Klayman: 'Obama and His White Slaves' Are Inciting Race War

Larry Klayman is out with another column calling President Obama an anti-Semitic Muslim dictator, this time warning that President Obama is deliberately inciting a race war. He argues that Obama sees tax increases on top earners as an effort to “make whitey pay his fair share of ‘reparations’ to blacks” as “Obama's constant derogatory references to the "rich" are mostly just a "politically correct" euphemism for ‘whitey.’”

Klayman claims “Obama and his ‘white slaves’ in The White House, like his embarrassing boy press secretary Jay Carney” have pushed “attacks on whites” and “provoked this burgeoning race war.”

“Put Obama's Muslim identification, his anti-Semitism and his pounding of rich whites together and you have a certified, and highly dangerous Black Muslim in The White House – ala (pun intended) Malcolm X, Elijah Mohammed and Louis Farrakhan,” he said.

In earlier columns, the Judicial Watch founder maintained that Obama wants to make conservatives “become the ‘new niggers’” and promoted armed resistance.

But Obama's scorn goes far wider than just the religion and ethnicity of Jews and Christians. Particularly apparent since his last fraudulent election to the Office of the President in 2012, it has also become crystal clear that he simply hates people of the white race, even though he is one half white himself.

During the campaign he constantly berated Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney as the nominee of the rich, vowing to make the rich pay their fair share in taxes and other socio-economic forms of "reparations" during his second term. And, in just the last few months since his reelection, Obama and his Democrat enablers and lackeys in Congress have moved arrogantly and aggressively to make good on his promise – and he has done so with a vengeance. Obama's constant derogatory references to the "rich" are mostly just a "politically correct" euphemism for "whitey," just as attacks by anti-Semites, of which Obama is also one, frequently are leveled against Israel, in order to mask their hatred of the true target, Jews themselves. In short, making "whitey" pay his "fair share" has become a constant drum beat of Obama and his "white slaves" in The White House, like his embarrassing boy press secretary Jay Carney.

Put Obama's Muslim identification, his anti-Semitism and his pounding of rich whites together and you have a certified, and highly dangerous Black Muslim in The White House – ala (pun intended) Malcolm X, Elijah Mohammed and Louis Farrakhan.

That whites have come to believe that Obama truly hates them is becoming apparent even in the mainstream media. During a recent broadcast of Fox News' "The Five," former President George W. Bush's press secretary Dana Perino, a Washington establishment figure if their ever was one (she was appointed to the Board of Directors of government owned Voice of America), stated clearly that she believes that Obama does not like people like her. Bill O'Reilly has expressed similar sentiments of late, referring to Obama's dislike of "traditional Americans." While O'Reilly's comment was also racist and offensive (since what qualifies as a "traditional American" other than a white person?), it underscores how Obama is increasing stoking and provoking anger among whites with his attacks on them, economically and socially. But this media backlash against Obama's attacks on whites has not stopped with political commentators on Fox News, but has now extended to even the likes of the well respected liberal investigative journalist Bob Woodward.



This explains why Woodward has been among the first of liberal journalists to call it like it is and "out" Obama and his White House for threatening him over his reporting of the on-going "sequester" crisis – which Woodward revealed was the brainchild of the president. Other white journalists on the left then followed suit and revealed that they too had been threatened over even their infrequent criticism of Obama. While one can argue that this backlash against Obama was "on the merits" of the looming sequester disaster, the very fact that the left is now coming forward to challenge Obama, shows that much more in play here. Like Dana Perino, I believe that even these liberal reporters have come to see that Obama does not like them and fear his latent racism toward whites, which they likely have come to deeply resent. As has been Obama's mantra, the sequester debate has been couched by the president and his minions as an economic disaster that would hurt his lower and middle income persons many of whom are black or of mixed race, at the expense of the rich. This is why Obama now wants to use his presidential leverage to negotiate a deal with Republicans to again raise taxes on the rich – in effect to again make whitey pay his fair share of "reparations" to blacks.

It is very sad and frightening that Obama has provoked this burgeoning race war. The nation, divided unlike any time since the Civil War, is about to explode in anger – primarily pitting black against white and vice versa.

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/4/13

Right Wing Leftovers - 3/4/13

  • Bryan Fischer is disappointed that the first episode of "The Bible" miniseries was not anti-gay enough.
  • The main problem with this post is that it considers David Brody to be a journalist when he is really just a Religious Right activist working for Pat Robertson under the guise of a reporter 
  • Robert Knight calls the Republicans who signed the brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down DOMA "infected tonsils."
  • We just don't hear enough testimony about how Jesus prevented someone from murdering their entire family these days.
  • Finally, this is the title of an actual post on Scott Lively's website: "The Bi-Sexual T**d in the Gay Wedding Punchbowl."

Barber: 'This Transgender Notion Is Absolute Absurdity'

The Religious Right has been predictably outraged over a new transgender-inclusive policy in Massachusetts that is designed to prevent gender identity-discrimination in schools and so it was only a matter of time before Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber weighed in, which he did on a recent radio program where he compared being transgender to a Caucasian child deciding that he is really an Asian child or a person deciding that they are a horse and wanting to run in the Kentucky Derby.

"The [LGBT] chain is only as strong as the weakest link," Barber declared, and "this transgender notion is absolute absurdity.  It's a weak chain to begin with, but it's the weakest link in this LGBT alphabet soup of nonsense":

Is this really the sort of bigoted rhetoric with which Tim Tebow wishes to associate himself?

Tim Tebow Scheduled to Address another Anti-Gay Venue: Liberty University

Recently, New York Jets backup quarterback Tim Tebow pulled out of a scheduled appearance at Robert Jeffress’ megachurch “due to new information” he received regarding Jeffress' view. While he never specified what the “new information” was, Tebow was almost certainly referring to Jeffress’ virulent attacks on gays and lesbians, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam and President Obama.

Yet just weeks after withdrawing from speaking at Jeffress's church, Tebow is now set to address Liberty University later this month at a conference geared towards men’s issues in a speech that is closed to the public.

The school was founded by the late televangelist Jerry Falwell — it is now run by his son — who has blamed gays and liberals for the September 11 attacks, supported racist laws in the U.S. and abroad and attacked the Teletubbies for “modeling the gay life style.”

Liberty University bans gay students and shut down its College Democrats chapter over the party’s views on gay rights. The university has hosted multiple anti-gay conferences and their law school is being sued over its alleged role in helping Lisa Miller disobey a court order and kidnap her daughter to Central America in order to avoid transferring custody to the girl's other mother, her former partner.

Liberty University’s Vice President and law school dean Mathew Staver has defended the criminalization of homosexuality in Malawi, promoted the dangerous ex-gay therapy and warned that President Obama supports “forced homosexuality.” Furthermore, Staver has claimed that gay rights laws are part of an Antichrist spirit that lead to crime, child molestation and death, along with the destruction of America.

Staver’s fellow Liberty University dean Matt Barber has defended a Nigerian law outlawing homosexual relationships, described the gay rights movement as “Satanic,” claimed that gay youth who committed suicide took their own lives because they “know what they are doing is unnatural,” accused gay rights advocates of supporting pedophilia (along with fascism and Communism) and defined homosexuality as “one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’” He has also maintained that liberals are like Baal worshippers who hate God and are working with Islamists to destroy Christianity and that Obama should be impeached for backing same-sex domestic partner benefits.

Another professor, Rena Lindevaldsen, has claimed that Satan makes people gay and is behind the LGBT rights movement .

If Jeffress’ anti-gay remarks were too extreme for Tebow, they pale in comparison to the things regularly said by representatives of Liberty University.

Perhaps it is time for Tebow to take another look at some of this “new information” about Liberty.

Harry Jackson: 'Absurd' to Think 'Homosexuals Are Being Denied Equal Protection'

Harry Jackson is out with a column today accusing gay rights supporters of seeking “to hijack not only the moral authority of the Civil Rights Movement, but also the legal arguments which liberated minorities from centuries of legalized oppression and discrimination.” He specifically takes issue with the fact that marriage equality supporters cite the Fourteenth Amendment and Loving v. Virginia, which found anti-miscegenation laws to be unconstitutional.

Jackson explains that same-sex couples don’t have a right to marry because “‘marriage’ means what it has always meant in America: the union of one man and one woman,” and cites a Nevada ruling which argued that marriage laws aren’t discriminatory because a gay person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Ironically, those two arguments were exactly those used by supporters of laws banning interracial marriage.

Peggy Pascoe in “What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America” writes that up until the 1960s white society and the white-dominated legal system “believe[d] that the interracial marriage was unnatural” and “assumed that the marriage of one White man to one White woman was the only kind of marriage worthy of the name.”

Not only did they not consider interracial marriage to be a “marriage,” but they also argued that anti-miscegenation laws were not discriminatory because they applied to people of every race and did not target one race in particular.

Despite this history about marriage laws, Jackson concludes his column by insisting that “the notion that homosexuals are being denied equal protection under the law becomes absurd.”

From the very beginning, homosexual “marriage” activists have sought to hijack not only the moral authority of the Civil Rights Movement, but also the legal arguments which liberated minorities from centuries of legalized oppression and discrimination.

After decades of aggressive activism, the common sense understanding of marriage has become almost hopelessly mired in incomprehensible legal terminology. It becomes difficult for everyday observers to navigate the convoluted logic homosexual activists employ as they attempt to remake one of civilization’s oldest institutions. The argument that redefining marriage to include homosexual couples is only “fair” rests on a specious interpretation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause reads as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As most of us know, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted just before the end of the Civil War in response to the Black Codes of the South. The Black Codes were various state laws which, among other things, prevented blacks from owning property and imposed harsher penalties for crimes on blacks than on whites. The Fourteenth Amendment clarified that these laws were unconstitutional, and that the government was obligated to protect the rights of all citizens equally.

So what about the “right” to marry? Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) activists argue that the state is abridging their privileges, often citing Chief Justice Earl Warren’s words in Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 decision that overturned state bans on interracial marriage: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

I agree with Justice Warren that marriage is a central ingredient in the pursuit of happiness. I disagree with LGBT activists about what “marriage” is. And it is very hard to have a reasonable or productive discussion when the two sides cannot agree on the definition of a central term. You and I may agree that it should be legal to walk a dog in a particular public park. But you may think that the term “dog” includes only domesticated members of the Canis lupus familiaris species, and I may think that the term “dog” can include large gray wolves. You may argue that “dog” should be defined by the laws and traditions that have governed dog ownership for generations, and I may feel that such an approach in unfair to people who want to walk wolves in the park. The point is that we cannot get anywhere until we agree on what a “dog” is.

Homosexuals are not being denied “marriage” rights any more than wolf enthusiasts are being denied dog-ownership rights. Last November, a federal appeals court in Nevada pointed out homosexuals are not, in fact, being denied the right to marry, as the term “marriage” has been long understood. A lesbian couple had sued the state, seeking to overturn Nevada’s ban on gay marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wrote Judge Robert Jones:

Like heterosexual persons, they [homosexuals] may not marry members of the same sex. A homosexual man may marry anyone a heterosexual man may marry, and a homosexual woman may marry anyone a heterosexual woman may marry.

Judge Jones went on to point out that homosexuals have little cause to identify with historically oppressed minorities in the United States, observing that, “Homosexuals have not historically been denied the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, or the right to own property.” Judge Jones starts with the assumption, as we all should, that “marriage” means what it has always meant in America: the union of one man and one woman. If we begin with that reality, the notion that homosexuals are being denied equal protection under the law becomes absurd.

