Sadly, yes! 'Obama's mama was trash and only 17-years-old when she got knocked up'

by CynthiaYockey on July 14, 2009

The Hon. James David Manning, Ph.D., of the ATLAH World Missionary Church in Atlah, New York, in this video, which apparently was made in late August or early September 2008, shortly after Republican Sen. John McCain named Gov. Sarah Palin his running mate, defends Bristol Palin and attacks Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. Ms. Dunham became pregnant with Obama, Jr., at the age of 17 out-of-wedlock by an African man from Kenya, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., who was already married and did not bother to divorce his first wife before marrying Obama’s mother well into her pregnancy — which means that the second marriage was not legal and Obama is a bastard in every sense of the word.

Pastor Manning gave the sermon in the YouTube video here, he says, to clarify some points from a similar sermon he recorded a year earlier calling Obama’s mama trash. In this video, Pastor Manning asserts that Bristol Palin is NOT trash for becoming pregnant out-of-wedlock at the age of 17, but by the values his mother and grandmother taught him, Obama’s mama WAS trash. He also is outraged that the press are attacking a child and suggests that if it’s OK to attack children now in political campaigns, we should start with the children of news anchors John Roberts, Wolf Blitzer, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, and political commentator Donna Brazile:

“Let’s see if we can’t get them up on the Internet. Let’s go to Facebook and see what are your young’uns doing? Yeah! Why don’t we do that — since everyone’s children are public property, let’s find out what your drug using, Satanist, homosexual, bestiality children are doing and what you are doing to them! Yeah! I think that’s a great idea! Might as well get it all out in the open, don’t you think?”

Transcript of Pastor Manning’s sermon:

The media is doing something to John McCain’s vice presidential pick Sarah Palin’s daughter, Bristol Palin, you have a girl 17-years-old, is that right? She’s pregnant, she’s five months pregnant, she’s pregnant by some guy named Levi and, uh, he’s a hockey player or something like that. Anyway, she’s pregnant.

The senator [McCain] knew she was pregnant when he asked Palin to be his vice presidential running mate, he knew it, she knew it, they all knew it. It wasn’t anything they were trying to hide. But the media [are] jumping all over this and trying to make it look like a poor judgment issue on behalf of the senator and on behalf of the vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin. I mean they’re really riding this down the road like it’s OK.

But hey, I want to say something. I know what the deal is, now I know what the deal is. The deal is, is that the media is in the tank for Obama. They want to make Obama look good. And they want to make McCain look bad. But hey listen, post this up! Hey, John Roberts, Wolf Blitzer, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, all of you folk on NBC and CBS and ABC, post THIS up on your evening broadcast: Obama’s mama was TRASH!

Obama mama got pregnant with him out of wedlock — that’s right! — and Obama’s mama was only 17 years old when she got KNOCKED UP by that African over there in Kenya. And the difference between Obama’s mama and Bristol Palin is that Obama’s mama was TRASH. I mean she was dirt! She was a bag of trash sitting on the sidewalk, waiting there in Honolulu on one of those streets for the garbage truck to come by and pick her up and take her to the dump.

Rather than the garbage truck coming by, a man named Obama, Barack Obama, Senior, from Kenya, this man who died in a violent accident at the age of 46 years of age, who had two iron legs, in Kenya. He lost his legs in a violent automobile accident driving drunk there in Kenya. The man was a pathetic alcoholic. He had children, I’m talking about Obama, you say that, boy, y’all, talking about y’all wanting [him] to be president, Barack Hussein Obama, his daddy was a pathetic alcoholic.

He died in a violent automobile accident. First he had a violent automobile accident and the car pinned his legs and they had to amputate both his legs. And this is going back to the 1960’s now, in Kenya, so they gave him two iron legs. But he kept drinking and driving and finally he killed himself with those two iron legs in an automobile. The man was a pathetic loser, couldn’t keep a job, knocking up women all over the Kenyan village of Africa. That’s Obama’s father. Well, he knocked up Obama’s mama when she was only 17 and then ran off and left her claiming he was going to study economics at Harvard.

So now, post this up, now we gotta post this up, gotta get this up, gotta get this out, because if they want to attack Sarah Palin and her daughter, Bristol, who is NOT trash, and listen when I stated about a year ago that Obama’s mama was trash, it doesn’t mean, did not mean, nor did I intend to convey that any white woman was trash, or that every white woman was trash, or that any white woman that got pregnant without being married was trash. I never intended to convey that. That was never my intent.

My momma told me, and I trust my momma, and her momma told her, and she trusts her momma, and I trust both of them. But my momma told me, back in the 50’s and the 60’s, the only kind of white woman that would take up with a black man back in the 50’s and the 60’s was a trashy white woman. The only kind of white woman that would take up with a black man in the 50’s and the 60’s was a sloozy, was a floozy, was a low-life snail-eatin’ white woman, that’s the kind of woman that Obama’s mama was. And that’s what my mama told me and if you don’t like you go tell my mama that you don’t like it.

But my mama told me and my mama’s mama told her, and all the mamas in the community of blacks saw those trashy white woman hanging around on the outskirts of town, called the Black Bottom, where the black men lived. Hanging around on the outside of the skirts of town with their skirts jacked up and their breasts showing, hoping some of these black men would take an interest in them. They were nothing but trash.

Well, Obama’s mother was nothing but trash. And she picked up with an African in heat, if you will, low-life pathetic loser drunkard, and I made the statement that Obama was born trash. Well, let’s just look at the equation. His father, it is documented, was a pathetic loser, an alcoholic who couldn’t hold a job, had two iron legs when he finally killed himself in an automobile accident, that’s his daddy, that’s what we got from the heritage of his daddy.

His mama got knocked up by this low-life, this low-living, alcoholic pathetic African, who was already married to several other women back in Africa when she lay down with him, when she wallowed in the mire with him, when she lay in the hog path with him and got knocked up with him, she was trash

That doesn’t mean that Sarah Palin is, nor that her daughter [is]. There is a distinct difference and it needs to be clear. So now if you want to talk about something, hey, let’s talk about that. Hey, listen, Pastor Manner’s got a new statement out about Obama’s mother being the trashiest thing since the Staten Island landfill. Obama’s mama, if you want to talk about Sarah Palin, if you want to talk about Bristol Palin, and by the way, those of y’all who think that the media’s not going to run her down, you got another thing coming, they’re going to run this thing as long as they can run it, and every time they mention, post me up, every time they mention it, send this posting over to them and see what will happen from there.

Leave Bristol Palin alone! Otherwise, you find out what your daughter’s been doing. Yeah, let’s find out — John Roberts, you got a daughter? Hey! Hey! Wolf Blitzer? You got a daugh — Donna Brazile! Let’s find out what y’alls homosexual children are doing. Hey! Come on, let’s find out what the children of these news reporters — Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews — let’s find out what your deranged, drug-dealing, Satan-worship, homosexual, sodomizing children, what are your children doing? What are they doing?

Let’s see if we can’t get them up on the Internet. Let’s go to Facebook and see what are your young’uns doing? Yeah! Why don’t we do that — since everyone’s children are public property, let’s find out what your drug using, Satanist, homosexual, bestiality children are doing and what you are doing to them! Yeah! I think that’s a great idea! Might as well get it all out in the open, don’t you think?

Since you want to bring it out about Bristol Palin, let’s see what your young-uns are doing! What’s good for the goose ought to be good for the gander! Pot shouldn’t be able to call the kettle black without expecting the same kind of a response.

So, you want to talk about Bristol Palin, let’s talk about that piece of trash, called Obama’s mama. Want to talk about Bristol Palin? Let’s talk about that trash that hatched Obama. Yeah! Want to talk — let’s get down and dirty, if you want to get down and dirty, come on, don’t start nothin’, it won’t be nothin’, if you want to start something, it shore ‘nough, you can start it, I’ll end it for you. So, so, so, there you have it.

I can’t say I’m crazy about Pastor Manning’s denunciation of homosexuality. But I very much admire his courage in defending Bristol Palin regarding both her character and her right to be free from attack since she is the child of a candidate, not a candidate for office herself.

As I’ve pointed out in other posts, Franklin Davis gloated about molesting a young girl named Ann in three-ways with his wife in his book, Sex Rebel. He may have been referring to Obama’s mama. Sadly, too often girls who are molested do grow up to be trash. Whether or not Obama’s mama turned out to be trash for that reason, certainly we can rely on Pastor Manning’s word that his mother and grandmothers consider her to be trash based on their culture and acquaintance with trashy white women in the 1950’s and 60’s.

Follow conservativelez on Twitter

  • I’m pretty sure that Obama’s Mama’s (and you thought I had no poetry!) prenatal escapades are not Obama’s fault. While I’m not really happy with the values that family instilled in him I also do not remember having a whole lot of choice as to who my Mama and Daddy were. I did luck out, though, born in Golden America instead of one of the world’s pestholes, to a couple of pretty good people who did their best by me.

    Obama seems to have been a red diaper baby. Too bad for him, but not his fault. Worse for us but a country that lets Al Franken blatently steal an election, well I guess we deserve the pain.

