May 9, 2009 - The Political Cesspool - James Edwards
43:35
20090509_Hour_1
|
Time
Text
Welcome to the Political Cesspool, known across the South and worldwide as the South's foremost populous conservative radio program.
And here to guide you through the murky waters of the political cesspool is your host for tonight, James Edwards.
And welcome to the show, everyone.
They don't cry radio program.
It is Saturday evening, May 9th, and we are red hot and rolling coming to you live from AM 1380 WLRM Radio in Memphis, Tennessee.
And as always, going out to our affiliate stations across the country, as well as our satellite and internet live internet stream, courtesy of Liberty News Radio.
Thank you for joining us this evening.
I am James Edwards, joined in studio tonight by Bill Rowland.
Bill, how are you?
As we inch ever so closer to summer, Bill is still actually outside enjoying the summer weather.
Bill's got to be back in here in just a minute.
I got to be on top of things.
I'm not always on top of things, but we've had a good week.
We've had a good week here in the Cesspool, still staying as relevant as ever.
We were contacted this week by the London Times for an interview.
We'll see how that goes.
And of course, we had a couple of great interviews last week in New York and Chicago, respectively.
After five years, I guess we've built up a certain reputation.
People come to us for comments, and we're always happy to give them, as you well know from listening to this show, every Saturday night right here on LNR, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Central.
And now I understand that Bill is with us.
Bill, are you there?
I'm here, James.
Can you hear me?
I hear you clear, buddy.
Thanks for being with us tonight and hosting the program with me.
We've got a lot in store for the listeners, as you well know, Bill.
But how's it going tonight?
We're inching ever so closely to summer.
It's getting hot.
May 9th.
What can you say?
Well, of course, we've been afflicted with storms and rain and thunder, and I'm beginning to believe that Obama is the Antichrist because we're getting all the weather signs anyway around here.
Storms, thunder, lightning, mayhem, and so forth.
So, yeah, I do wish we would get some heat.
My children are starting to really complain about not being able to go swim.
Well, yeah, that's about the one good thing.
We're here on deck and ready to take the show new and exciting place.
And you never know where it's going to go.
It continues to go onward and upward, that's for sure.
A little later on in the program tonight, during tonight's third hour, we're going to be joined by Reverend Ted Pike, who's going to give us an update, and I'm not so sure it's going to be an encouraging one, about how the pending hate crimes legislation is progressing through Congress.
Of course, it last week passed the House of Representatives.
It's now up before the Senate.
We're going to get Ted's take on that and what we can do to perhaps stop it at least one more time, lest we fall into the cesspool that England and the rest of the so-called civilized first world nations of Europe and Australia and Canada find themselves in with these Orwellian and draconian thought crime legislations.
You know, Bill, with our mind being set on that for a moment, I digress.
Do you know the difference between a homosexual and a refrigerator bill?
Not offhand, James.
Well, if you did.
I don't like to think of keeping my food in a homosexual, though.
Well, we'll leave it to our audience to fill in the blank on that joke.
I only asked the question because if you are out there and you do know the difference, you'd better keep it to yourself.
We mentioned we had just got an interview request from the London Times out of London, England.
And in England, they're considering a law that would punish hateful, quote-unquote, jokes.
Bill, up to seven years in prison.
Now, we already know they've got the so-called hate crimes, thought crimes legislation going on over there, as they do in Germany, so on and so forth, as we've said.
But under this new law that is pending passage in England, undercover cops, Bill, are going into restaurants and nightclubs and listening for quote-unquote racist comments with powers to arrest anyone who says anything that's not 100% politically correct.
In fact, over there in the UK, Great Britain, they recently spent $50,000 of taxpayer money prosecuting a 10-year-old kid who called another kid names.
They handcuffed and jailed another 14-year-old schoolgirl after she complained that no one else in her assigned study group spoke English.
And so, Bill, with that being said, I think it can safely be said that England is not going down the tubes.
It's already there.
I mean, let's just look at it here.
Undercover cops being assigned to go into bars and nightclubs where people congregate over a couple of beers and talk frankly and candidly with one another.
If the cops even overhear them saying anything that would be critical of homosexuality, they can be arrested and faced with seven years in prison.
You got a 10-year-old and a 14-year-old respectively over there who have faced prosecution.
One for calling another kid names.
The article didn't say what exactly he called them.
And the schoolgirl for complaining that no one spoke English in her study group.
So, hey, you know, people think we're immune.
I've said this so many times.
People think there's some sort of invisible force field that keeps America protected from laws such as this.
Well, with the ADL and the SPLC pushing this sort of agenda, we're absolutely not safe.
And America will become afflicted with this if we don't stand up to stop it.
And that's what we're going to be talking about with Ted Pike during the third hour.
But, Bill, what do you make of this?
I mean, people who really aren't, well, let me just say that people who don't listen to the political cesspool aren't aware of this kind of stuff.
And it's going on.
And it's scary.
I mean, that is some scary stuff right there.
James, the whole purpose of these laws, and particularly the clamping down on free speech in England and the punishment for so-called hate speech is really a submerged attack on the British National Party,
which, by all indications, will probably receive the largest percentage of the vote that the party has ever received in the forthcoming elections.
And the fact is that the British, the powers in Britain on the left, do not want the BNP to succeed on any level.
And so I think that this is a technique or a method to intimidate British supporters of the BNP.
And almost certainly, you can almost see the headlines.
BNP local leader arrested for hate speech or for hate crime for telling a joke in a bar.
Now, of course, again, we're talking about selective prosecution because you know as well as I do that no bars that are patronized by minorities, by blacks or Indians or Asians of any kind, are going to be targets for this kind of sting operation.
It's going to be strictly pubs where white people congregate.
There won't be any homosexual bars that are set up for this kind of prosecution and this kind of criminal sting operation because the homosexuals can say anything about heterosexuals.
And there is a point, and there is a case for this, because as you know, I think we've talked in previous programs about Ms. Prigene, who was the Miss USA contestant who was beaten by Miss North Carolina, but she lost allegedly because she had said something in favor of heterosexual marriage.
Well, one commentator or one guest on a British talk program said out in the open that if something bad happened to her, that he would probably be responsible.
And essentially, he made a veiled death threat to Miss Carrie Pergine.
Now, do you think he's going to go to jail about that?
And he made the statement on a national broadcast.
So, no, the prosecution is going to be very selective.
It's going to be targeting British National Party members in an effort to discredit the party.
This is also the reason, and I know this will come up again on the show, that there has been an attempt to prevent talk show hosts from America and elsewhere traveling to England and that they are having their restriction put on their travel to England.
One being, of course, Don Black, and another one being Michael Savage.
Well, and then six unlisted people who were not made public.
That was me, you, Winston, and Eddie.
That's the three, three of the six are on the show.
But certainly, why would they cover up?
Why would they hide six people's names from the public, but you know, announce six people whose travel was restricted or was going to be denied to England?
I suspect that the six that have not been listed publicly are probably black or non-white or of some favored minority.
And so there's just, you know, this restriction is being done quietly so as not to embarrass them.
Just as the race of non-white perpetrators is hidden by the English press, by the English media.
Oh, and always.
So that's what's going on with that.
Well, and of course, that was, I made mention at the very top of the program, that was the very issue that the Sunday Times of London had contacted us for a comment on.
And, you know, all this stuff, though, Bill, well, we'll talk about it after the break.
Set tight, everybody.
We're going to pick it up right there in a moment.
Don't go away.
There's more political cesspool coming your way right after these messages.
Welcome back.
To get on the political cesspool, call us on James's Dime, toll-free, at 1-866-986-6397.
And here's the host of the Political Cesspool, James Edwards.
All right, welcome back to the show.
During that first segment there, Bill was quite eloquently making some comments on the most recent manifestations of political correctness, not only here in our society in America, but in Great Britain as well, and how the doctrine of political correctness is being enforced by different laws that are coming, that are already on the books in some countries, coming soon to America, and even more stringent laws forthcoming in European countries as well.
We were talking about undercover cops going into bars, and if they hear anyone making comments critical of cultural Marxism, they get faced with perhaps up to seven years in jail.
We were talking about Miss California, Miss California, who was put on the spot by a radical sodomite on the Miss America pageant.
She answers it very gracefully and just has a traditional, healthy viewpoint on the issue of marriage and is just absolutely raped through the coals.
Now, of course, I found it ironic that the same media that promotes pornography as protected freedom of speech, they say, is also saying how immoral Carrie Pragine is for posing with pictures of her underwear with her underwear on.
Now, I agree also that it might not be the best image of one of our Christian spokesmen, if you can call her that.
She claims to be one.
And I certainly agree with her on the gay marriage issue to have these photos surface, but it's just, again, the double standards and the disconnects and the hypocrisy of political correctness really knows no bounds.
The same folks who push pornography as freedom of speech, criticizing her for that, and using this to discredit her, I might add.
We were also talking about the ban that has been put on people like Michael Savage from traveling to the UK.
And what does all this do?
For comments he has made, of course, not for anything he's done illegal, but just for comments he has made, which is very similar to the comments we make and the comments that you all make in the privacy of your own homes.
What does all this do?
The skewering of Carrie Pragine, the expulsion of Michael Savage and some of these other folks from England.
It sends a message and a quite effective message, I might add, that you either go along to get along, you either agree with all of this anti-Christian, perverted, destructive, all of these destructive measures.
You either go along with it and agree with it, or you keep your head down and keep quiet, or else we'll make an example of you.
We'll restrict your travel.
We might make you lose your job.
We'll embarrass you like we've embarrassed Kerry Pragine.
And a lot of people are getting that message loud and clear, and the resistance seems to become more and more weak.
And now, to add insult to injury, you've got your fifth state, Maine.
Five out of 50 states here in the United States, that's 10% if you're doing the math at home, have legalized gay marriage.
Maine's Democratic governor, John Baldace, has signed and passed a bill approving gay marriage, making Maine the fifth state to approve the practice.
But I love, Bill, what I love most about this stuff is how they use what is good about America and apply that as a reason for their depravity.
And they do it in such a way that their handlers craft their speeches in such a way that it's hard for anyone to argue it.
Let me read what he said, Bill, and I'll turn it over to you.
This is what the Maine governor said after basically defending his decision to legalize gay marriage in the state.
Quote, in the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions.
I have come to the belief that this is a question of fairness and equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.
Article 1 in the Maine Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person's civil rights or be discriminated against.
⁇ So, Bill, that's the argument why sodomite marriage had to be made legal in Maine.
What's your take on it?
Well, now you know why Olympia Snow is the senator from the state of Maine, you know, another mannish female in a man's job.
But, you know, it's very simple.
The leaders of Maine don't have the guts to stand up to the homosexual lobby and to the homosexual power empowerment groups.
And the people of Maine apparently aren't interested enough in the future of their children and the future of their schools and in the future of their traditions and their churches to fight against this homosexual onslaught.
So, you know, as far as the individual states go, particularly since all the states so far, most of the states so far that have passed this homosexual marriage business have all been in the Northeast and New England.
So I say good riddance, store up the grapes of wrath and suffer what you may.
And Bill, before you go on, before you go on, I just want to bring forth this trivial fact.
You're talking about how, really unsurprisingly so, New England has become the heart of this sodomite marriage movement.
Now that Maine has passed it, New Hampshire legislators are also posed to pass it.
And if that does in fact happen, Rhode Island would then be the only New England holdout on this issue.
But anyway, I just wanted to infuse that into the commentary here, but continue on.
Well, as I say, you know, these states, you know, as far as I'm concerned, it's simply an outgrowth of the abolition movement.
It's just the metastasization or the abolition movement metastasizing into the cancer that it was 150 years ago for the South.
So as I say, let them store up the grapes of wrath.
They will pay a very heavy and ugly price for this.
But the problem I have is that with the liberal Democrats in charge of the Senate and the Congress, that there is going to be a federal homosexual marriage rights act that comes through this vile government we have in place right now.
This depraved government is going to try to push through something that will try to force the states to adopt gay marriage as well.
And so it's very important right now for all of the states that oppose this agenda to really stand up and really make very, very tough, pass tough resolutions and pass tough bills that will protect their sovereignty in the event that some sort of marriage rights act is passed on the federal level to allow homosexuals to engage in unnatural acts with the approval of their government.
Well, we will certainly continue to see how it develops.
And again, I say all that to say this.
We started off with this is our lead story this evening because Ted Pike will be on during the third hour to give us a very real, real-time, up-to-date report from the front lines of the battle to keep America, America's freedom of speech intact.
But you look around, Bill, and America is the sole holdout of the Western nations, the first world nations that don't have these laws on the books.
And, you know, I guess the simple question is, Bill, for all the people who listen to this program, I guess they feel vulnerable.
Certainly I do at times.
They ask themselves, well, what can we do?
We're going up against a media that is lavishly funded to the extent that we can't even fathom the kind of money.
We're going up against governments.
It seems as though the deck is stacked against us.
What can the average political cesspool listener do to combat this march of evil across our country?
Well, the first thing, of course, and I think we always recommend this, is prayer, earnest prayer, sincere prayer, and repentance.
And then following that, you know, get involved with your churches.
And if you belong to a church, encourage your minister to speak out about this.
And contact your legislators on every level, from local to state government levels, the governor, your state representatives, your state senators, and urge them to defend the rights of heterosexual normal marriage.
But besides that, we have got to organize.
We have got to join organizations like the Council of Conservative Citizens.
Hey, Bill, Bill, we've got to break, and donating to the Political Cesspool wouldn't hurt.
We've got to break more of Bill's prescriptions right after this.
Don't go away.
The Political Cesspool, guys.
We'll be back right after these messages.
On the show and express your opinion in the Political Cesspool, call us toll-free at 1-866-986-6397.
Big girls don't fight.
Big girls don't.
James Edwards and Bill Rowland back here with you on the Political Access Pool Radio Program this Saturday evening, May 9th.
Don't forget to check out our incredible website, thepolitical cesspool.org.
There you'll find our blog, our broadcast archives, and a lot of more goodies pertaining to your favorite political talk radio program.
Again, the site is thepoliticalaccesspool.org.
And don't forget that every story that we comment on on this program, we back up with more detailed references at our blog.
So if you want to do more research about any of the issues we bring to your attention that pique your interest, check us out on the web.
Now, making a seamless transition to our Behind Enemy Lines segment, of course, Behind Enemy Lines is a weekly segment that we're now infusing into the program.
During the first hour of each week, it is co-hosted by our good friend, Political Access Pool correspondent Keith Alexander.
And for the last several years, and the last three years at least, this is the fifth year of our radio program.
And I know for the last three years, Keith has come on at this time of year to talk about what was, to say the least, a very dark day in American history.
That day being May 17th, 1954, the anniversary of this date, obviously, being next week, right around the corner.
That was the day in which the Brown versus Board of Education decision was rendered.
And I'm going to have Keith on now to remind us as to exactly what that decision was, to tell us about what precedents it set, while explaining how, in fact, Brown versus Board of Education was the cornerstone, the foundational block for all of the left-wing radical movements since 1954, all the way up to the current issue we're discussing,
which is the radical agenda of legalizing homosexual sodomite marriage.
So Bill and Keith, Keith, if you would, take it away.
May 17th, 1954, start from the beginning.
Well, quite frankly, May 17th, 1954 was a turning point in American history.
It is the point at which the left, the radical left, discovered the philosopher's stone of political science.
They learned how to govern America without winning elections or persuading legislators.
They learned how to use the power of judicial review to rule by fiat, to, in other words, overrule the will of the majority with impunity through the Supreme Court.
And they always fall back to that as a last-ditch defense against the majority's decision.
For example, what's happening regarding gay marriage is a perfect example.
Conservatives pass one constitutional amendment to their state constitution after another defending traditional marriage and outlawing gay marriage.
And what does the left do?
If they can't pass it legislatively, if they can't persuade some governor to overrule it by executive order, they always hightail it to the courts, a law Brown versus Board of Education, and get some liberal court, usually the Supreme Court of a particular northern state, like Maine or like Vermont or like California or whatever, you know,
the left coast and old New England, to rule that the law outlawing gay marriage is unconstitutional.
This is their favored technique.
This is their tried and true template, and it was established in Brown versus Board of Education.
Well, Keith, you really hit the nail on the head there, and it's important in saying as succinctly as you did why exactly this was such a dangerous decision.
Because if it had not been for Brown versus Board and the dangerous and disastrous president it set, America could very well still resemble, even in this day and age, 2009, could very well still resemble the America that we knew and loved back in the early 1950s because America would have never gone along with all of these Marxist ideas from the 60s and 70s.
Roe versus Wade would have never happened.
I mean, these are things the people would have never voted on this.
Popular opinion, this is supposed to be a constitutional republic.
Some people say a representative democracy.
Whatever the case, the people wouldn't stand for it.
So they, the Marxists, our Zionist friends, you want to, you know, insert your villain there, came up with, as you said, an ingenious way to circumvent all of that.
They'll just rule it from the bench and push down the throat, that which the people don't want, and then use the media to beat it down.
And that's what they've done, and that's what they continue to do.
Well, you know, one of the Supreme Court justices, who was one of the last two holdouts to the Brown decision, to the liberal decision that somehow segregation was outlawed by the 14th Amendment, and I can go into quite a bit of discussion about why that's not the case.
And this was actually argued before the Supreme Court in the Brown decision.
What he said was we have a critarchy now.
A critarchy is an obscure word which means government by judges.
We are now governed by judges.
Have people voting for presidential candidates not based on what they think they can accomplish as president except for the accomplishment of appointing people to the Supreme Court.
You know, that's why there's so much interest every time a Supreme Court vacancy arises because everybody knows that the true power to govern this nation resides in the U.S. Supreme Court, which Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist Paper No. 78 was the weakest and least dangerous branch of the American government, of the proposed American government at that time.
Rarely has one of the founding fathers been so wrong in his assessment of the government.
I say this time and time again, as wise as they were, in no way could a mere mortal back in that era, the 1770s, 1780s, could have ever foreseen a country becoming this wicked.
Bill, what's your take on it?
I mean, obviously, Keith's onto something here with the Brown versus Board being a precedent set and how they continue to use that game plan to force upon the people that which normal Americans, the vast majority of whom agree with us, don't want.
Well, Keith can tell you that the Brown decision was passed by a unanimous vote of the court and that there was a deliberate manipulation of certain justices to make it a unanimous decision.
That is, they felt it very important.
The nine Supreme Court justices felt it very important that this be a unanimous decision in order to discourage any attempt by legislators or other people in other branches of government from trying to overturn that decision through legislative means.
And the fact is that, of course, no one has been ever, there's never been a vote by a popular vote on integration or desegregation or any of the social remedies that the Supreme Court has endorsed.
And truth be known, Bill, I think if there was a popular vote, I think if there was a popular vote on integration today, it would fail overwhelmingly.
Still.
Well, it would be hard to say today, but certainly 55 years ago, it would have been overwhelmingly defeated.
But more importantly, it is that the left, when the left is almost certain that they will either defeat a conservative bill or a conservative ballot initiative, they won't, you know, they'll let it go through.
For instance, the gay marriage initiative in California, the gays thought almost certainly that was not going to pass.
And when it did, they were outraged.
They flew into a rage.
Well, you can almost be certain if they had any idea that that marriage ballot initiative was going to succeed, they would have found a way to swelch it in court.
Well, this is what we're always talking about.
Bill, obviously, Keith coined the phrase here.
Heads we win, tails we lose.
I mean, heads they win, tails we lose, I should say.
If you don't like the outcome at the voting polls, you can just change it if you are liberal.
And that's what they're doing.
I mean, it goes up before the people, it gets shot down, and instead of that being the final word, as it is supposed to be, they found another way around the will of the people until they get what they want.
See, it's all counter-majoritarianism.
You know, the majority's will counts for nothing.
And that's the world, and that's the government that liberals have given America.
And the thing about Brown is that, you know, it's so contrary to anything, any expectation anyone would have had at the time.
You know, Napoleon said God is on the side of the big battalions.
Well, in the 50s in America, conservatives had the big battalions.
White people were 90% of the population, and I guarantee you, probably about that many people, 90% of the population, were inalterably opposed to desegregation in the school.
Set tight, Keith.
We'll pick it up right there in a moment.
Don't go away.
The political cesspool, guys.
We'll be back right after these messages.
We'll return.
Jump in the political cesspool with James and the gang.
Call us tonight at 1-866-986-6397.
And here's the host of the political cesspool, James Edwards.
You know, what other radio program or teaching entity of any kind is giving you this kind of information, connecting the dots, satisfying your curiosity of how in the hell did America get this bad?
Well, that's what we're doing right now in this very segment.
We're telling you, reminding you, you sure as hell haven't heard about it in the last 40 years, the decision about Brown versus Board of Education and how it has been used as the instrument of choice by the Marxists to push all of this down our throat.
And gentlemen, I can see this playing out.
I mean, the crystal ball is right there.
Just as they're going to use the same game plan that they did with Brown versus Board to push integration down everybody's throat and make it the societal norm and acceptable in polite circles.
I can see this.
Of course, this time it'll be much more rapid.
I think the progression will be much more rapid because the media is so much more liberal.
Not to say that the media was on our side, certainly to the contrary, back in the 50s and 60s, but now society in general is just much more liberal.
I think that within a couple of years, every state in America will have legalized gay marriage except for some of the southern states.
And we will be once again maligned as Hicks and Rubes and racists and homophobes, so on and so forth.
And then it'll pass here.
And in 20 years from now, those who fought against it will be spit on, just as our fathers are now being spit on for trying to keep the South protected back during the Civil Rights Era.
So, gentlemen, am I wrong?
Am I being overly pessimistic or negative?
Or is there a way that perhaps we can avert such a sordid future?
Well, I do think that Brown did set the template, like he said, and we're being bludgeoned.
We've kind of been sucked into a black hole of liberalism now, and there's no telling where it will go.
I'm wondering what the next step after gay marriage would be because.
Where do they go from here?
You know, maybe bestiality.
You know, it's, you know, it will be some start with some mainline, maybe Episcopal preacher or congregationalist preacher saying, I now pronounce you mane and sheep.
Well, you know, as ridiculous as that sounds, it was no more ridiculous than the gay marriage issue was back in, you know, 40, 50 years ago.
No more ridiculous than integration was 50 years before that.
So sure, it can get worse, and it will, and it'll get worse beyond our imagination, I'm sure.
It's radical egalitarianism.
That's what drives the left.
And, you know, we've already talked about people, you know, plants and animals being the equal of people in environmentalism.
Well, no, Keith, you're wrong about that.
Plants and animals are said that they're more valuable than people.
They deserve more, particularly European Americans.
Hell, we don't say, we're nothing compared to a tree.
Yeah, it's just, you know, the thing about the Brown decision was that it was so blatantly extra-legal.
There was no legal precedent for the decision.
The NAACP and its Jewish lawyer contingent tried to argue that the legislative history of the 14th Amendment foresaw the end of segregation, but that's blatantly a lie is John Davis of the Davis Polk Wardwell law firm in New York who argued this case, the last of 140 cases he argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of the segregationists.
He said that the 14th Amendment was passed by the 39th Congress and that Congress also passed a law establishing segregated public schools in the District of Columbia in that same session of Congress.
See, Congress used to directly govern the District of Columbia.
They didn't have any mayors like Marion Berry back then.
Congress governed them.
And why would this Congress imply that there was some type of rule against desegregation hidden in the 14th Amendment when they took the express action of segregating the school system, the newly founded public school system in the District of Columbia at that time?
So there's no constitutional basis for the decision.
I want to hold you up right there because if I don't, I'll forget my thought here.
I mean, this is just another reason.
One of the reasons we continued to lose is because the leadership, and I say that in italics with quotations on both sides, the leadership of the traditional marriage debate, you know, impotent sissy boys like Rick Warren, that's one thing.
But then you've got, look, one of the big organizations in Washington, D.C. that is that's fighting for traditional marriage invited Marion Berry himself to be a speaker at this event.
Now, I mean, do we even want to win?
Well, you know, he's a conservative now compared to how far to the left the rest of those people have moved.
He was one of the, I think he was the only vote in the District of Columbia to not have gay marriage recently.
I think I read that recently, which was astounding.
But nonetheless, you know, when we move so far to the left, that Marion Berry is a conservative, then we know we've got problems, people.
Well, and this is, you know, and Bill came up with, I guess, the most practical and at this time, unfortunately, the most plausible solution that we can offer.
And it's, you know, folks, come on.
Listen, at least, look, if you're on our side on this debate, and I know you are, join your churches.
Don't let these churches are so weak now.
Everybody wants to be in the in crowd, it seems, including those, I mean, America as Time or Newsweek, I can't remember which one it was.
One of those filth publications.
You know, this is almost a post-Christian America we're living in, and the church is becoming so weak and even defending its most basic theological doctrines now.
As Bill said a few minutes ago, join your church and make sure they hold the line on this issue, if nothing else.
Join organizations like the Council of Conservative Citizens who are fighting and have a track record of success in defending traditional values and actually winning battles.
Obviously, organizations like our radio program support this radio program.
The church doesn't support you on this, James.
What's that?
I said, if your church does not support you, if your minister, for example, says something like Rick Warren is going to support this, then you keep your purse shut.
I've heard before it said that the only sound a liberal respects is the sound of a closing purse.
Stop giving them money.
Stop supporting these groups that will not support you and will not support Christianity as it's been understood for the past two millennia.
And more importantly than that, more importantly than withholding your financial assistance to these organizations who are supposed to be holding the line, find out whether they are or not.
And if they're not, more importantly than quit giving them money, give money to the people who are out there fighting, who are enduring the scars and the tribulations that come with living a life on the front lines.
As I said, organizations like the CFCC and this radio program and the other fine sponsors that you can find on our website at thepolitical cesspool.org.
There are some out there.
I think across America, you could probably count the organizations that are worth their weight and salt on your fingers and toes, but support those very few organizations that we have before they too are gone.
And it costs money to stay alive in this world.
Well, you know, we're going to talk about Brown next week as well because it's going to be, I think.
Yeah, actually, next Saturday will be the day before the Brown decision.
So we will continue this in a part two.
I know we're getting short on time with Keith today.
When we go back behind enemy lines next week, we will continue this in a part two of our expose on Brown versus Board of Education.
But Keith, with that being said, and I don't mean to interrupt you, what are we going to be talking about next week?
Well, we're going to talk about the particulars of the duplicity and the dishonesty that was engaged in by Justice Felix Frankfurter, another good son of Israel, and a died-in-the-wool liberal, and his kind of law clerk for life, Philip Ellman, another son of Israel, who had been a law clerk for Frankfurter back in the 40s and had worked for the Solicitor General's office of the United States.
And the two of them basically had this ex parte dialogue going outside of the court about how to craft the opinion or the briefs of the U.S. Solicitor General's office, which came in in support of the Brown decision or the position that eventually became the Brown decision and helping the NAACP.
And of course, the other side, the segregationist side and the side of John W. Davis, had no access to this inside information.
That's one thing.
And secondly, we need to talk about, look at the horrendous consequences on America.
Look at the destruction of cities.
Look at the destruction of public education that has resulted from this arrogant and dishonest decision.
Well, you know, folks, again, this proves why this show is so valuable.
We talk about these issues.
We do it in a very professional way.
We don't certainly try to alienate or offend anyone, but by God, there ought to be one radio show out there that is speaking very bluntly, candidly, about these issues, and we're not going to bend an inch.
We're out of time for this segment.
When we come back at the top of the second hour, Bill Rowland and I are going to let you know that the Knights of Columbus have now also been designated a hate group.
You'll find out why in the second hour.
You can probably figure it out.
But Keith Alexander, my friend, thank you so much for coming on and shedding some light on this subject.
Again, folks, if you want to understand how America has devolved to the point where we would now entertain something as horrific as gay marriage, look back to 1954, May 17th of that year, Brown versus Board of Education.
That's what paved the way for all of this sense, including this issue we're embroiled in now.
Keith, we look forward to going behind enemy lines with you next week.
We'll see you then.
We'll be back in the second hour right after the national news.
The political cesspool comes your way right after these messages.
Harve leaped to his feet and said, Some's got a hold on me.
Yeah!
The day the squirrel went berserk in the first Self-British church in that sleeping little town of Pastagooma.
It was a fight for survival that folk got in revival.
They were jumping views and shouting, Hallelujah!
Well, Harve hit the aisles dancing and screaming.
Some thought he had religion, others thought he had a demon.
And Harve thought he had a weed eater loose in his fruitless blooms.
He fell to his knees to plead and beg, and the squirrel ran out of his britch's leg, unobserved, to the other side of the room.