The U.S. in the 21st Century: Compassion takes a back seat to politics

Commentary by James Shott

The ink was barely dry on newspapers reporting the murder of nine people attending a Bible study Wednesday night at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC, when it started.

Amid the understandable outrage and feelings of grief and compassion, there arose the clatter of political demagoguery, as the vehicles were gassed up and engines were started to rush and join the forming parade.

Since the participants of this parade formed it not to provide aid and comfort to those in need, but to avail themselves of a convenient opportunity – as former Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advised, “Never let a good crisis go to waste” – reason and honesty were banned from the event.

Thursday morning Faheem Younus, who identifies himself as “Muslimerican,” and is an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Maryland, posted on Twitter: “This terrorist #CharlestonShooting is predictably White, called a ‘gunman’ by the media and has no mention of his faith.” It was most important to him to imply that had the murderer been a Muslim, that point would have been made abundantly clear.

And no leftist demagogic rant would be complete without taking a shot at Fox News. “The ideology of racism promoted by the @FoxNewsandCo. breeds the terrorists who commit #CharlestonShooting,” he tweeted.

At least in the midst of his mis-focused, cheap-shot tweets, the learned professor did brush up against the main truth: This attack was a racist act.

On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton used the shooting to advantage in her self-promotion. First, she suggested that “inflammatory things about Mexicans,” uttered by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, may have “triggered” the incident, and then turned to liberalism’s favorite boogeyman, gun control.

But at least President Barack Obama started out on the right path: “We knew their pastor, Reverend Clementa Pinckney, who, along with eight others gathered in prayer and fellowship, was murdered last night,” he said. “And to say our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families and their community doesn't say enough to convey the heartache and the sadness and the anger that we feel.”

But then: “We do know that once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun,” he continued, finally getting to his main point.

No one argues that some people should not have guns. The argument begins with the method people like Mr. Obama prefer. The same people who use guns for violence would also use knives, TNT, poison, an automobile, hijacked air liners, or whatever tool they could find to commit violence against others, a point the anti-gun faction seems immune to understanding.

“At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries … with this kind of frequency,” Mr. Obama said. “It is in our power to do something about it.”

Mr. Obama must have found some study showing that the U.S. leads the world’s advanced countries in mass shooting casualties. The Rampage Shooting Index, in fact, shows that among 12 countries, from 2009 to 2013, the U.S. had 227 such deaths. Norway had 77, Germany had 25, the UK had 13, and Israel had 11. The US had 38 such incidents and the nations previously mentioned had only 1 to 3.

That is pretty damning evidence. But as usual in these sorts of campaigns, there is more.

The Index clearly shows that when population is taken into account, the results are far different. Per 1 million population Norway had 15.3 fatalities and .19 incidents per 1 million people; Germany - .31 fatalities, .04 incidents; the UK - .019 fatalities, .02 incidents; Israel - 1.38 fatalities, .25 incidents. The U.S. had .72 fatalities in .12 incidents, and fewer fatalities and incidents per 1 million than Norway and Israel. Furthermore, of the five countries discussed, all but the U.S. are said to have “Restrictive” gun policies.

Also, of the 12 nations in this study, when population is a factor the U.S. drops from first in mass shootings to seventh.

Mr. Obama was wrong. Again.

If you feel so strongly that a higher degree of gun control is a viable policy, why use faulty data to try to sell the idea to the people? If your cause is just, you needn’t lie or deceive to gain support.

Laying aside the distasteful efforts to politicize this issue, the real issue is not guns, it is the impulse to harm or kill innocent people, and how to protect against those impulses.

This was a racist act perpetrated by a white guy who used a gun. Dylann Roof had a drug arrest and conviction on his record, and had a recent history of racially charged comments. Reportedly, his father gave him a pistol for his 21st birthday in April.

What gun law would have prevented Dylann Roof from killing those nine people?

When you are caught using faulty data, you tell the world that you really have a goal other than the stated goal in mind.

Cross-posted from Observations

Racial Politics: A Divide to Overcome

Racial politics: a divide to overcome

 

Racism is a tool used by government and profiteers to keep people at odds with each other. Michael Brown and Travon Martin exemplify cases which were magnets to some who use race to enhance their bank accounts and prestige. As a result of their efforts in these cases violent protests occurred, causing property loss and worse life for a few individuals. Most active in this group are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Eric Holder and our Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama. This cabal of despicable individuals have long track records utilizing derision, diversion, demagoguery and outright hate to inflame populations in order to achieve specific outcomes. Their success can be measured by the crowd’s protean actions which violated innocent communities where these protests erupted.

 

Few would argue against the proposition that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is no longer managed for the good of the collective population. Eric Holder, as U.S. Attorney General, has taken his department in a direction which finds racism where none exists. Holder’s office actually paid a group to instigate protests in Florida against George Zimmerman.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/10/judicial-watch-foia-docs-show-doj-facilitated-zimmerman-protests-in-florida/ Our tax dollars went for race baiting, supplemented with speeches by Holder, that were tinged with racial comments.  More recently extensive racial hatreds were generated in Ferguson and across the country by the aforementioned group of race hustlers. They successful mythicized the actions of Michael Brown, enhanced by the left wing media, pumping hate we visualized for several nights across our video screens. Crowds crying for justice were misled into believing Brown was an innocent bystander killed by a rogue cop. A Grand Jury investigated a series of allegations perpetrated by those who wanted to lynch a white police officer. Evidence in the final review deflated the Brown myth and displayed a police officer who was doing his job. Yet the race baiters would not let go as the facts emerged to squelch their politically charged rhetoric. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.html

 

Oprah Winfrey stated that older white people must die for racism to cease. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/11/15/oprah-racists-have-die-racism-end I take a different view. Words such as racism and racist are utilized to a large extent by those who have the most to gain from their expression. These are the people that need to be removed from the map to extinguish racial hatreds. Oprah has shown herself to be one of the greatest race manipulators in the history of this country. Her movies, speeches and media venues collectively use race to keep her presence fresh in the American mind. Younger generations will be able to move away from the racial divide when modern day evangelists of hate, like Oprah, discontinue their emotionally charged verbiage or die off. Until then society will continue to be mentally and physically segregated.

 

Mark Davis MD, President of Davis Writing Services. www.daviswritingservices.com  Dr. Davis most recent book

Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster and Demons of Democracy. For media requests please contact Dr. Davis through his email address: platomd@gmail.com

Donald Sterling: Fair Sentence or Shakedown

Donald Sterling: fair sentence or a shakedown

 

Hypocrisy reigns throughout the American landscape. Racism and sexism are the new tools to destroy careers, businesses and one’s personal circumstance. Paula Deen’s heart and soul were ripped from her when it was discovered she uttered a racial remark years before it came to light. Her punishment; she was banned from the human race, profound financial loss and collapse of her career. More recently Brenden Eich, CEO of Mozilla, was forced to step down because he made a $1,000  contribution in support of California’s Proposition 8, which was against same sex marriage. Years later this information surfaced forcing him out of the company he founded. Why? He believes in traditional marriage only. Octogenarian Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, is the newest victim of his own verbalizations. In the privacy of a phone conversation with his mistress she prompted him to discuss his bent on race relations. Unbeknownst to Sterling he was being recorded with the intent of discrediting him at some later date. Once made public his words provided a noose permitting the media crowd to perform a lynching of him openly. Accusations of prior infidelities along with his previous collisions with racism were hurtled in his direction. Banned for life from the NBA and fined 2.5 million has not satisfied those who want to see Sterling drawn and quartered. Those shouting the loudest have sordid histories of incongruous race relations themselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/sports/basketball/nba-donald-sterling-los-angeles-clippers.html?_r=0

 

Oprah has no business throwing aspersions of racism towards Sterling. She has exploited race for personal gain over the last 30 years. Interviewed by the BBC in November of 2013 she noted the older generation of racists (whites) must die to preclude any more racism from occurring. http://whitegenocideproject.com/oprah-winfrey-racists-whites-must-die-for-racism-to-end/  Oprah’s racial rants are well known yet she was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Obama, for reasons still uncertain. President Obama chimed in noting the NBA did the right thing punishing this horrific person never considering many of Sterling’s rights were suppressed in the process. President Obama has used the race card himself whenever it would score points with the crowd which elected him. Al Sharpton, a racial connoisseur, had the audacity to throw mud at Sterling. Long known for his hatred of whites he had fed off the trough of racism for decades. A long line of people with questionable histories on race relations spoke horrifically of a man who held the Clippers together for 33 years. Sterling’s team players accepted multiple million dollar checks from this so-called racist every year. Apparently money negates racial considerations.

 

Many questions have arisen since this scandal broke. Can Sterling claim he was entrapped by the recorded nature of the phone call that exposed his hateful rhetoric? Is there a tertiary party behind the scenes that prompted Donald’s mistress to rat him out? Was a felony committed by Donald’s mistress by not revealing to him he was being recorded? Does the NBA Constitution allow for due process? Why was there a rush to Judgment? Should Sterling’s past factor into the sanctions levied against him? Dozens of questions arise concerning the dubious nature of the charges brought against him. How does the First Amendment factor into this complexity? Donald Sterling has been very quiescent in the last few days. Perhaps he is gathering his forces for a counterpunch against his accusers. One question that lingers is: Will the Clippers and the NBA be free of racism in the event Sterling moves on? From this writer’s perch the answer is a resounding no.

 

Mark Davis, MD Author, Journalist, Media Consultant and President of Healthnets Review Services. Dr. Davis’ Latest book is Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster. platomd@gmail.com  www.healthnetsreviewservices.com

How To Be A Racist

The latest rant by Pat Condell




Click here if the video fails to load.

As if you didn't know.

Islamic law is adopted by British legal chiefs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/relig...

Government intervenes at school taken over by Muslim radicals
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/relig...

Woman did not show her face at Heathrow airport
http://www.asianimage.co.uk/news/1104...

British schools where girls must wear the Islamic veil
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/...

Sharia courts "as consensual as rape"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/relig...

Privacy under attack? Stop-and-frisk vs. NSA surveillance

As Americans, we each have a guaranteed right to privacy. The online legal site FindLaw explains it this way: “The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects personal privacy, and every citizen's right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property – whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses.”

That seems plain enough, but how one interprets the word “unreasonable” provides ample opportunity for mischief, as well as for good law enforcement.

As for good law enforcement, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has credited the City’s stop-and-frisk policy with helping drive crime to record lows since the policing policy was implemented in 1994, with the murder rate falling by an astounding 82 percent by 2009.

New York’s stop-and-frisk policy seeks to prevent crime before it happens by deploying officers with pinpoint precision to critical street segments in high-crime areas where they interact with individuals displaying suspicious behavior: they approach, question, and sometimes frisk the individuals. That practice has led to fewer people, such as members of street gangs, risking arrest by carrying a weapon on their person, and with fewer gang bangers carrying weapons, there are fewer spur-of-the-moment shootings in New York, and correspondingly fewer deaths.

You might think that, given the obvious level of success in reducing the murder rate in the Big Apple, such a policy would fall outside the Fourth Amendment’s proscription against “unreasonable” searches. But you would be wrong, according to U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, who believes that the policy indeed does violate the Fourth Amendment protection.

Mayor Bloomberg believes that the judge's decision will cause a reduction in the use of stop-and-frisk, which would reverse crime reductions and make his city a more dangerous place. And data indicates he is correct. In 2011, guns were used in 61 percent of all homicides, but in black neighborhoods 86 percent of young black males died from gunfire. Stop-and-frisk reduced the total number of deaths by reducing the number of guns on the streets.

The challenge to the policy arose because officers stop minority residents at a rate disproportionate to their number in the general population. But those stops are not disproportionate to the minority resident population in the crime-ridden neighborhoods or disproportionate to the number of crimes minorities commit in those neighborhoods.

As we have seen recently, there is the possibility that authorities may lose perspective and become abusive in the use of policies like this one, but supervisors are charged to competently manage their operation. And due to the depths of its crime problem when the policy was implemented, New York police applied stop-and-frisk more aggressively than other cities. But whether or not the City is too aggressive ought not be decided without considering its unique circumstances and surprising rate of success in reducing murders.

An opposite approach to systematically and thoughtfully targeting areas where crimes mostly occur and populations that most often commit them like New York City is doing is the blanket, indiscriminate, suspicion-less spying on telephone, email and other private communications and activities of millions of Americans by the National Security Agency.

The government’s spying on Americans is so egregious – eavesdroppers broke privacy rules or overstepped their legal authority thousands of times every year – it’s no wonder the administration wants to arrest and try Edward Snowden for making the information about its spying public.

Where New York police might appear to have been over-aggressive in implementing stop-and-frisk, the federal government’s policy itself is over-aggressive by design. Surely, observers familiar with the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions on searches would be unable to conclude anything other than that NSA spying is precisely why there is a Fourth Amendment.

As reported in The Washington Times, “A Top Secret internal NSA audit, leaked by Mr. Snowden to freelance journalist Barton Gellman earlier this summer and published online by The Washington Post Thursday night shows that, in the 12 months prior to May 2012, there were 2,776 incidents of ‘unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications’ — those between Americans or foreigners legally in the United States.”

“Most were unintended,” according to The Post. “Many involved failures of due diligence or violations of standard operating procedure.” Even if the problems were unintended, sloppiness certainly is no excuse: The infringements are no less wrong, no less a breach of individual privacy, and no less intolerable.

The larger the scope of a program, the greater the chance that something will go wrong, and the more opportunities there are for something to go wrong. Congressman Peter King (R-NY) defends the program, saying that the situation is being blown out of proportion, that the rate of error is miniscule.

Maybe so; however, since the NSA program seeks to find a few fake grains of sand on a beach, and involves millions upon millions of records. For every million records, ten thousand mistakes can be made, affecting the privacy of ten thousand Americans, and the success rate is 99 percent.

Even if such gargantuan programs are run efficiently and competently, they are examples of unjustified government excess, and should not be allowed.

Harry Reid "seriously" hopes Republicans aren't racists

Harry Reid, the Democrat Senator from Nevada who is the Majority Leader of the US Senate said this about Congressional Republicans opposition to President Obama in an interview yesterday:

“It’s been obvious that they’re doing everything they can to make him fail. And I hope, I hope — and I say this seriously — I hope that’s based on substance and not the fact that he’s African-American.”

Republicans are the ones who appointed the first two African-Americans to serve as Secretary of State (Colon Powell and Condoleezza Rice), elected the first African-American to the US Senate (Tim Scott), and appointed an African-American as US Ambassador to the UN (Alan Keyes) and the US Supreme Court (Clarence Thomas), to name a few African-Americans who have served their country as Republicans.

So I say to Harry – and I say this seriously – I hope your idiotic statement is based upon your being severely addled when you said that and not the fact that you are a complete and utter idiot.

Black Liberation Theology

Reverend Jeremiah Wright pastored Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago from 1972 until 2008.  Reverend Wright is "an animated apostle of Black Liberation Theology"(BLT), so it is important to know what this theology teaches.  What follows is a quick summary of what "Black Liberation Theology" really believes as found in "The Gospel According to Barack" by Jefrey D. Breshears.

"Jesus, who was an 'African Jew,' was first and foremost a radical social prophet and revolutionary who preached a Gospel of social justice and equality and whose mission it was to liberate all humanity from social, political, economic and religious subjugation.  For this, he was criticized, harassed and eventually executed as a common criminal by the white power structure of his day." (p. 24) 

Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers

"...rather than focusing on individual sin as the root cause of humanity's problems, it shifts the focus to social and institutional injustice.  Therefore, the solution is not spiritual transformation and a renewed heart and mind but radical social change...humanity is basically good but 'society' corrupts..." (p. 24)

"...rather than emphasize forgiveness and healing for past wrongs, BLT tends to focus almost exclusively on retribution." (pp. 24-5) 

"...Black Liberation Theology is a volatile mix of two very toxic elements: (1) Racialism and (2) Neo-Marxim....  Racialism...is an obsessive fixation on race to the extent that it primarily determines one's sense of self-identity and becomes one's paradigm for processing the personal, social, economic, political and religious issues in life." (p. 25) 

"In [BLT], 'white'  represents a history of oppression, exploitation and imperialism--i.e., a culture of evil.  'Black,' on the other hand, represents victimhood--those who have been (and still are) subject to oppression, exploitation and imperialism." (p. 26) 

"Neo-Marxism perpetuates this kind of simplistic social stereotyping [as found in Classical Marxism regarding socio-economic divides], except that now the 'good' are the victimized minorities--feminist women, blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, etc.--and the 'bad' are white males, non-feminist white females, Christians and conservatives in general." (p.26) 

"...racial politics is a uniquely 20th century concept, and [BLT] expropriated the idea to formulate a unique racialist and Neo-Marxist Christian synthesis.  ...BLT divides humanity along the lines of white oppressors and black victims.  So in effect, God is not only 'black' but also 'red.'" (pp. 26-7)

I recommend that you read "The Gospel According to Barack" by Jefrey D. Breshears to gain a deeper understanding of this topic.

All quotes taken from "The Gospel According to Barack" by Jefrey D. Breshears, 2012 Areopagus Publishing.

Cross-posted from Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

If Zimmerman Is White -- Then So Is Obama!

If Zimmerman Is White -- Then So Is Obama!
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

You know, this racist/racism stuff is really getting difficult to understand. Is George Zimmerman a white man or an Hispanic man? Is President Obama a white man or a black man?

The media made a point of telling us that Mr. Zimmerman was a "WHITE Hispanic. OK. Then I suppose that makes our President, Mr. Obama, a WHITE African American, right? We are told BOTH men are half white.

The obvious question is: Which half gets top billing? And who, exactly, gets to decide?
I seem to recall that, sometime ago, the government decided that for the census, Americans got to decide to which race they belonged. I checked off "Other." Heck, I don't REALLY know what I am! Neither do most people alive in America today.

I present as a descendant of northern European ancestry. I traced my family back to the eleventh century and we were in what is today called The Netherlands. Then on to Germany, then Belgium, then France, then England, then Ireland, and on to America where we settled -- and some of the family closest to me married American Indian wives -- and about two generations later, I showed up.

I have no idea of the hanky-panky that went on between The Netherlands and South Carolina! But, I dare say, being the lusty family that history teaches we were, I expect there was a lot.

All this migration (Read -- international hanky-panky!) does not make me unique in America -- not by a long shot. In fact, it makes me about average.

We are a mixed blood lot, we Americans. Of all the tribes of earth we are, I suspect, the most difficult to label -- as far as race is concerned. Heck, we don't even know how to label each other, anymore! Is he a White Hispanic man, or a Hispanic White man. Is our president a White Black man or a Black White man? See what I mean? It's nuts!

I have no clue, none, zip, nada as to why God decided there should be more than one race on planet earth. No clue. But there MUST have been a reason. We are just not intelligent enough to figure it out.

Racism is a fact of life on planet earth. There is no escaping it. Anyone who believes it can be overcome is extremely naive, disingenuous, or just plain dumb.

Remember when we Americans elected our first President of color? The media went nuts referring to something they called "post-racism" in America. Fat chance.

Needless to say, it wasn't. It didn't happen. It hasn't happened yet, and frankly, I don't think it ever will happen.

We are what we are. Try as we might, we simply cannot change our wiring. Oh, we can LEARN to tolerate each other, to, "get along," if you will, but, hey, the schematic for "Human Being," Model 0000000000001, somewhere out there in the celestial tech shop, has not been upgraded. We ARE what we are.

Now, all this is not to say that we cannot live together in some degree of harmony. We can, and we have. But my point is, we are deliberately blind to the elephant in the room. We ARE different ... period.

Seems to me we would be better off, all of us, if we simply allowed ourselves to be honest and stop dancing about the truth -- which is -- that we are all, to some degree, racists. If you are not, then, you are not a human being.

Lord knows, you cannot legislate racism away. America tried that. It hasn't worked. In my less than humble opinion, it never will work.

As I write this, it is Sunday morning. America is more segregated on Sundays than any other day of the week. Why? To our horror, we find that different races tend to worship together, segregated from all other races. How horrible! How HUMAN!

Our public schools are integrated in name only. Walk into any public school cafeteria at lunchtime and you will see black kids in a group, by themselves, and white kids in a group, by themselves. Visit a prison and you will find white groups of prisoners and black groups of prisoners. The same thing holds true for street gangs (even more so, actually).

Our large cities have black neighborhoods and white neighborhoods broken down even more by nation-of-origin communities. Small towns are less likely to be broken down by nation-of-origin neighborhoods, but certainly by black and white neighborhoods. Again -- we are what we are.

Now, I know these comments are not going to sit well with a LOT of folks. That's understandable. It is not politically correct to speak honestly, anymore, about anything, but especially about racism. I would ask you to remember -- this is ONLY my opinion.

Racism is not going away. It is, (as I said above) in my opinion, a part of the human condition. We must accept it, learn to deal with it (when it rears it's ugly head), then move on. We have learned to deal with our inevitable death. Mortality on this planet is 100%. We live with that knowledge everyday while, at the same time, being industrious, creative, and to some degree -- happy.

Having said all the above, there is one thing I find absolutely despicable. That is when one side (or the other) of America's political spectrum USES race/racism to further their own agenda. We see that currently in the controversy in that small town in Florida. Insertion of politics and media has precluded a satisfactory ending for everyone involved.

So. How do we rid ourselves of racism? Honestly, I don't think that is possible, now, or in the future. In fact, I think it is the wrong question. There may not even BE a "right" question. It may boil down to humanity finding a "work around" solution much the same as we do to computer problems that are unsolvable.

We are what we are: small, prejudiced, bigoted, envious, ... HUMAN. Deal with it.

J. D. Longstreet

Have you noticed how many more racists there are these days?

Commentary by James H. Shott

The word “racist” describes someone with an irrational dislike for people of a different race. In its worst forms racism involves unfair treatment of members of that race and sometimes violence against them.

Most Americans probably believe that racism has been in decline for several decades. However, news reports indicate that racism is not only alive and well in the United States, but has experienced a strong resurgence. In fact, if those making racism charges are correct, there are racists lurking behind every tree.

Examples abound: During the presidential primary campaign of 2008 we learned that anyone who opposed Democrat contender Barack Obama opposed him because he is black. By extension those who supported his Democrat opponent, Hillary Clinton, and presumably even Mrs. Clinton, herself, are also racists. Since his election we are informed that those who do not support Mr. Obama’s policies are racists, too.

We have also learned that people who think America’s borders need to be secured to prevent illegal entry by drug dealers, kidnappers and others who sneak into our country, and think laws to prevent such entry should be enforced, are racists, as well.

We’ve been told that the people associated with the tea party movement are racists. These evil people object to what they see as government running amok, spending and taxing with abandon and exceeding its constitutional bounds. The Tea Party Patriots brazenly claim they want to “attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.” That is a radical concept, to be sure, and these grandfathers, grandmothers, plumbers, doctors, electricians, soccer moms and scout leader dads, and other normal American tea partiers are clearly racists.

And you, dear reader, are likely a racist, too, unless you voted for Barack Obama AND support Cap and Trade AND want another stimulus program AND want socialized medicine and the rationing of care AND favor government taking over industries one at a time AND don’t care who comes into our country, even kidnappers and murderers AND support every tenet of the radical leftist agenda. Presumably, if you don’t like tacos, Gen. Tso’s chicken and/or chocolate ice cream, you are a racist.

Leftists are intolerant of opposing ideas; are incapable of accepting that some people simply disagree with them; are impotent to mount serious intellectual arguments against opposing points of view, and are therefore condemned to defeat political enemies by debasing them, rather than debating them. Thus they stoop to name calling. Being a racist is one of the most damnable, despicable, loathsome, contemptible and vile things that one can be, so that is naturally the insult of choice.

After all, labeling your enemies as racists is easy, requires no thought, calls up awful visions of detestable behavior, and is effective. At least until you stop to examine the charge and realize it is usually devoid of substance. In other words, when leftists call their political enemies “racists” it is an empty, intellectually vapid charge.

In every large faction of people there likely are some jerks, some geeks, some crooks, and even some racists. An example of this truism is Mark Williams, leader of the Tea Party Express, who wrote a blog post that was at best offensive, and at worst racist. Leaders of the National Tea Party Federation, an organization seeking to represent the tea party political movement, responded by expelling Mr. Williams and the Tea Party Express from their organization.

If the tea party movement is as racist as the leftists would have us believe, why would it police itself and cast out bad apples?

It is a cheap political trick to accuse the entire tea party movement of being racist. That charge fails both the laugh test and the smell test and, more to the point, it is unsupportable.

The reckless use of the term “racism” has now entered the mainstream of American politics. Unable to defend the ineffective, irrational and dangerous policies of President Barack Obama and the Congressional leadership, leftists resort to attacking virtually anyone who disagrees with any of their positions, and labeling them “racists.” Saul Alinsky would be proud.

However, this gutter tactic has a downside, a very substantial downside: When you carelessly throw around the term, when you call everybody a racist, you render the term meaningless. and real racism, the target we all should want to eliminate, gets lost in the demagoguery.

And there’s a high degree of hypocrisy here; all incidents of racism are not equal, it seems. The NAACP recently attacked the tea party movement for its supposed racism, but ignored the overt racism by the New Black Panthers whose members have advocated killing “crackers” and white babies. We’ve seen that the tea party people oppose racism on the right; what about the NAACP? Isn’t all racism bad, or just racism by white people?

We can’t gain ground against racism by condemning some instances and ignoring others, or by degrading the term through misapplying it to political enemies.

Which begs the question: Does the left really want to fight racism, or just score cheap political points?

Cross-posted from Observations

Black rage at the heart of anti-police demonstrations in Oakland

In Oakland, California the other day, a violent young punk who was being sought for breaking provisions of his parole on a charge of assault with a deadly weapon killed four police officers and wounded two others in separate shootings that began with a traffic stop and ended with a gun battle.

Lovelle Mixon was killed in a shoot-out with police after he ran from the scene of the first shooting and holed up in a building.

Mixon was a black man, who was thought to have raped four women, and was upset that he couldn’t find a job because he was a convicted felon, and feared going back to jail.

Of course, that’s a good enough reason to shoot and kill the two police officers who stopped your car because it had expired tags, and then kill two more who were then going to arrest you for killing the first two.

If you believe the militant blacks who defended Mixon and vilified the police who were shot and killed for doing their job, the other “Africans” like Mixon who live in that “African” neighborhood are oppressed by police, and are therefore fair game for their misplaced rage at their circumstances.

Such idiotic protestations are perhaps what some predicted would result if Barack Obama was elected President, as that event would embolden some radical blacks to believe they can now do pretty much what they want, since one of their own is President of the United States.

Question: Will President Obama speak out specifically against this militant behavior and provide needed leadership to like-thinking black people in America?

Cross-posted from Observations

“Racist” redefined equals “Anti-Socialist”

Is the term “Socialist” a secret racist code-word for “Black”? Or are closet Socialists coming out of the woodwork seeking to ignite racial and class warfare? It would appear that any inflammatory word can be Socialist code for “Black”.

When Lewis Diuguid, of the Kansas City Star wrote his editorial, “Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word for black,” he ignited a fire-storm. Diuguid made the usual Socialist attempt to ignite racial conflict.

Millions of Americans, who rightly believe that Socialism is a gateway to Communism, were shocked to learn that the word, “Socialist” might be linked to the Black race.

Apparently, to Diuguid’s way of twisted thinking, socialism is linked to several valiant Black freedom fighters, some of whom were openly Socialist or Communist. For many Americans, who were born before 1960, the “communism scare” had nothing to do with the Black race and had everything to do with the spread of the wicked economic system of Communism from Russia and from Red China. As far as I know there are not that many Blacks in Russia or China.

Here’s what Stop the ACLU had to say:

Since most Americans are aware that socialism is not only misguided but evil — a form of systemized theft that punishes work and initiative while rewarding sloth and dependency, reducing the productive to government slaves and everyone else to farm animals bred for their votes — the fact that Obama is a Socialist stands among the most compelling reasons to resist the left-wing media’s push to install him in power. So on behalf of that very media, Lewis Diuguid of the Kansas City Star has declared that drawing attention to Obama being a Socialist is racist:

The indiscriminate use of a pejorative term, such as “racist” to label anyone who chooses to vote against Obama serves to not only water down the term itself, but to turn the term into a bad joke! It does a disservice to the many freedom fighters, be they Socialist, Communist or Capitalist, who fought against racial discrimination, and who knew what real racism was all about.

For the elitist Obamaniacs, who fully understand the difference between Socialism and Capitalism, the code word “racist” is a call to arms. It is a call to those Socialist followers of Obama who fear that Obama’s veil has been lifted at a most inopportune time. It’s also a perfect code word because it still has the power to marshal the majority of young Obama followers who fear racism, but who have little understanding of the impact that socialism will have on the United States.

Even The Guardian, not known as a bastion of right-wing thought, had this to say:

Liberal journalists are combing the back roads of America looking for evidence of the resurgent racism being generated by the prospect of a black man becoming president. The striking thing is how little they've turned up in a country of 300m people with plenty of racial conflict in its history. . .
Compared to the level of open anti-Catholic bias against John Kennedy in 1960, racism in the 2008 campaign is a dog that didn't bark.

For those who have failed to learn the lessons of history, it is important to note that “class struggle” is what socialism and communism is all about! Socialism cannot take hold in this country or any other country without continuous class or racial strife. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, the fathers of Communism, wrote that the history of all society is the history of class struggle.

Let’s open our eyes to the vile Diuguids of this world, who would foment racial and class warfare just to get one man elected!

Technorati Tags: Lewis Diuguid,Kansas City Star,Socialism,Communism,racist,racism,code words,Barack Obama

Trackposted to third world county, DragonLady's World, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

U.N. to Investigate Voters Against Obama

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

U.N. racism investigator to visit the U.S. May 19-June 6, 2008.

The "investigator," of course, is the representative of a predominantly Muslim country, Senegal (h/t to No Sheeples Here).

This piece by Stephanie Nebehay at Reuters, reports:

"The special rapporteur will...gather first-hand information on issues related to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance," a U.N. statement said on Friday.

Nebehay appears to offer her own opinion (unless quotation marks have gone astray),

Race has become a central issue in the U.S. election cycle because Sen. Barack Obama, the frontrunner in the battle for the Democratic nomination battle, stands to become the country's first African American president.

The U.N. Special Rapporteur has also "investigated" America's bias against Islam, our courts' application of the death penalty, (which, of course, is also biased, according to the U.N.), and our "hate" crimes (display of hangman's nooses).



Technorati Tags: U.N., U.N. Human Rights Council, Human Rights, U.N., 2008 Elections, Barack Obama

How Obama’s Supporters Will Sabotage Obama

Yesterday, Steve Stockdale, a teacher at Texas Christian University and member of the Star-Telegram Community Columnist Panel, wrote a S-T guest article But what if ...?

Calling it a “missed opportunity,” the article questions the wisdom of the March decision by the executive committee of TCU's board of trustees to ask Brite Divinity School to move the Rev. Jeremiah Wright awards dinner off campus.

“ . . .Those two weeks began with a discussion about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy and Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race in America. Then we talked about the decision of TCU and Brite Divinity School to move the March 29 portion of the Fourth Annual State of the Black Church Summit off campus. (Brite is on the TCU campus but is an independent institution.) For a year, Brite had planned the summit for the last weekend in March and had a long-standing invitation to Wright to attend and receive an award recognizing his 40 years of service to his church and ministry.”

With the twisted rhetoric that only a seasoned leftist semantics teacher could master, Stockdale called the decision “self-congratulatory” while following-up with “It was a good call – prudent if not profound.”

“With Wright's explosive emergence on the national airwaves, it would be understandable for Fort Worth and TCU to embrace in a collective, self-congratulatory sigh of relief for not letting that circus come to this town! It was a good call -- prudent if not profound.”

Stockdale was looking for something more profound. So he invited some TCU insiders to share the decision making process with his class. Stockdale’s class would focus on “the history of racism in America.” Well, not exactly the entire history of racism in America. His focus certainly didn’t include the more recent history of Black racism in America as typified by the good “Rev.” Jeremiah Wright.

“We learned something about the history of racism in America by viewing clips from Todd Larkins' documentary The N Word: Divided We Stand and segments from the PBS series on the civil rights movement, Eyes on the Prize.

We studied the distinction between the words people use and their behavior. Is it more appropriate to examine a person's behavior within a specific context or environment rather than focus on whether this word or that word is used? Do actions speak louder than words? What if the action is nothing but words?” (emphasis added by me)

Let me interject here a quote from Obama’s infamous “Just Words” speech that he “borrowed” from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick when he was running for office two years ago:

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” Obama said. “‘I have a dream.’ Just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.’ Just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words? Just speeches?”

H/T/ Fox News: Click here to watch Patrick’s Oct. 15, 2006, “Just Words?” speech.

But I digress. Here’s more of the balanced educational fare Stockdale offered to his class:

“In The N Word, rapper Chuck D recognizes this distinction between word and behavior: "Words are words, but what comes right after the word is the activity. And the activity of being treated like a nigger is always in the air."

We listened to the song You've Got to Be Carefully Taught from the musical South Pacific. We heard that children must be taught to be afraid "of people whose eyes are oddly made, and people whose skin is a different shade .... to hate all the people your relatives hate."

To conclude our discussion on the controversy surrounding this event, I invited Star-Telegram columnist Bob Ray Sanders and University Christian Church's senior minister Tim Carson, one of Brite's trustees, to talk with the class. On April 3, we were fortunate to hear their unique "insider" perspectives.”

Somehow I doubt that Stockdale actually played any “in context” clips from Wright’s infamous 9/11 sermon for his class, or even provided an “in context” transcript for his rhetoric class to dissect. Wouldn’t that have been a novel idea considering that Wright’s sermon was the focus of the class study of racism in America?

Stockdale could have found the “in-context” sermon easily on the internet as early as March 22nd. See Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 Sermon “In Context,” which includes the in-context video and transcript.

Stockdale concludes his article with an admonishment that Fort Worth and TCU gave up the opportunity for a national conversation about race . . . if only Wright had been given a receptive, respectful venue.

"But what if ...? What if the original plans for March 29 had been kept? What might these students have learned if the TCU trustees' executive committee had heeded those oft-stated calls for a national conversation about race? What if that conversation had actually begun here, in Fort Worth, on March 29?

What if Wright had been given a receptive, respectful venue at which he could respond to the public condemnations hurled at him? What might he have said then, rather than what he has pronounced after stewing in his self-imposed silence for another month? (ephasis added by me)

This community had an opportunity to go beyond talking about talking about race. We could have started the conversation. Instead, we passed to avoid the front page, content to be merely a footnote.

Those who write history will determine whether this fortnight was just another two weeks in just another year, or whether it helped usher in a new season in the great American experiment of self-governance.

Or maybe this fortnight was just another two weeks of a 400-year winter that might never graduate to spring.”

Ok, so how does the above article relate to the title of today’s blog? We have to make a few assumptions about Stockdale. First, the article makes it fairly clear that Stockdale doesn’t believe that Wright is a racist. Clearly Stockdale isn’t even remotely moderate in this thinking. Second, Stockdale believes that Wright should have received a receptive and respectful venue at TCU. Third, Stockdale totally ignores Obama’s own words about the importance of words. Fourth, Stockdale ignores Obama’s distancing himself from Wright. Fifth, if Stockdale doesn’t support Obama, what presidential candidate would Stockdale support given his far left stance?

Most conservatives, independents, and even moderates would have to conclude that if Stockdale is still ranting in support of Wright, other Obama supporters probably share his stance. Do they actually believe that Obama distanced himself from Wright? Or more to the point, don’t they really believe that Obama was just using “words” in political double-speak context to distance himself from Wright when in fact Obama may feel otherwise?

It would appear that Stockdale’s answer to his class can be easily digested by reasoned people. His spin is but the usual leftist political excrement.

“Is it more appropriate to examine a person's behavior within a specific context or environment rather than focus on whether this word or that word is used?” (emphasis added by me)

Reasoned thinkers would say “No” as they are left to wonder if Obama doesn’t actually share Stockdale’s perspective. History will determine whether Obama’s words were fortnight or merely IN CONTEXT political spin!

“Just words???” Thanks to Stockdale for reminding us!


Trackposted to Stop the ACLU, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, third world county, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Dallas CBS Affiliate Buries Negative Jeremiah Wright News

Update May 1st

Those of us who have written to Dallas CBS have received the identical e-mail response"

"Thanks for your e-mail regarding the Reverend Jeremiah Wright story you saw on CBS11 News last night at 10 p.m. I want to clarify the story. Reverend Wright was in Dallas on Sunday conducting services at Friendship West Baptist Church. Our story last night involved negative comments made by Reverend Wright about Texas Christian University during a speech at the church. Upon further review of the tape of the speech, we were mistaken. We regret the error and offer our sincere apologies to Reverend Wright, Friendship West Baptist Church, TCU and our viewers. We will air a correction in tonight's 10 p.m. newscast. Thanks again for your e-mail and for watching CBS11 News.Scott DienerNews DirectorCBS11/TXA21Dallas/Fort Worth"

You can buy that explanation if you like. One of our readers at Jus' Sayin' was kind enough to run down the sponsors for the 10 PM news just in case you want to write to complain.
Here are the sponsors that I listed from the News .

Local: Rooms to Go, Trophy Nissan, Central Kia, Stanley Steamer, Keller CitizensVan, Hyundai

National Ads For Regional release: KIA, Scholtzskys, N Texas Ford Dealer, GMC NTGMC (that would be Wood as the largest) Target, Circuit City, Toyota Trucks, Ross

Frankly folks, the so-called MSM is pretty irresponsible to publish or broadcast any story without checking out the facts first. Then to yank the original story is just plain cowardly. How's about leaving the original story in tack on your web page and then broadcasting a "correction" and publishing a retraction instead?

See Original Story Below:

Twelve hours ago CBS 11, Dallas, Texas published an article:
“Obama's Former Pastor Calls TCU A Godless College.” If you click on the link, however, you will find that the page has suddenly been removed.

It would appear that although most of the national news media and pundits both left and right have labeled Wright’s latest comments as egocentric and harmful to Obama, CBS 11 Dallas has chosen sides and Wright has won this battle - at least in Dallas. This is not a good omen for Obama!

This is the Google News Alert I received this morning:

Obama's Former Pastor Calls TCU A Godless CollegeCBS 11 - Dallas,TX,USA"He's upset that Brite Divinity School and TCU didn't support everything that he said," said TCU sophomore Tory McGee. "It's a decision that TCU made and it ...See all stories on this topic

Because CBS 11 Dallas is at the home of much of the controversy, we are left to surmise what Wright actually said about TCU. Here’s an excerpt from my March 19th post, Brite Divinity School to Honor Rev. Jeremiah Wright

“TCU Chancellor Victor J. Boschini Jr. said Monday that "TCU supports the right of free speech even when the opinions expressed are controversial. That is what a university is about. But giving an award is another matter, and in this specific case in light of Reverend Wright's recently discovered remarks, TCU would not give such an award . . .”

Would you like to read what Jeremiah Wright actually said about TCU??? Write to CBS 11 and demand that they replace the article that they removed.

Digg It!

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, Shadowscope, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, McCain Blogs, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, OTB Sports, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Jeremiah Wright Still Unashamedly Racist

Contrary to media reports, Jeremiah Wright hasn’t been in self-imposed exile since Obama distanced himself from Wright’s anti-American and racist remarks. On the contrary, Wright has continued his whirlwind speaking tour across America. Friday he was interviewed by Bill Moyers of PBS, Sunday he delivered two sermons at Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas, where he finally received a belated award from Brite Divinity School (see previous articles below), then he flew to Detroit to address the NAACP, and this morning his gave another self-gratification speech to the National Press Club.

So what’s up with Wright?

To summarize Juan Williams’s assessment on Fox TV following Wright’s speech this morning, Wright is saying “If you are attacking me, you are attacking the Black Church.”

Yesterday, Wright said that he was being “crucified.” Today the Black Church is being crucified.

Williams went on to observe that Wright never explained his inflammatory statements. “It was all about ego and self-gratification for Wright. . . Wright isn’t looking out for Obama. . .It’s all about Wright and Black Theology.” Williams said that Wright “Is playing racially divisive politics. You don’t hear that from the Black Pulpit. It’s not typical.”

I watched the entire speech and the Q&A session following the speech. His speech lasted less than fifteen minutes but it was packed full of inflammatory quotes that should come back to haunt Wright as well as continue to plague Obama. Another 20-30 minutes were devoted to answering pre-screened questions.

Here’s the gist of the speech:

Wright said that he will be opening a two day symposium of Black Theologians, scholars, and social workers etc., and said that Obama has called for a dialog on the Black Church. He opened his speech by referring to the media’s playing of the “out of context” sound bites saying, “It’s not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It is an attack on the Black Church.”

Then Wright went into a brief history of the Black Church in America and attempted to distinguish his “Prophetic Theology of the Black Church” from James Cones’ “Black Liberation Theology.” What are the differences? Basically none except that Wright’s theology goes beyond “white supremacy” to the prophets of the Old Testament. He hinges his theology on the 61st chapter of Isaiah and on Luke 4.

According to Wright, his theology is a theology of liberation, transformation, and “ultimately, reconciliation.” Why did he insert the word “ultimately”? According to Wright, the white church in Europe and North America is a “theology of white supremacy.”

Here’s a summary of Wright’s speech concerning what whites have to do in order to become reconciled to the Black church in America.

God’s desire is for a radical change in a social order that has gone astray. God’s desire is for a radical transformation. This is the heart of Liberation Theology. What must we do in order to become reconciled? “Children of God repenting for past sins against one another.”

Apparently, Wright thinks whites have a long, long way to go before they deserve to be reconciled to the Black Church.

I wonder what kind of additional repentance Wright has in store for Whites? Hint, go listen to Obama’s new pastor’s sermons and, can you spell Reparations and residtribution???

With regard to the “white supremacy” church in America, Wright quoted Dr. William Augustus Jones to explain how one’s theology determines one’s sociology. Really? Can we get permission from Wright to apply that same standard to Obama???

I wonder if Wright considered that if that’s truly the case, then why shouldn’t all Americans have a right to ask Obama to explain his own theology in terms of comparison and contrast to Trinity United Church of Christ and Jeremiah Wright?

The Q&A session offered some hard questions that Wright attempted to turn to his favor.

When asked about the “chickens coming home to roost” post 9/11 sermon he responded:

“Have you heard the whole sermon? (He waits for a response) Well that nullifies that question.” Then Wright went on to say that (1) “I was quoting the ambassador of Iraq,” (2) What Wright said “comes from the Bible”, and (3) “You cannot do terrorism against other people and not expect it to come back on you.”

Asked if he was patriotic and loved Aemrica, Wright said:

“I served six years in the military. Does that make me patriotic?” Then he waved a flimsy salute.

Hummm. Looks like he doesn’t want to give a direct answer on that one.

Wright was asked about his relationship with Louis Farrakhan, the acting head of the Nation of Islam. Wright implied that he had been hurt by his relationship with Farrakhan because Farrakhan has once called Zionism a “gutter religion.” But Wright went on to say, “Farrakhan and I don’t agree on everything. Farrakhan is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st centuries. I won’t put down Farrakhan any more than (Nelson) Mandela would put down Castro.”

Asked about Sen. Obama’s disavowal of him, Wright reminded the audience that Obama had not disavowed him just “distanced himself from me because he is a politician.” Wright said that he was downstairs praying with Obama before Obama went upstairs to talk. What does this imply?

When asked about his own motivation, Wright said, “If Obama had not said what he said he would never get elected.” Then Wright added, “I’m not running for office . . .(then with a kidding grin) I’m hoping to be V.P.” As a matter of fact, he said that again at the end of his speech. Interesting, and I bet he’s serious.

Asked about what evil our government is capable of, he said, that based on the Tuskegee experiment, “I believe our government is capable of anything.”

Asked if he likened Israeli policies to apartheid, he denied saying that and said that Israel has a right to exist but needs to sit down and work out a solution – reconciliation.

Wright refused to comment about Bill Clinton and said that “I came to talk about the church not politics.” Funny, he could have fooled me.

Wright was asked how the Black and White church could reconcile. He said that many have already “taken great steps to do so. To reconcile, whites must understand the injustice that was done.”

He would start educating at the earliest levels by using “Infusion curriculum” – telling the true story.

When asked if Islam is the way to salvation, Wright said, “Jesus said, ‘Other sheep have I not of this fold.’”

So what’s Obama to do?

Wright, like a dirty old piece of gum, is permanently stuck to Obama’s shoe. Obama can’t shake him. Granted, Obama hasn’t tried very hard to convince most voters that he’s all that upset with Wright, but why should he? If Obama were to come out even stronger against Wright or his own Black Liberation church, he’d lose the votes of his primary supporters on the left.

Some speculating yesterday on the news had the Obama camp actually redirecting Wright in an attempt to rehabilitate his image. The idea is that if Obama can stop attacks on Wright, he can win the blue collar white votes he badly needs. The only way to do that is to turn this thing on his head. Apparently, the far left is taking the ball and running with it.

Here’s the new spin. To question Wright or Obama is tantamount to white racism!

Digg it!!!

For more background on this continuing story read:
(1)Brite Divinity School to Honor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, (2) Brite Divinity School Jeremiah Wright Update, (3) Brite, Jeremiah Wright, and the Out of Context Card, (4) The Brite-Jeremiah Wright Debate Continues, (5) Brite Divinity School Accused of Violating Its Own Covenant, and (6) Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 Sermon “In Context”, and (7) An Outraged Active Democrat Tells Brite Divinity School Off, (8) The Clever Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA