Very nice article about a huge problem in the U.S. Americans need to stand up to these lame attacks by liberals, who want more than anything for the country to be totally godless...and from there, I wouldn't doubt if communism would be next on their agenda.
I read about this sick man who created Kwanzaa (which I remember being taught about in school) from the book SCAM, which I recently finished. The article talks about his arrest for assault, and it goes indepth into his comments made about race relations (violence against whites, and his wish to break off into another country just for blacks with the U.S., etc.)
Here is a bit more about the creator of Kwanzaa
As for the so called holiday, Kwanzaa has its very own flag. It conists of black, green, and red. The Kwanzaa Information Center notes the flag's red color represents blood, and they say, "We lost out land through blood; and we cannot gain it except through blood. We must redeem our lives through the blood. Without the shedding of blood there can be no redemption for this (black) race."
They then go onto discuss how the flag is a symbol of devotion for the establishment of an independent nation for the "African" people on the North American Continient. Kids are often made to pledge allegiance to this flag to learn more about the "holiday."
Karenga explains Kwanzaa further, saying, "People think it's African but it's not. I came up with Kwanzaa because black people wouldn't celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that's when a lot of Bloods would be partying."
There's the truth about this racist, divisive, and violent "holiday."
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Erasing Christianity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive commentary by Judson Cox
Dec 26, 2003
U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton has ruled that the Byron Union School district was not indoctrinating students by requiring them to wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Koran, pray to Allah and play "jihad games" as part of a simulation approach to Islamic studies. The curriculum required by the California State Board of Education utilizes the textbook "Across the Centuries," published by Houghton Mifflin, which prompts students to imagine they are Islamic soldiers and Muslims on a Mecca pilgrimage. The students are encouraged to use phrases such as "Allah Akbar," (“Allah is great,") and are required to fast during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
It is remarkable that our schools would teach such a course when America is fighting a war against Islamic terror and thousands of Americans lay dead at the hands of Islamic fascists. The doctrine of diversity trumps both reason and taste. Islam may be a “religion of peace”, with highly nuanced interpretations of the Koranic commands to kill Jews and Christians, but if Muslim scholars can’t teach such nuances, should we rely on public school teachers? In the name of religious and cultural sensitivity, schools are forcing Christian and Jewish children to commit blasphemy. One cannot expect public school teachers to understand such a concept, when the Ten Commandments (“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”) are banned from public schools. To guard against offense and indoctrination, public religious education should be comparative in nature.
The comparative study of religion is an essential facet of a liberal arts based education. The arts, literature, philosophy and order of a society are an expression of that culture’s religion. To try to understand western literature, Chinese social order or Middle Eastern history without a basic understanding of the religions of those cultures is as frustrating and incomplete as trying to read Homer’s Odyssey without a basic knowledge of Greek mythology - who is this Athena, and doesn’t she have anything better to do with her time than to screw with other people’s lives?
However, such a study of religion is not possible within our public schools. Even the most abstract references to Christian belief are being expunged from our language. Imagine the violent paroxysms of liberals if students were instructed to read the Bible, pray the Lord’s Prayer, emulate priests and nuns by taking vows of chastity or to study the writings of Martin Luther. During the Clinton administration, Janet Reno would have burned the schools (with the students in them) faster than you could say “intolerance.” We certainly cannot teach chastity in our schools – Planned Parenthood and GLAD would be appalled!
Every praiseworthy quality of western culture springs from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Literature, the arts, science, math and technology were preserved and promoted through the Church when the Dark Ages threatened to extinguish the spark of knowledge. The Constitution of the United States of America and the western legal system are based upon Biblical principals. Our valuing of human, civil and women’s rights are unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Christian ministers and priests demanded the abolition of slavery, not secularists or Islamists.
Karl Marx, said, ''My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.'' This is the driving force behind the secularization of American culture and the push for diversity. The most destructive force in human history (responsible for up to 200 million deaths and incalculable suffering) is behind the anti-Christian bigotry plaguing our nation. Although 84% of the population of the United States is self-identified as Christian (CNN/Gallup 2002), Christmas is being banned from the American lexicon.
Ron N. Everett, aka Dr. Maulana Ron Karenga, a black Marxist who realized that the best way to defeat Americanism is to subvert our religious heritage, fabricated Kwanzaa in 1966. He invented an African sounding holiday and Africanized Marxist precepts as its justification. In 1971, he was convicted on two counts of felonious assault and one count of false imprisonment, and sentenced to one to ten years in prison for beating and torturing two women who were members of his United Slaves, a violent nationalist rival to the Black Panthers. The propaganda of a violent and deranged lunatic is celebrated, while Christ is vilified. Peace on earth and good will to man be damned - Allah Akbar and Happy Kwanzaa!
----------------------
here is another nice article from the same website (the washington dispatch)
On Gay Marriage, Most Say "No"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive commentary by Chad Allen
Dec 26, 2003
Over the past two years, perhaps there has been no greater social debate in America than that of homosexual "marriage". From Rosie O'Donnell to the State of Massachusetts to the continued success of NBC's gay-filled "Will and Grace", it seems that the homosexual culture continues to gain increased media attention. Yet, despite the abundance of homosexual fanfare, most Americans are staunchly opposed to gay "marriage" and a majority actually believes that homosexual relations should be illegal.
This phenomenon of public opinion is rather surprising when you consider that "tolerance" remains the buzzword in our society regarding everything from religion to sexuality. We are told by countless opinion-makers that we are to tolerate the views and activities of others and not to question them. According to these individuals, anything less is barbaric and unsophisticated. The social theory of tolerance seems to have found root in America when it comes to religion and other social issues, but not so in regards to homosexual "marriage". Why? What makes this issue unique?
Let us first observe the latest data on this issue. Earlier this week, a New York Times/CBS News poll was released which showed that Americans oppose a law allowing homosexuals to marry by nearly a 2-1 margin (61%-34%), while 55% of Americans support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a woman and a man. Furthermore, and most surprising, 49% of Americans affirmed that homosexual relations should be illegal, with only 41% supporting homosexual relationships and 10% undecided.
Segmented results within the poll were especially interesting and shed some light as to why Americans are largely opposed to homosexual "marriage" and homosexual relations. Those respondents who were labeled "White Protestants" favored a man/woman marriage constitutional amendment by 60%-34%; opposed a law allowing homosexuals to marry by 70%-26%; and were in favor of making homosexual relations illegal by 56%-35%.
Without question, the data show that religion plays an enormous part in an individual's stance on the issue of homosexuality and the potential for homosexuals to "marry". Nearly all Protestant religions rightly teach, based on a mountain of biblical evidence, that engaging in homosexual acts is a clear violation of God's commands. Despite the fact that media outlets such as television and movies continue to promote the "normality" of homosexuality, religious teachings trump these ideas in the minds of Protestants.
Responses of those from the South largely were inline with those from white Protestants. This should come as no surprise as the influence of religion is strongest in the South and in some parts of the Midwest which comprise the "Bible Belt". Religion plays a key role for most people of Protestant faiths in the "Bible Belt" and these faiths continue to teach against the ills of society, which typically include homosexuality, adultery, and other activities which are deemed to be sin and have damaged America's families. As long as these faiths continue to teach against homosexuality, the court of public opinion will remain strongly opposed to the overall homosexual lifestyle and increasing rights for homosexuals in our society.
Opinions on homosexuality and marriage were also dramatically different when broken down by age group. The survey showed that individuals 65 years of age or older opposed a law allowing homosexual “marriage” by nearly 5-1 and supported a constitutional amendment allowing marriage only to be between a man and a woman by more than 3-2. However, adults between the ages of 18-29 favored allowing homosexuals to marry and opposed a man/woman marriage constitutional amendment.
While respondents 65+ years of age are products of the 50’s or earlier when homosexuality openness was still taboo, it’s likely that their views are also largely shaped by experience. America’s seniors have seen a society that completely opposed homosexuality versus today’s pro-homosexuality culture. Clearly they feel that society was better off when homosexuality wasn’t promoted in the media, our schools, and within our government.
Possibly the most fascinating results of the survey came from those individuals given the label “know a gay person”. While they were pro-homosexual in their responses, the margin was rather weak regarding the man/woman marriage constitutional amendment and was especially paltry in response to allowing homosexuals to marry.
These weak margins are surprising since many within the homosexual movement and their sympathizers state that individuals’ views regarding the gay lifestyle would be dramatically different if they knew gay people. Apparently this is not the case, as even those who know gay people have seen the damage homosexuality has caused families. In addition, they have probably seen some of their gay friends either die prematurely or become extremely ill due to AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases which tend to be spread in greater mass throughout the gay community.
The court of public opinion in America speaks convincingly. America believes that homosexuality is not an alternative lifestyle and should not be promoted within our society by our government. Our government officials would be wise to note this fact.
Posted by Josh at December 27, 2003 05:48 AM | TrackBack