Extremist Gun Owners of America Goes to Bat Against D.C. Circuit Nominee

Gun Owners of America, a fringe group that hovers to the right of the National Rifle Association, is wading into the debate over Caitlin Halligan, one of President Obama's nominees to the hugely influential DC Circuit Court of Appeals. GOA's beef with Halligan is that when she was solicitor general of New York, she represented the state in its suit against gun manufacturers – a position she took for a client rather than one she espoused herself.

In an action alert today, GOA asks its members to call on their senators to oppose Halligan, calling her the “most anti-Second Amendment nominee in recent history,” a “zealot” and a “radical leftist.”

Among those who might disagree with GOA’s assessment of Halligan are former Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada, Reagan administration attorney Carter Phillips, and numerous law enforcement groups, all of whom have endorsed her nomination.

But the GOA’s extreme language should come as no surprise. After all, this is the same group that speculated that the Aurora movie theater shooting was an inside job, said that armed citizens could have stopped the Holocaust, claimed that the Affordable Care Act would “take away your guns,” and warned President Obama that he should “remember King George III’s experience.” Recently, GOA president Larry Pratt has gone even further, agreeing with theories that President Obama is raising a black army to massacre white Americans and that the president intends to pit “Christian, heterosexual white haves” against “black Muslim and/or atheist…have-nots.”

False Inconsistency: Jerry Boykin, VAWA, and Women in Combat

The Family Research Council's Jerry Boykin was the guest on "WallBuilders Live" today for a discussion of the Pentagon's recent decision to lift the ban on women serving in combat.  Not surprisingly, Boykin opposes the idea, wondering why the Obama Administration would approve this change even as Congress was working to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, claiming "there is such an inconsistency here":

The Congress, the Senate at least, passed the Violence Against Women Act which was designed to protect our women. Now it had some flaws in it, so we don't support it ... but it's violence against women, protect our women.

Now with this decision by Leon Panetta and the President, what we're doing is we're saying 'now you ladies, fix your bayonets, we're going to send you right into hand-to-hand combat with these men that are physically more capable than you in most cases and they're going to try to kill you.'  There is such an inconsistency here.

Fischer: African Americans Should Oppose Immigration Reform 'If They Are Thinking Logically, Clearly, and Rationally'

On Friday's radio program, Bryan Fischer attempted to make that case that African Americans ought to be opposed to any effort to reform the nation's immigration laws and grant a pathway to citizenship for those who are here illegally.

In Fischer's view, immigrants take the low-wage, low-skill jobs that African Americans need "to get their foot on the bottom rung of the ladder of success" and so "if they are thinking logically, clearly, and rationally, they should be the most adamant that we need to secure our borders, that we cannot provide these people a pathway to citizenship, it's just rewarding the breaking of the law, because it is damaging, it is harming the African American community":

Perkins: LGBT-Inclusive Schools Will Have 'Teenage Boys Invading Girls' Locker Rooms'

Conservative activists are in an uproar over a new transgender-inclusive policy in Massachusetts [PDF] designed to prevent gender identity-discrimination in schools. Today, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council added his voice, arguing that Massachusetts schools will soon see “teenage boys invading girls’ locker rooms.” He blamed the new policy on the 2004 legalization of same-sex marriage in the state, which he said led to “the fundamental altering of society,” and called on parents “to protect your kids from a fate like Massachusetts’s” by opposing marriage equality.

If there's one subject giving Massachusetts schools trouble, it's anatomy! Hello, I'm Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. In kindergarten classes, learning about genders won't be the problem--but ignoring them might be! Under a new statewide directive, Massachusetts officials are rolling out the welcome mat to cross-dressing students by banning everything from gender-based sports teams to sex-specific bathrooms. And anyone who doesn't like it had better keep quiet--or else. If a student so much as refers to a peer by their biological sex, it's "grounds for discipline." And people wonder why families are pulling their children out of public school! Maybe, you've fallen for the lie that same-sex marriage won't affect you. Well, it may take teenage boys invading girls' locker rooms to prove it. Redefining marriage is about a lot more than two people who love each other. This is about the fundamental altering of society. If you want to protect your kids from a fate like Massachusetts's, it starts by defending marriage now.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious