Is Tancredo a Racist or Are His Critics More Stupid Than We Thought?

By Bob Ellis on February 5th, 2010

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

Liberals and statists will do anything to discredit the rebirth of traditional American values we’ve seen over the last year in the Tea Party movement.

Like a bunch of bratty, undisciplined teenagers, they’ve become addicted to calling Americans who understand and cherish our heritage of freedom by a slur describing an obscene homosexual practice.

Another of their favorite whines is to call people in the Tea Party movement “racists” even though the charge has no basis whatsoever in fact.

The latest incident of this Leftist smear comes from the National Tea Party Convention being held in Nashville.  One of the speakers was former congressman Tom Tancredo who is best known for his advocacy of border and immigration sanity.

One of the things they take issue with in Tancredo’s speech was that he a called President Barack Obama “committed Socialist ideologue”  (which he is) who was elected because “we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote.”

Now, any reasonable person would understand that Tancredo is talking about the abominable and demonstrated ignorance of the majority that elected a man who is clearly at odds with almost every American value and the key tenets of our Constitution.  In study after study after study, the mind-bending ignorance of so many in our country is demonstrated.

A vote is a powerful thing; it shouldn’t be too much to ask that a person be literate about American history and government before exercising it.  We require people demonstrate proficiency in driving knowledge before we allow them to have a driver’s license; someone could be hurt or killed without such safeguards.  When it comes to the awesome power of the government to tax, seize property, to incarcerate and to execute (as often happens in various countries around the world), the possibility for injury from carelessly wielded votes is as great or greater.

So was this what got liberals upset over what Tancredo said?  That might be a good guess, since liberals are a pretty ignorant lot.  But no.

From the New York Daily News:

The literacy tests he pined for were once used in the South to keep blacks from voting.

Sure, that’s all it was.  Tancredo is just a drooling racist.  It has nothing to do with the fact that a terrifying number of Americans are as dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to their own country. He’s just a racist for expecting our national borders be respected and that people not break the law in coming her and staying here.  Tancredo is such a bigot for expecting free Americans not to vote for a candidate who made it clear before and during the campaign that he stood at odds with almost every major principle of American values. How racist of him!

If you’re like me, you’re left with two possible conclusions about what this drivel says about liberals: they either know the difference and are intentionally seeking to deceive, or they’re really too stupid to make the connection I just laid out.

There is considerable evidence to support both conclusions, and if you’re like me, you’re never sure which it is, from day to day…

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: , , , , , ,

  • colindcrowe
    One can be for strong borders and reduced immigration without being a xenophobe or a racist, but don't defend Tancredo. Just don't. I disagree with what you write a great deal, but often you make an excellent argument. That is not the case here. Tancredo is a racist scumbag. I don't think that these comments prove him a racist, but his words and actions for the past two decades sure do. Check out his activities with the YWC.
  • You are completely wrong that the zombie voters who elected Barack Obama couldn't have known on Election day what massive measures Obama would propose when the economy collapsed. I wrote article after article after article after article after article after article (and this isn't even my paying job) that made it abundantly clear that Barack Obama was a Marxist--and he all but used the world about himself when he described his opinions on America, government, the economy, freedom, etc. And there were countless other sources of information more influential than I that were doing the same.

    I don't care "how he presented himself;" anyone who takes a politician's word for what they believe without looking beyond their platitudes is the epitome of an Obama zombie voter. The evidence was so plain and so easy to find, one had to be sickeningly ignorant to miss it.


    And if one is that ignorant and tuned out to current events, one is probably just as ignorant about our nation's heritage and history, because it is one of fighting such oppressive philosophies from Colonial days all the way through the Reagan presidency and somewhat beyond.

    The liberal education establishment and the "mainstream" media will certainly do nothing to help educate Obama zombie voters (they like zombie voters--they'll fall for any flashy face or easy promise), but informed Americans need to be ever-aware of our duty to educate the ignorant among us--and Tancredo admonishes us to do that.

    That is why I often say the same thing over and over and over at Dakota Voice--you never know when an ignorant soul may wander by and get enlightened...and some need repeated exposure to the truth before the light will come on.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob

    I listened to Tancreedo's speech and he later said that people who could not say the word 'vote' in English much less spell it, were the ones who helped get Obama elected. Is he forgetting the millions of immigrants who came through Ellis Island and couldn't spell either, but were given citizenship and welcomed to our country.

    We have had two first generation immigrants work for us who are struggling to understand our ways, but their children are assimilating.I know- I have met them and taken an interest in them.When Tancreedo talks about those unable to spell, he is dissing not only our new immigrants( the legal ones ) but the ones who came to Ellis Island.
  • He's talking about the ones who don't give a flying flip about assimilating.

    In past generations, immigrants worked hard to assimilate both the American way and the English language. They didn't become fluent in English overnight, but they quickly developed a working knowledge of the language.

    Unfortunately today we have immigrants (legal or illegal) who've lived here for years without making any serious effort to learn our language or adopt our ways.

    And Tancredo is also talking about the zombie voters who, while speaking English, are clueless about current events, issues, candidates, and their own government.
  • Brian Rutledge
    I know he is talking about the ones who don't assimilate, but just who are they. Which ones ? When you can't specifically point out which ones, you wind up casting a net that captures those who are innocent and desparately trying to adopt our ways. It is called racism by association. It is racist to those immigrants who have been on the receiving end of such comments.

    How do you know who the so called 'bad ones' are. You cant tell by looking, so it breeds general contempt by many Americans because they aren't sure who is who.Broad , general statements like Tancreedo's, catches thousands of innocents in it's net. That is called racism
  • It isn't racism at all, because it isn't confined to a particular race.

    The bad ones know who they are; they're the ones who aren't trying, the ones who expect America to change for them and accommodate their failed ways.

    Those who encounter them know who they are, too. Not by their skin color or eye color or hair color, but by their attitudes and actions.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Well then I would have to ask you who it is that Tancreedo is talking about when he specifically mentions those who can't spell the word 'vote' much less say 'vote' in English. Doesn't that narrow the field down a little ? Doesn't it at least make one think about Hispanics ? Can't spell or even say the word in English-those were his words. What comes to many Americans mind when that is said? If you were Hispanic and trying to assimilate, would you find it offensive and slanderous to your parents who came ehere legally and had not mastered our vocabulary yet like those at Ellis Island.
  • Pat
    If it weren't the the "cult of multiculturalism" as Tancredo calls it he may never have been able to enjoy the freedoms he does in America today. Tom Tancredo's four grandparents were all immigrants from Italy. Does he have a clue about the extreme discrimination which faced Italians when they came to this country in the 18th and 19th centuries? Does he know that they were the second most likely ethnic group to be lynched?
    For the grandson of immigrants to lead an anti-multicultural movement is hypocrisy of the highest order. His ancestors would be ashamed of him.
  • Previous generations of immigrants assimilated into American cultures and values; multiculturalists expect to enjoy the fruits of the American way while stubbornly hanging onto the ways of the place they left behind.

    If you're going to be on the American team, you're expected to act like an American; otherwise, just stay where you are.
  • Rathov Khan
    What's your personal view of what it means to act like an American?
  • It's pretty simple, really. It involves being proud of our country, proud of our heritage of freedom and limited government, knowledgeable about our founding documents (the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution) and the philosophy behind them (personal liberty, respect for property rights, the need for a strong moral foundation for our society, personal responsibility, inalienable rights, limited government, etc.), and a willingness to protect and promote these American values in the public square.

    To put it simply, to act like an American is to embrace America's ideals, values and heritage.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob

    I hate to say this, but everything you said above is against everything about 'being' an American. It may be your idea of how an American should act, but America stands for any individual being able to express themselves as they please and have their own thoughts, not yours or mine.

    The Constitution guarantees that to be an American you don't have to be proud of it. It guarantees that you don't have to believe America should have a strong moral foundation. You don't HAVE to believe in a limited government. There are no litmus tests for these concepts, and no laws ordering one to accept them, in order to be an American.

    The Constitution guarantees that as an American you can go into the public square and advocate against everything you mentioned above. It is called freedom of speech. I know you were just giving your concept of what an ideal American would be to you, but it seems anti-Constitutional to me. The Constitution firstly and foremostly says that you don't HAVE to conform to any ideology or thought process- but have have the right to express yourself freely.
  • Brian, while you hit on some truths, you entirely missed the big picture.

    While the Constitution actually does REQUIRE limited government (it's found in Article 1 Section 8 and backed up by the 9th and 10th Amendments), no, you aren't required to be proud of America, you aren't required to have a strong moral foundation, and there is no litmus test for these things.

    But if you aren't proud of America, if you don't believe in our Constitution, if you don't believe in a strong moral foundation for society, if you don't believe in limited government...you're living in the wrong place.

    There are more than plenty places in the world that don't have our rich heritage of freedom, independence, self-sufficiency, personal responsibility, respect for inalienable rights, and limited government. If you don't believe in all the things that make America special and distinctive, then you belong in one of those countries.

    Anyone who doesn't believe in these things that I have mentioned lacks the American spirit and simply doesn't fit in here. They should do themselves a favor, and do Americans a favor, and go live in a country much more suited to their regressive ideals.

    America is a unique and wonderful place, and it is only unique and wonderful because of those qualities I mentioned. Get rid of them, and we'll be no better than the cesspool of your choice found anywhere else in the world. There is no reason to destroy the precious thing that is America when so many cesspools that already fit the template that some people yearn for so badly already exist.

    As for we Americans, we are determined to retain our heritage and the American way of life.
  • Brian Rutledge
    I agree that the qualities you mentioned are what has held this country together and will continue to do so. I personally adhere to these principles if possible. But I thought the very essence, the very core of what it means to be an American , is for Brian Rutledge to be freely able to stand in the public square and disagree with every tenant of the Constitution.
  • You have the freedom to do that...but if you do that and really mean it--you simply don't belong here.
  • Brian Rutledge
    You know that the Declaration of the United States, written by our founders and the authors of the Constitution, states we have the right to overthrow our own government if it quits meeting the common interests of it's citizens.Thus any person who advocates such a revolt,contrary to what you say, does belongs here as much as anyone, according to the founders.
  • You might want to take a fresh look at that Declaration, both at the conditions under which such change is justified and the goals of such change.

    You'll find that the values and goals advocated by the ignoramuses Tancredo was referring to are the antithesis of those outlined in the Declaration.

    Again, anyone so eager to live in an immoral, statist hellhole should pack up and move to one of the many varieties already existing around the world, rather than seek to destroy the one beacon of light in the world.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Oh I know that the ' right to revolution ' is reserved for the 'people' when a government has become so oppressive and despotic, that the people's natural, inalienable rights have been oppressed. But the lone man who believes he has found himself in that position, has the full right to stand in the public square and argue it with a man who feels the government is perfect as it is. Both are equally welcome and are within their equal rights, and neither one ' belongs elsewhere '
  • The thing is, the folks Tancredo is talking about are calling for policies that bring about oppression and despotism. They are willing to trade in their God-given freedom in exchange for the shabby promises that an overweening government will do for them what they should be doing for themselves.

    Such idiocy is in direct contradiction with American ideals and values, and while it might fit in fine in any number of other places in the world, it doesn't fit in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
  • Brian Rutledge
    I know Bob. When I heard a recent gallup poll indicates that 33% of Democrats had a positive view of the the word 'socialism', I cringed. But that doesn't alter the fact that one of these pro-socialist individuals has the 'exact and equal right' as you or I to express their/our views in the public arena.Thus we all belong equally. But neither that individual or you and I will decide- the populace will.

    It is part of the Natural Laws or inalienable rights given to each man by the Creator, the founders believed.But the founders were clear, a man has equal rights to express a view, but the people can only determine our fate
  • Yes, I understand that they have the right, despite what is reasonable, to whine and moan and work against the very system that gives them that freedom...but they will never belong in America so long as they hold views in contradiction to every spirit of Americanism.

    Because they are too self-centered to see what is good for all, we who cherish the American way must fight all the harder to see that young Americans know about our heritage, re-educate those brainwashed into preferring the chains of servitude to the state, and resist those who refuse to respect the American way.
  • Brian Rutledge
    You rightly commented that a vote is a precious thing, but then said it shouldn't be too much to ask of someone to be literate about our civics and history i.e. a test, before exercising that vote. Does that then mean every American over 18 needs to be tested ?

    Do we need to give it every four years to all Americans to make sure they don't loose their proficiency ?.Just how would we actually go about this test ? I wonder how many men were totally illiterate and still voted when the founders created this nation ? Just trying to point out the idiocy of such a statement.

    .No it is not and never was a requirement that a voter be subjected to this. Our founders made sure of it when they didn't mention such a test in the Constitution and no State Constitution requires it either. It was just a stupid thing to say and reveals Tancreedo's ignorance of our voting history.
  • You're stiiiiil missing the main point here. No one is seriously proposing we come up with a civics test requirement for voting. Tancredo was simply stating (with unfortunate accuracy) that we can thank a bunch of people who are clueless about our nation's history and heritage for voting this Marxist into the highest office in our nation. It was a statement that should spur us to educate the ignorant among us.
  • Brian Rutledge
    Even saying we can thank a bunch of people who are clueless about our nations history and heritage for electing Obama is completely absurd. The people who voted for him did so for many reasons- they were staunch Dems, tired of Bush-types, charmed by him, maybe because of his ethnicity,tired of status quo. They couldn't have known on vote day what massive measures Obama would propose when the economy collapsed. He represented himself as a liberal and not a Marxist.

    He could say the people, and very knowledgeable ones, didn't due their homework or were vexed . But to characterise these voters as ignorant/illiterate about our government because of what Obama has done AFTER getting into office is dull witted and opaque. It is a false analogy.

    If anything Tancreedo should go after the man himself and not mischaracterise( in a demeaning way) why people voted for him. Even if it were true about ' the ignorance ' why slander such fools-only small, insignificant people do that. Tancreedo needs a briefing on what being a class person is- Reagan style
  • Starting a fresh thread...
  • harvey50
    The people in this country demonstrates every day their ignorance by tuneing their televisions to the marxist news channels to listen to the lies that they are told to spread each day.A.B.C,C.B.S.,N.B.C.,C.N.N.,M.S.N.B.C.,P.B.S..New York Times are all on Obamas bandwagon.These people that run these televison channels have sold out to a bunch of communist.
    As far as our young people being ignorant they are taught to be that way in our schools and colleges.We have stood by and allowed these schools to bring in teachers from other countrys that hate America and they are not teaching what it took to get American to be the great nation it is today.They are being taught to hate their own country and being raised in front of the television they dont know any differnt.I do know if these people dont wise up they will be working almost non stop each year to pay their taxes so this bunch can continue to spend our money.
    People we are very close to loseing our freedoms, if someone sneezes real loud our freedoms will be gone and you young people will get a real life lesson in what it means to be a communist.You had better wake up and stop what you have helped to get started or it will be to late.
  • Mark T
    Sorry, but your version of "American values" is outdated and outmoded to the point of fossilization.

    Defend him all you want, but Tancredo said some very ignorant things in his rant at the Tea Party Convention. I'm anxious to see more "highlights" from this convention... if Tancredo's contribution is any indication, I sense a crash and burn coming.

    Just as well- the phony populism of the Tea Party movement (and modern conservatism in general) is entirely devoid of any coherent ideas or rational solutions.

    By the way- Mr. Tancredo has a lot of nerve calling millions of Independent voters "illiterate". He is quite illiterate himself when it comes to science (as in "showing or marked by a lack of acquaintance with the fundamentals of a particular field of knowledge"), being as it that he is a creationist.
  • dcm
    "He is quite illiterate himself when it comes to science (as in 'showing or marked by a lack of acquaintance with the fundamentals of a particular field of knowledge'), being as it that he is a creationist."

    Can't let a statement like that pass without comment. Yes, there are many people who are ignorant about science. And generally they are the ones who just go along with what the "experts" supposedly say. They certainly don't look hard enough to realize that the "expert consensus" they're buying doesn't actually exist. Most such people accept evolutionism by default, usually the false-compromise "theistic" kind. Other scientifically-ignorant people are creationists who go on sort of a blind faith without ever learning what scientific basis their belief may have, and these tend to mix incorrect evolutionistic assumptions into their beliefs.

    At any rate, your flat statement that a creationist equals a scientifically illiterate person just doesn't hold water. It assumes that there is all kinds of hard scientific information which, if someone only learned it, would show them beyond a doubt that evolutionism is true and creationism is false. What I've found instead is that evolutionism starts with the "no creator" assumption and forces everything to fit that as best it can, often with great difficulty and with sneaky disregard of things that can't be made to fit, while creation science starts with the "God is creator" assumption and fits real-life evidence much more smoothly.

    Besides, most ignorance is wilfull. People who don't accept truth based on "religious" arguments generally also won't accept it even based on hard, empirical evidence.
  • Brian Rutledge
    dcm

    You took exception to Mark T when he called creationists illiterate/ignorant in science if they didn't believe in evolution. Then in your next paragraph you said there are many people who are ignorant in science and they are the ones who just robotically follow what the consenesus of science believes and if they just looked hard enough, they would see the evidence doesn't exist. Thus they are the ignorant ones.

    Sounds like you and Mark are cut out of the cloth by calling those who don't believe as you two believe, ignorant or illerate. Two pots and two kettles calling each other black .

    And for goodness sake, science itself doesn't start with a ' no creator' assumption. It is mum on the subject because science knows it can never prove or disprove a Creator.The sciences of geology,archaelogy,anthropology,physics, biology etc. don't have anything to do with assumptions or things like The Creator. Even abiogenesis(origins of life) doesn't say there are starting with a 'no creator' greed.

    Science is like math-it doesn't delve into such realms. Certain parts of science may be at odds with certain religious beliefs, but when it comes to an original creator-it is mum.I think you are confusing the personal beliefs of some scientists with what science itself says.
  • DCM didn't say science starts with a "no creator" assumption; he said evolution (and it's kindred philosophies like materialism and naturalism) being with a "no creator" assumption.

    I can see how you might get confused about that, though. Most evolutionists are very, very confused about the difference between evolution theory and science; very few can grasp let alone accept that they are not one and the same.

    But getting back to the point of the article, Tancredo wasn't even discussing scientific literacy of any type. He was talking about the disgraceful ignorance among Americans concerning our history, our heritage, and our government. That has been proved over and over in the past, and has manifested itself here in the comments section (some comments were so completely obtuse and asinine, I wouldn't even publish them).
  • Brian rutledge
    OK. Then evolution doesn't start with a ' no creator ' precept either. The science and theory of evolution is aware that no matter what at it determines 'what begat what', it can never prove or disprove a supernatural begator, so it just remains mum on the subject. Many millions of Christians, Jews etc accept evolution and a creator.

    I do believe that dcm is saying that those who accept the scientific consensus of evolution are ignorant( his words) because they just aren't looking hard enough.

    It is still two people, Mark T. and dcm, calling others who don't agree with their personal views, ignorant.Both are pots and kettles in that respect.

    I don't know enough about Tancredo, except these few sound bites, so I won't attempt to judge him like others have done. I would be curious to know if he feels the education problem is so great and such a problem in the U.S. ( and it is), what he proposed as a congressman to remedy the problem ?

    Anyone know ?
  • Yes, evolution theory most certainly does start with the assumption that there is no creator. Surely you know enough about the theory to understand this. Even Darwin understood that his theory was a direct attack on the most foundational truth claims of Christianity. And outside of some confused, unknowledeable Christians, you will be hard pressed to find someone who believes in evolution who doesn't also understand that the theory presupposes the absence of a creator.

    Christians who believe in evolution (as I once did) don't understand enough about the theory of evolution, or the fundamental tenets of their own faith, to realize that the claims of both are incompatible with one another.

    As to the ignorance of those who believe in evolution, that's a hard one to answer absolutely. Some people certainly believe it based on ignorance; they simply don't know any better--don't know of its weaknesses, its inability to explain critical questions, of its illogic and inconsistency within its own framework of assumptions.Others have been exposed to this information--so it is not a matter of ignorance--but due to deep-seated biases and presuppositions, and I believe quite frequently they are repelled theologically by the implications that they are morally accountable to a creator, they cannot come to grips with that knowledge.

    But as I implied before, evolution theory isn't the primary topic here, so we need to steer back to the topic at hand.
  • Brian rutledge
    No, evolution doesn't start with a presupposition of a ' no creator ' universe. It just doesn't delve into that subject because it can never prove if there is or isn't one. I think you perceive it that way because it refuses to even comment on it one way or the other. but we will never agree on that, so I agree, lets stick with Tancredo.

    Do you know , since he has such strong feelings about our nations miserable educational status( which is true) if he ever proposed any legislation to improve it ?
  • What you consider "outdated" and "fossilized" is what makes us free and what makes America the distinct and wonderful place it is.

    Sorry, but it is your Marxist, elitist dogma that is fossilized and outdated; it goes back to the ancient days when certain people thought they had the right to lord it over others. It wasn't until the great men of the American Revolution came to grasp the ideas and ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence that a group of human beings finally moved beyond such barbarism.

    Unfortunately people like yourself, Barack Obama, Nancy Peolosi, Harry Reid, et al want to bring free America under the heel repackaged elitism.

    But guess what? There are still too many educated Americans to allow you to get away with it. We've been silent for too long, but the Americans who know, remember and cherish our heritage of liberty and self government are active now and we will stop you.

    We will not allow our great country to be brought down into the cesspool with other socialist countries that you so admire. So if you want to regress to live in an elitist culture, there are plenty of countries to choose from; find one and go live in it.

    Because patriotic Americans are determined to keep this one free!
  • patisok
    No racist there. I hope they have a test. It would rule out half of those in the South were the are placed in the bottom 1/3 of educational attainment in the USA. Mr. Trancredo and those who write this text above, you may have a great idea. But you know what it may have unintended consequences. You may just take off the very folks who would support your purist ideas. So push for it sir and by the way I guess we would need another extension of Fed. Govt to support this great idea for America. So again you will expand the very thing you want to contract. Good luck with that....
  • WXRGina
    Well, Patisok, your gross generalization of people in the "South" is about as bad as your spelling and grammar. I had a hard time even understanding what you were trying to say, but it's not because I'm from the "South," though I am. You sound like those people Bob Ellis was talking about who mindlessly throw the "racist" label at anyone who believes in our Christian heritage, our country and constitution, our borders and the rule of law. Many of those same people stereotype those of us who are from the south as being ignorant. There are ignorant people anywhere you go; the south does not have any kind of monopoly on that. Here's a little proof: Stephen Crowder quizzes the "highly intelligent, elite" kids at Berkeley: http://tinyurl.com/yalepmc
  • I suspect you'd have a hard time passing an American civics test, patisok, because I detect more than a little of that arrogant air of liberal elitism. And liberals almost always don't have a clue about our country, its history, its heritage, and its government.

    I'd be willing to bet those rednecks you look down your nose at would humiliate you on any test of American civics. So bring it on.
  • patisok
    I pretty damn smart. I don't look down on rednecks. Actually the original REDNECKS were coal miners who banded together against the mine owners who sent tough guys with guns into stop a strike in the 20s. They all wore red handkerchiefs to identify themselves in a shoot out with the thugs. So REDNECKS are special people. Probably had leftest leanings if truth be told.



    I am not arrogant but I am a retired social worker from DC who has seen first hand some pretty remarkable folks of all colors. I am not willing to go back to Jim Crow laws for black white or brown. I am sadden by the constant barrage of ugly words that come 24/7 from the likes of Beck and Rush et al. I am fearful they will get our president killed .



    Maybe you all will win again in 2012 but if you do I hope you remember it is easy to talk it is much harder to govern. Bush et al left a big mess. President Obama can not fix it in one year or even 4. Most jobs over the last 10 years left the USA and are not coming back. I think the bank bailouts were needed and when history does tell the story it will tell us how close to collapse we really were at that time.



    I was a history minor in college so know pretty damn much. about history...love it....like the REDNECK story above. But I also know that those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.



    I wish you well. I am not angry at any person just a general movement that to me is claiming Jeudo Christian roots but acts in a less than Christian manner. I suspect if Christ walked up to most of them, they would not know it. He may be brown or black or red. He may even be a community organizer, which of course he was, he may be the bum on the street, or a man in need of health care that lost a job who dies slowly while we debate endlessly.



    May God help all those in need. Go in peace. I will not speak to you again. Words are cheap. Action is what is important to me. As a cancer patient, I don't have a lot of time. Sadly, the world is at a worse place than when I came into it. God Bless us All and truly send his wisdom into a divided hate filled world.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »