that the prayers in Greece are mostly addressed to the public rather than lawmakers. She said the majority “changes the subject” rather than addressing the sectarian content of the prayers delivered in Greece, such as those invoking “the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross” or “the plan of redemption that is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.” These are not, as she says, the recitation of “God save the United States and this honorable Court” invoked at the beginning of Supreme Court sessions.

Kagan cites George Washington’s well-known letter to the Newport Hebrew Congregation, in which he assured members of that congregation that the First Amendment does not simply tolerate people of minority faiths, rather all possess the same “immunities of citizenship.”

Writes Kagan:

For me, that remarkable guarantee means at least this much: When the citizens of this country approach their government, they do so only as Americans, not as members of one faith or another. And that means that even in a partly legislative body, they should not confront government-sponsored worship that divides them along religious lines. I believe, for all the reasons I have given, that the Town of Greece betrayed that promise. I therefore respectfully dissent from the Court’s decision.

Breyer also joined Kagan’s dissent, as did Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. The case is Town of Greece v. Galloway.

Don Feder: Stalin, Hitler, Capone & Lansky Are Obama's 'Ideological Soul Mates'

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.

Scott Lively Urges Conservatives To Stand With Putin Against 'New World Order'

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.

Pat Robertson Laments 'Radicals On The Right' Have Taken Over The GOP

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.

Robert Knight Likens Ex-Gay Therapy To Alcoholics Anonymous, Weight Watchers

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.

Dave Daubenmire Insists 'Obama Has Done More To Fuel Racism Than George Wallace'

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.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious