This afternoon Tuesday June 10,James Von Brunn age 89 went on the attack, after a lifetime of nurturing ,promoting anti-Semitic ideas, Von Brunn a avowed racist decided to go out with a bang. A bang that has been heard around the world, the bang is called White Supremacy and it's rounds where aimed at the Washington DC Holocaust Museum,targeting the innocent people inside and assaulting the memory of 6 million people murdered.
Many American have been lulled into the belief that this type of hatred no longer exist in the country. We have convinced ourselves that with the election of President Obama neo Nazis, kkk were things of the past.
Von Brunn because of his age may be anomaly but the ideas of organized racism and lone wolf terror ta tics are the norm for many in the far right racist movement.
Just last week a notorious Internet racist broadcaster who has encouraged this type of racist violence for years, was finally arrested for threatening people with violence. Numerous time he would broadcast that "violence solves everything". Today we have seen that violence.
We at Right-Wing watch believe this violence is just a beginning.
We will be posting more infor soon - RWW
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
When Religious Bigotry is the Default Setting
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
When Religious Bigotry is the Default Setting
by Frederick Clarkson
When Religious Bigotry is the Default
Sat May 30, 2009 at 08:03:14 PM PDT
This is a story of term that turned up in what, by Religious Right standards, was a mild diatribe issued by the Family Research Council. It was issued in response to a mild call for support for President Obama's health care reform plan by some liberal and centrist religious groups. But it is a story that offers insight into the politics our time as viewed from the window of history. So please bear with me as we take the long view of rhetoric emanating out of the heat of the moment.
Our history as a nation has for many been a struggle for equality. Although the framers of the Constitution set out a way to work it out through peaceful democratic processes; it goes without saying that his has not all gone smoothly, and although we have come a long way, we have a long way to go as well.
One of these struggles has been for religious equality. The framers established the principle well in Article 6 of the Constitution declaring that there would be no religious test for public office anywhere in the U.S. The implications of this were that there would be no religious test for citizenship and voting. Whether people were religious or not, or changed their mind along the way, would be irrelevant to their status as a citizen. The principle was further fleshed out in the First Amendment.
Frederick Clarkson's diary :: ::
Our dark episodes in this regard are seen as dark as they are in no small measure because the idea and goal of freedom on conscience in society founded on religious pluralism is an important element of our national identity and rightly seen around the world as one of our shining accomplishments as a nation.
But our identity and accomplishments in this regard do not go unchallenged.
The modern Religious Right takes no satisfaction in this history (and often denies it); does not believe in the value of separation of church and state as a legal guarantor of freedom of conscience for all. Rather, they see it as an obstacle to their theocratic objectives rooted in the overlapping ideologies of Christian nationalism and dominionism.
The other day I posted a diary about how a classic frame used by the religious right turned up as one of the GOP's talking pointsabout the Sotomayor nomination. In addition to worries about abortion and marriage equality, the GOP claimed Sotomayor "could move the Court to the left and provide a critical fifth vote for... completely secularizing the public square."
This false equation of anti-religionism with the Left is at least as old as McCarthyism ("Godless Communist", anyone?) when in fact, it is progressives who have historically taken the lead in advocating for religious freedom, religious pluralism and separation of church and state. As I wrote:
...faith and religion are not now, nor have they ever been, the exclusive province of political conservatives. Most importantly though, this pitting of the religious as against the secular; conflating the idea of faith itself with opposition to the constitutional doctrines related to religious equality and pluralism -- is integral to the identity of the Religious Right itself.
That is why is it is a framing that feeds the charge that Democrats and liberals are trying to drive people of faith out of the public square. That this is a preposterous and factually unsupported charge does not alter the fact that it is an idea embraced as true by many including some Democrats; and that it remains a pernicious and resilient dimension of public discourse.
All of which brings us to this little gem from the Family Research Council:
"Using their spiritual credentials, liberal groups like "Faithful America," Sojourners, Faith in Public Life, and others are taking to the airwaves to endorse the President's health reform plan as some sort of scriptural mandate.
"God desires abundant life for all people," says one ad. "It's time we step up and ask our politicians to move the debate forward." We've seen this approach in the debates over climate change and abortion. Now we're witnessing the Left's new strategy to use the veneer of religion to cover a socialist agenda... We must not allow liberals to treat the scripture as silly putty and distort its words to mask their anti-family, anti-faith, anti-freedom agenda." (emphasis added)
Whatever the president's health plan may be, and whatever liberal and centrist religious groups get behind it, one thing of which we can be certain is that it does not comprise an "anti-faith agenda."
In fact denouncing the policy views of religious liberals as anti-faith, (or anti-God, anti-Christian) is flat out religious bigotry. While we have seen this kind of thing many times from the Religious Right, it is long past time we got very good at calling it out for what it is.
People of many varied religious traditions, and none at all, will be for the or against the plan. And people both for and against it may be informed in their view by their particular faith or not. But being for or against the president's health plan has nothing to do with faith itself.
The Religious Right, however, sees it differently. In their view, it really is an anti-faith agenda because it deviates from their particular idea of what a Biblical society should look like; their particular idea of God's plan. And as it happens, their particular idea of God's plan does not include those who believe differently than they do. Indeed, to hold a different religious view, or no religious view, is in itself deemed anti-faith.
So it is not merely inflammatory rhetoric to call religious liberal support for the president's health plan "anti-faith." It is an expression of a profound set of beliefs that we underestimate at our peril.
When Religious Bigotry is the Default Setting
by Frederick Clarkson
When Religious Bigotry is the Default
Sat May 30, 2009 at 08:03:14 PM PDT
This is a story of term that turned up in what, by Religious Right standards, was a mild diatribe issued by the Family Research Council. It was issued in response to a mild call for support for President Obama's health care reform plan by some liberal and centrist religious groups. But it is a story that offers insight into the politics our time as viewed from the window of history. So please bear with me as we take the long view of rhetoric emanating out of the heat of the moment.
Our history as a nation has for many been a struggle for equality. Although the framers of the Constitution set out a way to work it out through peaceful democratic processes; it goes without saying that his has not all gone smoothly, and although we have come a long way, we have a long way to go as well.
One of these struggles has been for religious equality. The framers established the principle well in Article 6 of the Constitution declaring that there would be no religious test for public office anywhere in the U.S. The implications of this were that there would be no religious test for citizenship and voting. Whether people were religious or not, or changed their mind along the way, would be irrelevant to their status as a citizen. The principle was further fleshed out in the First Amendment.
Frederick Clarkson's diary :: ::
Our dark episodes in this regard are seen as dark as they are in no small measure because the idea and goal of freedom on conscience in society founded on religious pluralism is an important element of our national identity and rightly seen around the world as one of our shining accomplishments as a nation.
But our identity and accomplishments in this regard do not go unchallenged.
The modern Religious Right takes no satisfaction in this history (and often denies it); does not believe in the value of separation of church and state as a legal guarantor of freedom of conscience for all. Rather, they see it as an obstacle to their theocratic objectives rooted in the overlapping ideologies of Christian nationalism and dominionism.
The other day I posted a diary about how a classic frame used by the religious right turned up as one of the GOP's talking pointsabout the Sotomayor nomination. In addition to worries about abortion and marriage equality, the GOP claimed Sotomayor "could move the Court to the left and provide a critical fifth vote for... completely secularizing the public square."
This false equation of anti-religionism with the Left is at least as old as McCarthyism ("Godless Communist", anyone?) when in fact, it is progressives who have historically taken the lead in advocating for religious freedom, religious pluralism and separation of church and state. As I wrote:
...faith and religion are not now, nor have they ever been, the exclusive province of political conservatives. Most importantly though, this pitting of the religious as against the secular; conflating the idea of faith itself with opposition to the constitutional doctrines related to religious equality and pluralism -- is integral to the identity of the Religious Right itself.
That is why is it is a framing that feeds the charge that Democrats and liberals are trying to drive people of faith out of the public square. That this is a preposterous and factually unsupported charge does not alter the fact that it is an idea embraced as true by many including some Democrats; and that it remains a pernicious and resilient dimension of public discourse.
All of which brings us to this little gem from the Family Research Council:
"Using their spiritual credentials, liberal groups like "Faithful America," Sojourners, Faith in Public Life, and others are taking to the airwaves to endorse the President's health reform plan as some sort of scriptural mandate.
"God desires abundant life for all people," says one ad. "It's time we step up and ask our politicians to move the debate forward." We've seen this approach in the debates over climate change and abortion. Now we're witnessing the Left's new strategy to use the veneer of religion to cover a socialist agenda... We must not allow liberals to treat the scripture as silly putty and distort its words to mask their anti-family, anti-faith, anti-freedom agenda." (emphasis added)
Whatever the president's health plan may be, and whatever liberal and centrist religious groups get behind it, one thing of which we can be certain is that it does not comprise an "anti-faith agenda."
In fact denouncing the policy views of religious liberals as anti-faith, (or anti-God, anti-Christian) is flat out religious bigotry. While we have seen this kind of thing many times from the Religious Right, it is long past time we got very good at calling it out for what it is.
People of many varied religious traditions, and none at all, will be for the or against the plan. And people both for and against it may be informed in their view by their particular faith or not. But being for or against the president's health plan has nothing to do with faith itself.
The Religious Right, however, sees it differently. In their view, it really is an anti-faith agenda because it deviates from their particular idea of what a Biblical society should look like; their particular idea of God's plan. And as it happens, their particular idea of God's plan does not include those who believe differently than they do. Indeed, to hold a different religious view, or no religious view, is in itself deemed anti-faith.
So it is not merely inflammatory rhetoric to call religious liberal support for the president's health plan "anti-faith." It is an expression of a profound set of beliefs that we underestimate at our peril.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Reagan, Jr. Goes Off On Limbaugh
You have to love it when people like Rush Limbaugh get told off! This, according to John Aravosis had us suffering from side-splitting paroxysms of laughter:
SOURCE
Apparently, Limbaugh has been on quite a tear for a while, mocking the way Nancy Pelosi looks. Recently he said that Pelosi was shaking from "botox withdrawal," and back in January Limbaugh said he could keep the birth rate down by putting pictures of Pelosi in every hotel room. So Ronald Reagan, Jr. struck back. Via Slog:
"Limbaugh hasn't had a natural erection since the Nixon Administration; think he's compensating for something? Now, I wouldn't pick on him for any of this stuff, not his blubbiness, not his man-boobs, not his inability to have a natural erection—none of that stuff—to me, off limits until! until! Mr. Limbaugh, you turn that sort of gun on somebody else—once you start doing that, you're fair game, fat boy.
Absolutely, you jiggly pile of mess. You're just fair game, and you're going to get it, too."
Again, putting the sheer comedy of this aside, having Reagan's son enter the fray to attack Limbaugh, which will only incite Limbaugh more, keeps the Republican story line on one of our three favorite Republicans, Limbaugh, Cheney and Gingrich. America can't stand any of the three. So the more the story keeps on them, the more Americans spurn the GOP.
SOURCE
Apparently, Limbaugh has been on quite a tear for a while, mocking the way Nancy Pelosi looks. Recently he said that Pelosi was shaking from "botox withdrawal," and back in January Limbaugh said he could keep the birth rate down by putting pictures of Pelosi in every hotel room. So Ronald Reagan, Jr. struck back. Via Slog:
"Limbaugh hasn't had a natural erection since the Nixon Administration; think he's compensating for something? Now, I wouldn't pick on him for any of this stuff, not his blubbiness, not his man-boobs, not his inability to have a natural erection—none of that stuff—to me, off limits until! until! Mr. Limbaugh, you turn that sort of gun on somebody else—once you start doing that, you're fair game, fat boy.
Absolutely, you jiggly pile of mess. You're just fair game, and you're going to get it, too."
Again, putting the sheer comedy of this aside, having Reagan's son enter the fray to attack Limbaugh, which will only incite Limbaugh more, keeps the Republican story line on one of our three favorite Republicans, Limbaugh, Cheney and Gingrich. America can't stand any of the three. So the more the story keeps on them, the more Americans spurn the GOP.
Monday, May 18, 2009
'Traditional Morality' Being Threatened?
Coral Ridge Ministries is a dominionist theology based group with reactionary leanings and a very troubling track record. After the death of its leader, James Kennedy, it pretty much appeared that the organization would fade into oblivion. Unfortunately, it seems it might be making a comeback.
SOURCE
Ministry: 'Hate Crimes' Law Will Fuel Hostility Toward Traditional Morality
Coral Ridge Ministries will be airing a special report Sunday on the growing hostility toward traditional marriage advocates and how a proposed "hate crime" law will only inspire more abuse by homosexual activists.
Sun, May. 17, 2009 Posted: 09:45 AM EDT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coral Ridge Ministries will be airing a special report Sunday on the growing hostility toward traditional marriage advocates and how a proposed "hate crime" law will only inspire more abuse by homosexual activists.
“Over the past few years there have been aggressive attempts to drive Christianity from the public square – everything from removing the cross at Mt. Soledad, the veterans’ cemetery in San Diego, to removing Ten Commandments monuments all across the U.S.,” says Robert Knight, Coral Ridge’s Washington correspondent, who appears in Sunday’s Coral Ridge Hour program.
“Now the people who are promoting this secular humanist agenda are on the verge of victory with the passage of a federal hate crimes bill,” he continues. “This is what they’ve wanted all along because it will recast traditional morality, particularly Christian morality, as a form of hate speech – actionable by the federal government.”
Earlier this month, the Senate introduced the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, just as the House passed its version of the expanded Hate Crimes bill by a 249-175 vote.
The legislation is intended by its sponsors to protect homosexuals and transgendered people from violent hate crimes by expanding a list of federally protected groups to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability. But critics say Christian broadcasters and even pastors covering culturally unpopular views, such as preaching homosexuality as sin, could eventually face prosecution just for expressing their religious views because their teachings could be blamed for inciting violence.
"Bottom line is we think that the bill under this language, while it's touted as something as designed to crack down on violence and hate-inspired crime, in fact can be used to prosecute non-violent crimes," NRB senior vice president and general counsel Craig Parshall told The Christian Post. "The bill has a chilling effect on the right of communicators to articulate and preach the full counsel of God."
Although the Senate version contains provisions that appear to protect constitutional speech and free expression, Parshall contended they are just "nice political banter" for debate that are not substantial protection for free speech.
Coral Ridge’s Knight, meanwhile, said the hate crimes bill “poses perhaps the greatest challenge to the freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly that this nation has ever seen within our border.”
Should Congress pass a “hate crimes” law, "homosexual activists will be emboldened to recast any public expression of traditional morality as a form of 'hatred' people need to take action against,” he added.
On Sunday’s Coral Ridge broadcast, the ministry will highlight some of the events that took place last year after California voters passed Proposition 8, a constitutional ballot initiative that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
After Prop. 8 was passed, there were many incidents of vandalism to churches as well as physical attacks against Christians.
"Cars with 'Yes on 8' stickers were vandalized, their tires punctured, their windshields broken . . . and an elderly couple with a 'Yes on 8' sign in their front yard was physically assaulted . . . [the woman] actually punched in the face," notes Dr. Gary Cass, president of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, on the broadcast.
"Can you imagine what these people would endure if there were 'hate crime' laws at the federal level?" Knight asks.
Coral Ridge has also made note of the backlash against Miss California Carrie Prejean, who was vilified for defending marriage during the Miss USA competition last month.
“On April 19, on that stage, I exercised my freedom of speech, and I was punished for doing so,” said Prejean this past week during a press conference. “This should not happen in America. It undermines the constitutional rights for which my grandfather fought for.”
Preceding Sunday’s special will be the rebroadcast of a sermon preached by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge, on “The War Against Christianity.”
In the sermon, Kennedy addressed the culture war in the United States and the reasons why ridicule of Christians as intolerant bigots is the norm today.
On the Web:
TV station listings and times at The Coral Ridge Hour station log.
Eric Young
Christian Post Reporter
SOURCE
Ministry: 'Hate Crimes' Law Will Fuel Hostility Toward Traditional Morality
Coral Ridge Ministries will be airing a special report Sunday on the growing hostility toward traditional marriage advocates and how a proposed "hate crime" law will only inspire more abuse by homosexual activists.
Sun, May. 17, 2009 Posted: 09:45 AM EDT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coral Ridge Ministries will be airing a special report Sunday on the growing hostility toward traditional marriage advocates and how a proposed "hate crime" law will only inspire more abuse by homosexual activists.
“Over the past few years there have been aggressive attempts to drive Christianity from the public square – everything from removing the cross at Mt. Soledad, the veterans’ cemetery in San Diego, to removing Ten Commandments monuments all across the U.S.,” says Robert Knight, Coral Ridge’s Washington correspondent, who appears in Sunday’s Coral Ridge Hour program.
“Now the people who are promoting this secular humanist agenda are on the verge of victory with the passage of a federal hate crimes bill,” he continues. “This is what they’ve wanted all along because it will recast traditional morality, particularly Christian morality, as a form of hate speech – actionable by the federal government.”
Earlier this month, the Senate introduced the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, just as the House passed its version of the expanded Hate Crimes bill by a 249-175 vote.
The legislation is intended by its sponsors to protect homosexuals and transgendered people from violent hate crimes by expanding a list of federally protected groups to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability. But critics say Christian broadcasters and even pastors covering culturally unpopular views, such as preaching homosexuality as sin, could eventually face prosecution just for expressing their religious views because their teachings could be blamed for inciting violence.
"Bottom line is we think that the bill under this language, while it's touted as something as designed to crack down on violence and hate-inspired crime, in fact can be used to prosecute non-violent crimes," NRB senior vice president and general counsel Craig Parshall told The Christian Post. "The bill has a chilling effect on the right of communicators to articulate and preach the full counsel of God."
Although the Senate version contains provisions that appear to protect constitutional speech and free expression, Parshall contended they are just "nice political banter" for debate that are not substantial protection for free speech.
Coral Ridge’s Knight, meanwhile, said the hate crimes bill “poses perhaps the greatest challenge to the freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly that this nation has ever seen within our border.”
Should Congress pass a “hate crimes” law, "homosexual activists will be emboldened to recast any public expression of traditional morality as a form of 'hatred' people need to take action against,” he added.
On Sunday’s Coral Ridge broadcast, the ministry will highlight some of the events that took place last year after California voters passed Proposition 8, a constitutional ballot initiative that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
After Prop. 8 was passed, there were many incidents of vandalism to churches as well as physical attacks against Christians.
"Cars with 'Yes on 8' stickers were vandalized, their tires punctured, their windshields broken . . . and an elderly couple with a 'Yes on 8' sign in their front yard was physically assaulted . . . [the woman] actually punched in the face," notes Dr. Gary Cass, president of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, on the broadcast.
"Can you imagine what these people would endure if there were 'hate crime' laws at the federal level?" Knight asks.
Coral Ridge has also made note of the backlash against Miss California Carrie Prejean, who was vilified for defending marriage during the Miss USA competition last month.
“On April 19, on that stage, I exercised my freedom of speech, and I was punished for doing so,” said Prejean this past week during a press conference. “This should not happen in America. It undermines the constitutional rights for which my grandfather fought for.”
Preceding Sunday’s special will be the rebroadcast of a sermon preached by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge, on “The War Against Christianity.”
In the sermon, Kennedy addressed the culture war in the United States and the reasons why ridicule of Christians as intolerant bigots is the norm today.
On the Web:
TV station listings and times at The Coral Ridge Hour station log.
Eric Young
Christian Post Reporter
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Who Else Does God Speak To?
God works in mysterious ways, and speaks to really strange people. It looks like the GOP has a special inroad to the realm of the All Mighty. George W. Bush claimed that God spoke to him. Michele Bachman claims that God speaks to her. But, Joe the Plumber having a direct line?
AP STORY
Joe the Plumber calls gays 'queer'
Wed May 6, 11:52 pm ET
NEW YORK – Samuel Wurzelbacher, the Ohio man hailed as "Joe the Plumber" by Republican John McCain's presidential campaign last year, said he believes gays are "queer" and said he won't allow them near his children.
Nevertheless, Wurzelbacher said the decision about whether to allow same-sex couples to marry should be left to states.
"People don't understand the dictionary — it's called queer," Wurzelbacher told Christianity Today in an interview published this week. "Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do — what man and woman are for."
He added, "I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing."
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights organization based in Washington, dismissed Wurzelbacher's comments.
"It would matter if Joe the Plumber mattered," Solmonese said. "One thing among many things we learned in the 2008 campaign is that he doesn't."
Wurzelbacher, regarded as a folk hero to many conservatives after challenging then-Democratic nominee Barack Obama about his tax policies, said neither political party was sufficiently Christian.
"They use God as a punch line," Wurzelbacher said of Republicans. "They use God to invoke sympathy or invoke righteousness, but they don't stay the course."
Wurzelbacher said he considered McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, one of the GOP's emerging stars. But he said the party would have a difficult time recasting its image to appeal to younger voters.
"You got the RNC talking about repackaging principles and values to make them hip and cool to the younger generation," Wurzelbacher said. "You can't repackage them. They are what they are. You can't make what they are."
Since the election, Wurzelbacher has spoken at conservative rallies around the country and traveled to Israel as a rookie reporter to cover the Gaza conflict.
Wurzelbacher told the magazine he might consider running for office someday.
"Not right now," Wurzelbacher said. "God hasn't said, 'Joe, I want you to run.' I feel (it's) more important to just encourage people to get involved, one way or another. If I can inspire some leaders, that would be great."
AP STORY
Joe the Plumber calls gays 'queer'
Wed May 6, 11:52 pm ET
NEW YORK – Samuel Wurzelbacher, the Ohio man hailed as "Joe the Plumber" by Republican John McCain's presidential campaign last year, said he believes gays are "queer" and said he won't allow them near his children.
Nevertheless, Wurzelbacher said the decision about whether to allow same-sex couples to marry should be left to states.
"People don't understand the dictionary — it's called queer," Wurzelbacher told Christianity Today in an interview published this week. "Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do — what man and woman are for."
He added, "I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing."
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights organization based in Washington, dismissed Wurzelbacher's comments.
"It would matter if Joe the Plumber mattered," Solmonese said. "One thing among many things we learned in the 2008 campaign is that he doesn't."
Wurzelbacher, regarded as a folk hero to many conservatives after challenging then-Democratic nominee Barack Obama about his tax policies, said neither political party was sufficiently Christian.
"They use God as a punch line," Wurzelbacher said of Republicans. "They use God to invoke sympathy or invoke righteousness, but they don't stay the course."
Wurzelbacher said he considered McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, one of the GOP's emerging stars. But he said the party would have a difficult time recasting its image to appeal to younger voters.
"You got the RNC talking about repackaging principles and values to make them hip and cool to the younger generation," Wurzelbacher said. "You can't repackage them. They are what they are. You can't make what they are."
Since the election, Wurzelbacher has spoken at conservative rallies around the country and traveled to Israel as a rookie reporter to cover the Gaza conflict.
Wurzelbacher told the magazine he might consider running for office someday.
"Not right now," Wurzelbacher said. "God hasn't said, 'Joe, I want you to run.' I feel (it's) more important to just encourage people to get involved, one way or another. If I can inspire some leaders, that would be great."
Why Is AZ Sherrif Joe Arpaio Talking to Neo Nazis ?
Is it because he might be one ?
Maricopa County (AZ) Sheriff Joe Arpaio loves being the tough guy - making prisoners dress in pink - spouting off how tough he is - how he takes on left wing groups and so forth. Over the years Sheriff Joe has been called many things, one of the names thrown at him down through the years was "he is a Nazi" and more often than not people just wrote it off as name calling by the "enemies of good old sheriff Joe".
They say a picture is worth a thousand words so we here at Right Wing Watch are wondering what words Sheriff Joe has to say now that he has been exposed as having neo Nazi connections.
Check out the story, pictures and video of Sheriff Joe speaking with and having his picture taken with two well known neo Nazis at a recent rally. We want to thank our friends at One People Project for bringing us this story and exposing Sheriff Joe for what he is .... a fascist.
Rest of Story here at One Peoples Project
They say a picture is worth a thousand words so we here at Right Wing Watch are wondering what words Sheriff Joe has to say now that he has been exposed as having neo Nazi connections.
Check out the story, pictures and video of Sheriff Joe speaking with and having his picture taken with two well known neo Nazis at a recent rally. We want to thank our friends at One People Project for bringing us this story and exposing Sheriff Joe for what he is .... a fascist.
Rest of Story here at One Peoples Project
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Pat Buchanan: White Men Face the Same Discrimination That "Black Folks" Faced "For Years"
Well I guess its good to see that Pat Buchanan has finally agreed with the rest of America that Black are/where discriminated against. But ol Pat couldn't let it go with that.
Apparently Pat is listening to his Richard Wagner music again for he claims that Whites are being discriminated against. When not sieg heiling between commercials, Buchanan states that Whites are being treated badly... why they are being treated like Black folks.
Ahhh Pat, when White folks are enslaved for being White maybe I will listen;
When Whites are lynched for being White maybe I will listen;
When White are lock away in gulags (prisons) in large numbers for committing crimes while being "White" maybe I will listen, until then Pat you should go back to reading "Mein Kampf" and leave the rest of us alone as we work to make America for all people, not just those who speak German.
Apparently Pat is listening to his Richard Wagner music again for he claims that Whites are being discriminated against. When not sieg heiling between commercials, Buchanan states that Whites are being treated badly... why they are being treated like Black folks.
Ahhh Pat, when White folks are enslaved for being White maybe I will listen;
When Whites are lynched for being White maybe I will listen;
When White are lock away in gulags (prisons) in large numbers for committing crimes while being "White" maybe I will listen, until then Pat you should go back to reading "Mein Kampf" and leave the rest of us alone as we work to make America for all people, not just those who speak German.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