  • Ms. Yockey, I finally managed to get you on my website’s blogroll, I’m going to also add a few other sites that you have introduced me to. I hope you will forgive me for calling you a newly conservative woman. Some of my grandchildren are, I think, a tad too young to be worrying about any kind of sexual orientation.

    If you only knew how clumsy I am with these computer things, you’d know how proud I am of what lots of folks think is easy. Well, we never got a computer until the kids were grown and gone. Anyhow, I noticed my little blog on your blogroll, it made me feel the same way I felt when I made the Junior Varsity back in my freshman year of high school.

    I’ll put those other sites up later, right now I just noticed Rachel Lucas is back from her European vacation and I must go see her Hillbilly Travelogue. While wondering how it can be a hillbilly travelogue when she is from one of the flattest parts of Texas.

    • Peter,

      I am delighted my blogrolling your blog, “Shakey Pete’s Shootin’ Shack,” gave you joy! I’m sorry it took me so long! Yes, I notice that even bloggers who have no problem listing Gay Patriot correctly will list me as “Cynthia Yockey” instead of “A Conservative Lesbian.” When I ask people to add my blog to their blogrolls, I ask to be listed as “A Conservative Lesbian” — that grabs people’s attention and tells them about my blog more than my name does. I understand about the grandchildren, though. I appreciate that you included your endorsement of my blog in the blogroll title — thanks!


  • I R A Darth Aggie

    we should start with the children of news anchors…Keith Olbermann

    Wait…a woman actually let Keef D’Olberdouche near her reproductive bits…voluntarily??? the mind reels!

  • cowalker

    Wow. That is one disgusting way to defend Bristol Palin–to call Ann Dunham a promiscuous slut. You are aware that Dunham and Obama were both college students at the University of Hawaii when they met, right? Just as Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston were high school students together. This characterization of Dunham as trach because she had sex with a black man is straight up racist.

    • cowalker,

      I just laugh out loud at how little sense of irony liberals have!

      First, ALL race cards expired at noon on January 20, 2009. Don’t bother trying to manipulate anyone any more with a race card! Also — you are using it against Pastor Manning, who is black — so, aren’t you a little confused as to how to race cards were supposed to be used?

      Pastor Manning called Stanley Ann Dunham “trash” and said her type in the 1950’s and ’60’s was “a sloozy, was a floozy, was a low-life snail-eatin’ white woman.” He states clearly that he is reporting on what his mama and her mama told him about white women who took up with black men in the 1950’s and 60’s. I think he is a reliable reporter on black culture. Perhaps blacks were racist to resent and denounce white women who preyed on the black community then and stole prospective husbands from black women. But to suppress or deny their anger is wrong — they deserve their say.

      By the way, you are the one who is calling Stanley Ann Dunham “a promiscuous slut” — it’s great to see how YOUR mind works!


  • Beej

    (This post isn’t related to the article it’s posted under. Sorry.)

    Look what’s happened to the Just a Girl in Short Shorts blog:

    It’s not a content warning. You can’t get to the blog anymore. Based on the taglines I see here – – she believes complaints were made by conservatives. No way. This is the work of Obama’s people. They did it to Hilary last year. I think this may have been her fatal post:

    • Beej,

      Thanks for the heads-up. I just went to her place — which is working, you just have to accept the content warning — and left some encouraging comments. Then I came back here and posted about it.


  • Beej

    Really? It still won’t let me in. I just tried again. I hit the button that says “I Understand and I Wish to Continue” but it never lets me in.

    I should try other browsers, I guess. Sorry for the inaccurate report. I still stand by the rest of my post. Hillary Clinton supporters kept getting this done to their blogs during the Presidential primaries.

    • Beej,

      Yes, HillBuzz reported that. People have to remember that Obama had a huge pot of money left over after his campaign and he rolled it into continuing the paid blog trolls and other “activists” to ram his legislation through Congress.

      I’m sure you reported your experience at Just a Girl in Short Shorts accurately. I don’t know why you aren’t getting through — I’ve been getting through withut a problem. I hope Becky gets her own domain and a hosting plan so she can migrate her blog to WordPress.

  • apodoca

    I got through to the Shorts blog but didn’t leave a comment there. Instead, I just went to Blogger and asked a question about why they’re letting fascists violate our constitutional rights without checking to see if the complaints are valid.

    That having been said, I didn’t like what Manning (I decline to call him ‘pastor’) had to say about Obama’s mother when I first saw him on a video last year in the run up to the election. That sort of rhetoric doesn’t belong in a pulpit nor should it be uttered by someone whose title declares he’s “shepherd and bishop of men’s souls.” Even if Manning had thought it, he should have observed the 8th Commandment and put the best construction that he could have on things. He should have remained silent. It’s not a pastor’s job to shame, defame, and ill-speak. That is destructive and sets a poor example for the flock. It ill-serves the Body (of Christ) to defend someone by tearing down another.

    I have a strong and visceral dislike for Obama, for his mother’s dislike of America, for the wrong values she fostered in him (he imbibed radicalism at her breast, I think); however, no matter what the 50’s and 60’s cultural values of black Americans, it is wrong to call her “trash.”

    Manning now attempts to walk back from his view that white women are trash, from his salacious rhetoric about their bodies. I’m not white, but when I heard that last year, I found that offensive and unworthy of a church-man.

    Manning is no different from Jeremiah Wright, and I would sit in the pews of no church at which either preaches. If they can’t preach Christ Jesus and Him born, dead, and resurrected for the salvation of all men, let them descend the altar for they are but wolves in sheep’s clothing, racist and despicable men clothing themselves in mantle of Christ. They will have their reward.

    • apodoca,

      Thanks for sticking up for Becky!

      Homosexuals are denounced by ministers (and beauty queens) in similar or worse terms and we truly are second-class citizens. So Pastor Manning’s denunciation of Obama’s mother did not seem out of the ordinary to me. Think about that and really let it sink in. He also denounced attacking the children of your opponents. He has my support for that. He is not cursing America and I see in him a love of doing right beneath his outrage. I see him as a far, far better man than Rev. Wright. I would love for him to support my equality as a homosexual. Black ministers are working hard to de-humanize homosexuals as immoral and therefore undeserving of civil rights and equality. Homosexuality is not immoral and we deserve equality, but even though Pastor Manning and I disagree on that, I can see a good man in him who stuck his neck out to defend Bristol Palin when no one else would.

      I do appreciate your visits and comments.


  • Cynthia, only one of the kid’s children reads my blog to keep up with me, and reads it to the littler ones to practice their reading. I promise when the youngest of that bunch reaches seven or eight I’ll fix your blog name the way you like it. The word lesbian doesn’t scare me. I’m only old-fashioned enough to believe in a little decorum. I don’t think a hetero couple needs to be going “too far” among young children, either.
    Assuming I live that long. I’m exploring your archives. I think I’d love to sit on your porch and watch the birds with your dad.

  • apodoca

    Yes, I agree with Manning on not attacking politicians’ kids and concur that he does not hate America after the manner of Jeremiah Wright. 

    Let me present an apologia, not for the dehumanization of homosexuals (that is wrong), but for the historical Christian Church and its refusal to bend on homosexuality and, by extension, homosexual marriage. 

    Here is the crux of the matter, Cynthia, you are essentially asking orthodox Christians to say that the Word is wrong wrt homosexuality. That will never happen, Cynthia; for, if the Word is wrong, then God is not omniscient but is a liar to boot. If we say that God is wrong, then we set ourselves over Him, and He is no longer omnipotent. He is now a hand-made god rather than the Creator of heaven and earth and all that is therein. Worse yet, all of His promises to us become void. The corollary is that we will have no God, no salvation, and no hope of eternal life. Thus, you are asking for the impossible because homosexuality, given whence it came—the Fall—strikes at the God-head itself and the created order. That is the point Paul makes concerning human sinfulness in Romans 1.

    Another problem is that marriage is not held by the historical Christian Church as a civil matter; it’s a spiritual one that is reflective of the oneness of the relationship between Christ and His Church. He’s the Bridegroom; she’s the Bride. Because the marriage of male and female is a type of the relationship between Christ and Church, not only is divorce anathema (it says we cannot count on Him to keep His word to us) so is also any other type of marriage but that between male and female. Christ is perfect obedience to divine will, and His sacrificial and reconciling death on the cross informs of the restoration of the created order.  Thus, these two issues (God-head and created order, and marriage relation typology) will always remain at the core of orthodox Christian objection to homosexuality. 

    Now, I have been speaking of spiritual matters, things pertaining to the kingdom of the right (God). All I’ve been explaining is why orthodox Christians cannot be expected to and will not support homosexuality or homosexual marriage. What, then, happens to those Christians who are homosexual? The same as for heterosexual single, today much honored in the breach: celibacy for the sake of the kingdom—having been celibate for twenty plus years, I say this with a full appreciation of its agonies—confession and absolution for a fall off the wagon. But the heterosexual single celibate can get married; why not the homosexual single? Is it not better to marry than to burn, as Paul said? As far as the Church is concerned, and for the reasons expressed above, that avenue is closed. Concerning civil affairs (Caesar), that which is of the kingdom of the left, governments are free to make law as they see fit, but they are not free to tell the Church to alter its teaching and practice.

    So, where does that leave a Conservative lesbian who wishes to marry her beloved? Not in a position that an orthodox Christian can in good conscience support, not even for friendship’s sake. What does that mean? Christianity is not a smorgasbord, never mind what Bart Ehrman might seem to think; we cannot select what we agree with and dismiss what we don’t. It is not a feel-good, kumbaya either. It is a faith of EITHER-OR, broad way-narrow way, God-Satan, not I-but Christ. Thus, Christianity is an excessively uncomfortable religion, and rumbling beneath it is the certain knowledge that that which we should do, we don’t; that which we should not, we do—the Christian agony of simul iustus et peccatur/simultaneously saint and sinner. That simul iustus et peccatur is what the libs and media do not get and so deride us as hypocrites when we stumble. Does that mean we scoff and mock at homosexuality? If we are smart, we keep our traps shut because we are all in the same boat before God.

    Many like to say that Christ was silent on the issue of homosexuality and take that to mean He signified approval instead of considering that He spoke out on matters that were roiling the people: divorce, duty to parents, temple, faith, etc. and not on issues which could be regarded as settled. Homosexuality was such a settled one. Does that mean that Christians should treat homosexuals as Islamics do? Not at all. Why not? What about the stoning and such of the Old Testament? We’re under grace and not under Law. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Love your neighbor as yourself. And who is my neighbor? Any man. Everyman. We are not better than each other because we are all sinners. Not tolerance but full embrace.

    Now I say these things as a trained but poor theologian, though not a pastor. It is not about you or I; it is about the Word itself and what it says. Where it is silent, we are not free to speculate; where it is clear, we must submit. It is not our Word; it is His. We did not create Him; He created us. Desiring the support of Manning and others is like asking for rain to fall uphill; for, it doesn’t resolve the underlying issue: why, God?

    For that, I and others like me must exit the equation and leave you to address the source of the problem: God Himself. 

    As blog owner, you are free to ban me from commenting. I sincerely hope you will not.

    • apodoca,

      I’m sorry but everything you wrote is dogma, which is not the same as God. Also, related dogmas were used to support slavery and the concept of women as property and we’ve gotten past those. I have another post called, “Why can’t I own Canadians?” where someone explained why it was OK not to follow Old Testament requirements for killing adulterers and so on, and I gather I was supposed to feel owned by his explanation, but I didn’t, because what I saw in his explanation is that motivated theologians can rationalize anything they want. So — I am going to continue to insist that my equality is indeed a civil rights issue and that I deserve full equality under law in every aspect of life. I see the religious claims that this is a moral issue and that religions are entitled to appropriate the apparatus of the state to enforce their religious codes is a smokescreen for the real motivation, which is greed and lust for power on the part of every religion that seeks to control its followers to increase its wealth and power by forcing them from every possible angle to product children. So — it’s not God — it’s the very human and deeply base greed and lust for power driving the religious side of this controversy?

      Why would I ban you for disagreeing with me? You were very polite. Come back any time.



      Isn’t the sum of all the law and all the prophets to love God and love your neighbor as yourself? Don’t you enjoy having equality? Well, love me like yourself and work for my equality because I deserve equality as a homosexual and I assure you, I don’t have it now.

  • yoyo

    It has taken me a full day to get over the shame and disgust I felt after reading this post. Your hypocracy and rascism was truly vile. According to your argument it is just truly dandy for Mel Gibson to spout anti semetic bulls*t because his father who is a preacher believes that jews are subhuman. If his father believes it it is ok for you to repeat it approvingly. Why dont you be honest with yourself, you think a white female student who had sex and then a baby with a black male student is disgusting. After all you approvingly quote this miserable disgusting man. I think this horror of miscegnation would find good company at stormfront.

    PS: I’ve yet to read your disapproval of the vile attacks on Obama’s girls by the Freepers (their “sin” was wearing the wrong Tshirt and for that they were called whores). Or do you only stand up for conservatives children?

    • yoyo,

      You seem to have a reading and comprehension problem. Mel Gibson is YOUR straw man. I said nothing about him.

      Also, you are calling a black man racist. This is crazy. He is entitled to have his say. He is not attacking a child because the person he’s talking about not only grew up but also died. And I can’t think of anyone else who stood up for Bristol Palin, except for the few words Obama said in order to direct media attention away from the fact that he himself was conceived out-of-wedlock by a 17-year-old girl whose marriage to his father was never valid because his father was already married when he married Obama’s mother.

      In addition, ALL race cards expired at noon on Jan. 20, 2009. Scream “RAAAAACIST!!!” all you want.

      I am unaware of any attacks on Obama’s children. I do not condemn attacks of which I am unaware. OK, I just found a photo of Malia in the T-shirt with a giant peace sign. Sorry, but the Obamas get a say in the clothes their girls wear, so it was really Michelle and Barack poking a sharp stick in the world’s eye with the shirt. It strikes me as a deliberate provocation. Nevertheless, it was wrong to attack the child. I’ll condemn the attacks in exact proportion to the Obamas, the MSM and leading liberals condemning the people last October who shouted, “Let’s stone her, old school,” to Gov. Palin for attending a hockey game with her seven-year-old daughter, and all the attacks on Trig, and David Letterman’s attacks on Willow and Bristol. What’s that I hear? Crickets?

      Children and family members should be off-limits, regardless of political affiliation. But, I notice, the overwhelming and constant and premeditated and orchestrated attacks on Gov. Palin’s children, including her son with Down syndrome, seem to be fine with you since you express no remorse and no repentance and no sympathy for them.


  • yoyo

    Weak weak weak, lets see you support an attack on Obamas mother of the most disgusting anti female basis because she’s dead?! You minimise an attack on Obam’s children because they wear a peace symbol?! WOW that’s virtually a Che Guaverra T-shirt LOL! Did I say anything in my comment that supported attacking palin’s children? Cant see it.

    I am surpised to hear you say a black man can’t be rascist, especially since it’s such a conservative meme that Sotomyer is rascist or that Obama’s wife or previous preacher were rascist, seems mighty selective to me.

    Frankly my analogy re Mel Gibson holds, you argue without a blush that it is ok for this hideous demagogue to spray filth against Obama’s mother because his mother said it. Whether or not Obama’s mama turned out to be trash for that reason, certainly we can rely on Pastor Manning’s word that his mother and grandmothers consider her to be trash based on their culture and acquaintance with trashy white women in the 1950’s and 60’s.
    Yet when Mel Gibson repeats vile rascism against Jews because his father believes it, somehow that’s not OK. Point out how the logic fails, waiting………

    You do realise that in the 60’s people thought lesbians and gays were clinically and morally sick, and you do realise that those attitudes were foully wrong and should not be quoted admiringly?

    • yoyo,

      How revealing that you do not repudiate the Left’s attacks on Gov. Palin’s children. Clearly you support attacking the children of people you disagree with in order to drive them from the marketplace of ideas. You support attacking children! You support attacking a one-year-old child with disabilities and people who are enraged that he was brought to term. The people attacking Trig Palin claim to be pro-choice, but they do not support the choice Gov. Palin made. This means they are lying about their true motives because you can only say you support choice when you support the choice the pregnant woman makes. If you only support termination of a disabled child, you support eugenics, not choice.

      You also support sexist, degrading attacks on teen-age girls. You have not repudiated the attacks by the Left and David Letterman on Willow and Bristol Palin. Why are these attacks acceptable against the children of someone you disagree with?

      Still no sale on the Mel Gibson tar baby.

      I was born in the 1950’s and realized I was a lesbian in 1966 and came out in 1972, so I am well aware of the attitudes towards gays from those eras. Pastor Manning’s grouping of homosexuals with people who genuinely are bad is contemporary. One of the signs that blacks have arrived is that they no longer honor the rainbow coalition and instead seek to invalidate in every possible way the claim of homosexuals to equality. I noted in my post I do not accept Pastor Manning’s attitude about homosexuals.

      However, I certainly am able to hear and applaud Pastor Manning’s main point, which was to give the Lefties denouncing Bristol Palin last September a taste of their own medicine by reminding them that Obama was conceived out-of-wedlock by a 17-year-old girl and a man who clearly had just wanted to take sexual advantage of her and abandoned the girl and child the second he could come up with a plausible excuse.

      Pastor Manning says he is relying on what his mama and her mama told him about the character of white women in the 1950’s and 60’s who preyed on black men. When you use empathy and imagination to see their point of view, the reason for the passion in it becomes clear. These women were trying to raise their sons and daughters to be decent, sober and productive. But the young black women seeking husbands could not compete with the suddenly available forbidden fruit of white women whose motives for seeking black partners likely would not stand close scrutiny of their purity. The white “floozies” did terrible damage to the efforts of black women to keep their sons and daughters decent, so Obama’s mama deserves the rage directed at her (even if it is likely that the Dunham family was so creepy that she probably came to that pass by being pimped out by her father to Franklin Davis in her early teens, as he describes in his book, Sex Pervert).

      People are allowed to criticize other members of their group. I doubt there are any “-ists” or “-isms” that become relevant until their criticisms and attitudes target a different group.


  • yoyo

    By the way I would be interested in whether you approve the choice of new Young Republican leader. Go on surprise us.

    • yoyo,

      Re Young Republican leader — I have no idea who that is, but I notice you don’t seem to be able to stick to the subject of the post. I gather somehow he or she is evil but people who attack the children of people they disagree with to drive them out of the marketplace of ideas are not.


  • yoyo

    Shall we review it one more time, I appologise for mlabouring the blatently obvious, in this “man’s” own words the difference between Obama’s mama and Bristol Palin is that Obama’s mama was TRASH. I mean she was dirt! She was a bag of trash sitting on the sidewalk, waiting there in Honolulu on one of those streets for the garbage truck to come by and pick her up and take her to the dump……
    she lay down with him, when she wallowed in the mire with him, when she lay in the hog path with him and got knocked up with him, she was trash..

    and on obstensively “liberal” peoples’ children let’s find out what your deranged, drug-dealing, Satan-worship, homosexual, sodomizing children, what are your children doing? What are they doing?

    Let’s see if we can’t get them up on the Internet. Let’s go to Facebook and see what are your young’uns doing? Yeah! Why don’t we do that — since everyone’s children are public property, let’s find out what your drug using, Satanist, homosexual, bestiality children are doing and what you are doing to them!

    Great, let’s equate homosexuality to bestiality… GREAT choice of role models Yockey.

    • yoyo,

      I don’t think Pastor Manning believes the children of Lefties and corrupt news anchors and news commentators belong to every single one of the groups he names. I stated in my post that I did not like his inclusion of homosexuality in the list.

      I continue to note that you clearly have not processed Pastor Manning’s main point, which is that it is wrong to attack the children of people you disagree with especially when you are so vulnerable to attack yourself.

      I also continue to note that you have not repudiated the Left’s vicious attacks on Gov. Palin’s children. This really does mean that you support attacking the children of people you disagree with.


  • apodoca

    Have you ever read Robert Bolt’s A Man For All Seasons, Cynthia?

  • apodoca

    Have you ever read Robert Bolt’s A Man For All Seasons, Cynthia?

    BTW, a black man can be, and often is, racist.

    I’m busy with the first of two moves for the summer. Will get back to this discussion.

  • Pingback: The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Sunday Morning: Life vs. Death()

  • apodoca

    I’m sorry but everything you wrote is dogma, which is not the same as God.

    Cynthia, you are setting up a straw man here. My expressly stated intention was to offer an apologia/defense for the Church’s position on homosexuality and, by extension, homosexual marriage as a way of explaining why what you ask is impossible. Mounting a defensible apologia is only feasible with reference to the doctrines of Scripture, which the historical Christian Church (hCC) asserts is not the doctrines of men but of God. [Note, when I say ‘hCC,’ I am not speaking of the doctrines of the Church of Rome which have diverged from that of the hCC.] So, while I assent to your point that doctrine (I do appreciate the negative entailments of your use of ‘dogma’) is not the same as God (I never made that point), He is its source because Scripture is the out-breathed, inspired Word of God. I do not share the higher critical perspective on Scripture.

    Let us, for clarity’s sake, make a distinction between ‘dogma,’ as you are using it and ‘doctrine,’ as I’m using it. I understand you to mean rules written by men to bend the Church to suit their agenda. I mean the God-given teachings of the Church as found in Scripture. On to your other points.

    Now, some have argued that Scripture supports man on man slavery and the oppression of women; that is not a doctrine of the hCC, and I challenge you to prove that it is. There are things that God does not like but he allowed because of the hardness of the human heart; divorce is one. Slavery is another. In the OT, tempering the practice of slavery, amongst the people of the time, is the Jubilee and the slave as heir to the goods of the master of the house, if he dies without heir. Plus, there are laws governing the treatment of such.

    Jump forward to the NT where you’ll find the clear expression of what the OT intended on the subject. The Letters to Philemon and Ephesians demonstrate the error of man-made dogma wrt slavery and women. Philemon slave-master of Onesimus the runaway new Christian and slave sent back by Paul with this message to Philemon: this is your brother in Christ, treat him as you would me. In a word, freedom. If we’ve moved past slavery in the West, we did so within the context of Christian doctrine, which was the basis for the abolition and emancipation of slavery. It’s an amazing thing when people actually heed what the Book says. It was not secularists who spearheaded the Emancipation; it was Christians heeding the Word.

    The notion of woman as property has no doctrinal foundation; it is likely a cultural corruption handed own and blanking out doctrine on the matter. For instance, Proverbs 31, especially, places a high valuation on women. Ephesians, in particular, says woman is to die for. Husbands, love your wife as Christ loves the Church. Not oppress; put her ahead of you and die for her if necessary. That’s the married women. The single women like you and me, it is silent. However, we are covered by ‘love your neighbor….’ Not oppression. Liberation.
    There is no Judaeo-Christian doctrine corresponding to any of the Islamic attitudes to women. If there is dogma, it cannot be supported by Scripture.

    Nevertheless, Cynthia, I—a woman—am doulos. Slave. Not to man. To Christ. Therein is my liberation, no matter what happens to my body.

    Concerning your point “that motivated theologians can rationalize anything they want,” wrong. The dictum of scriptural hermeneutics is “the intended sense is one.” In sum, this means that no matter who interprets a text, the interpretations should be approximate. That is possible if one takes a grammatical-historical rather than a higher critical approach. Fidelity demands adherence to the Word rather than to a personal agenda. Agenda-driven hermeneutics is what you refer to; people like Spong engage in such.

    My response to this statement of yours, “my equality is indeed a civil rights issue and that I deserve full equality under law in every aspect of life” is as I’ve said. The state is free to make whatever laws it chooses. Moreover, you are already equal under law which asserts your equality before God. I would posit that equality under the law and before God is a very basic construct that does not and can not address “every aspect of life.” For instance, we are all equal, but we are not all men or all women. We are all equal, but we do not possess equal abilities, skills, or talents. Therefore, again, you ask for the impossible because it takes the principle ad absurdam.

    The corollary of your statement is that whatever Jones has you want so that you may be equal with him. If he is an engineer, so should you be. If he is a serial monogamist, so should you be. If he has children, so should you. Wait a minute, equality runs into a problem there, doesn’t it? In order for you to be equal there, you must implement measures he doesn’t have to. In sum, you are not equal beyond the basics (procreative organs) even though you demand “full equality under law in every aspect of life.” If he takes a wife, you should, too. Impediment! In this case, it’s both biology and theology. The first is surmountable; the second requires that you tell God He is wrong; marriage is His social construct. I would posit that we all have basic equality. With regard to “every aspect of life,” there is a remarkable and immutable inequality that no courts of law can ever eradicate.

    Cynthia, religious laws have been the basis of civic law from time immemorial. Therefore, you argue ahistorically when you say “the religious claims that this is a moral issue and that religions are entitled to appropriate the apparatus of the state to enforce their religious codes”. Moreover, you attribute “greed and lust for power” as the cause for the moral and religious codes underpinning civic society. I would argue not. Civic order is grounded in those codes. Without them, anarchy even at the biological level—ask the Arabs about the consequences of consanguineous marriages, once a necessity because of population scarcity and religious purity. Until the law said ‘thou shalt not kill’ or ‘thou shalt not steal,’ there was no impediment to either; when the law came, so did a beneficial change in civic relationships.

    It’s far easier to look at man and blame him; there’s nothing to lose in that. It’s a far different and far steeper proposition to point an accusing finger at God. Nevertheless, I encourage you to do it. Being equal before Him means that you can; He expects you to because you are His.

    Finally, you pose this: “Isn’t the sum of all the law and all the prophets to love God and love your neighbor as yourself? Don’t you enjoy having equality? Well, love me like yourself and work for my equality because I deserve equality as a homosexual and I assure you, I don’t have it now.” My answer: It is; I’m very aware of the inequities and shrug my shoulders because they are immutable. I do love you like myself even though I’ve never met you. I cannot and will not do as you request because you are asking me to do two things that are impossible: 1) set God aside. 2) accept a proposition (equality in every aspect of life) that is neither logical nor realistic. Like me, you already have what you seek.

    • Apodoca,

      Still dogma. Not God.

      I AM equal as a lesbian and we homosexuals deserve to have our equality recognized by law. Religions have no business appropriating the apparatus of the state to enforce their doctrines.


  • Pingback: Obama’s mama was trash, now with nude photos — Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian()

  • Stinky

    I’ve also wondered if Obama’s mother was the girl in Davis’s autobiography. All I can think when I see pictures of her is, lord, what a hard life that poor woman had. All of this stuff just makes me sad.

Previous post:

Next post: