Despite "all my apologies" for bigoted comments, Corsi reportedly scheduled to appear on "pro-White" radio show
SUMMARY: Despite stating that he had apologized for what was described as a "series of bigoted and hateful posts," Jerome Corsi, author of The Obama Nation, is scheduled to appear with host James Edwards on the August 17 edition of The Political Cesspool Radio Show, which, according to its "Statement of Principles," "represent[s] a philosophy that is pro-White." In a blog post, Edwards has stated that "[i]nterracial sex is white genocide."
In an appearance on the August 13 edition of CNN's Larry King Live, after Media Matters for America Senior Fellow Paul Waldman noted that Jerome Corsi, author of The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, had "put up on right-wing Web sites a whole series of bigoted and hateful posts," Corsi replied that "you haven't mentioned all my apologies for those statements." But notwithstanding Corsi's apologies for his comments, Corsi is reportedly scheduled to appear with host James Edwards on the August 17 edition of The Political Cesspool Radio Show, which, according to its "Statement of Principles," "represent[s] a philosophy that is pro-White" and which "heartily endorse[s] and accept[s] as our own, the founding tenets of the Council of Conservative Citizens [CCC]." According to a Fall 2007 article in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report, " 'The Political Cesspool' in the past two years has become the primary radio nexus of hate in America." Corsi previously appeared on the July 20 edition of the show, in which he promoted The Obama Nation and criticized Sen. Barack Obama.
The Southern Poverty Law Center blog Hatewatch flagged Corsi's July 20 and reported August 17 appearances on Political Cesspool in an August 13 post.*
The show's statement also asserts that "America would not be as prosperous, ruggedly individualistic, and a land of opportunity if the founding stock were not Europeans" and that "[w]e wish to revive the White birthrate above replacement level fertility and beyond to grow the percentage of Whites in the world relative to other races." It also states: "Secession is a right of all people and individuals. It was successful in 1776 and this show honors those who tried to make it successful in 1865." According to the statement, Political Cesspool is also "against feminism" and "against homosexuality."
An August 14 post on Edwards' blog, titled "Hollywood promotes white genocide" and highlighted on the front page of the show's website, states: "One of the most popular movies right now is Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants: 2, which is being marketed directly to teenage girls. It's been out about a week and has already grossed almost $25 million dollars. What's it about? White girls having sex with non-whites. Which is white genocide." It later adds: "Interracial sex is white genocide." An August 13 post to Edwards' blog, headlined "Your chance to hear a real Holocaust survivor," states: "If you're anywhere near Alabama, and you want the chance to meet a real hero, mark August 26th on your calendar. That's the day David Irving, a survivor of the Jewish Holocaust against free speech, will be speaking at the Prattville Holiday Inn." In a February 20, 2006, article, BBC News reported that Irving, a British historian, had been "jailed by an Austrian court after pleading guilty to denying that the Holocaust took place."
In addition, responding to a June 6 report by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) about Political Cesspool's return to the airwaves following a four-month hiatus, in a June 9 blog post, Edwards referred to the ADL as "America's most powerful hate group." Purporting to provide "a handy ADL-to-English dictionary" for his supporters to use while reading the ADL's article, Edwards wrote:
White supremacist -- anybody who doesn't hate white people
Anti-semite -- 1. any non Jewish white person; 2. everyone who's ever met [ADL chairman] Abe Foxman
Extremist -- normal American
Holocaust denier -- someone who asks questions about WW II the ADL doesn't want asked
Neo-Nazi -- any white person who openly disagrees with a Jew
Racist -- a white person
Other statements found on Edwards' blog:
- In an August 11 post, Edwards wrote: "For blacks in the Americas, slavery is the greatest thing that ever happened to them. Unfortunately, it's the worst thing that ever happened to white Americans."
- In an August 6 post headlined "Jewish media reaches new heights," discussing a Slate.com article by "Jew Timothy Noah," Edwards wrote that the piece would "make sense once you understand that Jews are the ones who are always speaking in code; when they use words like 'racists', 'bigots', 'anti-semites', they simply mean white people." Similarly, in a July 9 post headlined "Great moments in Jewish journalism," Edwards referred to a column by The Washington Post's David S. Broder about former Sen. Jesse Helms as "another hatefilled Jewish attack piece."
- In a July 30 post, Edwards asked: "If the WNBA [Women's National Basketball Association] is so hell bent on diversity, why don't they hire a couple of heterosexual players or coaches?"
- In a June 6 post headlined "Does she hate Whitey?" Edwards wrote: "Michelle Obama, that is. Uh, yeah, I'm pretty sure she does. Just like her husband. Just like about 90% of blacks."
CCC's principles, as printed on Political Cesspool''s website, are:
1. We believe the United States is a Christian country.
2. The United States is a sovereign and independent nation.
3. We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people.
4. The United States is a constitutional republic.
5. We believe in States' Rights, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Bill of Rights.
6. The traditional family is the basic unit of human society.
7. Private property and free enterprise are the foundations of our economy.
8. We must have cultural, national, and racial integrity.
9. A strong national defense is imperative.
10. Our nation needs an "America First" Foreign Policy.
11. Our nation needs "America First" Trade Policies.
12. Traditional education should remain under local control.
13. We advocate strong and just law enforcement.
14. English is the official language to be used in public discourse in America.
15. We believe in the protection of our environmental and natural heritage.
For its part, the CCC says next to the "principle[]" quoted by Political Cesspool about the United States being a "European Country": "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called 'affirmative action' and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races." Edwards spoke at the CCC 2008 national convention.
* Text added.
SON OF CORSI
This one just leaves me speechless.
How can anyone who supports this book possibly stand behind this? Hell, lets start with the pro-Corsi posters on this board. Defend it now. We know you're out there, and reading this.
Apparently this guy has no ethical or moral standards, he obviously will peddle this book to anyone who will lap him up regardless of their credibility. It's pathetic. He has lowered the bar for sleaze and slime to a new level.
Why MMFA wastes anymore time on him is baffling.
I suppose because of the airtime he gets from Fox luminaries. If he were solely on the superfringe, like this atrocious radio show/website, I would agree, leave it be.
Hannity has a racist past as well, though, so I'm not surprised.
Themselves mostly, I guess!
We cannot let people like Corsi gain traction in the public mind. Ignoring this stuff makes us look weak and unconcerned about our collective honor as liberals.
No, the cleansing comment meant the urge to "bathe" after lowering one's self to even cover this Corsi's appearances.
If MMFA wants to keep us informed of his every move on behalf of this discredited piece of trash he's selling, it's up to them.
Thing is, Tommy, Corsi is not all that 'discredited' simply because he HAS a platform. And let's not forget that that platform happens to be the highest-rated cable channel. As long as he has it, MM will stay on his case.
Sorry, but your opinion is a bit weak on this one...
Swift-boating worked in 2004. Just because Corsi's propaganda found an uncritical audience and succeeded at its nefarious aim in 2004, it should be refuted loudly and frequently during this general election.
"Twisting one's motives to bash an opinion you don't agree with is pretty sad, even for you"
But not for you.
You lost me there.
How ridiculous. I merely offered my opinion on why monitoring this sleazeball's every move eventually becomes a waste of time.
So, you think I am WITH-ing this as some devious plot against the political left, to goad them into turning their attention away from him, to ignore him so he will actually gain credibility and stature and his lies about Obama, a candidate I support, will start to be believed and accepted as truth?
Everything is a political battle for you isn't it, Pete? Pathetic. Twisting one's motives to bash an opinion you don't agree with is pretty sad, even for you.
"[Tommy]'s been pretty pro Obama from the start."
Actually, that's not true. He started out as a cheerleader on the "Obama's church is racist" bandwagon. After a month or so of typing the word "separatist" as much as humanly possibly, he said that he had re-evaluated his position.
And of course, his example is proof positive that viral smears, such as Corsi's, are worth fighting against.
"Obama's church is racist" bandwagon"
Can you please show where I used this exact phrase, thank you.
There was an "Obama's church is racist" bandwagon and you were the head cheerleader here. I don't know if you even spoke those exact words, but here are some of the words you did write about Obama's church:
"[Obama] is a presidential candidate who belongs to a church that espouses a separatist doctrine."
"[W]hen the white community looks out for the white community, the same standards apply. Or is this a double standard?"
"If Obama were a white candidate and there was a statement called "White Value System" within that person's church, there would be a major outcry."
"Look at the [church's] entire statement and substitute "white" for "blacK' and then tell me if you still think it's still all inclusive."
"A little newsflash, if the unequal footing that exists in your life today is the fault of circumstances from Abraham Lincoln's time - then I suggest you emancipate yourself."
"There are plenty of inequalities in our society. So what? The point is, for the last time, people can overcome them through their hard work. They don't blame them for their lot in life."
"Oh I get it. The way, in your view, to stop discrimination against one group, is to swing the pendulum the other way and direct it towards another.......the very definition of affirmative action."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090009
And of course there are other "Obama's church is racist" threads that surely have Tommy spouting further variations on his "substitute white for black" theme.
"Next time you use quotation marks to refer to something that somebody else said, make sure they actually said it first".....Clams Casino Friday August 8, 2008
Phony.
Not to mention you take every single post out of context and don't bother to reprint my subsequent statements publicly apologizing here for many of my previously held opinions on this entire topic, from months back.
Phony.
I recall Tommy being worried, as I was, that the whole "crazy preacher" meme could do damge to the Obama campaign. And lo, Obama subsequently left that church, so those worries weren't unfounded.
I disagree with Tommy vehemently at times as much as anyone, but again, I don't think he's a paid shill or some hidden agenda poster.
No, Tommy wasn't worried that the crazy preacher meme would hurt Obama. He was the one pushing that meme. And it wasn't just about the church. Tommy also attacked Obama on other fronts. Here he is with some baseless and false accusations about Obama's autobiography:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703290004
And for good measure, here's another thread on Obama's church:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703290004
"This church can have any doctrine it feels like......but don't expect it to be some sacred cow that cannot be criticized for it's absolutely separatist doctrine simply because of historical wrongs. As I said, if the term "white" were inserted for "black", I would be calling it the same thing, exactly the same thing."
Why are you so threatened by me here, and go to such lengths to try and discredit me? Do you think it works? Do you think I care? Do you think I will somehow feel intimidated and stop posting? Do you think I really care? Do you think you have some affect on me? Do you think you look anything other than desperate?
Is it possibly because I am one of the few who have you all figured out where race and racism is concerned, and you just don't wike it very much? Yep.
:)
I can't speak for any of the comments out of context, and I dont have the time to read them all, but I have the distinct memory of concern for Obama's campaign in regards to the Rev. Wright fiasco, beacsue I shared it, and we discussed it. I'm just saying.
This is a simple chat board, after all is said and done, and whatever everyone's disagreements with each other, they are just that, disagreements, unless there's a hidden agenda from a paid shill, which I have had direct experience with. I will say again that i believe Tommy is not that.
Well, I provided multiple links that contradict your belief that Tommy was simply concerned for Obama's welfare. If you say you don't have time to read them, then you should just leave it at that. Don't continue to pretend that your incorrect assumptions about Tommy hold any water, when evidence to the contrary is there for everyone else who does have the time to read it.
Even Tommy admitted above that he re-evaluated those positions and apologized for them. I don't recall any apologies, but that admission alone should be proof enough that your memories of his earliest positions on Obama aren't accurate.
Clams, I am not trying to get into a beef with you, as we probably hold mainly the same beliefs politically. But I actually did have a back and forth with Tommy about our concern for Obama's campaign and what the Rev. Wright soundbites could do to it.
Again, I disagree with alot of what he says, vehemently at times, but I don't think he's a flat out racist or GOP shill or whatever it is you are painting him out to be.
I also think if whatever quotes he has made in the past (and again, I do not have the time nor the inclination to get into all of it) that have been ackowledged and apologized for should be taken into account.
That's the party I belong to. The one of inclusion. Not vindictiveness.
I'm not trying to start some beef with you either, and of course I believe that you had a back and forth with Tommy about this and that it went exactly as you say it did.
"Again, I disagree with alot of what he says, vehemently at times, but I don't think he's a flat out racist or GOP shill or whatever it is you are painting him out to be."
Maybe I haven't made my point clear, because I never tried to paint him as a GOP shill. That wasn't what I was addressing. And if he comes off as racist in those posts, then that's his fault, but that wasn't my point either. I wasn't being vindictive. I was simply pointing out that he hasn't been pro-Obama from the start. He began as a typical Hannity acolyte would, by repeating lies and smears as fact. He had a change of heart and recanted much of that. This goes a long way toward showing that pushing back against these smears can do some good. And yet in this thread, he is saying that we should ignore Corsi.
This goes a long way toward showing that pushing back against these smears can do some good. And yet in this thread, he is saying that we should ignore Corsi.
I get it. We are in agreement. Full agreement.
There was a contingent who was trying to say he was some paid shill, and as confused as I feel Tommy may be at times, that confusion is the very thing that makes him the worst candidate for "shill" I can think of.
One more thing?
In debate class, years ago, I was told that one way to learn is to take the other side's argument. Can't you possibly SEE how perhaps the idea of how, in Tommy's eyes, following Corsi around incessantly could belittle MMFA and benefit Corsi? Sometime I am afriad this site takes things that dont reach the public ear and helps them get some cred. Not in this case per se, but sometimes.
does that make sense?
"In debate class, years ago, I was told that one way to learn is to take the other side's argument."
That sort of relies on the idea that other side is making an honest argument. Otherwise you're giving credit to an argument that doesn't deserve it.
Take the idea that coverage of Corsi gives him credibility, for instance. So concerns about publicity on a website are more important than correcting misinformation, supposedly. Now, you would think that giving these people credibility is a bad thing, right? But at the same time, Tommy says that having people spouting "ridiculous" commentary on television is a good thing.
"I view our acceptance and freedom to allow all sorts of views and opinions from the ridiculous, to this crap from Morris, to the sane and substantive, as a strength, not a weakness. It is to our credit and to our resilience that we do not stifle or filter a free expression of ideas."
Clearly, if being criticized on a website is going to give someone legitimacy, an uncritical appearance on national television is going to give them legitimacy as well, and much more at that. But in this case, that doesn't matter. A "free expression of ideas" is more important, even if the ideas are worthless, and even though it promotes someone who deserves no respect whatsoever.
If that seems inconsistent, then how do you know which position he really believes in? How do you know which position should be "taken" in order to "learn", and does either then really deserve that sort of consideration?
And if it seems consistent, then it means that efforts to preserve honesty and integrity in our media are not as important as preventing dishonest people from (somehow) getting legitimacy through criticism of them. At the same time, preventing dishonest morons from getting legitimacy through positive air time is not as important as having those same dishonest morons spouting their nonsense on the air. Logically, that means that putting liars and idiots on television is more important than trying to maintain an honest and respectable public dialogue. If you can adopt that position and make a viable argument from it, I'd be most impressed.
In general, I agree with what you're saying. But this is why so many of Tommy's contradictions are pointed out, so that we can recognize that so much of what he does doesn't merit the effort to learn from it.
Yes, in this case, the argument holds less water than in others. I said so when even offering the point in the first place. And, like I have said before, I disagree with Tommy at times as forcefully as many of you.
Why am I defending Tommy then? I don't post here as much as others, although I do read often, and maybe that lack of intimacy gives me a view, for good or bad, that other more daily/weekly/hourly posters do not have. Does the constant back and forth on this site (or the internet in general) give one a hard shell that can dismiss someone who might actually be benefitted by a more conversational and approach?
I say this, only because in my conversations, I truly believe Tommy to be an Obama guy. Whatever path brought him there, I believe that. That's a (very very) good thing.
I am a scientist/skeptic/atheist, but essentially, what I am saying is, how would Jesus blog?
Does the constant back and forth on this site (or the internet in general) give one a hard shell that can dismiss someone who might actually be benefitted by a more conversational and approach?
Forget the "and". What is it, 1AM? I am up far too late, even for the internets. Damn Olympics!
I have no problem with much of that, if I think Tommy is being treated unfairly I'll defend him as well. I do make efforts to evaluate arguments on their own as well. If there's no reason to think it's disingenuous (such as a glaring inconsistency like in my example), then I can judge the merits of what he's saying from there.
"Can't you possibly SEE how perhaps the idea of how, in Tommy's eyes, following Corsi around incessantly could belittle MMFA and benefit Corsi? Sometime I am afriad this site takes things that dont reach the public ear and helps them get some cred. Not in this case per se, but sometimes."
I took "not in this case per se" to be specific to Corsi, not to the idea that criticism from MMfA gives people credibility in general. That's why I pointed out that Tommy's views on that concept can't be taken seriously no matter who is getting criticized.
One thing I have to take issue with is the idea that Tommy might benefit from a more conversational approach (if I'm reading that correctly, it's late here as well). It's been tried many, many times. The problem is that you never know if you're going to get a reasonable response or an unwarranted insult. And if he's in a mood to defend his point no matter how disingenuous he has to get to do it, then it's hopeless, because that behavior doesn't show you the respect that you should get for trying to engage him in polite and reasoned discourse. He may very well support Obama, but that basic nature of his character hasn't changed from all I've seen.
And how about this- if I am wrong, and Tommy is some incredible fake, someone whose entire persona online here is false, someone who hasn't learned gradually about the complexities behind Obamas run and grown as a result...then what? What does that do, in any context, to ANYONE here?
Indeed.
To quote Vacation, if I may, "Good talk, son."
Thanks for your honest opinions Watershed, even though I may disagree I respect your criticism and take it to heart. Unlike the two examples below, you don't need to exaggerate and lie to make your point, I appreciate that. Ironically, they both talk about standards and responsibility on these boards and the need to argue respectfully and honestly. That makes me laugh the most........catch you later.
"The problem is that Tommy makes that same argument in nearly every single thread. His answer for everything is to ignore it"......Clams Casino.
"Tommy says that having people spouting "ridiculous" commentary on television is a good thing".......Brabantio.
There's no exaggeration or lie in what I said, sorry. You said that it was a strength that we allow people to spout ridiculous crap on the air. Unless you want to argue that "a strength" is not a "good thing", you don't have anywhere to go here.
This is especially funny coming from someone who lied about what I said in order to question my patriotism.
Geez, it's just my opinion, Tommy.
You're free to disagree, of course.
Perhaps you should post your opinions on the topic at hand, rather than speculating on my motives and offering opinions that are in direct contrast with the countless posts I have given regarding my opinion on Obama, which is why your opinion made no sense. But you are entitled to it nonetheless.
And how long ago did Governor say that?
Are you obsessed with him?
How can you bring it up when it has nothing to do with the topic?
Do you keep Governor's quotes in a database or something?
Aren't you taking what he said out of context?
Aren't you trying to "referee credibility'?
There are many other lame excuses that you've spat out when confronted when your own words, but you get the idea. So is it fair game to hold you accountable for what you say now, or are you out of line here according to your own standards of behavior? I really want to know.
But he really doesn't want to answer that question, because he has no good answer for you.
Challenging questions stymie him.
it is my opinion that keeping tabs on obvious sleaze peddlers such as this Corsi guy eventually becomes pointless.
If your point is to let Corsi get away with it, yes, it is pointless.
Facts are important but without proper metaphorical framework, facts are near useless.
So, to pat yourself on the back as the intellectual elect by berating people for being duped by Corsi's propaganda, is highly elitist. It isn't just you. So many of us on the left call righties stupid, as if we're so high falutin' and wicked smart. That attitude just feeds the liberal elite myth. We might do better as persuaders if we used our ability to empathize with people who have been manipulated by cads whose only objective is the pursuit of and preservation of power.
It was in response to, "To each his own. But if he "gains traction in the public mind" by going on this disgusting radio program then the "public mind" needs resurfacing."
And we must use frames in order to meet our political opponents on a level playing field. The right captured our culture, thereby making their policy seem palatable, by eschewing wonkishness and policy speak in favor of value speak and emotionally tinged rhetoric.
That's why Corsi is dangerous, he understands how to appeal to our worst nature with fearful language.
This is not a diss at any conservative thinkers here, it's just an observation.
Isn't it curious that most of those people who identify themselves as racist also identify themselves as conservative? I mean you just don't see guys like this coming out strongly for public schools or social welfare.
Water,
Just an observation. Have you ever heard anyone self proclaim themselves as racists? I haven't.
You kdding? Look at the website link for the racist radio show on this very post.
Didn't even have to TRY there. Might wanna think about what you're saying before you snark others.
Have you ever heard anyone self proclaim themselves as racists?
No...but I have heard them describe themselves as just regular Americans. They think they're normal and that there's nothing wrong with their beliefs.
Have you ever heard anyone self proclaim themselves as racists?
No...but I have heard them describe themselves as just regular Americans. They think they're normal and that there's nothing wrong with their beliefs.
Try going to a small town in south Texas and just listen to an older white person complain about 'the Mexicans".
rabbit,
I don't doubt there are some who feel that way which is very unfortunate.
Hi Tommy,
I think they have to spend time on him because of all the mainstream airtime he receives. I doubt we will see any of the networks who hosted Corsi (CNN, Fox, etc.) cover this angle.
Tommy - as has happened many times before, I agree 100% with your first paragraph and am left totally bewildered by the second.
MMFA SPENDS IMPORTANT TIME on Corsi becuase of (1) your first paragraph and (2) the fact that he's reaching millions of people, as evidenced by his #1 slot in the best seller list.
Why do these things always seem beyond the grasp of you RW'ers?
How can anyone who supports this book possibly stand behind this?
How can you expect people who wouldn't vote for Barack Obama because he's black to denounce James Edwards or Jerome Corsi? Certainly there are many right wingers who find sufficient reason not to vote for Obama aside from his race but, let's face it, there are still many people who wouldn't vote for a black man under any circumstances. In a way I actually like to see people such as Edwards cast in a public light that reveals their racism to all...but, on the other hand, it simply encourages the rank and file knuckle-dragging racists who feel vindication when they hear someone like Edwards. As for Corsi, he should be ashamed of himself...but I'll bet he's not.
A depressing thought, but the hard reality is that racism is still alive and thriving, even as those who practice it proclaim it dead.
"Hell, we have a black candidate for president. He might WIN. Doesn't that mean racism is well, over?"
Just imagine all the nuts that are going to come out of the woodwork during this election and beyond if Obama gets elected.
Remember the royal freakout they had over a clinton administration - and he was one of them - a rural bubba from Arkansas who just happened to be well educated and sharp. It didn't matter. America is supposed to be conservative and ultimately God fearing and white. After the 70's there was no other alternative in these people's minds. There never again should be any alternative. They cant stand the idea that people might have a different vision, a diffferent color, a different spirituality and a different family arrangment.
What really gets me, however, is how this type of mentality gets hours and hours on multiple media platform. The message from our familiar cast of charactors is that liberal/progressives are dangerous, America hating destructive people. What is the next step after such a message is drilled into your head continually in such a comprehensive and utterly unquestionable way? After being Hannitized and believing it, what is the next step?
That Coarsi would stoop so low is no shock. The shock is that he will get away with it and remain the darling of the echo chamber press. Just ask Ann Coulter.
Race baiters, such as yourself, have a vested interest in keeping racism alive, that is the insidious sickness behind much of what you post here on this topic. Many don't see it, but you don't fool me.
For if it is "dead", what will you then use to justify your failings, which is what race baiting victims do. Admit it and move on to another topic, for your own good.
You should be ashamed.
"[Tommy]'s been pretty pro Obama from the start."
"Actually, that's not true. He started out as a cheerleader on the "Obama's church is racist" bandwagon......"
Apparently you don't believe what he did above is a cheap shot, swooping down and lying about what I said. Your opinion of Clams' despicable behavior is irrelevant to me. He earned it.
"Apparently you don't believe what he did above is a cheap shot, swooping down and lying about what I said."
You said them, I didn't. So it's only logical that if you despise these very freedoms, your feelings about the country that celebrates them can't be much different.
Of course, what Clams said was true. I remember your comments about Obama's church as well, especially the nonsense about substituting "white" for "black". But even if he was lying, it's hard to take your "whining" seriously when you feel you can take cheap shots (by your own definition) without any sense of responsibility whatsoever. One could very easily say you deserve whatever you get, couldn't they?
"Perhaps you should post your opinions on the topic at hand, rather than speculating on my motives..."--Tommy
O.K. when Tommy does it (i.e. "you are race baiting", "you are stalking me"). Not o.k. when anyone else does it. Now that we know the rules, we can all play nice. :)
I don't know what you're talking about. Did you read the article? There certainly are racists out there, some overt and a lot more subtle. that's just a fact. Pointing it out isn't racist...this isn't hard to understand.
Yes, sometimes people see racism and charge racism without merit. But then again, I just read the article...and recently saw some television footage of "white conclaves" in Idaho. Really ugly stuff.
Based on what I've read of Corsi's past blog posts, I seriously wonder if the man isn't mentally ill on some level.
This has nothing to do with the man's politics, it has to do with his bizarre interpretations of reality, not to mention being a flaming bigot.
Nah, the CCC has slightly more brains than the radio guy's site, which s what I was referring to.
Take a gander at THAT if you dare. It is hilarious and terrifying simultaneously. Cry and laugh at humanity's stupidity and hate at the same time, and feel crazy. That site.
History,
Your condescension not withstanding, if contributing to a thread is crawiling [sic] out, then you and everyone else here have already done so.
I am not a Corsi apologist. I have said in other threads I don't plan on reading his book.
As far as this guy goes. I agree with most of his points. The two I disagree with are #1 and #3. The U.S. is predominately a Christian country. Also the majority of citizens in the U.S. are of mixed European descent. However the U.S. is not either a Christian nor a European country.
I have no doubt this guy is in the same mold as Rev. Wright, or Lewis Farrakhan or La Raza. From what I read here, (as I have never listened to him,) I think he is a racist.
Oh wait, I take that back. Is he on XM? I might have briefly heard him one time while flipping back from Air America. The show name sounds familiar, but I don't remember anything else.
You may not read the book, but so what; but you certainly share in and applaud its goals. How can you stand behind a party that would so grandly showcase and then promote such filth?
But then again, I couldn't fathom the Swiftboaters either. It was literally beyond me.
Water,
Which of those 15 points outlined by MMFA above do you disagree? I pointed out two. I assume you agree with me on those. Any others?
I've also said I think this guy is a racist. Do you disagree with me?
As for Kerry and Corsi, I evaluated the SBVTs at the time, looked at their testimony, weighed it against Kerry's apologists and found the SBVTs credible. (We've been down that road many times here and I realize many disagree with me.) However, I also disagreed with Kerry on most of his positions and based my vote on where the other candidate stood on the positions in question.
Bush was not my first choice as a candidate back in 2000 but I liked him better than Bore..(heheheh) Just as I liked him better than Kerry. I consider McCain the lesser of two bad choices in this campaign.
(We've been down that road many times here and I realize many disagree with me.)
That's why I generally disregard your opinions - they are based on LIES.
And for supporting Bush twice - how do you like our country now? Do you really think 4 more years of the same will be good for the common man? If so, explain how.
Fog,
I believe the removal of Saddam, liberation and democritization of Iraq and the resulting war with Al Qaeda will be seen in history as a good thing even though there have been massive blunders along the way. I know others will disagree.
I believe the world is still ruled by the 'big stick'. Unchecked, dictators and ideologues will use force to subjugate others. We see it in Georgia right now. The U.S. has the ability to confront and defeat those who would oppress others.
I believe McCain has the clarity of vision to see that. I believe that Obama does not.
I believe Obama is a radical leftist (while at the same time, a very charismatic and excellent speaker). I disagree with him and the Democratic platform on a whole host of issues.
AA,
How do we have the authority to confront Russia right now, moral or militarily?
A) you ignored the question. Unless you think of Iraq as 'our country'.
B) are you sure you agree with the #8, too. maybe you need to read things a little closer.
Who cares if you think he's a racist? You share the goals of a completely discredited, opportunistic, shameless character assassin's book- which is to bring down black Democrat Obama in any way possible, even if that way is full of LIES and FALSEHOODS.
Not to mention that you agree with THIRTEEN of the points of the hate filled manifesto of the unbelievable racist radio host that promotes the book.
Anything else you say is clicks and buzzes to me.
Bill,
I find the term "racial integrity" to be so vague as to be meaningless. I overlooked it. I do agree with the first two parts of the point in question. However you make a good point. Add #8 to my list.
It isn't meaningless to those who know what it's code for.
That doesn't include the WITH crowd, apparently.
AA,
I think you need a history lesson on "racial integrity."
"The Racial Integrity Act required that a racial description of every person be recorded at birth, and felonized marriage between white persons and non-white persons. The law was the most famous ban on miscegenation (anti-miscegenation law) in the United States, and was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in 1967, in Loving v. Virginia."
"The Racial Integrity Act cited "scientific" eugenics arguments for prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites. However, anti-miscegenation laws, banning interracial marriage between whites and non-whites, had existed long before the emergence of eugenics. First enacted during the Colonial era, such laws were in effect in Virgnia and in much of the United States until the 1960s. The first law banning all marriage between whites and blacks was enacted in the colony of Virginia in 1691, and this example was followed by Maryland (in 1692) and several of the other Thirteen Colonies. By 1913, 30 out of the then 48 US states (including all Southern states) enforced such laws."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924
Virginia was not the only state to pass laws like that. Still think the term is meaningless?
AA,
Do you still find "racial integrity" to be a meaningless term?
Mag, I wasn't correcting you, just another opinion.
But I've been reading Ask a Mexican for the past few years his column has been running, and Gustavo is pretty reliable on everything from world history to the best cheap taco places in OC.
Py,
Bill pointed it out earlier. See my reply above. Add #8. Sorry for the confusion.
Oh, you mean you agree with most of James Edwards points? I didn't catch that.
Why am I even bothering to acknowledge you, then? Begone, racist.
"My late mother used to say that a person was judged by the company they kept."
So Wiz...I guess hanging around a 60s terrorist who plotted to bomb the Pentagon and "wished he did more" and a hopelessly racist preacher should disqualify Barack Obama for the presidency? Shouldn't we judge him for the "company" he keeps? Not to mention his membership with the disgusting Chicago Democratic political machine.
Jeez..Corsi's just a little old reporter and author...shouldn't potential Presidents be held to a much higher standard?
Great job by Paul Waldman on Larry King!!!!...
He reduced Corsi to a babbling, floating, incoherent piece of dog SH*T.
Which is exactly what he is.
Except for the mere fact that Obama didn't "hang around" with a 60's terrorist just because they happened to be at a few of the same functions, this doesn't make them friends, and who even if he did, was SOOOO dangerous, he never served a day in jail.
And guys like you have no proof that Rev. Wright is racist, and we've discussed this time and again, but again, you have no facts to back up your assertions of either of those points.
Mags,
The fact that Mohamed Atta never spent a day in jail make him any less a terrorist bomber?
The fact that Ayers and Dohrn admitted to bombing police stations and government buildings mean anything to you?
You can try to minimize the Obama/Ayers association but it does not wash. Obama started his run for the Illinois legislature in Ayers house. Obama served on the same board of which Ayers was chair. Their wives worked in the same law firm and they spoke at the same seminar/conferences.
The only reason Ayers and his wife are not in jail right now, is some bureaucrats violated Ayers civil rights by illegal wiretaps while he was out terrorizing.
Obama can try to hide while he runs, but his past will catch up to him before the election.
The fact that Mohamed Atta never spent a day in jail make him any less a terrorist bomber?
Or any less dead...
BTW, I honestly think the Bill Ayers stuff is weak.
It smacks of desperation.
Especially coming from those tough guys constantly asserting their 2nd amendment rights as protection against a totalitarian government trying to disarm the citizens.
They love to talk about it, but when somebody takes action, they run behind the flag and call for the dissident's head.
Yeah, those NRA peashooters will really be effective againt the government tanks and F16's they send out to quell the rebellion.
No one's ever been able to explain how a rifle and a handgun will stand up against the "government" those blowhards are so skeered of.
You can try to minimize the Obama/Ayers association but it does not wash
Once again, I must repeat to you that no one, and I mean NO ONE cares a lick about Ayers, except maybe yourself and your wing-nut associates.
"Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles."
Wow! He must be super tight with Obama if he contributed an ENTIRE 200 dollars to his campaign. They lived in the same trendy neighborhood as well, but then again, so did thousands of other people, so they all must be good buddies with Ayers as well.
"The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board."
The above quoted sections were from:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html
Rabbit, your comments may have been meant for NLT, but they showed up under AA's post, and fit just fine.
Almost like they get their BS from the same sources (*cough* Sean Hannity).
Who knows, what standards did shrub come up to. Aside for the wingnut you'd most like to have a beer and a barbi with?
It's no surprise Corsi's book is selling a lot of copies. When your target audience is ignorant, uneducated Americans, you have a pretty vast pool of potential buyers.
It's no surprise Corsi's book is selling a lot of copies.
Not to individual people, it isn't. It's selling in bulk to clownshows like the "Conservative Book Club" who give it away or sell it for a buck to those who join. Then a few months after the book falls off the best-seller lists, they return the thousands of copies they couldn't give away, long after the returns are counted in the books "best-seller" status.
What the heck are you talking about?
The reason why Pelosi's book isn't selling well? Let me let you in on a little secret. We liberals don't need someone to write a book to reinforce what we already know. We don't need books like Corsi's to reinforce what we already know. In other words, we don't need someone to preach to the choir. Seems as though conservatives, in an effort to LOOK more important, buy up a lot of these books, in bulk, so that it will debut on the best selling lists, and they'll quickly forget about it. Don't believe me? Head off to your local bookstore, if you know where it even is, and go look at the current event books. The ones that you see with the deeply discounted stickers on them are folks like O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, and so on, and so forth.
MARKBFOOT, Who needs a best seller when you have the gavel that can put the Republican Water Carriers for Big Oil in their proper place...In the DARK. That is the only place they can function properly.
That little old lady who can't sell books has just cut off the penis of the big Elephant. And you guys were afraid of Hillary...HA HA HA HA
"We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind..."
In my youth, I made several such efforts, but groups like CCC are convincing the ethnic girls that us white guys may pose an inordinate risk of passing on a gene that causes groups like CCC.
We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind
There's only one race, human. And anyone who spouts this crap deserves all the ridicule that can be heaped upon them.
Yes, No Left Turns is flailing around as usual...
When conservatives get their asses whooped, they try to change the subject.
They're used to the softball questions from right-wing talk radio whack jobs. So when they get their asses punished--like Waldman did to Corsi--they make a lame attempt to change the subject, or run and hide under the kitchen table.
Mags,
In my opinion, you are in a state of total denial.
Look at Wright's April 27,2008 NAACP speech. He proclaimed that there were racial differences in learning and music. According to Wright, blacks use different parts or the brain to learn than whites. That sounds racist to me.
His rhetoric from the pulpit, referring to US of KKKA is a racist rant ginning up resentment. If you don't think it racist, it certainly is anti-American and anti-Semitic, along with his famous "G-D America" and accusing the government of fostering genocide against blacks with drugs and Aids.
Obama saw nothing wrong for 20 years of hearing this palaver. Only when it came back to hurt his campaign, did he toss Wright under the bus.
Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist and Obama found it perfectly okay to associate with Ayers and use him to launch his political career. It is laughable to think that Obama does not share in the outlooks of either of these two men when he purposefully associated with both.
George Bush is a communist.
He has spent an inordinate amount of time in a well-known communist country infamous for it's human-rights violations. He has vacationed there, attending sporting events and furthering the local economy, spreading your hard-earned tax dollars all over Beijing among it's communist citizens. Talk about wealth distribution... He has used his time there to gain television exposure and to further his political career, and had a very public physical relationship with a female athlete. All this while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of deaths occurring because of the invasion of a sovereign country by an empirialist aggressor in another part of the world.
Say what you will, but there is no denying the sinister background of China. Any right-thinking American would be appalled that George Bush has a relationship with China.
Look at Wright's April 27,2008 NAACP speech. He proclaimed that there were racial differences in learning and music. According to Wright, blacks use different parts or the brain to learn than whites. That sounds racist to me.
AA, Rev. Wright's words are Rev. Wright words! WHAT part of that don’t you get?
His rhetoric from the pulpit, referring to US of KKKA is a racist rant ginning up resentment. If you don't think it racist, it certainly is anti-American and anti-Semitic, along with his famous "G-D America" and accusing the government of fostering genocide against blacks with drugs and Aids.
Did you know the origins of the CCC were from the KKK? Did you know the former Senate Leader Trent Lott grew up listening to the CCC and his uncle was a member?
Obama saw nothing wrong for 20 years of hearing this palaver. Only when it came back to hurt his campaign, did he toss Wright under the bus.
Would you hold Catholics who attended and gave money to Catholic churches who's allowed priests to molested children responsible for the molestation? Yet somehow in your feeble logic you blame Obama for the actions of HIS former preacher?
Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist and Obama found it perfectly okay to associate with Ayers and use him to launch his political career. It is laughable to think that Obama does not share in the outlooks of either of these two men when he purposefully associated with both.
I know the new right wing talking points is to call anyone a terrorist but Ayers was a member of a radical 60’s group! The US government broke the law! THAT is why Ayers was never convicted. And by the way, Obama was 8 years old when all this happened!
If the fact that Obama knows Ayers makes Obama guilty by your insane logic Trent Lott’s association with the CCC makes him a racist and all Catholics should be in jail for aiding in the cover up of child molestation. By your insane logic, George ‘Macaca” Allen and Charlton Heston were both racist because they both appeared in a photo together, smiling with the current head of the CCC.
AA, you'd be better served by simply saying I believe the e-mail my right wing buddies sent me. THAT is totally believable !
Pearlene,
Your Catholic analogy does not fit. Those priests acted from impulses kept hidden from the congregation. Wright proclaimed his views from the pulpit.
(I'm not excusing the Catholic Church and the cover ups. The people responsible should be jailed and compensation given to the victims.)
Fried,
You are wrong. Nobody in the Catholic Church advocates pedophilia. These crimes were committed in private by a small number of disturbed men and kept hidden.
Wright's racist sermons were from the pulpit and his black liberation theology published on the Church's website.
Getting back to the analogy, replace the racist and anti-American diatribes with advocating pedophilia. Had Wright preached and advocated pedophilia from the pulpit, and Obama stayed in the church... is more accurate analogy. Undoubtedly Obama would have walked out if he heard of even one sermon advocating this perversion.
No. Obama stayed for 20 years while Wright preached the racist views of Jim Cone. He never disowned Wright until his association started to hurt his campaign for President. He tossed Wright under the bus AFTER saying he could no more dissociate with Wright than he could his own family.
Problem is, AA, there are many Catholics who have stayed under the guidance of those same priests accused of pedophilia. Many bishops were not hard enough on the perpetrators of the pedophilia and yet, there is no mass exodus from the Catholic Church. If you lump Obama as espousing every belief of Wright, can you say that those who stuck by the priests are advocating pedophilia?
Maybe this analogy is better: I stayed in a church, and still go to one, where I know that the pastor is against abortion in almost every circumstance and I am not. I have stayed there willingly for years and disagree with him vehemently on many topics. However, he is a great spiritual man who I have learned a lot from despite his views. I will not leave his church nor will I agree with him on abortion. Does my membership in his church make me anti-abortion? Of course not!
Our church also is very open to homosexuality and homosexual members and couples. We even print on our bulletin that we are open to them and want their membership. Our pastor has given sermons based on inclusiveness to everyone, including gays. Despite this, I know that many of our church goers are very anti-homosexual. By going to my church, and listening to these sermons, are these people, in your eyes, advocates for the "gay agenda?" Of course not!
For you to say that just because Obama has been a willing member of a church that he believes all that is espoused from the pulpit is truly unfair.
In my opinion, you are in a state of total denial.
Look at Wright's April 27,2008 NAACP speech. He proclaimed that there were racial differences in learning and music. According to Wright, blacks use different parts or the brain to learn than whites. That sounds racist to me.
His rhetoric from the pulpit, referring to US of KKKA is a racist rant ginning up resentment. If you don't think it racist, it certainly is anti-American and anti-Semitic, along with his famous "G-D America" and accusing the government of fostering genocide against blacks with drugs and Aids.
Obama saw nothing wrong for 20 years of hearing this palaver. Only when it came back to hurt his campaign, did he toss Wright under the bus.
Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist and Obama found it perfectly okay to associate with Ayers and use him to launch his political career. It is laughable to think that Obama does not share in the outlooks of either of these two men when he purposefully associated with both."
Let's go through your diatribe, again...
Wright said something about blacks, and he is black, that, is not racist. How is that racist again? Racism is talking about someone's shortcomings because of their race. Hating them for their race, and thinking that they're inferior, because of their race. Wright never said such things. I don't agree with many things the man says, but he is not racist.
How is referring to America as a nation that has held down black people racist again? Guess what? He's correct. It's also not anti-American, and the American government has done experimentation on black people, and they were still doing it not too long ago. His references, while high in rhetoric, had a firm base in what most of us like to call reality, and that other thing called, history. Those things happened. It wasn't all that long ago that black people couldn't even vote. There is nothing inherently racist to talk about how your country, that you served in the Marine Corps, held you down for years, and in some ways, still does. The deck is stacked against black folks from the day they are born.
You guys keep saying that Wright said this stuff for 20 years, but all you have is a 30 second clip of a few highly heated things. Surely, you have something more than that to establish a pattern? No? Not surprising really. Not at all. You guys keep saying, "Obama sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to this stuff..." except, you don't have any other sound bites to play, and let's not forget that the day Wright had that little sermon, Obama wasn't even there, so really, you've got NOTHING. The only reason he had to throw Wright under the bus is because of folks, like yourself, that kept talking about this over and over again. In order for him to forward the news cycle, and get them off of it, he had to get rid of Wright.
Ayers, is a terrorist, yes. He set bombs. Never killed anyone, and never hurt people. He destroyed empty buildings, or damaged them. Do I condone that? Absolutely not. But again, he was not convicted, he did not serve time. Your previous connection to Mohammed Atta is not even relevant. Obama did not use Ayers to "launch" his political career. They had a passing relationship, and Ayers, who you allege, "started" or "launched" Obama's political career, forget that Ayers contributed an entire 200 dollars to Obama, and served on the same board of a charity as he did. Again, casual connections. They weren't going to hang out at Starbucks on a Saturday morning or something like that, or going to baseball games.
I'm not in denial at all. I believe in the facts. I believe that Wright is NOT a racist, and hasn't made a racist statement. You can't point to anything he said that was racist. Show me something where he attacks someone because of their race. Ayers and Obama, they weren't friends. He gave OBama a couple of hundred bucks once.
"Where white folks greed runs a world in need". - Wright's first sermon heard by Obama.
James Cone developed the Black Liberation theology that Wright preached about and Obama agreed enough to listen to for 20 years.
Cone informs us that the white man is the Devil... or close enough to it. What's more, he does not believe whites can atone for the apparent sin of being born white.
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/270036.php
Wright has said he does not disagree in any way with Jim Cone.
Waldman: "Is Andy Martin the only right-wing anti-semitic blogger you use as one of your "sources," or are there others?
Priceless.
Absolutely crushed this filthy, filthy conservative.
The truly amazing part--and I hope Obama addresses this--is that the corporate media helps to legitimize this filthy scumbag by giving him practically unlimited publicity and air-time.
The only thing easier than being a right-wing smear author is to be a right-wing smear radio host.
These people have no morals. They don't care about America. They only care about how much money they can make on fear, hate, and lies.
Same with Barack Obama when it comes to Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers among others. He has freely associated with them and the criticism he has come under for those associations is valid.
Okay, you low-life know-nothing maggot-breeding moron. Why don't you tell us just exactly how much you know about the relationship between Obama and Ayers, and expose yourself as the boot-licking imbecile phony you really are.
By the way, I apologize for the low-life imbecile maggot stuff, (just like Corsi) so that makes me a polite guy again (just like Corsi).
(Shhh. Don't tell anybody, but that's really who I WAS apologizing to. NLT still hasn't shown that he isn't a complete dung-heap regarding his knowledge of the Obama/Ayers relationship. Why would I possibly apologize to someone like that who has demonstrated their willingness - nay, AMBITION - to parrot talking points with nary a shred of knowledge of the subject? Anyway, keep this just between us...)
I think that its great that this site disproves Corsi, his book, and every place he takes to peddle his book. The book is set to debut at #1 on the New York Times best seller list. Sounds like a lot of people will be buying it, believing his dribble, and actually taking his ideas to be truths (and spreading them).
The fact is that ignorant people vote. The last polling reveals that 12% of Americans believe that Obama is a muslim. I'm just scared that people will go to the polls with ideas from this book that Obama is a Muslim-extremist who uses drugs and can't be trusted. How many people didn't vote for Kerry because they fell for that Swiftboat garbage. "I can't vote for Kerry because he lied about his Vietnam service. What else is he lying about? He can't be trusted..."
Well, you certainly can never underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate...
I will agree with you on that.
I hope Obama has a good reserve for the last two weeks of the campaign when the "Conservative Filth Machine" really unloads.
The book is set to debut at #1 on the New York Times best seller list. Sounds like a lot of people will be buying it, believing his dribble, and actually taking his ideas to be truths (and spreading them).
Please don't buy into that #1 bull. A REAL best seller wouldn't be sold on Amazon at a 45% discount.
Yes, the book will head the list at #1, but the NY Times will place a notation that indicates that the reason for the books #1 status is due to bulk sales, not individual sales.
Republican/conservative/right wing organizations are buying the book in bulk hoping to either give it away or help make the book hit the best seller list.
Yes, that's exactly what the title implies.
Nice, huh?
I feel dumb even having to write this out, but you never know with some people; I think we can say for certain that "The Obama Nation" is purposefully meant to sound exactly like "The Abomination", which is a very "clever" allusion to the Antichrist, 666, and assorted biblical curiosities... The (either very child-like or mentally deluded) reader is supposed to say, "Obama is kind of an abomination, isn't he? You don't suppose he is the Antichrist foretold in the book of Revelations, do you? That is soooooo eerie! We gotta stop this guy!"
He's also a great evil villian in the Hulk comics/films.
(Nerd alert!)
I was reading parts of the book on other websites....booooring.
It will either put people to sleep and be way over their heads.
Any word on how Ron Suskind's book is doing. Those are some incredible alligations and a huge story if they are true. Too bad Corsi's book and the Russian-Georgia conflict seem to be stealing news time from what could be a major scandal.
1. We believe the United States is a Christian country.
2. The United States is a sovereign and independent nation.
3. We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people.
4. The United States is a constitutional republic.
5. We believe in States' Rights, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Bill of Rights.
6. The traditional family is the basic unit of human society.
7. Private property and free enterprise are the foundations of our economy.
8. We must have cultural, national, and racial integrity.
9. A strong national defense is imperative.
10. Our nation needs an "America First" Foreign Policy.
11. Our nation needs "America First" Trade Policies.
12. Traditional education should remain under local control.
13. We advocate strong and just law enforcement.
14. English is the official language to be used in public discourse in America.
15. We believe in the protection of our environmental and natural heritage.
There is nothing riveting about this. Please tell me where you find "white power" in these stated principles, because I cannot.
Really? "Racial integrity"? "Christian nation"? "European country"? You don't see the code behind all that? hell, its not even code.
And Edwards himself would gladly espouse his wisdom of the racist message behind it all.
We are a European nation!!!!!!???? Ha! Last I checked we were a North American country which also implies that we were, from the beginning, multi- ethnic.
Johnny#'s,
1. We believe the United States is a Christian country. (According to.....)
2. The United States is a sovereign and independent nation. (True)
3. We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people. (How is this one NOT white power oriented? Give me a break! We are part of the European people except for those of us from other continents, eh?)
4. The United States is a constitutional republic. (Fair point)
5. We believe in States' Rights, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Bill of Rights. (States' Rights has been a code word for those wanting to negate the Civil Rights Act for over a generation. That is, until elections get disputed that would disfavor their candidate.).
6. The traditional family is the basic unit of human society. (Not racist, but certainly homophobic).
7. Private property and free enterprise are the foundations of our economy. (sure, except for the highways and airspace and anything to do with transporting goods).
8. We must have cultural, national, and racial integrity. (Um, if that isn't a racist code statement, you haven't been paying attention. Perhaps you would like to explore the country's past "Racial Integrity" laws.)
9. A strong national defense is imperative. (Sure)
10. Our nation needs an "America First" Foreign Policy. (Ok)
11. Our nation needs "America First" Trade Policies. (Ok)
12. Traditional education should remain under local control. (as in what? No federal decisions on integration?)
13. We advocate strong and just law enforcement. (Ok)
14. English is the official language to be used in public discourse in America. (According to.......)
15. We believe in the protection of our environmental and natural heritage. (Vague)
I hope that helps.
I take racial integrity to mean that as Americans, we should be proud of our racial backgrounds, whatever they may be, and that we should respect Americans of all races...hence the word integrity. I can also see how this could be taken to mean Americans should not mix the bloodlines of races, having interracial children. While I respect people's personal choices in this matter, I do think part of the idea of "racial integrity" relies on the majority of society reproducing with a partner of the same race...which is already the case, so nothing is that groundbreaking here.
"The two main areas that you seem to take major opposition to are the "European" statement, and the "racial integrity" statement. My thoughts on the European statement would be that it should be taken in context of those who founded, created, and for the most part, initially populated America. I believe it has to be taken in that context because of a point made later that states America is a sovereign nation, so clearly we are not to be considered a European attachment. Also, there are non-white European countries, such as Spain...so that kind of shoots the white-only idea in the foot."
It has nothing to do with a "European attachment", it has to do with race. They didn't say that we were founded by Europeans, they say that Americans are a European people, meaning white. And are there other "non-white" countries in Europe besides Spain?
"I take racial integrity to mean that as Americans, we should be proud of our racial backgrounds, whatever they may be, and that we should respect Americans of all races...hence the word integrity. I can also see how this could be taken to mean Americans should not mix the bloodlines of races, having interracial children. While I respect people's personal choices in this matter, I do think part of the idea of "racial integrity" relies on the majority of society reproducing with a partner of the same race...which is already the case, so nothing is that groundbreaking here."
"Respect" and "integrity" are different concepts. "the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished" (if you can find a definition that relies on respect, I'd like to see it). That clearly means that races should not be mixed. Whether most people cross racial lines or not is entirely beside the point, since the problem is this group condemning those that do. That is racist whether the idea has any chance of taking effect or not.
John #'s,
in context of those who founded, created, and for the most part, initially populated America. (You do recall that there were people already here when the Europeans arrived, don't you? Thus, your statement makes no sense). I believe it has to be taken in that context because of a point made later that states America is a sovereign nation, so clearly we are not to be considered a European attachment. (If there is no need for a European attachment, why did they make one?!?!) Also, there are non-white European countries, such as Spain...so that kind of shoots the white-only idea in the foot.
I take racial integrity to mean that as Americans, we should be proud of our racial backgrounds, whatever they may be, and that we should respect Americans of all races...hence the word integrity. I can also see how this could be taken to mean Americans should not mix the bloodlines of races, having interracial children. While I respect people's personal choices in this matter, I do think part of the idea of "racial integrity" relies on the majority of society reproducing with a partner of the same race...which is already the case, so nothing is that groundbreaking here. (Absolutely and totally incorrect. There were racial integrity laws in this country which forbade interracial marriage. That is where the term came from and what they are referring to in this last. Its a racist organization through and through. And, why do you care if people find love with people in other races?!? Is your definition of "racial integrity" that important to you?)
Two words, RACIAL INTEGRITY. Normal people do not spend time worring about RACIAL INTEGRITY. That's raceland done up all nice and as politically correct as it can be be, but somehow never as cute as a bug.
From there the much used error that personal is the same as important. states rights, and nativism. Sides a little eye wash for the envirenment as racist as all get out.
Several of your ancestors didn't join their friends by emmigrating to France after our Civil War. Pity.
Wow! You have a job?
Consider yourself lucky, in this economy.
Because 3 of those groups support minority rights and agendas, while one perceives itself to be persecuted because it's been the majority in this country almost since the inception, and has held most, if not all of the most powerful positions in business, and politics. I'll let you guess which one is the racist movement.
"You would think that in this day in age, there would be NO separation of individuals on the basis of race. What about the Black Caucus? The concept of a Black Caucus is admirable; however, I think it only promotes racism because it makes some white people believe a minority group is getting special treatment (thus increasing racial disharmony)."
"Special treatment"? Anyone who considers an effort by black people to gain equality as something that promotes racism is probably a racist already.
"Then there are groups like La Raza. Why would a social group like Latino's need a group such as La Raza? Latino's might be a minority in the country as a whole but in many places, they are the majority. For example, Miami or Los Angeles. Once again, many white people can't believe such a powerful group of people needs a "special interest group"."
This is an odd leap of logic. High population in certain areas does not equal "powerful" in general.
"Then there is affirmative action. Again, the concept of affirmative action is an admirable one because it is supposed to help an underrepresented class of persons. BUT, many white students feel they didn't get selected to go to a school of their choice or get the job that they wanted because another person played the race card. If we keep this up, racism will always exist because there will always be tension. I say, annihilate any form of race-based favortism, lobbying or special interest. That's all."
If affirmative action is admirable, then it must be because black people deserve equality, right? So logically anyone who displaced a white student has the same (or better) capabilities and therefore deserved that spot anyway. So that white student can go lump it, right? Their anger is misplaced, so it doesn't deserve any consideration. You might as well boil it down and say that black people shouldn't get any help in establishing equality because white people don't like it.
What strikes me as odd about your comment is that the whole idea is to create a balanced society, where there is no more discrimination, all races are equally represented among different incomes, etc. Once that is accomplished, then there will be no more tension, because there will be no more need for the efforts. The only way that there would be perpetual tension is if black people never gained equality even when given opportunities to achieve it. And the only way that makes sense is if A)racists prevent the measures from being effective, in which case the strife is their fault entirely, or B)people of other races don't have the same capacities as white people, which is a racist notion itself.
I don't know if you realized that, but it's something you might want to think about.
No, since white people have the societal and economic advantage, then there's no legitimate purpose for a white "special interest" group.
We were both just talking about how admirable it is for people to try to achieve equality for themselves, then you think my post somehow advocates people banding together to prevent that equality? What the hell?
"If any group of people has a legitimate reason for a special interest group, it is the African American because of how they were brought here and treated."
Right, no reason to think I'm disagreeing with you there.
"Why do latinos need La Raza? It doesn't make since."
Latinos aren't discriminated against? Really?
"Sooner or later, everybody is going to have their little special interest group. The racism just perpetuates."
It's still not the same for white nationalists. And if you don't have people fighting for equality, won't racists just claim that proves those people have no ambition, no motivation, and ultimately no interest in making better lives for themselves?
You just can't base anything on the reaction of the people who have an advantage and are afraid of losing it. By the same logic you could say that the civil rights movement of the 60's perpetuated racism because it was divisive, as if segregation wasn't divisive already. Having people fight for what they deserve speeds up the process, even if it happens to upset people who are inordinately proud of their pallid hue.
CORSI'S PUBLISHER
http://publicservice.evendon.com/ObamaRebutsCorsiM.htm
Loading is very fast and each page includes a highlighted link which you can copy/paste for easy online citation.
Everything on our site is free and permanent.
Don
Corsi evident about Obama as Moelim is ridiculous and he knows nothing about Moelim. I was raised in Indonesia and it is impossible for a moeslim declared as Christian even he is not an extremist. a Moelim can get kill if they announce they are Christian if he/she is a Moeslim. It is a death sentence according to Koran if someone convert to another religious. An Extremist not only allow to admit as Christian, but also carrying a Bible or go inside a church.
C orsi just try to find a bit evidence to make things up. It is not true that you must be a Moelim in order to go to public school. Yes, you learn Moelim in the school because part of religious subject. But does not mean you became a Moeslim.
Corsi is equal to Lou Dobbs that deceiving people with untrue facts.
Why make comments you have to apologize for later? Why make comments at all? Who cares what the white supremists think or the KKK in this day and age seem like neanderthal cavemen. This swiftboat attempt will be torpedoed before it hits the water. The only audience for this type of hate propeganda are the religious right who don't know where else to turn to brace themselves for a new Democratic President.
He works for the World Net Daily.
'Nuf said about his intelligence and where he's coming from. He's a hired gun to put out smear books is all he's good for. I heard him this morning on NPR admitting that the title of his book is meant to sound like "abomination", because of Obama's alleged far left radical politics. Funny, there are lots of things that Obama puts out there that most of America agrees with, so indeed, we must be a far left radical society, except, that we're not.
I am so depressed.
You know, I am an average person in America and I thought, "well, since I am pretty average then the average person must be pretty reasonable. They must be able to think for themselves, and know when a person is b*llsh*tting them."
Then I realized I was wrong, that there are so many people out there that just swallow anything they hear as truth that I fear for this country. Fear for freedom for all in this country.
Then I realized that OMG there is so much b*llsh*tting going on that the average person just really, doesn't have a chance! Major media, radio....24/7 puts liars and just plain ugly and un-moral people up on pedestals to make it appear they are trustworthy and have merit. They give them a soapbox to shout their favorite flavor of hate non-stop.
On top of that, I just got another stinking email regarding Obama's mother...this time. It's just so nasty. Running his mother down to discredit him. Have they no shame at all? Have all republicans sunk so low that even their GOD would have a hard time being nice to them. I sure hope not, for if that is the case then there is surely worse to come.
Before reading MMFA I never would have thought there was so much right wing hate spreading out over our air waves. It boggles the mind, and I am surprised we are, as a country, not in worse shape than we are right now.
If there is not a huge up-swelling of left wing voices soon, this country will slide into the very thing that the right wingers like to "call" the left wingers. Ironic. Isn't it.
Thanks MMFA for opening my eyes to so many many liars on our radio's, on our televisions, in our books, on the internet.
Please don't stop.
Lor,
I have never gotten the emails that you say you did. There are some unsavory characters out there who will do stuff like that. It's too bad some people forward that stuff. I doubt very many people believe this stuff.
Don't blame the Republicans. It could also be a dirty trick to make them look bad. At the same time I would have a talk with the person who forwarded it to you. Maybe they are just yanking your chain?
Stanley Ann Dunham
Stanley Ann Dunham,
Barack's Momma
Mercer Island High School
Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro ( November 29, 1942 - November 7, 1995), known as Ann Dunham and Stanley Ann Dunham, was an American anthropologist, left-wing social activist, and the mother of Senator Barack Obama. She was born in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to Stanley and Madelyn Dunham. Her father (who gave his only child his name) was a furniture salesman in downtown Seattle, Washington, and her mother worked for a bank. After a year living in Seattle, her family moved to Mercer Island, Washington, in 1956 so that 13-year old Ann could attend the Mercer Island High School that had just opened. At the school she was on the debate team and graduated in 1960.
< BR>Her family moved to Hawaii and Ann attended the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where she studied anthropology. When Ann Dunham arrived in Hawaii, she was a full fledged radical leftist and practitioner of critical theory. She also began to engage in miscegenation (inter-racial relationships) as part of her attack on society. Susan Blake, one of her friends has stated she never dated the crew-cut white boys,
She had a world view, even as a young girl. It was embracing the different, rather than that ethnocentric thing of shunning the different. That was where her mind took her. In Hawaii she met Barack Obama, Sr. from Kenya in her Russian language class. Barack Obama, Jr. was born August 4, 1961.
Barack Obama, Sr. left Ann and their son in 1963 to attend Harvard in Boston. Press reports claim Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. were divorced around this time; however, no evidence has yet been presented to show they were ever married. The senior Obama obtained a masters degree in economics at Harvard and returned to Kenya in 1965 where he obtained a position in the Kenyan government. He was killed in an automobile accident in 1982.
Two years later, when her son was five, Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian oil manager and practicing Muslim whom she met at the university. In 1967 they moved to Jakarta, Indonesia. While in Indonesia Ann got a job at the American embassy teaching English. Barack's half-sister, Maya Soetoro was born in Indonesia. Ann, Obama and his sister Maya moved back to Hawaii. Ann Dunham soon returned to Indonesia with Maya, but divorced Soetoro in the late 1970s.
Dunham traveled around t he world, pursuing a career in rural development that took her to Ghana, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Nepal and Bangladesh. In 1986 Ann Dunham worked on a developmental project in Pakistan. Later that year Ann and her daughter traveled the Silk Road in China. In 1992 she earned a Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. Her dissertation, "Peasant blacksmithing in Indonesia: Surviving and Thriving Against All Odds," was 1067 pages long. She worked for the Ford Foundation and promoted Microlending.
During Obama's campaign for the 2008 presidential election he portrayed his mother as a conservative girl from Kansas; however in reality she was a radical leftist and cutural Marxist. She lived in the Seattle area; spending her teenage years in Seattle's coffee shops with other young radical leftist. Obama claims his mother's family were conservative Methodists or Baptists from Kansas. However his mother's parents were members of a left-wing Unitarian church near Seattle. The church located in Bellevue, Washington was nicknamed "the little red church," because of its communist leanings.
The school Ann attended, Mercer Island High S chool, was a hotbed of pro-Marxist radical teachers. John Stenhouse, board member, told the House Un-American Activities Subcommittee that he had been a member of the Communist Party USA and this school has a number of Marxists on it's staff. Two teachers at this school, Val Foubert and Jim Wichterman, both Frankfurt School style Marxists, taught a critical theory curriculum to students which included rejection of societal norms, attacks on Christianity, the traditional family, and assigned readings by Karl Marx. The hallway between Fouberts and Wichterman classrooms was sometimes called "anarchy ally."
Dunham has been described by her friends as "a fellow traveler..." meaning a communist sympathizer.
In an interview, Barack Obama referred to his mother as "the dominant figure in my formative years.. . The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics."
Before she died Ann Dunham wanted to adopt a mixed-race Korean baby father by a Black American stationed in South Korea. Ann Dunham died in Hawaii in 1995 of ovarian cancer and uterine cancer.
This is the email i got......
Don't blame the Republicans. It could also be a dirty trick to make them look bad.(AA)
Barney, please.... You've got to give this one up, it gets sadder every time you try it. Suggesting that every scumbag tactic of the right is some frame-up by sneaky Dems is the laziest tinfoil hat BS. Stop humiliating yourself.
This is a classic case of attacking the manager when you can't attack the message.
Suppose I see you robbing a bank. Rather than deny robbing the bank, you call me a drug dealer. Even if that were true, does that mean you didn't rob the bank?
Just as when Kerry was (rightfully) Swift Boated, he never disputed the substance of teh allegations - he just whined that it was unfair. He called the allegations lies, but did not elaborate.
Corsi has seven hundred footnotes documenting his sources. Can you dispute any one of them. If Corsi were a foaming at the mouth lunatic, you would ignore him. The fact that you are so exercised about this proves that there is the sting of truth.
Obama did hang out with Wright, Ayers, Davis, Pflager. He is certainly comfortable being with America haters.
I am glad Corsi is exposing Obama just as he exposed Kerry four years prior. Were it not for the Swift Boating, Kerry may have been President. I think "Obama Nation" could have a similar effect and save this great nation from being an Obama nation.
Corsi is a patriot. He is risking your slings and arrows because he loves his country.
This is a classic case of attacking the manager (sic) when you can't attack the message.
No, actually, it's not anything like that.
Suppose I see you robbing a bank. Rather than deny robbing the bank, you call me a drug dealer. Even if that were true, does that mean you didn't rob the bank?
Suppose Corsi robbed a bank. He apologized for it, and then was seen plotting to rob another bank. Someone called him on that plotting. Get your analogies straight you moron.
Just as when Kerry was (rightfully) Swift Boated, he never disputed the substance of teh allegations - he just whined that it was unfair. He called the allegations lies, but did not elaborate.
Kerry wasn't rightfully swiftboated. He didn't actively denounce the allegations, but that wasn't because they were true allegations. It's because he thought it was better to ignore the lies - and that's what they were, lies. It is unfair to attack a political opponent with lies. It's also unfair to allow 526's to attack your opponents so that you can claim to have clean hands, and that's what Bush did.
But others didn't just call the allegations lied. They proved why they were lies. Over and over again.
Corsi has seven hundred footnotes documenting his sources. Can you dispute any one of them. If Corsi were a foaming at the mouth lunatic, you would ignore him. The fact that you are so exercised about this proves that there is the sting of truth.
Corsi doesn't have any footnotes. He has endnotes. His endnotes and his 'facts' have already been disputed. There have been numerous examples of his lies and distortions already printed. How could you have missed them? If Corsi wasn't getting mainstream air time, we would ignore him. It doesn't mean he's not a lunatic! The fact that we're exercised over those lies and distortions mean that we have morals that he and you lack.
Obama did hang out with Wright, Ayers, Davis, Pflager. He is certainly comfortable being with America haters.
He's comfortable with people who have different opinions than what he has, and he doesn't feel the need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I am glad Corsi is exposing Obama just as he exposed Kerry four years prior. Were it not for the Swift Boating, Kerry may have been President. I think "Obama Nation" could have a similar effect and save this great nation from being an Obama nation.
Corsi didn't expose Kerry 4 years ago. Corsi turned what was actually a strength of Kerry's, his military heroism, into a burden. And finally you say something that's accurate - were it not for the lies and distortions, if the voters had had an accurate picture of both Bush and Kerry, Bush never would have won. The abomination will be if a Republican from the current crop of rightie leaders ever leads our nation.
Corsi is a patriot. He is risking your slings and arrows because he loves his country.
Corsi hates America and all it stands for. He is an abomination.
"Secession is a right of all people and individuals. It was successful in 1776 and this show honors those who tried to make it successful in 1865."
Why do they hate America?