Latest News

Fetterman hammers 'a--hole' anti-Israel protesters, slams own party for response to Iranian attack: 'Crazy'

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., reiterated his criticisms of activists calling for cease-fire in Gaza, and slammed fellow Democrats for their "crazy" response to the attacks Iran has launched against Israel, in an interview with Fox Digital.

"It is not appropriate or legal or helpful to advance your argument if you show up in a Starbucks with a bullhorn and start yelling at people," he told Fox News Digital in a Friday interview. 

He also claimed such protests don't "make you noble."

"It just makes you an a--hole," Fetterman said. 


Since the onset of the war between Israel and terrorist group Hamas, anti-Israel demonstrations have erupted across the U.S. The protesters have gone to extreme lengths at times to telegraph their displeasure with U.S. policy in regard to Israel. Some have trespassed in government buildings, blocked high-traffic bridges and entered private businesses with bullhorns, chanting at employees. 


Fetterman clarified that he is supportive of the right to protest and hold different opinions. 

"It's very American to protest and to do that in the appropriate way," he said. "I absolutely support that."

What he takes issue with, he said, is when those demonstrations "disrupt lives."

He noted the serious implications of protesters who block traffic with their bodies on high-volume bridges and roads, explaining, "There could be people that [are in] an emergency, or they're going to be late for work – that they could lose their job, or they have to pick up their kids or drop kids off."


While he opposes such forms of protest, he didn't signal interest in legislation to address them, telling Fox News Digital, it's "not really my priority."

"My priority is to talk about hostages," he said, referring to those still in Hamas' custody in Gaza. 

The Pennsylvania senator has emerged as one of the most vocally supportive Democrats of Israel, which he reiterated in the interview, emphasizing, "We can't ever forget Hamas started this, and they have chosen to do the most terrible, awful, unspeakable things."

And until the hostages, including the Americans still held in Gaza, are released, Fetterman doesn't believe the Palestinian cause for statehood can go anywhere.

"They have the power to decide, today – send everyone home and surrender, and all the trauma, the death, and everything in Gaza can end. And you can get back on the path of peace and a two-state solution," he said.


Many in the Democratic Party were not supportive of Israel's decision to retaliate against Iran, which attacked the country directly last weekend. They feared any counterattacks could stoke a regional war that has the potential to draw in the U.S. But Fetterman said, "I am not going to be in a position to tell Israel what it should do. That's their choice." 

"I certainly hope none of this escalates and turns into [a] more widespread" conflict, he added. 

He was critical of fellow Democrats who did not immediately condemn Iran for directly attacking Israel. "I was appalled that there were members of our party – Democrats that can't even condemn Iran," Fetterman remarked. "That's crazy."

Prompted on growing division within the Democratic Party over support for Israel, he said he can't speak for other members. However, he reaffirmed his position as "a very confirmed and consistent voice in standing with Israel throughout all of this."

2024/04/22 05:30

GOP congresswoman demands Columbia University 'restore order and safety' amid anti-Israel protests

Rep. Virginia Foxx, chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, sent a letter to Columbia University leaders demanding they take action against the anti-Israel protests on campus that have made Jewish students feel unsafe.

Foxx's letter on Sunday was addressed to Columbia President Minouche Shafik and Columbia Trustees Co-Chairs David Greenwald and Claire Shipman.

"I am gravely concerned by the ongoing chaos at Columbia University caused by the radical, unlawful Gaza Solidarity Encampment, which has now entered its fifth day," Foxx, R-N.C., wrote. "The encampment and related activities have created a severe and pervasive hostile environment for Jewish students at Columbia. A Jewish chaplain at the University has recommended Jewish students depart campus due to the University’s inability to guarantee their safety. Multiple Jewish students have already sought shelter off-campus."

"Columbia's continued failure to restore order and safety promptly to campus constitutes a major breach of the University’s Title VI obligations, upon which federal financial assistance is contingent, and which must immediately be rectified," she continued. "If you do not rectify this danger, then the Committee will not hesitate in holding you accountable."


Anti-Israel agitators occupied Columbia's south lawn in New York City for hours on Wednesday as Shafik testified before Congress about antisemitism on the university's campus.

An encampment with tents was set up on the main lawn of campus and the protests continued into the night for several days.

Protests at the university have called for an intifada and the death of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. One Jewish Columbia University student was told to "kill yourself" and was repeatedly kicked in the stomach.

Foxx wrote: "The encampment and related activities have resulted in widespread antisemitic harassment and intimidation, assaults, frequent celebration of terrorism, and major disruptions of Columbia’s learning environment. … The Committee is aware of multiple Jewish students seeking shelter off-campus due to their well-founded fears regarding their physical safety and continuing to be subjected to what is clearly a hostile environment."

On Thursday, the New York City Police Department arrested 108 people who refused to leave the encampment, each of whom was issued a summons for trespassing. The university also began handing out suspension notices to the students who were arrested.

"This situation is unacceptable, and it is imperative that Columbia’s leaders restore order and safety without further delay, in line with their commitments before the Committee at its April 17 hearing," Foxx said, referring to comments made by Shafik, Greenwald and Shipman stressing the importance of student safety.


"Columbia is failing to deliver on these commitments, as Jewish students are being harassed, assaulted, threatened, and intimidated to the point where they are departing campus for safer environments," she added.

The congresswoman said students, faculty, and staff are "responsible for this mayhem," including members of the campus groups Students for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for Peace, Columbia University Apartheid Divest and Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine. She said these groups have "repeatedly and flagrantly" violated multiple university rules and even federal law in some cases.

"The University must decisively hold them accountable in a manner commensurate with the severity of their offenses, including expulsion and termination of employment," Foxx concluded.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and the White House have criticized the protests at Columbia as antisemitic and dangerous.

"The First Amendment protects the right to protest, but students also have a right to learn in an environment free from harassment or violence," Hochul said. "At Columbia or on any campus, threatening Jewish students with violence or glorifying the terror of October 7 is antisemitism."

On Monday, students are planning a walk out to demand amnesty for student and faculty protesters as well as the university's divestment from "Israeli apartheid."

Shafik's office said in a statement to Fox News Digital that students have a right to protest, but they may not harass and intimidate other students.

"As President Shafik has said repeatedly, the safety of our community is our number one priority," the statement said. "Columbia students have the right to protest, but they are not allowed to disrupt campus life or harass and intimidate fellow students and members of our community. We are acting on concerns we are hearing from our Jewish students and are providing additional support and resources to ensure that our community remains safe."

Fox News' Greg Wehner contributed to this report.

2024/04/22 05:23

House GOP chairman accuses key government agency of acting as Biden 'campaign arm'

FIRST ON FOX: The top Republican on the House Small Business Committee is accusing the Biden administration of using a key government agency as its "campaign arm" in a critical swing state ahead of the 2024 election.

"Earlier this month, my colleagues and I sent a letter to the SBA inquiring into their Memorandum of Understanding with the Michigan Department of State. It appears that the SBA is diverting its resources away from assisting Main Street so it can register Democrat voters," Chairman Roger Williams, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital.

"Federal agencies should not act as campaign arms for their Administrations, period. Americans have a right to know the extent of the SBA’s involvement, and based on further investigation, it appears even more concerning. I look forward to hearing from Administrator Guzman as to why her agency is engaging in election efforts on the taxpayer’s dime."


It comes as President Biden’s re-election campaign eyes Michigan as a must-win state in the 2024 race. Biden beat former President Trump by less than 3% there in 2020.

Williams’ committee is investigating the Small Business Administration’s collaboration with the Michigan Department of State on a program "to promote civic engagement and voter registration in Michigan," according to a press release announcing the partnership.

The press release said the Michigan Department of State would "create a unique URL for the SBA to use to drive online visitors to register to vote," and that the SBA’s Michigan field office would allow state government officials to facilitate in-person voter registration at the federal agency’s business outreach events. It is part of an overall effort by the Biden administration to expand access to voter registration, launched by a 2021 executive order.


An investigation by the House Small Business Committee found that 22 out of 25 of such outreach events have taken place in counties with the highest population of Democratic National Committee (DNC) target demographics.

Meanwhile, 11 of 15 Michigan counties that showed the largest voter registration increase over the last year have ranked highest in population of young voters and Black voters, according to the committee – two of the left’s most-sought voting blocs.

Williams sent a letter last week to SBA Administrator Isabel Guzman demanding more information on whether her federal office is helping expand Biden’s voter base.


"The Committee wrote to you on April 4, 2024, requesting further information about your involvement in voter registration in Michigan. You failed to provide a briefing, narrative response, or any documents by the deadline. The Committee is incredibly concerned that the Small Business Administration (SBA) improperly involved the federal government in America’s electoral processes," Williams wrote.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Biden campaign and the SBA for comment.

2024/04/22 04:00

Trump trial: Opening arguments to begin as Trump flouts gag order and attorney previews defense

Opening arguments in former President Trump’s historic and unprecedented criminal trial are set to begin Monday morning, and the judge is also expected to rule on several motions that could make the trial even more difficult for the former president.

The full jury of 12, plus six alternate jurors, were selected and sworn in on Friday after four days of jury selection. 

Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the trial, instructed jurors on Friday not to discuss or to research anything relating to the former president’s case over the weekend or while serving on the panel. 


Merchan said opening arguments will be delivered by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s team and Trump defense attorneys. 

Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has been charged by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. The charges are related to alleged hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. 

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all counts. He has blasted the trial as pure politics, a "political persecution" and maintains his innocence. The former president, and the first ever to be a defendant in a criminal trial, vowed to "tell the truth" if he takes the stand. 


Trump attorney Will Scharf told Fox News Channel on Sunday that the case should never have been brought, and that the facts are on his client's side.

"While the prosecution and the media are hell-bent on sensationalizing this case, we're focusing on the facts because the facts show that President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong," Scharf said. "This is a business records case, those business records accurately reflected payments to one of President Trump's lawyers as legal retainer fees. Additionally, those records weren't actually entered by President Trump. He was busy running the country from the White House while all this was happening in Trump Tower in New York."

The former president is subject to a gag order, which Merchan imposed upon him last month before the trial began. Merchan ordered that Trump cannot make or direct others to make public statements about witnesses concerning their potential participation or about counsel in the case – other than Bragg – or about court staff, DA staff or family members of staff.

Merchan also ordered that Trump cannot make or direct others to make public statements about any prospective juror or chosen juror. But on Saturday, he let loose with an all-caps rant on his social media platform.


Bragg argued in the first week of the trial that Trump has violated his gag order more than seven times, and wants him to pay a $1,000 fine. Bragg, in his motion, urged the judge to warn the former president that another violation could be punishable by up to 30 days' incarceration. 

Trump and his defense attorneys have argued that the former president and presumptive Republican presidential nominee should not be bound by the gag order, and said it violates his First Amendment rights, as well as the First Amendment rights of his supporters. 

The judge is expected to rule on whether Trump actually violated the order by early next week. 

Also Monday, Merchan said he would make a decision on what evidence Bragg's team can use in their effort to "discredit" the former president should he testify in his own defense. 


Bragg, in a filing last week, said he intends to use Trump’s alleged prior "misconduct and criminal acts" to discredit him.

But Trump has never been convicted of a crime.

Bragg's office said it intends to refer to information from New York Attorney General Letitia James’ case against the former president and the determination from New York Judge Arthur Engoron after the months-long non-jury civil fraud trial against Trump and his family.

Engoron ruled Trump was liable for fraud and "falsifying business records," "issuing false financial statements," "conspiracy to falsify false financial statements," "insurance fraud" and "conspiracy to commit insurance fraud." 

Trump was required to post a slashed judgment bond of $175 million as he appeals the ruling.


That trial took place without a jury. Trump’s defense attorneys Friday objected to any cross-examination of the former president related to James’ case and Engoron’s ruling due to the appellate division’s decision to put the judgment on pause during appeal.

But prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said the findings from Engoron showed "persistent and repeated fraud and illegality." While the appellate division did pause the judgment, Colangelo said it says nothing about the merits of the case. 

Meanwhile, Bragg's office also intends to use information from E. Jean Carroll's defamation case against Trump, and more. 

