WND: Black History Month Should Be About The Knockout Game, Anti-White Segregation

WorldNetDaily columnist Mychal Massie thinks Black History Month should be sent “to the ash heaps of history,” but since it is still around, he has devised his own way to mark the month.

Massie suggests that Black History Month should focus on the media-hyped “knockout game” as proof that black people “are able to get away” with anything and blames groups such as the Congressional Black Caucus for segregation.

The one thing you won’t hear during Black History Month is what blacks are able to get away with today, which, if taken in context, shows the tolerance of America that they won’t be talking about in classrooms during Black History Month.

They won’t be talking about the fact that blacks aren’t shot on sight in areas where “Knockout” is taking place. For those unfamiliar, the Knockout game is what black thugs play where they suddenly and unexpectedly punch unsuspecting white persons in the face for sport.



I’m tired of the lies – charlatans posing as eruditionists and parroting myths and distortions about what slavery was or wasn’t. Jim Crow is over, and the only overt segregation taking place today is perpetrated by black groups such as the Congressional Black Caucus, the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panthers.

Slavery has become a crutch for blacks. It is the excuse used for retreating from modernity. Slavery happened; the United States had the good sense and decency to move beyond it. Now it’s time blacks got over it and moved forward.

It’s time to send Black History Month to the ash heaps of history. It’s time to teach all children factual history, not just a manufactured history used to force guilt on white students and victim status on black students. It’s time we teach students that blacks do not own the market on past suffering and injustice. It’s time we teach that every population group who arrived here had extremely difficult times at first, but, unlike the majority of blacks, they rose above it. And, specific to that point, we should teach that those blacks who are not rising above same are those who embrace bitterness, victimology and immiseration as a means of life.
 

Larry Pratt Wants 'Happy' Africans to Mentor 'Surly' African Americans; Warns Obama Building Private Militia

Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt invited Selwyn Duke, a writer for The American Thinker , to be his guest on Gun Owners News Hour last month to discuss the death of Nelson Mandela and race relations in the United States.

The discussion was just as thoughtful as you might expect coming from the author of such columns as “Obama’s America: Why Black Grievance Will Never End” and the activist who has ties to white supremacists and thinks it’s very possible that President Obama is instigating a race war.

The two started off by discussing a column in which Duke hypothesizes that President Obama may be “creating a martial law ready military” by “promoting minorities and women -- and, I believe, homosexuals and lesbians -- at the expense of white men.”

“I’m not saying there’s anything nefarious going on here for sure,” Duke told Pratt. But, he said, if you “wanted to have the military on your side…you would do it by implementing the exact same policies that Barack Obama has been implementing.” Pratt added his pet conspiracy theory that the president is “building up a civilian defense force, not for defending the country but defending the president.”

Later in the program, Duke twisted Neera Tanden’s remark that the president “doesn’t like people” – by which she meant he is a “private person” – to claim that the president is a “misanthrope.”

“You know what kinds of leaders didn’t like people?” he mused. “People like Joseph Stalin. People like Ivan the Terrible,” adding, “I’m reminded of Hitler here.”

The two moved on to talking about what they perceive as the differences between Africans and African Americans, which, as you can probably imagine, went great.

“Generally, the African from Africa is a very pro-American person, a very happy person,” Pratt said. “I know several, and they’re always happy with a joke, a pleasant smile on their face, and they clearly don’t identify with the surliness that’s all too frequently the attitude of their fellow African Americans here.”

Duke responded by informing Pratt that that may be true but “the Africans who come here in the first place, I would say, tend to be of a better stripe."

Pratt conceded the point, saying, “These are folks who really stand apart, and maybe they can approach some of their fellow blacks and say, ‘Hey, buddy, you’ve got this all wrong, let me explain to you the way the world really works.’”

The two also touched on the issue of apartheid in South Africa, which both claimed wasn’t all that bad. Pratt lamented that Dutch and English settlers “neglected to evangelize the blacks,” so that now “there aren’t common values, there is certainly no Christian ethos in that country.”

Duke, for his part, equated the “supposedly racist” apartheid regime with George Zimmerman. “South Africa was sort of the George Zimmerman of the geopolitical stage,” he said. “It was a situation where you had black on black crimes that were rampant and brutal that the media ignored, but this white-on-black so-called crime was disseminated far and wide…simply because it accorded with the politically correct agenda.”

We will mention, yet again, that Larry Pratt is an actually influential lobbyist in Washington who has an especially close relationship with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

Farah: God Hardening Obama's Heart Like The Pharaoh's

In a column today, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah takes issue with Bill O’Reilly for telling President Obama that his “heart is in the right place.” Farah writes that it is “entirely possible God is hardening the heart of Obama,” just as “God hardened the heart of Pharaoh to serve His purposes” in Exodus, in order to “deliver His people from bondage once again.”

He goes on to say that Obama isn’t a Christian but an evildoer who is trying to “make government our god the way the children of Israel made one of a golden calf.”

Do you agree with Bill O’Reilly that Barack Obama’s heart is in the right place?

How does Bill O’Reilly know?



Can Bill O’Reilly know it? What special training and insight might he have?

Everything about Obama’s actions suggests neither his heart nor his soul is in the right place.



In Egypt, God hardened the heart of Pharaoh to serve His purposes. God sought to deliver His people from bondage in Egypt. Is it entirely possible God is hardening the heart of Obama today to deliver His people from bondage once again?

The Hebrew people were not excited about leaving bondage in Egypt. As bad as conditions were, the unknown frightened them. Even after the Red Sea was parted, saving them from annihilation by the Egyptian army, many sought to return to Egypt from the safety of the wilderness.

In a similar way, I believe Obama’s role is to force Americans to make a decision about their future:

Will we continue down the road toward bondage or reverse course and seek liberty in the ways of God?

Will we accept government’s handouts and control over our lives or depend on God and the work of our own minds and hands?

Will we follow God or will we make government our god the way the children of Israel made one of a golden calf?

I will believe Barack Obama’s heart is in the right place when he vows that he is a follower of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and will take no actions and make no pronouncements that he cannot square with His Holy Word. I will believe Barack Obama’s heart is in the right place when he repents of all the evil he has wrought since assuming office five years ago. I will believe Barack Obama’s heart is in the right place when he turns from his wicked ways, scrupulously follows the law of the land and listens not only for the voice of God but for the voice of the people he is sworn to serve.

Morse: Professional Women 'Victimized' By 'Totalitarian' Sexual Revolution

Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute – a former wing the National Organization for Marriage dedicated to “making marriage cool” – is preparing for a conference this month that will bring together “victims” of the sexual revolution. She discussed the event in an interview with the National Catholic Register yesterday, in which she claimed that the sexual revolution is a “totalitarian” movement pushed by “hipsters” and “radical feminists” that victimizes professional women who build their lives “around the lies.”

As an example of this “totalitarianism,” Morse points to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage mandate, which she claims is a government effort to “ control people’s behavior and even people’s thoughts.” By requiring that insurance plans cover contraception, Morse argues, the government is” stifling dissent by essentially saying: ‘This society will be built around contraception, and there will be no dissent from that.’”

Which groups have been pushing this sexual revolution?

A mix of people have promoted it: population controllers (who think there are too many poor people); hipsters (who just want to be libertines); radical feminists who think babies are keeping women from being “equal.” All these groups have one thing in common: They’re controlled by elites, people who want to re-create the world in their own image.

The sexual revolution promised freedom and fun. Yet you say it was — and is — a totalitarian movement. Why?

Because its goal — to separate sex from reproduction and both from marriage — is impossible. When men and women have sex, babies have a way of appearing. So the government has to step in and control people’s behavior and even people’s thoughts about what’s possible, desirable and realistic. The HHS mandate is just one example of the government stifling dissent by essentially saying: “This society will be built around contraception, and there will be no dissent from that.” That’s one example of totalitarianism coming straight from the government and literally shutting down people who disagree.

You call another group of sexual-revolution victims, who bought into the sexual revolution only to discover its promises of fun and freedom are false, “the heartbroken career women.”

These women are also all around us, but we simply don’t see them. [Culture says] the entry fee into the professions for women is that you chemically neuter yourself during your peak childbearing years in your 20s — and if you have an “accident,” you get an abortion.

By the time a woman figures out, “If I have no children, that’s going to be terrible for me,” she’s 35. The in vitro fertilization industry is making huge profits off people’s infertility problems, which often happen because women put off having kids for so long they can’t do it naturally anymore.

And yet when that woman is a lawyer, college professor, TV news anchor or some other professional, she’s going to dig in her heels and defend the sexual revolution, because her life is literally built around it. We want to help this type of woman “connect the dots” and see that she has been victimized because she built her life around the lies.

Tony Perkins Rails Against Disney For Including Same-Sex Couple On 'Good Luck Charlie'

Family Research Council head Tony Perkins is joining other anti-gay activists in blasting the Disney Channel show “Good Luck Charlie” for daring to include a same-sex couple in one episode. “Good Luck Charlie” came under fire from One Million Moms, a wing of the American Family Association, which warned members that Disney will “corrupt the children’s network with LGBT content.”

Perkins declared victory over Disney, insisting without any evidence that “One Million Moms is flooding the channel with complaints.”

The FRC leader even made the baseless claim that “research says” same-sex parenting is harmful to kids.

He adds: “So it’s a little ironic that the show's called, ‘Good luck, Charlie.’ Without a dad, he'll need it.”

Perkins seems to have been so blinded by outrage in watching the show that he missed the fact that it is Charlie’s friend, and not Charlie herself, who has same-sex parents. And that Charlie is a girl.

When liberals took over the Disney Channel, they were hoping for a happy ending for their agenda. What they're getting is anything but. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. If you're looking for conservative values at Disney, it really is a small world after all. Producers made that clear when they introduced the channel's first same-sex couple to kids. After a year of planning, Disney finally made good on its promise, using the show "Good Luck Charlie" to give Taylor two moms. A spokesman says the show "was developed under the [advice] of child development experts..." But if Disney thinks that'll fly with parents, they've spent too much time in Fantasyland. OneMillionMoms is flooding the channel with complaints. Like us, they know what the research says: which is that kids who are deprived of a mom or dad grow up with significantly more emotional and academic problems. So it's a little ironic that the show's called, "Good luck, Charlie." Without a dad, he'll need it.

A Case Study In Why Religious Right Myths Never Die

Just last week, we noted that the story of Brynn Williams, a six-year old public school student who was supposedly banned from delivering her Christmas presentation in class because of its Christian content, was totally false.

This particular case was ginned up by a California-based group called Advocates for Faith & Freedom which has now decided, even though the entire case is bogus, to continue trying to make an issue out of it:

Legal group Advocates for Faith and Freedom is defending two California students who were censored by school officials when they shared their Christian faith.

The families of Isaiah Martinez and Brynn Williams asked for legal assistance after teachers prevented them from sharing the true meaning of Christmas ...

Williams, a Temecula Valley first grader, brought a Star of Bethlehem from her family's Christmas tree as a show-and-tell assignment, OneNewsNow reported.

The little girl was told by the teacher to sit down before she could share her story.

The legal group has scheduled meetings with each school district and is demanding that the students be allowed to pass out items with the Christmas story and to finish a presentation about Jesus without interruption.

"The pendulum has swung so far in the wrong direction that often school officials, teachers feel entitled to be able to express hostility toward Christian students in the faith," says Robert Tyler, general counsel at Advocates.

The Constitution does not permit that, says Tyler, and instead requires a "neutrality toward all religions."

Advocates is also demanding that each school district adopt a model policy that will protect the religious liberties of all students. The model policy would then be utilized nationwide.

The fundamental issue upon which AFF based its case has been revealed to be utterly false, but the organization is pressing forward nonetheless ... and this is exactly why we always says that Religious Right myths never, ever die.

Right Wing Round-Up - 2/3/14

Right Wing Leftovers - 2/3/14

  • Nothing make the Right rally around someone they hate faster than seeing that person "attacked" by the media, which explains why Chris Christie has suddenly been invited to speak at CPAC after being snubbed in previous years.
  • Glenn Beck seems to think that the late Ken Hutcherson was somehow responsible for the Seattle Seahawks' Super Bowl victory.
  • Rick Green is not happy about a lesbian couple appearing on the show "Good Luck Charlie": "We should be loving people by telling them the truth and helping them find healthy relationships and lifestyles, not deceiving another generation with images that misrepresent a lifestyle. Disney now joins the political agenda that puts a pretty face on the sexual deviancy of our culture."
  • Peter LaBarbera says gay activists are trying to "co-opt Christianity" by "fooling Christians into believing that gay rights is consistent with biblical Christianity."
  • It is nice to see Pamela Geller branch out from her Muslim-bashing into transgender-bashing.
  • Finally, Larry Klayman did not like the recent State of the Union Address: "Last Tuesday, fraudulently elected President Barack Hussein Obama treated the American people to yet another empty and frightening speech. Not even eligible to be standing on the podium addressing a joint session of Congress for the State of the Union Address – as Obama is not a natural born citizen, as required by the Constitution, sired in the United States by two citizen parents – the socialist, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-white, anti-Israeli, Muslim-sympathizer-in-chief spewed forth a masterful performance, all the while ignoring the cancer that has metastasized in his administration – a cancer that threatens the continued existence of our severely wounded nation."

Venker: 'Quality' Men Don't Want 'Slutty' Wives Like Beyoncé

The right-wing outrage at Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s performance at the Grammy Awards continues. In a blog post on her website last week, “men’s rights” advocate Suzanne Venker responded to a New York Post article that called Jay-Z “a poor excuse for a husband,” by contending that Beyoncé is also “a poor excuse for a wife.”

“Behaving as Beyoncé does, or anything close to it, will not produce men who are invested in women. It will merely produce more Jay-Zs, or ‘poor excuses for a husband,’” Venker writes. “If women want a quality husband, they might begin by being quality material themselves.”

“Women like Beyoncé aren’t just contributing to the problem—they are the problem,” she adds. “Classy behavior begets classy behavior. Slutty behavior begets a smut reaction.”

We are sure that Beyoncé and Jay-Z appreciate the relationship advice.

Beyoncé a Poor Excuse for a Wife

In an oped for the New York Post, entitled “Jay Z a poor excuse for a husband,” Naomi Schaeffer Riley asks, “What do you call a man who stands there smiling and singing as his scantily clad wife straddles a chair and shakes her rear end for other men’s titillation?”

Answer: I don’t know—a loser? What do you call a scantily clad wife who straddles a chair and shakes her rear end? Or should this question not be asked since it paints a woman in a negative light?

...

There’s no wondering, Ms. Riley. Women like Beyonce aren’t just contributing to the problem—they are the problem. This isn’t a chicken or egg scenario. If women didn’t do what they do in the first place, men like Jay Z would have no opportunity to respond—poorly or otherwise. Classy behavior begets classy behavior. Slutty behavior begets a smut reaction.

Indeed, which means women haven’t really progressed at all—at least not when it comes to their personal lives. On the contrary, they’ve simply traded one kind of power for another. They may know what it takes to be successful in the marketplace, but they are clueless about the power women wield in love. Behaving as Beyonce does, or anything close to it, will not produce men who are invested in women. It will merely produce more Jay Zs, or “poor excuses for a husband.”

If women want a quality husband, they might begin by being quality material themselves.

Paul Vallely Denies 'Absolutely False' Coup Statements That He Absolutely Made

Former Army general turned right-wing activist Paul Vallely is vehemently denying the fact that he said he would support the overthrow of President Obama. He recently posted this brief statement on the homepage of his website:

MG Vallely Statement – Talk of Coup Support FALSE!

“Statements on the web and elsewhere that attribute me as supporting a coup are absolutely false. From the day I took my oath as a young Army lieutenant to this very day I have supported and defended the Constitution of the United States.

A coup is counter to the guiding principles laid out there. Disagreement and dissension are not! It’s time for change in America and I support that change – but only in a lawful, Constitutional manner.” - MG Paul E. Vallely (US Army-Ret.)

Unfortunately for Vallely, we have the audio from a Tea Party event at which he said that while he opposes an anti-Obama revolution, he would “certainly head it if we had to.”

Vallely is also promoting Operation American Spring, a rally with the goal of forcing Obama out of office, and has proposed a citizen’s arrest of the president along with various unconstitutional ways of removing Obama from office, such as a national recall vote.

The ex-general even believes that the “traditional process” of government is insufficient to remove Obama from office and called for an Egyptian-style uprising:

We are still waiting for Vallely to dispute the comments that he clearly made, rather than just offer a vague statement about how direct quotes of him calling for extralegal and unconstitutional means to remove the president from office are somehow “absolutely false.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious