Wafergate: Aftermath

Bill Donahue is still crying over PZ Myers desecrating a communion in protest to the treatment of Webster Cook, wafer smuggler. And, about a month and half after the fact, it is even more hilarious.

When I spoke to a reporter from Providence about a play that mocked the
Eucharist, I unloaded. Fortunately, he listened to me explain the source of my
anger. “Because this is the fourth incident this summer of someone playing fast
and loose with the Eucharist,” I told him.

I believe that I hear the sound of the world's violin playing. Poor wittle Bill, those meanies are making him cwy.

The first incident occurred when Washington Post religion editor Sally
Quinn decided she would show how much she cared about the late Tim Russert by
doing something she hated to do—receive Communion; Quinn is not Catholic.

Boo-friggety-hoo. The idea that you have to be "Catholic" in order to take Communion seems kind of arbitrary, doesn't it? Oh wait...I am talking about transubstantiation. Some bizarre and arbitrary criteria for participation is far from the most ludicrous aspect I assume...

The second incident was worse: a brazen student from the University of Central
Florida walked out of Mass with the Eucharist to protest some innocuous school
policy.

1. He ran out after someone tried to strong-arm him into eating it.

2. That "innocuous school policy" was an unconstitutional financial support, by a state school, of a religious organization. It is only "innocuous" to you, because it helps out Catholics.

The third was obscene: University of Minnesota Professor Paul Z. Myers
desecrated a consecrated Host to protest my criticism of the Florida student.

It wasn't just about you (though you helped put things into motion). It was all the good Catholics who sent death threats to Mr.Cook that spurred him into action. And the death threats directed at him afterwards pushed him over the edge into actually going through with it. Which he performed rather tastefully, all and all.

So when the reporter called to ask why I was unhappy with some woman who decided to mock the Eucharist in a play, he touched a raw nerve.

Cue violin again.

For fifteen years I have been president of the Catholic League, and never have I
seen such a series of assaults on the Eucharist. What’s going on?

One was an accident. The Webster Cook thing was also an accident (debatably). And Myers was reacting to incident 2. So, I think that you are overreacting [gasp].

And what accounts for the total failure of the University of Minnesota to hold
Myers accountable?

Here's my guess: because he didn't do anything wrong legally, and what he did was not done in the role of a professor at the university, but as a citizen, so...free speech...

What’s going on is that militant atheism is all the rage....Hatred of religion
in general, and Christianity in particular. The bulls-eye, of course, is Roman
Catholicism. I’ll give them this much: At least the religion bashers are smart
enough to know who’s on top.

Please. We are hardly "militant", you could hardly call what we have "hatred", and the only reason why we pick on Christianity so much is because it is the world's largest religion, and it is also the one that is adhered to by 80% of our neighbors.

As for your remarks about Catholicism, aside from having the longest history, and being the largest individual Christian institution, atheists could care less about your Church. You're an easy target, and many in mainstream Christianity (hell, even in some Catholic churches) don't even believe that you are a Christian denomination. You receive friendly fire from not only other denominations, but from your own disaffected members. Your Church and traditions are just ripe for satire, even after being plucked and pulped so many times before. You're not a bulls-eye, nor the top. You are a formerly influential corner that currently contributes very much to the population of shooters, and could be broken off and be completely disregarded by the rest of Christendom.

What these authors do is embolden their base. To be specific, they energize
atheists to be more in-your-face about their convictions, the result of which is
an agenda to attack Catholicism.

More or less correct until you get to "whaaa, why are the evil atheists picking on the cafolixx!" part. Again, we do not care about Catholicism any more than other Christian denominations that are comparably intrusive and abusive.

The sick climate that these zealots have created could not have succeeded
without a little help from their friends.In the case of Myers, that means the
administrators at the University. They had several options available to them,
and they passed on every one of them. Predictably, they hid behind academic
freedom, claiming they were impotent to do anything about Myers’ off-campus
behavior.

What did you honestly expect? You can't punish a person for being mean to ideas. Especially when he has not doing so as a representative of his place of employment.

Does anyone believe that the University of Minnesota would do absolutely nothing
about a white professor who packed them in at a local comedy club on weekends
doing his racist rendition of “Little Black Sambo”?

I would honestly hope that "being a racist" isn't a fireable offense if it doesn't extend into his role as teacher or his grading methods. Also, I find it rather hilarious to liken a harsh critique of unfounded ideas to racism. You tend to rant a lot about anti-Catholic bigotry, Bill. It is funny. Anti-Catholic sentiment does exist. It is just nowhere near as bad, currently or historically, as racism. Criticizing your beliefs isn't bigotry, though. Especially when it is coming from atheists (because we give the same kind of criticism to EVERY religion's unfounded beliefs). You should really look to your fellow Christians for that. You know, the ones who don't think that you are Christian, call you Mary-worshippers, and will go on and on about how you don't worship Jesus correctly and are going to Hell for it. Those people. Not the people who are protesting against a bunch of overreacting death-threat lobbers who happen to be Catholic.

Would the very same administrators plead helplessness about a professor who
spoke to community groups off-campus about the mythology of the Holocaust?

Holocaust Envy, huh? You really are trying to stretch here, aren't you? Honestly, once again, as long as Holocaust-denier bizarro-Myers was not using his role as professor to further such an argument, it would, ideally, be ignored.

Lest anyone not be convinced, need I remind you that Larry Summers was driven
out of his job as president of Harvard University for remarks that radical
feminists found objectionable.

And that was an overreaction. Just like your's in this situation. But, slight distinction: Summers' statement was made within his role at the University, not on a personal blog.

It cannot go unsaid that Summers’ comments were made off-campus.

At an academic conference. It is not like he was just talking with his buddies over a cup of coffee.

Moreover, when Summers spoke, it was made explicitly clear that he was not
speaking as president, but as an academic.

Well...sucks for him, then.

Academic freedom was instituted to protect contrarian professors from being
hounded out of the academy for challenging the conventional wisdom on a
particular academic subject.

There you go. Now your on the right page.

It was not instituted to protect hate speech.

Fecking moron. That didn't take long. How is "the Catholic Church has done bad things in the past, Catholics are overreacting to the Cook fiasco, and a human life is worth more than tradition ", verifiably true statements that do not reflect any hatred for individuals on the mere basis of their being Catholic, hate speech? You are chasing phantoms of something that never was, Donahue. Calling out a religious institution is not hate speech. Nor is bringing up the past deeds of that institution. Nor is bringing up the behavior of a small section of those people and responding to it. Nor is nabbing something with a price of $.02 which is handed out freely and throwing it away as your response.

Myers is free to say whatever he wants about his specialty, which is zebrafish,
but he has no moral right to assault the sensibilities of any religious group.

Myers is an American citizen first, biology professor second. The responsibilities of the second should never deprive him of the rights of the first, especially when not in the role of professor. And, considering what tiny things count as an "assault" of your "sensibilities", I am going to call bullshit. You have no right to that level of protection from opposing ideas.

At the very least, the president should have convened an assembly, with members
of the press invited, to unequivocally condemn what Myers did. Even if what
Myers did was outside the purview of the president’s authority, there was
nothing stopping him from holding such a forum.

That's just franky bizarre. Do you really think that the president of the University really wanted to drag PZ, and the entire school through the mud, just to appease the few angry cafolixx like yourself who even cared? Do you even think that this obscure thought even occurred to the president, assuming that he himself even gave a damn about it? Grasping at straws...

Over the summer, Myers’ personnel file ballooned: everything that happened
regarding this issue is in it. Which means that he’d better be careful about
bringing his religious bigotry to bear in the classroom.

The only "religious bigotry" I am aware of is in between folks who, you know, are PART OF A RELIGION THEMSELVES! Myers doesn't get a hard-on for dishing out the hurtie to Catholics, all right? That is very specific, peculiar fetish that only religious nuts have a particular enjoyment of.

If just one Catholic student complains that he is being treated unfairly because
of his religion, Myers will have to answer.

I doubt it. I doubt that Myers teaches classes that are small and intimate enough for him to be aware of a student's religion, let alone be able to discriminate against them for it.

Because of the hate-filled milieu that Myers and his ilk have created, all
kinds of copy-cats have come forth. Some have put videos of themselves up on the
Internet. They all go after me big time, and that is as it should be. They know
who the enemy is, and for that I am eternally grateful.

And thus Bill ends his tale of woe and whining, and cries for vengeance, with a brief allusion to his persecution complex and his wish to self-flagellate himself until he can finally get his Viagra to kick in. And we are, understandably, left perturbed and exasperated.

America's Not Racist Anymore! Spread The Word!

After talking about Kenyan success in running events at the Olympics and immediately afterwards trying to draw the most broad conclusions he could from it, Dinesh D'Souza continues to ramble incoherently on the subject of race.

Who could not be moved at the sight of a major political party naming
Barack Obama, an African American, as its presidential candidate? To me, there
could not be a better sign that America has left behind its racist past.

Yeah, no. Considering that you are only talking about slightly more than half of a political party that makes up roughtly half of the country showing their support of Obama up to this point, it only shows that most Democrats are tolerant enough to support a black man instead of Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, there is plenty of room for these people to still have a level of racism in them that they are either trying to suppress or that is slightly less than their hatred of women and/or Republicans. And of course, we still have half of the country who will refuse to support Obama, squarely within the Republican party tent, whose ranks leave plenty of room for America's racism to dwell within it at full strength, under the veil of whatever misguided justifications they can concoct for such a refusal.

If we appreciate the significance of our current moment, we are driven to
an ironic but rational conclusion: perhaps the best way to recognize Obama's
historic achievement is to vote for John McCain this November.

Yes. Voting McCain will definitely prove that racism doesn't exist. Willing to vote in a continuation of an almost universally despised president in order to avoid plopping a black man into the Oval Office. Acknowledge a historic achievment by making it completely irrelevant and telling them "oh, so close but yet so far. Better luck in 2012, but America has spoken, and they want another old white warmonger". The fact that you use the word "rational" for this idea is disgusting.

for the past several years we have been hearing liberal Democrats emphasize how
racism still defines America, how things haven't really changed all that much,
how racism has gone underground and is now more covert and more dangerous than
ever.

It has. In lieu of obvious vehemence, hatred, and violence directed towards another race, there is now just a casual fear, distaste, and racial favortism that simmers, hidden as much as possible but still everpresent. And, due to this subtler, less visible, less obvious form that racism has taken, it is almost impossible to counteract, and impossible to overcome.

It may seem strange that a racist country would adopt legal policies that
discriminate against the majority and in favor of minorities.

Completely missed the point! Do you know why those policies to exist? To circumvent existing racist discrimination against those minorities, enacted by people who knew that it existed, and that it was having negative effects on them. And guess who these people were? If you said: the liberals who were fighting for civil rights from the outset and who have voted Obama to be their presidential candidate, than you would be correct.

Well, I don't know how many people have been drinking the liberal Kool-Aid, but
these people must be utterly shocked at the success of Barack Obama. Here is a
guy who could not possibly have made it as far as he has with only black votes.
He has attracted not only white votes but the votes of some of the most affluent
and successful segments of the white community.

Yes. White liberals. White people who are either plagued enough by white guilt, empathetic enough to not become hung up in regards to skin color, or just plain don't like Hillary enough to support Obama. And, guess what? They do not make up the majority of white people in our country! Hurrah, hooray! You've got to love the attempt to make it seem like racism doesn't exist by using the people who oppose the racist elements of society as evidence.

Obama's public message is that race doesn't matter and that transracial
alliances should be built on shared political and cultural values. It's a good
message, and how it must dismay professional civil rights activists to hear it.

That is some kind of epic retardation, right there. Civil rights activists fully support transracial alliance and wholeheartedly believe that race SHOULDN'T matter, you twit. The only problem, is that for a good segment of society (and a powerful one at that), it still DOES matter. Does it matter universally? No. Does it matter objectively? Should it matter to anyone? No. Does it matter to people? YES. And that's what civil rights activists are active against.

Clearly there are many in the liberal Democratic camp who are made profoundly
uncomfortable by the recognition that racism is no more a defining feature of
American life or even African American life.

No. Not really. Not uncomfortable at all. I am made "profoundly uncomfortable" by people who are both ignorant and overly optimistic enough to believe that this is true to an incredibly large degree. It may not be a "defining feature", but it sure is a significant influence, even if it is below the surface. There is still is racial tension, and there still is a segment of people who are as hateful towards different races as they were decades ago. The idea that this wouldn't have an effect on the recipients of this closeted hatred is leaves me simply flabbergasted. It may not be "defining", but it sure as hell isn't negligible.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that racism does not exist. This is a big
country, and surely one can find several examples of it. But racism, which used
to be systematic, is now only episodic

Racism still is systematic. It's just that the system has been made less focused on segregation and violence, and more on exclusion and avoidance. If you define racism as only those actions which were defined by the old paradigms, before there were laws to prevent them or weed them out, then obviously there will be rare instances of it. But, unfortunately, racism is in intent, not in action, and the racism that once manifested itself before in certain ways has found new venues now that the old methods are no longer permissible. Instead of lynching black people and giving them separate water fountains, we simply have cops pull them over a little more often than their white counterparts, and have some white flight when they dare to move into our neighborhoods.
It exists still, it occurs reguarly still (though less dramatically and less often). The only difference now is that the government doesn't tacitly condone it anymore. So...that's something.

In fact, when I ask young blacks on the campus today whether America is racist,
many say yes. But if I ask them to give me examples of how that racism affects
their lives, they are hard pressed to give a single one. The best they can do is
to mention "Rodney King" or provide some well-known, recycled horror story.

OMG! Young people who don't have evidence from their own personal experiences to support their beliefs! The horror!

Recently someone told me that McCain is still winning the white vote by a
substantial majority and that shows "we have a long way to go" in overcoming
white bigotry. By this logic, blacks are have even longer way to go in
overcoming their bigotry since Obama is winning almost 98 percent of the black
vote.

Except, you know, for the fact that white people along with black people have been voting white for every election since their respective rights to vote where granted to them. Are you telling me that it would be bigotry to support a candidate from a never before elected minority group that you happen to be part of and who is not only supportive of the rights of your group, but of all other minorities as well? As compared to the alternative candidate, who is not only not part of your group, part of a group that has been elected 43 times consecutively in the past, but also represents a party that is composed of people that hate you? Yeah. A reaction against bigotry is not bigotry.

Even though Obama's candidacy signals that America is overcoming its racial
past, neither Obama nor his wife recognize that. Their personal statements, as
seen for example in Obama's books, are suffused with race-consciousness,
race-obsession and even racial resentment. The more privileges they have
received on the basis of race, the more embittered they seem to become

Just because you are fortunately in a position of privilege doesn't mean that you cannot sympathize with the plight of your less fortunate brothers, and it doesn't mean that you forget the past you had when you were not in such a position. They are "race-obsessed" because of all of the times they have most likely been subjected to questions, and criticisms based upon that very trait. A person in a society that doesn't care about race (i.e. one that isn't racist) would not become "race-obsessed". One that is responding to a society that has focused on such a trait unduly, however, would become one.

The source of these pathologies is the very liberalism that the Obamas have
embraced: a liberalism that declares them equal while treating them as inferiors
who need preferential treatment.

No. That is a strawman of affirmative action, which is intended to counteract institutional racial favoritism in regards to hiring policy, rather than to give them compensatory handicap. The "pathologies" are due to a hostile and racist climate that, surprise surprise, didn't just fade away into nothingness in the 40 years after the Civil Rights Act (in much the same way that it hadn't faded in the century or so since slavery had been abolished up to that point).

If you want to get rid of racial obsession, stop talking and thinking about race
so much. If you want to remove race as the basis of decision-making in America,
let's eliminate America's policies that make race the basis of decision-making.

Finally, something I can agree with. Almost. Racial obsession and racism will fade if people stop talking and thinking about it. The problem is that many people refuse to do so. Many people refuse to give up their blind, racially motivated hatred and cannot be forced to do so. But, as long as these people remain, and as long as they exist in a large quantity and have even a small amount of power and presence, racism will not die. In that sense, we must keep race in mind: not as something to judge people by, but as an indication of the potential prejudices that such people had to overcome. Hence, why we can't totally abandon race entirely as a basis of decision-making in regards to the protections provided affirmative action.

And if you want a party that stands for color-blindess and equal opportunity, you might consider voting for the Republicans.

Hilarious. They are "color-blind" in the sense of not being willing to defend people from those who adamantly hate a specific color. They are "equal opportunity" in the sense of giving people in a position of a power an equal opportunity to discriminate against people who are not part of one their arbitrarily defined groups, including race. They want a color blind government for a racially divided nation. Democrats want a color blind world, and will make sure that the laws protect the softer targets until then. Dinesh's futile attempt to spin that is both entertaining and depressing.

Ding, dong, the ding-dong's dead

Looks like Edward Gordon abandoned his blog. A true shame. His fight against the evil atheistic influence will have to be taken up by someone else (preferrably someone who doesn't tie everything in society to the "atheistic influence").

Christian Cross Talk: 2007-2008. [Insert sappy montage here]

You will missed. Just not by me.

Bananaland, Ho!

Newsflash: Ray Comfort is making a fool of himself! I present, for your amusement, the worst strawman of atheists ever concocted, which Ray proudly presents in his sidebar, as an undying testament to his profound levels of idiocy.

1. Whenever you are presented with credible evidence for God's existence, call it a "straw man argument," or "circular reasoning." If something is quoted from somewhere, label it "quote mining."

Oh. Can't point out logical fallacies now, can we?
Well, anyway, let me posit that Ray Comfort believes wholeheartedly that everything that can be uttered from a human throat is undeniable truth if they do so with honesty, regardless of whether they know what they are talking about. Thus, Ray thinks that we shouldn't teach our children mathematics.
Also, unicorns must exist because they left behind a grocery list. That grocery list is a trustworthy code for which to design our own grocery lists because it was written by a unicorn.
And, finally: "Good people don’t go to Hell." -Ray Comfort.

Heretic.
(Got all three fallacies covered....)

2. When a Christian says that creation proves that there is a Creator, dismiss such common sense by saying "That's just the old watchmaker argument."

If you are assuming that existence is "created" then of course there is going to be a creator...it is by your very choice of words that this conclusion must be made. But, unfortunately for you, we do not need to presume that the universe is a creation, so your conclusion of a Creator is equally weak.

3. When you hear that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose (the pleasures of Heaven, and the endurance of Hell) by obeying the Gospel, say "That's just the old 'Pascal wager.'"

That's because it is Pascal's Wager. And it is utterly uncompelling.

4. You can also deal with the "whoever looks on a woman to lust for her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart," by saying that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. None.

There is evidence that Jesus existed. Just not a very compelling amount. And not a large amount indicating that Jesus's existence is proof that the particulars of the Gospels are correct. Besides, that particular quote be taken one of two ways: 1. it is an honorable attempt to show that one's desires and thoughts can inhibit us as much as our actions or 2. that your particular deity punishes us for even thinking about a "sinful" activity in the flightiest manner, illustrating an inability to understand nuance.

I assume that you prefer the latter interpretation.

5. Believe that the Bible is full of mistakes, and actually says things like the world is flat. Do not read it for yourself. That is a big mistake. Instead, read, believe, and imitate Richard Dawkins. Learn and practice the use of big words. "Megalo-maniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" is a good phrase to learn.

It is full of mistakes, believers in the Bible did believe the world was flat and some verses suggest that it is a valid perception, and most atheists have read and understand the Bible better than believers. Not to mention the fact that lack of religion (atheism) is not a cult of personality, and not all atheists even like Richard Dawkins, let alone want to emulate him. Also, the tacit suggestion that you are afraid of "big words" really tickles me.

6. Say that you were once a genuine Christian, and that you found it to be false. (The cool thing about being an atheist is that you can lie through your teeth, because you believe that are no moral absolutes.) Additionally, if a Christian points out that this is impossible (simply due to the very definition of Christianity as one who knows the Lord), just reply "That's the 'no true Scotsman fallacy.'"

Yeah, that's right, the atheists are the ones who lie. Atheists could not possibly be former Christians in a nation that is 80% Christian and attempts to indoctrinate children at the age of 8 onward. And, with your definition of Christianity, there are very few Christians in existence, and yet you could not prove their Christianity either way. Which is why it is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Belief in Christian doctrine is sufficient enough, not unverifiable divine connections or whatever you are attempting to gerrymander the defintion to.

7. Believe that nothing is 100% certain, except the theory of Darwinian evolution. Do not question it. Believe with all of your heart that there is credible scientific evidence for species-to-species transitional forms. When you make any argument, pat yourself on the back by concluding with "Man, are you busted!" That will make you feel good about yourself.

Nothing is 100% certain, including evolution. But, it is our best evidenced explanation for differentiated life at the time, so that makes it good enough to be believed in. Why do I get the feeling that you are writing these after several tear-stained hours reading atheist comments that completely eviscerated your arguments, and you somehow managed to remain ignorant to that fact, but just felt like you were being unjustly persecuted by the mean evolutionists?

8. Deal with the threat of eternal punishment by saying that you don't believe in the existence of Hell. Then convince yourself that because you don't believe in something, it therefore doesn't exist. Don't follow that logic onto a railway line and an oncoming train.

You should really be wearing garlic necklaces, have silver bullets on you at all times, and wear a tinfoil hat. Just because you don't believe in vampires, werewolves, and telepathic aliens doesn't mean that aren't real.

9. Blame Christianity for the atrocities of the Roman Catholic church--when it tortured Christians through the Spanish Inquisition, imprisoned Galileo for his beliefs, or when it murdered Moslems in the Crusades.

Catholics are Christians, deal with it.

And, for irony's sake:

10. Finally, keep in fellowship with other like-minded atheists who believe as you believe, and encourage each other in your beliefs. Build up your faith. Never doubt for a moment. Remember, the key to atheism is to be unreasonable. Fall back on that when you feel threatened. Think shallow, and keep telling yourself that you are intelligent. Remember, an atheist is someone who pretends there is no God.

LOLZ must follow. Most atheists don't have many other atheist friends. However...the religious...

The Christocentric Definiton of Atheism

I am sure that you have heard this before: atheists are only atheists because they don't like the Christian God (for whatever variety of reasons). Atheism to people with such a mindset is fervently opposed to Christianity alone, and is simply a refusal of their own doctrine. To such people, no other world views have any factor on the decision to become an atheist, no other gods are being "opposed" or "denied". It is only the god that they believe in that needs to be actively despised or rejected in order for one not to believe in it.

It is hilariously egotistic, thoroughly entrenched in the presuppositions of their own doctrine, and so blatant in its disregard of how they, by the implications of their assertion of atheism being hatred of a deity, must have an incredible amount of spite towards every other god that others hold as being true.

So, yes, atheists are only atheists because they despise Jesus and Yahweh. Serves you right for how much resentment you bear towards Allah, Vishnu, and the entire Greek pantheon.

Zionist Conspriacies And The Homosexual Agenda: Subtitle; Maybe Hitler Was On To Something, Parentheses Racism.

Anyone else think that the Jews are secretly running our society, and trying to use their influence in Hollywood and politics to brainwash the general public into supporting Israel? Because I know that a lot of educated people agree with me on this on, and everyone else who does not agree is a filthy Jew sympathizer and/or a filthy Jew and/or an ignorant liberal hippie and/or a government assassin sent to spy on my activity and undermine my beliefs. You will not win this war, Mr. Thompson! And I will keep burning crosses on your lawn until you admit it!

Anyway, the Jews are obviously trying to promote the homosexual agenda, and are doing so through the television media shows, such as Will and Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and professional wrestling. But they have come to a new low by having kids in the government classrooms being put into brainwashing courses teaching them to "tolerate" the godless gays who are trying to terrorize our country by infecting innocent citizens with the HIV. It's bad enough that they have the filthy liberal lie that is the "Holocaust" still being taught as fact in the history classes, along with the horrible falsehoods of noble Christians having mistreated those conniving, money-grubbing, Jesus-killing Jews in the past. I can tolerate those deceptions because the public schools cannot change the Truth that is my perception of reality. But, when they start trying to convert children to homosexuality, that is where they cross the line!

So, all of you liberal homosexual atheistic Jew hippies, trying to push your agenda on innocent young boys and girls with the God-given right to hate who their parents hate: the next time my boy sees two men kissing and refuses to verbally berate them as sinners for doing so, I will personally hunt down Stephen Speilberg, and hang his head above the mantle of fireplace! So help me God, I'll do it!

Until then, dear readers, do your part to assure that the Jews do not reach their desired goals of destroying the white race through trickery and Jew-lies, and thus gain complete control over the Middle East. Here's what you can do to help:
1. Don't watch movies and television programs that are not explicitly anti-Semitic.
2. Do not pay attention to anything that government officials or teachers say (that's how they get you!).
3. Make sure to remain hateful of anyone not like you, just in case...
4. Do not have sex with members of another race. Everytime you do, somewhere, a kitten dies....and turns into a Jew.
5. Send me $500.00 via e-mail.

If you do all of these things, I can promise you that the Illuminati will not have slit all of our throats to attain their nefarious goals for at least another eight months. I know you can do it!

Love, Jim-bob.