The lowlights of Sam Francis, distributed by Creators Syndicate

On December 7, Media Matters for America President and CEO David Brock sent a letter to Creators Syndicate President and CEO Richard S. Newcombe objecting to a November 26 column by syndicate client Sam Francis, in which Francis described the suggestion of an interracial sexual relationship in a promotional ad for ABC's Monday Night Football as “an intentional act of moral subversion.” In response, Anthony Zurcher, a Creators Syndicate editor, was quoted in an Editor & Publisher article in which he defended Creators' distribution of the column. Zurcher said that while he did not agree with the column, he didn't think it was “so reprehensible” that its distribution should have been stopped; he stated that the column discussed a “very sensitive topic.” His response raises the question: What would Francis need to have written to meet Zurcher's “so reprehensible” threshold?

In 1995, the conservative Washington Times fired Francis as a columnist for writing in a commentary piece for that newspaper that “neither 'slavery' nor 'racism' as an institution is a sin.” Creators has represented Francis since at least January 2000. The following are excerpts from Francis columns that Creators has distributed.

Sam Francis on ...

Immigrant violence: From a November 29 column titled “Why Immigrants Kill”:

The link between immigration and violence is that the aliens lack roots in the society and civilization into which they import themselves. The people they see aren't their people, and their moral and social norms aren't theirs either. Being strangers in a strange land, they feel little obligation to it or its members.

Black speakers at the 2004 Democratic National Convention: From an August 2 column titled “Al ... Obama? Is There Really A Difference?”:

To be fair, the Rev. Al [Sharpton] was by no means the only black celebrity to be showcased on what might be called “Negro Night” at the convention. There was also the Rev. Jesse Jackson, whose own command of the art of racial demagoguery the Rev. Al has long since eclipsed, and a newcomer in the person of the Hero of the Week, the personable Barack Obama of Illinois.

Multiculturalism in America: From a May 20 column titled “Maryland, Multiculturalism, and Mass Immigration”:

The “melting pot” metaphor may have been appropriate when immigration came largely from Europe, with similar languages, religious beliefs, political cultures, and moral and social values. Today it doesn't.

Today not only do the fragments in the pot not melt into the common history and common culture, they openly and deliberately reject them -- as “racist” and exclusive. Immigrants, in particular Hispanics, who make up the largest component, now have the numbers to thumb their noses at the common history and common culture and the very suggestion that they should assimilate to it. Soon they will have the numbers to kick the common culture into the gutters.

Brown v. Board of Education: From a May 17 column titled “Fifty Years Of Brown Blunder: Ruling Class Learns Nothing”:

For every one of the countless hosannas sung to what was probably the most dangerous and destructive Supreme Court decision in American history, there is a good reason to condemn Brown [v. Board of Education] and the men who delivered it.


Today, schools once entirely white because of segregation laws are entirely black because of Brown. The white middle class exodus has meant the domination of cities by a black underclass, the crooks and demagogues it puts in office and the financial and social devastation of American urban life.

Gay marriage: From a March 1 column titled "'Gay Marriage Amendment' Is The Wrong Tactic":

In the case of homosexual “marriages,” I have no problem in refusing to recognize them as real or legal. Persons of the same sex can no more marry each other than dogs and cats can become congressmen, but since the whole purpose of the movement for “gay marriage” is to subvert cultural institutions and normalize the abnormal, there's not much point in arguing about it. Either you get it and oppose “gay marriage” or you don't and support it.

Mexico: From a June 24, 2002, column titled “The real threat to America”:

The compadres in Mexico City view mass emigration to El Norte as a good way to get rid of people for whom their own economy and society can't provide as well as the advance team of what can only be called colonization. Put more precisely, the Mexican government isn't worried about mass emigration because in its eyes, the Mexicans aren't really leaving Mexico anyway. They're just establishing new provinces.

The Mexican government may not want to announce it publicly, but what it is doing is managing the conquest (they'd say the re-conquest, La Reconquista) of the United States through the displacement of one population by another.

Immigrants and Western culture: From a March 11, 2002, column titled “Immigration = Totalitarianism”:

The point, of course, is that because a Western nation [the U.S.] has through massive immigration admitted millions of non-Westerners into what was once a European and even Anglo-Saxon culture, today even the conservatives are amazed to learn that the new Americans don't like the “universal” values of the West and in fact trample on them at every chance. Americans should have learned that lesson on September 11, but many didn't.

Each of these columns was featured on, which The New York Times has described as an “anti-immigrant website.”

From the July 27, 1995, Washington Times column that led to his dismissal:

If the sin is hatred or exploitation, they [Southern Baptists repenting their support of slavery in the mid-1800s] may be on solid grounds, but neither “slavery” nor “racism” as an institution is a sin. Indeed, there are at least five clear passages in the letters of Paul that explicitly enjoin “servants” to obey their masters, and the Greek words for “servants” in the original text are identical to those for “slaves.” Neither Jesus nor the apostles nor the early church condemned slavery, despite countless opportunities to do so, and there is no indication that slavery is contrary to Christian ethics or that any serious theologian before modern times ever thought it was.

Not until the Enlightenment of the 18th century did a bastardized version of Christian ethics condemn slavery. Today we know that version under the label of “liberalism,” or its more extreme cousin, communism.


What has happened in the centuries since the Enlightenment is the permeation of the pseudo-Christian poison of equality into the tissues of the West, to the point that the mainstream churches now spend more time preaching against apartheid and colonialism than they do against real sins like pinching secretaries and pilfering from the office coffee pool. The Southern Baptists, because they were fortunate enough to flourish in a region where the false sun of the Enlightenment never shone, succeeded in escaping this grim fate, at least until last week.