Trump defense attorneys on Friday said each piece of "evidence" Bragg's team hopes to use are "just distractions." 

Trump has said he will testify in his defense at the trial, telling reporters last week: "I tell the truth." 

Merchan said he will reserve his decision on what information prosecutors can cross-examine the president with until Monday morning. 

2024/04/22 04:00

Supreme Court prepares to debate Trump immunity claim in election interference case

In what may be the most closely watched case this term at the Supreme Court – involving the highest-profile appellant – former President Donald Trump has offered a sweeping argument for why he should not face trial for alleged election interference.

The high court will hold arguments Thursday morning in what could determine the former president's personal and political future. As the presumptive GOP nominee to retake the White House, Trump is betting that his constitutional assertions will lead to a legal reprieve from the court's 6-3 conservative majority – with three of its members appointed to the bench by the defendant himself.  

The official question the justices will consider: Whether, and if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?

This is new territory for the Supreme Court and the nation. No current or former president has ever been criminally indicted.

The stakes could not be higher – both for the immediate election prospects, and the long-term effect on the presidency itself and the rule of law. But it will be the second time this term the high court will hear a case directly involving the former president. 


On March 4, the justices unanimously ruled that Trump could remain on the Colorado primary ballot over claims he committed insurrection in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riots.

The decision to intervene at this stage in the immunity dispute is a mixed bag for both Trump and the Special Counsel. The defendant wanted to delay the process longer – ideally past the November election – and Jack Smith wanted the high court appeal dismissed immediately so any trial could get back on track quickly. 

A federal appeals court had unanimously ruled against Trump on the immunity question.

"For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant," the three-judge panel wrote. "But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution." 

Smith has charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. 

Those charges stemmed from Smith's investigation into Trump's alleged plotting to overturn the 2020 election result, including participation in a scheme to disrupt the electoral vote count leading to the subsequent Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August.

In its brief on the merits submitted this month, the Special Counsel told the high court that "presidents are not above the law."

"The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former President, and all Presidents from the Founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts," said the government. 

But Trump's legal team told the high court, "A denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents."

His lawyers added: "The threat of future prosecution and imprisonment would become a political cudgel to influence the most sensitive and controversial Presidential decisions, taking away the strength, authority, and decisiveness of the Presidency."

In a series of supporting briefs, 19 GOP-controlled states and more than two dozen Republican members of Congress are among those backing Trump's legal positions.

Some of the issues the court will have to consider:

Can a former president ever be prosecuted for "official acts," or does he enjoy "absolute immunity?"

By including the words "whether and to what extent" in its official question framing the case, the Supreme Court – in the eyes of many legal scholars – may be prepared to limit or narrow "absolute immunity," at least in this case.

But court precedent may give Trump some protection – that former presidents should not face civil liability "predicated on his official acts" (Fitzgerald v. Nixon, 1982). Trump, of course, is facing criminal charges brought by the government. The question remains: Will the court now extend any implied civil protection to a criminal prosecution? 

What constitutes an official act of a president? Will the court distinguish between Trump's alleged election interference as clearly acting in his executive capacity, or was he acting in a purely political or personal capacity as an incumbent candidate? 

A federal appeals court that rejected Trump's arguments in a separate civil lawsuit alleging that he incited the violent Capitol mob with his "Stop the Steal" rally remarks on Jan. 6, 2021 concluded that "his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act." Trump is making the same immunity claims in those pending lawsuits.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate 2020 case involving Trump financial records sought by New York prosecutors, wrote, "This Court has recognized absolute immunity for the President from 'damages liability predicated on his official acts,' But we have rejected absolute immunity from damages actions for a President's nonofficial conduct." 

Thomas cited the 1997 Clinton v. Jones case, which determined that a sitting president did not have immunity from civil suits over his conduct prior to taking office and unrelated to his office. Again, the current dispute involves a criminal prosecution, and the justices may weigh whether that deserves greater deference to the constitutional claims from both sides.

What acts are within the outer rim of a president's constitutional duties?  

The lower federal courts deciding the matter pointedly avoided addressing that issue, but the high court now has full discretion to take it up. Questions or hypotheticals from the bench may offer hints about how broadly the justices may want to explore the orbit of presidential authority, when weighing political or "discretionary" acts vs. duty-bound or "ministerial" acts.

During January oral arguments before the DC-based federal appeals court, Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, suggested that if a president were to order Seal Team Six military commandos to assassinate a political rival, he could then be criminally prosecuted only if first found guilty by Congress through the impeachment process. 

Given the stakes, the Supreme Court may compromise here and issue a mixed ruling: rejecting Trump's broad immunity claims while preserving certain vital executive functions, like the national security role of commander-in-chief. The big unknown is what side Trump's election-related conduct would fall, in the eyes of the nine justices.  

Do federal courts have any jurisdiction to consider a president's official discretionary decisions?  

On this separation-of-powers question, Smith's team and others have cited the 1952 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case that limited a president's power to seize private property – even in a wartime emergency – absent any express congressional authorization. That landmark ruling curbing executive power also affirmed the judiciary's binding role to review a president's actions in office.

Will the Supreme Court ultimately decide not to decide, and throw the competing issues back to the lower courts for further review?

The justices may get buyer's remorse and conclude that weighty questions were not fully considered at the intermediate appellate or trial court level. That could significantly delay any trial.

Or they may let the trial play out first, and give both sides a chance to make their claims before a jury. Depending on the verdict, the Supreme Court would then likely revisit the immunity questions. 

Despite Trump's urging, the court pointedly chose not to address another lingering issue: whether the criminal prosecution violates the Fifth Amendment's ban on "double jeopardy," since he was acquitted by the Senate in February 2021 for election subversion, following his second impeachment.       

Trump faces criminal prosecution in three other jurisdictions: He faces a federal case over his alleged mishandling of classified documents while in office; a Georgia case over alleged election interference in that state's 2020 voting procedures; and a New York fraud case involving alleged hush money payments to an adult film star in 2016.

Jury selection in the New York case began on April 15.

But the start of the election interference trial in Washington remains in doubt. Depending on how the court rules, proceedings might not get underway until later this summer, in early fall or perhaps much later.


There is one other factor to consider: Trump could win re-election and then, upon taking office, order his attorney general to dismiss the Special Counsel and all his cases. Neither side's legal team has yet to publicly speculate on that scenario. 

So, Jack Smith's case is frozen for now.

And while this appeal would normally be decided in late June at the end of the Court's term, it is being expedited – so a ruling could come sooner.  

If the Supreme Court rules in the government's favor, the trial court will "un-pause" – meaning all the discovery and pre-trial machinations that have been on hold would resume.  

Trump's team would likely argue to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan that they need several months at least from that point to actually be ready for a jury trial.  

Chutkan said in December that she does not have jurisdiction over the matter while it is pending before the Supreme Court, and she put a pause on the case against him until the justices decide the matter on the merits.

A sweeping constitutional victory for the former president would almost certainly mean that his election interference prosecution collapses, and could implicate his other pending criminal and civil cases. 

But for now, Trump may have achieved a short-term win, even if he eventually loses before the Supreme Court – an indefinite delay in any trial that may carry over well past Election Day on Nov. 5.   

2024/04/22 04:00

Support the Movement

Buy The T-Shirt


Order other designs on Cafe Press:


Create Your Own Chapter


Your Ad Here




He has been a member of a church affiliated with the racist Black Liberation Theology movement for twenty years.

The Obamas, until recently, had been active members in the Trinity United Church of Christ of Chicago for about 20 years. The "About Us" section of Trinity United website underscores the racial tone and tenor of the church and its purpose: "We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian . . .Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain true to our native land . . .We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community." For new attendees, the church offers a "Black and Christian New Member Class," clearly implying that one cannot be a member of this church if one is not black.

The Trinity United Church of Chicago is a proud member-church of the Black Liberation Theology movement. Much like the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire, Black Liberation Theology is neither a theology, nor about Liberation, nor strictly about black people. Black Liberation Theology is a subset of the global Liberation theology movement which was founded in Nicaragua and spawned vicious socialist dictators and rebels such as Che' Guevara. Black Liberation Theology is predicated on the notion of saving dark-skinned people through the gradual extermination of light-skinned people and their beliefs. The father of the Black Liberation Theology movement is James H. Cone and the bible of the Black Liberation Theology Movement is Cone's Black Theology and Black Power. The following is a quote from same book: "Black Theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the Black community. If God is not for us, and against white people, then he is a murderer and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black Theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."

This is the theological backdrop for Barrack Obama' s political activism. This is the church where the bombastic and racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright had served as pastor for the span of that time. Obama has described Wright as his "moral compass," "sounding board," "confidant," and "mentor." Wright married the Obamas and baptized their children. Only after 20 years, strong political pressure, and Wright disavowing Obama, did Obama finally disavow Wright. But Obama never thought to disavow Wright after any of the numerous racist and anti-Israel remarks made by Wright both at and away from the pulpit over the course of 20 years! Obama was also reluctant to reject Louis Farrakhan's endorsement until there was enough media scrutiny on the part of Tim Russert to make that endorsement another liability. Obama has a proven track record in doing what is politically wise, not morally wise.

Indeed, The Obamas not only had a personal relationship with Wright, but also a professional and financial one; The Obamas donated over $20,000 toward subsidizing Wright's activities, and until a few months ago, Wright sat on Obama's "African American Religious Leadership Committee." Obama misused the Trinity Church's tax-exempt status by giving a campaign speech which included campaign promises in a lecture he gave to the congregation in June of 2007. Obama borrowed the title of his book – "The Audacity of Hope" – from one of Reverend Wright's sermons.

The following words contained in Wright's sermons are well known, but what's not known is how they represent just the tip of the racist iceberg that is the Trinity United Church of Chicago:

"Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people; Hillary would never know that, Hillary ain't never been called a nigger".

"God damn America!"

Wright's explanation of the horrors of 9-11 is "America's chickens coming home to roost." Wright typically refers to America as the "U.S. of KKK A."

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans," he said, "and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards."

When many of these comments finally surfaced in the media, Obama originally responded by saying, "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community," implying that the entire black community is racist and ignorant, and we should all come to expect and accept that fact!

Rev. Wright is an anti-Israel activist who has given sermons at Trinity United calling for the US to cease and desist from all aid to Israel. Wright publicly accused Israel of working with South Africa to build an "ethnic bomb" to kill Negroes and Arabs. Rev. Wright also allowed his church bulletin to publish an editorial by a Hamas terrorist named Marzook entitled, "A Fresh View of the Palestinian Struggle." Wright is also good friends with fierce and notorious anti-Semite, Louis Farrrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam movement. This same Farrakhan, who called Jews "bloodsuckers," was the recipient of an award from the Trinity United Church. The church's magazine also honored Louis Farrakhan in its front cover. Barrack Obama has yet to publicly condemn the granting of this award. In fact, all the evidence suggests that Obama, himself, has had a close relationship with Farrakhan. Obama even chose to march with Farrakhan in the Million Man March of 1995 despite the Anti-Defamation League pleading with African American leaders not to attend.

And it wasn't just Wright who gave anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sermons at Trinity. Father Pfleger and Reverend James Meeks, both supporters of Louis Farrakhan, have been regular guest speakers at Trinity over the years. When Jewish members of an Illinois state board, mandated with monitoring hate speech, resigned after a fellow board member affiliated with the Nation of Islam refused to denounce Farrakhan's anti-Semitism, Pfleger retorted with the words, "good riddance." Reverend Meeks has been known to scapegoat "Hollywood Jews" for corrupting the moral climate in America.

Barrack Obama may not be racist, much like Wright and Meeks and others who frequented Trinity United; Obama may have just been using the church for his political advantage. As Stanley Kurtz writes in a June 2 National Review Online article, "So Obama's political interest in Trinity went far beyond merely gaining a respectable public Christian identity. On his own account, Obama hoped to use the untapped power of the black church to supercharge hard-left politics in Chicago. He created a personal and institutional political base that would be free to part with conventional Democratic politics."  The question voters must pose is, "does it matter?" If a candidate were a member of the KKK for 20 years just for his political advantage, would voters forgive him? So why should they forgive a member of the black version of the KKK?