The Homeland Security employee who runs a website that calls for the the mass murder of whites has still not been fired.

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Does this make you feel safer? The Homeland Security employee who runs a website that calls for the the mass murder of whites has still not been fired.

Kimathi, using the online nom de guerre “the Irritated Genie,” called for “ethnic cleansing” of “black-skinned Uncle Tom race traitors” on his website, which envisioned a massive race war on the horizon. “In order for Black people to survive the 21st century, we are going to have to kill a lot of whites—more than our Christian hearts can possibly count,” he wrote.

In other postings, he warned that whites and their enablers like President Obama are trying to “homosexualize” black men in order to make them weaker, and suggested that a woman’s primary role in life should be to “keep a strong Black man happy.” He also seemed to hold anti-Semitic views, claiming in a Facebook post that his website was under attack from a conspiracy of “zionist smallhats, the Uncle Tom koons,” and, naturally, “the haters.”



  • Cotour

    A peek, IMO, into what allows such things.

    In looking through all of the story’s this morning and attempting to find a singular story that illustrates my observations about our president and his untruthfulness, I found this one example that for me sums him up and tells everyone what his intentions are. Your president is an atheist at the minimum (although he professes to be a Christian) and at the maximum he refuses to recognize the Judeo / Christian “God” because he is either a true non believer in God or his allegiance is to another God that he is un-willing to publicly recognize. Choose one.

    A Marxist / communist is by definition an atheist and rejects a belief in a God and therefore is an enemy of the Constitution because it was written by the founders to recognize, as does president Lincoln in his Gettysburg speech, a belief in a God and that our individual rights emanate from that God and not from man. Or it may be that this president refuses to recognize the same God that the founders recognized because the founders were who they were. If true, how does one make those distinctions between one God or another God and where human rights come from? Or if they exist at all.

    Because an atheist believes that there is no higher power than themselves they are more likely to intellectualize existence and are more likely to allow a belief that human rights are only a construct of man and emanate from man and therefore those rights can be cancelled, extended or modified by man.
    This is the presidents fundamental difference and he gives you a glimpse into his un-truthfulness and what he truly believes in these public instances where he purposefully omits certain elements from a speech or a ceremony. You can draw your own conclusions about him and how he finds himself in the situation he finds himself as of late.

    If you have a different interpretation than mine, please enlighten me.

    Obama Omits God While Reciting the Gettysburg Address

    Nov. 19, 2013 10:47am Mike Opelka

    Nov. 19 marks the 150th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg Address, the two-minute speech delivered at the dedication of the national where thousands of Americans died fighting the Civil War. But according to a video of President Obama reciting the infamous words, “God” isn’t in it.
    Obama and several other famous faces (from politics, entertainment and business) recorded versions of the address for filmmaker Ken Burns and his project “Learn The Address” created for PBS. But, in that Obama recorded on his own, an important word was omitted from the text: God.

    Here’s the ironic video, considering it’s part of the push to “learn the address”:

    WMAL’s Chris Plante noticed that the president dropped “God” and his crew also checked the other recordings. He says every single famous face in the Ken Burns video recited the speech and included God. It appears that the President is the only one who did not.

    Here’s the PBS mash-up of the address, President Obama opens and closes it:

    As TheBlaze reported last year, there are several versions (up to 10) of the address. Some of them do not include the phrase “under God.” However, the commonly accepted Associated Press version does include it.

    “The inclusion of God in the speech is perhaps the most significant difference among the versions,” the National Constitution Center says. “The fifth version of the speech, which was signed and dated by Lincoln, was considered the ‘final’ version and included ‘under God’ in its last sentence.”

  • Edward

    Generally, I agree with your interpretation.

    The spot where I disagree is where the atheist, “therefore is an enemy of the Constitution…” The constitution does not exclude atheists, or agnostics, and as long as they are willing to keep their belief that there is no god (or their uncertainty of a god) from interfering with others who worship the god that *they* believe in, then they are not inconsistent with the Constitution.

    This ‘inclusiveness’ is one of the great hallmarks of this marvelous document. Another great hallmark is that our rights are written in such a way that government is not allowed to usurp them, not written that the government bestows them upon We The People. This is an important distinction that proves that the rights come from our Creator, not the Constitution or the men who wrote it.

    Atheists need not believe in God to acknowledge that our rights have not been bestowed upon us by men, because God given rights can also be called “natural rights.” God (or nature) has given inalienable rights to all the creatures.

    For example, birds can sing, lions can roar, perhaps they even worship their own god(s), and many animals announce the news of danger (First Amendment). All animals are allowed to protect themselves and their property (Second Amendment). They can even have property (Fourth Amendment); birds have nests, cats have territories. These are rights of nature and cannot be taken away. A tyrannical government may usurp them, but they cannot be taken away.

    (The rest of the world tries to emulate the US Constitution, but they always have written their documents so that government, not God or nature, generously and magnanimously bestows rights upon their people. Thus, those governments could decide at any moment to withdraw those rights in an act of tyranny.)

    I think that you have sized up Obama and his misguided (read: tyrannical) attempts to usurp our rights. They are not his to take from us, they are ours to have.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *