Jan. 30, 2010 - The Political Cesspool - James Edwards
43:35
20100130_Hour_1
|
Time
Text
Welcome to the Political Cesspool, known across the South and worldwide as the South's foremost populous conservative radio program.
Here to guide you through the murky waters of the political cesspool is your host for tonight, James Edwards.
Welcome to the Political Cesspool, the free, white, and number one Patriot radio show broadcast live coast to coast, poll to poll, here, there, and everywhere.
I am Bill Rowland, the bargain brand co-host of the Political Cesspool, standing in tonight for the premium brand, James Edwards, who had some social commitments, and we wish him well, as always.
And as always, joining us tonight for the first hour is Keith Alexander.
But in the second hour, our guest will be the always popular filmmaker Craig Bottaker, who will be talking about his latest projects.
And in the third hour of the political cesspool, none other than the intrepid, intellectual, and always interesting Jared Taylor of American Renaissance.
Keith, are you on board with us?
I'm with you.
Great to have you back in the Attila-Hun chair, my friend.
Well, it's great to be back.
I have on my big furry hat and I'm carrying my spear.
And so we're ready to attack all of the enemies of our people and to really plunge one through political correctness and the liberal establishment.
Keith, you know, the first hour, as I said, we were talking earlier, is really yours.
What have you got for us tonight?
Several things.
First of all, I'd like to talk about the State of the Union Address that happened this week.
Of course, President Obama gave this his annual State of the Union Address, which all presidents do.
It was on January the 27th this year.
But I have been doing a little bit of research, and it is really absolutely incredible when you consider, when you compare the American President's State of the Union Address with the Israeli President's State of the Union Address, which recently occurred also.
That's Benjamin Netanyahu.
And let me just share you a little bit of, you know, contrast on this.
First of all, Obama didn't use the charged word amnesty at all, but it was obvious for the few words that he said about illegal immigration that he's on the wrong side, that he wants to open the floodgates.
He wants to grant amnesty to the people that are already here.
And he wants all of these third worlders coming into America, particularly from Haiti, because he knows they're going to be natural-born Democrats wanting the party of more and more federal governmental benefits.
And of course, the Republicans can't match that without giving up any pretense of being conservative in the least.
Of course, many Republicans do want them in for different reasons.
They want them in because they're the big business party and they want cheap labor.
But let me share with you just for a moment a few of the comments made by Benjamin Netanyahu about illegal immigration to the state of Israel.
He said, we suffer from a problem that actually stems from our Israel's economic success.
We have become almost the only first world country that can be reached by foot from the third world.
We are flooded with surges of refugees who threaten to wash away our achievements and damage our existence as a democratic state.
Anyone walking around Jerusalem today can see this wave and the change it is creating with their own eyes.
They are causing socioeconomic and cultural damage and threaten to take us back down to the level of the third world.
They take jobs from the weakest of our citizens.
What do you think about that, Bill?
Well, I think that, first of all, the Haitians are the textbook examples of a third world population, of a ne'er-do-well third world population.
And clearly, this latest catastrophe in Haiti illustrates to anyone who's watching that Haiti is incapable of governing itself, which means Haitians are incapable of government, incapable of being governed, incapable of creating a government, an effective government.
Well, it's just what I mean.
I think that the English leader James says you can't have a first world nation with a third world population.
And if there is ever a nation with a third world population, it's Haiti.
And of course, that's by design.
That was intentional back in Toussaint L'Overture's slave rebellion back in 1803.
They killed all of the white people or ran them off.
And, you know, the irony of Obama's support for the state of Haiti is that if he had been alive back in 1804, he would have eventually been killed also because after killing all the whites, the next step was to kill all the mulattoes, all the mixed breed people on the island.
So, you know, it's absolutely incredible that we have this support for them.
But, you know, we have problems beyond Haitians, the Mexicans, the people from Central America, the African immigrants from Somalia and everything else that are being sent over here all the time.
I don't think Benjamin Netanyahu is opening wide the doors in Israel for those same type of people, but ironically, here in America, who is at the forefront of lobbying for open borders and for third world immigration to America?
None other than the Jewish population and the Jewish power structure in America.
This brings up, let me get back to Netanyahu for a minute and the double standard here.
Obviously, many of the Jewish organizations in this country are simply organs of the Israeli state.
They are here to lobby for Israel, to ensure the best interest of Israel, to pursue foreign policies favorable to Israel.
This is exactly the country that I want.
I want a country just like Israel, one that is racially conscious and is aware that heritage does in fact equal standard of living.
That is, a first world population gives you a first world country.
And the fact is that Israelis are not Middle Easterners.
They're not in any way, a sense, a product of the Middle East.
They're Europeans.
They're European in the way they govern themselves.
They're European economically.
They're Europeans in their philosophies and viewpoints.
Perhaps Jewish Europeans, but Europeans nonetheless.
And so they are the perfect example, textbook example, of a first world nation thriving because of their ethnic awareness and their ethnic purity laws and their ethnic protection laws that protect Jews against all these other ethnic groups.
They are the perfect example of a thriving first world country amidst third world conditions.
So here we have two examples.
One proves the rule, and one is the sort of, you know, gives, they're sort of the yin and yang of civilizations.
Israel on one hand, thriving in a third world environment, Haiti, Haiti on the other hand, failing, you know, in what would otherwise be perfect tropical conditions for agriculture and, you know, a high standard of living, as it once had when it was under French rule.
So both these countries illustrate where to go and where we should not be going.
And clearly, we should not be bringing these Haitians into this country because they're only going to lower the standard of living.
We should be, I think, following the model of Israel and saying, you know what, the indigenous population of this country is now white European.
Just as Palestinians were once the indigenous population of Israel, but were driven out by force.
The Americans who are of European descent, yes, we drove the Indians out, but we're now the population that has created the high standard of living, and we should regulate that and not be regulated by third world pity packages.
Well, you know, both of these nations, Israel and America, show that basically there is a, you know, that the white race is a blessing as far as raising the standard of living generally.
It may not be a blessing to the people that were displaced initially, but, you know, it's so amazing to me that you have this Jewish disconnect.
You know, it's like the left-hand side of the brain doesn't know what the right is doing.
When Jews are the majority in a nation, they're the most racially aware and have the highest sense of racial solidarity anywhere, and they enforce an extremely conservative immigration policy on their nation.
And they do so without any type of apology whatsoever.
But in America and in every other nation, quite frankly, in which they're a minority, they work as a corrosive influence to try to undermine the majority racial and ethnic stock of the nation by doing things like encouraging third world immigration.
You know, what's going on here, Bill?
Keith, we're coming up on a break.
So we'll pick up this conversation on the other side of the break.
And in the meantime, I want to welcome KOHI in Portland, Oregon to our listening audience.
We're glad to have you.
And we'll be back right after this.
Don't go away.
The political cesspool, guys.
We'll be back right after these messages.
Jump in, the political says, pool with James and the game.
Call us tonight at 1-866-986-6397.
And here's the host of the Political Cesspool, James Edwards.
Hello, this is Bill Rowland, the co-host of the Political Cesspool, welcoming you back to the show.
And I am on, as always in the first hour, with Keith Alexander, and we're discussing Israel, immigration, and the double standard between how Israel handles immigration versus the United States immigration policies and practices.
Keith, go ahead, pick up where we left off, you know, concerning Israel and the United States and how Israel does not want a third world population stampeding their country and set up methods and set up security against that.
Whereas the United States, we just throw open the borders to Haitian immigrants, to anybody, and say, no, you're all Americans once you can sneak across our border and take advantage of our welfare system.
Well, you know, Israel not only doesn't want third world immigrants.
Yes.
You there?
I'm here.
Can you hear me?
I can hear you.
Yeah, I was saying that Israel not only doesn't want third world immigrants, they don't want first world immigrants.
You and I could not immigrate to the state of Israel because we're not Jews and we couldn't own real property in the state of Israel.
But in particular, in regard to third world immigrants, here's another quote from Benjamin Netanyahu's Israeli State of the Union Address.
He said very pointedly, infiltrators, that would be illegal immigrants, cause cultural, social, and economic damage, and they pull us towards the third world.
And isn't it ironic?
In fact, you might even call it rank hypocrisy that all of the Jewish lobbies in America, if, can you imagine an American president making a statement like that?
I mean, the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, of B'nai Brith, the ACLU, APAC, the American Israeli Political Action Committee, every one of these Jewish lobbies would be in high dudgeon calling for the head of that president.
But in Israel, they take, surprisingly, a totally different tack.
And I think that speaks volumes about why people need to be aware of Jewish power and influence in American politics.
And they can see that there's obviously some type of duplicity going on, or else loyal American Jews would be making the same recommendations for the United States that loyal Israeli Jews make for the state of Israel.
What do you think?
Okay, well, we're having a little bit of trouble getting through to Bill on this, so let's just leave it at that, that the State of the Union address between Israel and the United States is a real marked study and contrast.
Now, it's interesting also that Nicholas Sarkozy, the prime minister or premier of France, recently made a comment on, I guess you would call it, the integration and third world immigration to France, in which he stated that these third world immigrants to the state of France,
that the original French stock not only has to step aside and grant affirmative action to them, he actually said they need to interbreed with each other and blend them into the fabric of the French nation.
Now, of course, Nicholas Sarkozy, surprise again, is also of Jewish origins.
His ancestors were Hungarian Jews, and his parents emigrated to France.
And he's supposed to be the conservative alternative in the state of France.
If he's a conservative, I would hate to see who was, you know, who is going to represent the liberal side of the equation in France.
But Again, do you think that Sarkozy would be making those type of comments were he the prime minister of Israel?
And my answer to that is, of course not.
You know, you've got to understand this double standard when it comes to Jewish power and influence in politics, in American politics, European politics, and across the board.
And studying the comments of President Obama in his State of the Union address compared to Benjamin Netanyahu's statements in the State of the Union address for Israel is,
you know, if that doesn't show you that there is the only thing that's consistent about this is resort to that old principle that has been mentioned numerous times as being the guiding light for Jewish politicians and Jewish interests generally.
Everything is measured by the standard, but is it good for the Jews?
And if it's good for the Jews, it's good for the Jews to keep third worlders out of a majority Jewish, Jewish-run nation, then any nation in which Jews are not the majority, it is not good for the Jews to keep out ethnic strangers or ethnic minorities because they want to weaken the basic racial stock,
the dominant racial stock of the nation they find themselves in.
Well, now, Keith, the important factor here is that Sarkozy is the first non-French president of France.
Completely non-French, non-Christian.
And here, Obama is the first non-American president of America.
I think I'm safe in saying that.
I don't care what the birth documents say.
He's simply not an American.
He wasn't even raised in America in any significant way.
So once again, they have nothing to lose by being hostile to the nation that essentially has put them in their position of power because they have no ethnic ties to these countries at all.
It's the Babylon syndrome.
What these people do is create confusions in the countries where they are not ethnically part of the history, the culture, or the race of the nation.
I've noticed that the Jewish commentators don't ever seem to have much sympathy for the founding fathers of the United States of America.
And I used to be puzzled by this until it occurred to me that none of the founding fathers were Jewish.
So not only do they not have respect, but they have to tear down the founding fathers because they don't want any archetypes or a pantheon of people for whom you can copy, emulate, or, in fact, even sympathize.
You have no sympathy for people who are strangers.
You really have no immediate connection with those people.
So they're trying to break that connection.
Now, I'm going to predict that in France, the new villain of France who will be gradually deconstructed and whose memory will be torn down is going to be Charles Martel.
And Charles Martel is eventually going to be stricken from all mention in French history, and he is going to be consigned to the junk heap of memory.
So, you know, it'd be Charles Martel, just as it has been George Washington, who is just a slaveholder.
You know, he's primarily remembered now as a slave-holding president.
Thomas Jefferson, who still has that lurid rumor circulating about him and his slave, his former, his slave, Sally Hemmings.
This is the kind of thing.
It's deconstructing the real heroes of a country who are part and parcel and are connected with the ethnic identity of that country.
So you know, the Sally Hemings thing, I think, has been pretty thoroughly debunked by now.
But it still floats around.
I know, but let us just say for the benefit of the listening audience, Thomas Jefferson had a retarded brother who, or at the very least, you would call him slow, who used to, as they would say today, chill out down in the slave quarters.
Yeah, I think it's a good question.
And of course, then his brother, he'd have the exact same genetic pattern as Thomas Jefferson.
So consequently, they think that if there is any Jefferson Jeans and Sally Hemmings ancestors, it's from that retarded brother and not Thomas Jefferson.
Okay, we're at a break.
Be back in a minute.
Don't go away.
The Political Cesspool, guys, will 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.
We gotta get out of this place.
If it's the last thing we ever do, we gotta get it out.
And welcome back to the Political Cesspool.
I'm Bill Rowland, standing in tonight for James Edwards.
And as always, in the first hour, joining me tonight is Keith Alexander, and we've been covering some interesting topics.
We're into the second half hour now of the first hour.
And Keith, you had mentioned over the break, I think we pretty well covered Israel and the United States and immigration policy.
But you mentioned during the break about the lower IQs of presidential candidates.
I guess in probably the last half century, the drop in IQ among those seeking the presidency.
What's up with that?
Well, you know, it's particularly evident if you look behind, you know, the facade in the last several presidential elections.
You know, that SAT scores, scholastic aptitude test scores for getting into college, are very closely correlated to IQ.
That's why a lot of employers who are prevented by the EEOC from inquiring directly into IQ make such a big point about where people went to college.
For example, you can't get a job like Paul Wolfowitz's or Douglas Fife at Richard Pearl's as a key presidential advisor if you went to a place like, let's say, University of Iowa or the University of Mississippi or the University of Nevada, even if you have a stratospheric IQ because these schools are basically substitutes for the IQ inquiry.
And that's why you find that all of these top people went to places like the University of Chicago, Harvard, Yale, or whatever.
But then I was really startled in the run-up to the 2000 election when I read an article in U.S. News and World Report that was comparing Gore, Al Gore, and George W. Bush and their scholastic records.
George W. Bush got into Yale with a 1046 on the SAT, if you can believe it.
And on the other hand, you know, it's no better on the other side.
Al Gore, you know, the so-called, or the supposed genius behind global warming theorizing, the winner of the Nobel Prize, he got into Harvard with a 1041 on the SAT.
Now, Bill, not to brag, but you and I had at least 200 points higher on the SAT than either of these characters.
In fact, between 200 and 300.
Yet we never even considered ourselves to be remotely candidates for Harvard or Yale.
And there was so much flap about that U.S. News and World Report article in the run-up to the 2000 presidential election that all the presidential candidates thereafter hid this information.
But we know now, for example, that John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for president against George W. Bush in 2004, had an even lower IQ than George W. Bush because he scored lower on the U.S. military aptitude test, which is given to officer candidates.
And of course, both were officer candidates.
And then Obama has totally sealed off any inquiry into his academic records or his standardized test scores.
But it is kind of surprising that, you know, one thing they always point out about Obama is that he was editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review.
But he's also the only editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review that never published an article or note or anything else in the Harvard Law Review.
So that tends to raise suspicions together with that, you know, hermetically sealed approach they're taking to all of his records.
And this has led me to thinking, why are they using people like this?
Why are they considered presidential timber when people like you and I, for example, that are obviously considerably smarter based on SAT scores than these cats, you know, would never be considered.
And, you know, I'm beginning to see a pattern, and I hate to be this cynical, but I think they want presidents, Bill, that can't chew their own food.
In other words, they can't come to conclusions.
They can't get raw information in and draw sound conclusions from it.
So they're totally dependent on what they called in the 20s and 30s the technocrats, the government experts, the Wolfowitzes, the Feist, the Axelrods, the Rahm Emanuels, and people like this to cherry pick and stovepipe information and lead them in the direction that the people that are really in charge want them to go in.
What do you think?
Well, Keith, I wrote an editorial in the Citizens Informer in the December, the October through December issue.
And I pointed out that liberal academics and liberal sociologists who now have declared race a social construct overlook the fact that the real social construct is an Ivy League pedigree.
That this has obviously been built up in the minds of Americans to be the ultimate education, to be the almost the passage into the priesthood of American politics.
And yet, of course, it's now simply a pipeline for people of wealthy backgrounds who have wealthy patrons and wealthy sponsors to really fire them through the system and get them into politics.
And that's clearly true of Obama and certainly was true of George Bush.
And Al Gore and John's, Paris Hilton got into Princeton for crying out loud.
How dumb is she?
Well, exactly.
And compare that with a man like Woodrow Wilson, who was a professor at Princeton when it truly was an exclusive university.
And of course, Wilson, in many aspects of his beliefs, was very much an unreconstructed Southerner.
And at one time, that Harvard, Yale, Princeton Ivy League education really mattered in terms of accomplishment and intellect.
But now, of course, it's simply a temple.
It's a validation process.
It's something that they can put on you that may or may not be deserved and very often is not deserved.
Wouldn't you say that, Bill?
Absolutely.
And, of course, I think eventually the time is going to come when the parties will reject any candidate who is not a graduate of Princeton, Yale, Harvard, or on the other hand, of one of the California universities, University of California or Berkeley, one of those.
Or Stanford or something like that.
Or Stanford.
Right.
So it's going to be an East Coast, West Coast.
And flyover states need not apply.
You know, that's kind of, you know, it appears to me that probably the best rule for a truly conservative president would be to have a moratorium on hiring anyone from any of those, either Stanford, Berkeley, University of Chicago.
or the Ivy League colleges for about 30 years.
That would be one of the best things we could do because everybody I know, for example, that has gone to a place like Harvard and Yale from where we live is either black or Jewish.
And of the few Gentiles that go, they are sent up there and sent back specifically for the purpose of being change agents.
Somebody like Bob Cayat, the former chancellor of the University of Mississippi, who got rid of all the Confederate symbols associated with the University of Mississippi, is a perfect example of there's a guy named Lying Wiseman who is the head of the Shelby County Republican Party who is intent upon forcing diversity on the Republican Party here locally,
again from Harvard, again, undoubtedly a change agent sent down like a Manchurian candidate basically to transform the benighted outlook of the people in Red State America.
And of course, for those who show promise as liberal politicians or establishment lackeys, if they don't actually come from an Ivy League college, there's always a Rhodes Scholarship to push them through the pipeline, to push them into the establishment.
And again, at Old Miss, a number of years ago, there was a student Senate leader.
His last name escapes me right now.
But he, after opposing all the Confederate symbols and standing up to tradition and wanting to get rid of the Confederate symbols and mascots, was miraculously awarded a Rhodes Scholarship for his efforts, even though I don't think his intellectual and academic accomplishments reflected his abilities.
So clearly, there is always an alternative to a Ivy League education if you really show promise as an establishment, You know, as a liberal apparatchik.
A liberal apparatchi.
We're coming up on a break.
We invite you back again for the remaining time of this half hour with Keith Alexander.
And after that, Greg Potter.
Don't go away.
The political cesspool, guys.
We'll be back 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.
You're back on The Political Cesspool with Bill Rowland and my co-host tonight, Keith Alexander, always joining us in the first hour.
Keith, I want to get your opinion on this reappointment by the Senate of Ben Bernanke, the notorious Fed chief who is blamed at least in part for the economic meltdown.
And yet, while millions of Americans are losing their jobs and there is widespread unemployment and underemployment in this country, somehow Ben Bernanke manages to keep his job thanks to 70 senators who apparently approve of his rather poor performance.
Very suspicious.
And of course, I've noticed this again.
It's like the Norman Minetta appointment that was originally made under Clinton and then carried over into the Bush administration.
And then you have Bernanke, who was originally appointed by George W. Bush, who is kept around by the Obama administration.
It reminds me of that song by the Who, Here Comes the New Boss, Just Like the Old Boss.
And it would seem to suggest that there's a ruling cabal in America that is, you know, not really any different from each other, and that these people, the same people, continue to govern regardless of who wins the election.
What do you think?
Oh, exactly.
They're, in fact, bulletproof, apparently, no matter how bad the country goes, economically, socially, morally, culturally, any, you know, there's nothing that prevents these people from keeping their jobs.
And of course, before him, you know, just more of the same.
But Bernanke is particularly onerous to me, as I say, because we're in the midst of an economic crisis.
He's clearly part of the problem, and yet he keeps his job.
And it's interesting to note that I looked at the statistics on the votes and how they were taken.
And 17 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted against Bernanke's reappointment.
The 17 most conservative Republicans and 13 of the most liberal Democrats.
So, you know, there must have been some sort of concern at both ends of the spectrum, the political spectrum, about Bernanke's reappointment.
Yet he breezes through.
And I want to make this clear.
The two senators from the state of Tennessee voted to reappoint Bernanke without polling their constituents, without asking for any opinions on the subject.
They just rubber-stamped his reappointment.
And I'm going to tell you, that's Bob Corker and that's Lamar Alexander simply, you know, treading water as part of the establishment in politics.
And I'm going to say right now, I won't support either one of them for re-election.
I don't care who runs against them.
It doesn't matter.
They need to go.
They fail their constituency.
And, you know, we need a revolution as far as these elections go.
If Massachusetts can get rid of Kennedy's seat and hand it over to a Republican, we can certainly do better than Bob Corker or Lamar Alexander, who are completely out of touch with their constituents.
Well, it seems to me that there's an establishment conspiracy against the independent thinkers at both ends of the spectrum, both the left and the right in America, and that there's something going on that is not being acknowledged.
You know, perhaps George Wallace is right when he said there's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.
He said that in 68, and if anything, that comment has become truer and truer over time.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is about both Minetta and Bernanke that makes them bulletproof, makes them apparently acceptable to the cabal that's really governing America.
And, you know, trying to unravel that ball of yarn is really a conundrum, at least for us.
And I know, though, that there's more to this than meets the eye.
What do you think?
Well, I think you're certainly right there's more to this that meets the eye.
But whatever it is, it's never going to meet the eye because it's all inside politics.
It's all inside the offices and inside the planning rooms and the war rooms of Washington, D.C.
So we're never going to be given that privilege and extra information.
However, I do think it's interesting that Bob Kerry has actually mentioned and raised the possibility of Martin Luther King's public record or the records held by Congress on Martin Luther King being open to the public.
Now, to me, that's an eye-opener because you and I know, Keith, there's a lot in that public record about Martin Luther King that was sealed that Loretta Scott King herself said would ruin his reputation.
I wonder if we're going to get the full record or only the record that has been cherry-picked by the government.
Now, was that Bob Kerry or John Kerry that did that?
I thought it was John Kerry.
John Kerry, I'm sorry, John Kerry.
But nonetheless, you know, that would be incredible.
And I would say, you know, bring it on because we obviously, we know that there is something in that record so radioactive that a federal judge sealed them until I think it's the year 2023 or 2025 or something like that.
And if that had been disclosed, remember this was at the time that they were considering under the Reagan administration making Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday.
It's pretty obvious that that movement for a king national holiday would never have borne fruit if the information in that FBI file had come out.
You know, we know what a lot of that stuff is, but it's like when they opened the records of the Sovereignty Commission, the Segregationist Sovereignty Commission in the state of Mississippi, all the liberals were jumping up and down with glee, thinking they were going to get all sorts of information that was going to lead to the indictment, arrest, and prosecution and conviction of a lot of segregationists or former segregationists.
Instead, the silence was almost deafening because much of that information showed that a lot of these civil rights leaders were ratting one another out to the FBI in return for payments and money.
Including Medgar Evers' brother.
Yeah, exactly.
You know, this type of stuff, you know, we're all four light.
You know, when they say give light and the people will find their own way, we'd love for that to come out.
But quite frankly, if it was opened, the mainstream media would do their very best to bury the information because the information is not complimentary to Martin Luther King.
Well, certainly the media would not count on the ordinary public going after that information and delving deeply into those files.
I think that they suppose that the very volume of information would prevent much scrutiny or much research.
But I think now that the internet is here, that that information would come out much more quickly and get a much bigger audience than the establishment media believes.
You know, they managed to certainly kill much of what was in the sovereignty commission files simply by ignoring those files.
And you actually have to do some pretty good research to find out anything in the sovereignty commission files.
And I think the King files will be treated the same way.
It's going to take an intrepid researcher to really dig up everything that needs to be known about King.
But it will come out.
And certainly, when it comes out, and if it comes out, you'll hear it on this show if we're all still around when those records are revealed.
Yeah, well, I tell you what, this goes to prove, this is more proof of John Kerry's low IQ that we were talking about earlier if he's really proposing this because he is going to be opening a bombshell.
You know, Keith, I think it just comes down to this, that they don't believe that there's anything so bad about what the government could say or what the government would reveal about Martin Luther King that would destroy him as an idol, as a false idol.
I think he's too divine.
Republicans and Democrats both quote Martin Luther King as if they were quoting the gospel.
The pun watching has been complete, obviously, and they no longer fear independent thought because they basically have done their best through the debasement of public education to make independent thought extremely unlikely on the part of much of the American public.
This is true.
And so I really don't think they're too concerned about the fact that Martin Luther King was a plagiarist, a philanderer, and a regular client to prostitutes and who was really a Marxist who never believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, or the resurrection.
He described himself as a Marxist, and his associates described him as a Marxist, but that's irrelevant because he's got that REV in front of his name and he appropriated the title of doctor.
So he's got all of the false credentials to set him up as an idol.
This is the gilding on the, you know, on the false idol.
And so, you know, they just feel like he cannot be reduced in stature.
And, of course, we might hold up the documents and say, we told you so, we told you so.
And people will just shrug and say, so what?
He was Martin Luther King.
You know, he's the national God of the United States.
He's the divine, the deity of this country.
And they just think it's not going to matter.
You know, the Republican Party, which ought to be leading the charge to unmask this false idol, are, of course, totally worthless for that task.
It seemed to have reduced him totally to one little sound bite, which is he believes that he looks for, yearns for the day when his children will be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
And we're at the end of this.
Mars of information has come out, for example, that he believed he was a radical socialist at the very least.
Well, through the next hour, Keith Potter, thank you to Keith Alex Fenton.
Thank you, Bill.
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 fruit of the balloons.
He fell to his knees to plead and beg, and the squirrel ran out of his britches' leg unobserved to the other side of the room.