Excellent article!!! Very well said!
Hate and Violence From the Left; It’s Not Right
How much longer can the Democratic Party, the mainstream media and other leftists successfully maintain the ruse that intolerance, hatred and the propensity for violence mainly come from the right in this country? The lie is getting old.
The left’s ideas continue to fail in the real world, and the majority of the people reject them, which is why their proponents so often disguise their true intentions. Partially because they can’t prevail on a level playing field, they use whatever means they can to advance their agenda. One of those means is to pre-emptively strike their political opponents by falsely condemning them for behavior that they — leftists — actually engage in. It’s called “projection.”
Thus, intolerant, dogmatic leftists paint the right as reality-challenged and science-averse, when leftists are the ones who refuse to allow any contradictory evidence to penetrate their blinders about alleged catastrophic man-made global warming. They insist on continuing to deficit spend our nation into bankruptcy on the rationale that such reckless spending is the only recipe for stimulating an economy, despite dispositive historical and recent evidence proving otherwise.
Instead of joining Republicans in good faith to radically curb this spending, they accuse Republicans of “Draconian” cuts. Fully aware that runaway entitlement spending is guaranteed to bankrupt us eventually — even if we do get a handle on discretionary expenditures — they refuse seriously to address entitlement reform. They choose to exploit the issue as a political weapon to scare seniors and other entitlement beneficiaries.
But one of the worst examples of leftists’ projection is their depiction of conservatives as hateful, violent Neanderthals whose mere participation in the marketplace of ideas and the democratic process is inherently dangerous.
If I’m overstating the case, it’s not by much. Consider that Bill Clinton, with no basis in reality, slandered and scapegoated conservative talk radio for the Oklahoma City bombing; that Obama’s Department of Homeland Security issued a report suggesting that tea party protesters are potential domestic terrorists; that the left uniformly rushed to judgment in indicting conservatives, including Sarah Palin, for the Arizona shootings and persisted with the charge even after it was abundantly clear that it was factually erroneous; and that the left continues to equate conservative talk with hate speech that will lead to violence and advocates selectively suppressing conservative speech through such insidious means as the Fairness Doctrine.
President Obama himself characterized small-town Midwesterners (read: conservatives) as bitter clingers who hold on to their guns, religion and antipathy for people who aren’t like them. There was no mistaking his implication that mostly white Christians from small Midwestern towns who embrace the Second Amendment are angry, bitter, violent, backward and racist. It is surprising that he was careless enough, even in an unscripted moment, to reveal those dark thoughts, but it was hardly surprising that he in fact has those thoughts. For leftists habitually portray conservatives as angry, mean-spirited, close-minded and violent.
Most Americans realize just how wickedly inaccurate these smears are. Tea party protesters, to be sure, are righteously indignant about the government’s abuse of powers, its defiance of the rule of law, its trampling on the Constitution and, most of all, its reckless spending. But they are invariably peaceful, reasonable and restrained in their decorum. Unlike many leftist protesters, they even clean up after themselves. They are not racists and do not engage in violent behavior. The only racism or violence that surfaces at tea party rallies is that fabricated or fomented by opportunistic leftists.
Those same leftists, meanwhile, often do engage in the very type of behavior they condemn. We are seeing that in spades in the Wisconsin union protests. Talk about hate — and violence!
Where are the leftist media to call out the thugs who assaulted Fox News national reporter Mike Tobin in Madison on Saturday night? Where are their reports about the alleged involvement of international socialists in similar protests, such as the rallies to “save the American dream”? Why didn’t they report on the calls by union thugs for blood in the streets? And where are their fair and balanced reports that even after Gov. Scott Walker’s proposed cuts, the Wisconsin state workers would do much better than private-sector and even federal workers?
The political left has increasingly shown its ugly face since Democrats won both political branches of the federal government in 2008, and they show no signs of pulling back, despite growing popular resistance from the American people. Their arrogance, extremism and brutality should be their undoing.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
Infuriating! The media slammed Bush at every opportunity and there wasn’t a problem. Now that a reporter says something negative (and true) about Obama and the Dems, he gets fired. I hope he SUES them for every cent they have!! The MSM is such a joke.
WJLA-TV fires veteran anchor Doug McKelway, cites insubordination, misconduct
By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 17, 2010
WJLA-TV has fired veteran anchorman Doug McKelway for a verbal confrontation this summer with the station’s news director that came after McKelway broadcast a sharply worded live report about congressional Democrats and President Obama.
McKelway was placed on indefinite suspension in late July after his run-in with ABC7′s news director and general manager, Bill Lord. In a letter to McKelway this week, the station said it was terminating his contract immediately, citing insubordination and misconduct.
Amid the ongoing BP oil spill in July, McKelway covered a Capitol Hill demonstration by environmental groups protesting the influence of oil-industry contributions to members of Congress.
In his piece, McKelway said the sparsely attended event attracted protesters “largely representing far-left environmental groups.” He went on to say the protest “may be a risky strategy because the one man who has more campaign contributions from BP than anybody else in history is now sitting in the Oval Office, President Barack Obama, who accepted $77,051 in campaign contributions from BP.”
After a brief taped segment updating efforts to cap the BP well, McKelway added that the Senate was unlikely to pass “cap-and-trade” legislation this year, because “the Democrats are looking at the potential for huge losses in Congress come the midterm elections. And the last thing they want to do is propose a huge escalation in your electric bill, your utility bill, before then.”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Once again we see the hypocrisy of the left. They say the Tea Partiers are hateful and dangerous, but have nothing to back up their claim. However, we are constanatly hearing liberals say horrible things like this and the MSM doesn’t bat an eye.
John Cusack Calls for ‘Satanic Death’ of Fox News, GOP Leaders
By Jo Piazza
Published August 31, 2010
Actor John Cusack went on a caustic Twitter rampage Sunday evening, attacking former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Fox News.
“I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES ORDICK ARMEYAND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS,” Cusack tweeted.
Cusack has long been outspoken about politics. He supported Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election and has contributed to The Huffington Post, but this is the first known time he has stooped to the level of making threats.
And while the U.S. Constitution protects Cusack’s right to speak his mind, some critics say he should be more careful about what he says, since he has more than 200,000 Twitter followers.
“His provocative tweets could easily incite a rabid fan to commit violent acts against Fox News Headquarters and others he names,” said Dr. Carole Lieberman, a Beverly Hills-based psychiatrist and author of “Coping With Terrorism: Dreams Interrupted.”
“Fans could not only be influenced because of their devotion to Cusack, the man, but also because of their love for one of the characters he plays,” she told Fox411.
Cooper Lawrence, the author of “Cult of Celebrity” told Fox 411: “The fear isn’t that a celebrity will influence someone to do something violent or out of character due to the sheer devotion to the celebrity, the fear is that someone who is already vulnerable, mentally disturbed, already considering something dangerous, may be encouraged to do so if it is advocated by their favorite star,”
Lawrence explained that while celebrities don’t make healthy people do things they wouldn’t normally do, they could impact someone who is on the fence or mentally unstable.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
Unbelievable!!! They called his reporting the facts ‘partisan’ because it wasn’t kissing up to Obama. Think of all the horrible, negative things that were said about Bush (whether they were the truth or not) and no one seemed to care if the reporting was biased against Bush. This drives me crazy!! I’ve never seen a president get more of a pass than this one! The MSM is disgusting!
Thoughtcrime: D.C. Reporter Suspended for Accurate Report on BP’s Donations to Obama
Posted by Robert Bluey
WJLA-TV, a Washington, D.C. ABC affiliate, suspended reporter Doug McKelway following his alleged “partisan” comments at a liberal rally on Capitol Hill marking the three-month anniversary of the Gulf oil spill. Video of the broadcast tells a different story.
Apparently facts are now “partisan.”
McKelway stuck to the truth about BP’s political contributions and pending cap-and-trade legislation, newsworthy subjects given that the event’s organizers were lobbying to “pass legislation to end America’s addiction to oil and urged lawmakers to donate campaign money raised from the oil industry to the clean-up efforts in the Gulf.”
According to the Washington Post, it was McKelway’s supposedly controversial comments on July 20 that led to his suspension. Anonymous sources at the station are now accusing him of “insubordination” in an apparent attempt to fire him.
McKelway’s live report began with a factually correct statement about BP’s donations to President Obama. McKelway accurately noted that Obama received $77,051 from the BP employees, information verified by the Center for Responsive Politics.
When McKelway asked one of the event’s participants to comment on it, Ted Glick of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network acknowledged it was a problem for Obama. The rally was organized by left-wing groups Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Public Citizen.
At the end of the live segment, McKelway talked about the prospect of cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate, a topic related to the rally, which urged lawmakers to “take immediate action to pass climate and energy legislation.”
Nevertheless, the Washington Post, quoting anonymous sources, indicated McKelway’s report crossed the line. The newspaper reported:
According to several of McKelway’s colleagues, the newsman’s reporting may have lapsed into partisan territory when he commented live on the air about the oil industry’s influence in Washington, particularly its contributions to Democratic politicians and legislators.
This is absolutely absurd. The Post’s decision to use anonymous sources to smear McKelway was bad enough, but reporter Paul Farhi also wrote a subjective description of the broadcast instead of simply stating the facts. The newspaper’s own reporters engage in flagrant partisan behavior on a daily basis.
WJLA’s station manager and news director declined to comment on the personnel matter. McKelway isn’t talking either.
Based on what we know — and discounting the questionable and anonymous sources in Farhi’s story — it appears this is a classic case of the mainstream media silencing those who report inconvenient truths about this administration. McKelway is a veteran newsman who has consistently strived for balance in reporting. Unfortunately, in a news environment like Washington, D.C, liberals don’t always like the facts. In this case, McKelway appears to have suffered the consequences.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
Yep, those Democrats sure are the loving party, aren’t they??? If we just disagree with them they call us mean, but they can get by with saying hateful stuff like this?? Sickening!
N.H. Democrat under fire for reportedly saying Sarah Palin should have crashed with Ted Stevens
BY MEENA HARTENSTEIN
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
A New Hampshire Democrat is under fire after reportedly posting a public death wish for Sarah Palin.
Keith Halloran, a Democratic candidate for state representative in New Hampshire, took a swipe at Palin on Facebook after former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens died in a plane crash on Monday.
“Just wish Sarah and Levy were on board,” Halloran wrote, apparently taking aim at the former Alaska Gov. and her daughter’s ex-fiancée, Levi Johnston.
The New Hampshire Republican party quickly fired back with a statement “denouncing” the posting.
“Mr. Halloran’s outrageous comments are a new low, even by the standards of the New Hampshire Democrat Party,” a spokesman for the party said in the statement.
“His publicly stated death wish for Governor Palin and her family is abhorrent, and has no place in our public discourse.”
The New Hampshire GOP is rallying supporters to call New Hampshire Governor John Lynch and Congressional Candidate Ann McLane McLuter and ask them to “immediately denounce Mr. Halloran’s hateful remarks and demand that he personally apologize to the Palin family.”
Halloran, meanwhile, has refused to confirm he wrote the message.
“It’s just a tempest in their Tea Pot,” he told The Associated Press.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
AMEN!!!!! Hopefully people are finally coming to their senses!!
The Obsolescence of Barack Obama
By FOUAD AJAMI
Wall Street Journal
Not long ago Barack Obama, for those who were spellbound by him, had the stylishness of JFK and the historic mission of FDR riding to the nation’s rescue. Now it is to Lyndon B. Johnson’s unhappy presidency that Democratic strategist Robert Shrum compares the stewardship of Mr. Obama. Johnson, wrote Mr. Shrum in the Week magazine last month, never “sustained an emotional link with the American people” and chose to escalate a war that “forced his abdication as president.”
A broken link with the public, and a war in Afghanistan he neither embraces and sells to his party nor abandons—this is a time of puzzlement for President Obama. His fall from political grace has been as swift as his rise a handful of years ago. He had been hot political property in 2006 and, of course, in 2008. But now he will campaign for his party’s 2010 candidates from afar, holding fund raisers but not hitting the campaign trail in most of the contested races. Those mass rallies of Obama frenzy are surely of the past.
Senior Economics Writer Steve Moore asks whether the President is finished as an agent of change.
The vaunted Obama economic stimulus, at $862 billion, has failed. The “progressives” want to double down, and were they to have their way, would have pushed for a bigger stimulus still. But the American people are in open rebellion against an economic strategy of public debt, higher taxes and unending deficits. We’re not all Keynesians, it turns out. The panic that propelled Mr. Obama to the presidency has waned. There is deep concern, to be sure. But the Obama strategy has lost the consent of the governed.
Mr. Obama could protest that his swift and sudden fall from grace is no fault of his. He had been a blank slate, and the devotees had projected onto him their hopes and dreams. His victory had not been the triumph of policies he had enunciated in great detail. He had never run anything in his entire life. He had a scant public record, but oddly this worked to his advantage. If he was going to begin the world anew, it was better that he knew little about the machinery of government.
He pronounced on the American condition with stark, unalloyed confidence. He had little if any regard for precedents. He could be forgiven the thought that America’s faith in economic freedom had given way and that he had the popular writ to move the nation toward a super-regulated command economy. An “economic emergency” was upon us, and this would be the New New Deal.
There was no hesitation in the monumental changes Mr. Obama had in mind. The logic was Jacobin, the authority deriving from a perceived mandate to recast time-honored practices. It was veritably rule by emergency decrees. If public opinion displayed no enthusiasm for the overhaul of the nation’s health-care system, the administration would push on. The public would adjust in due time.
The nation may be ill at ease with an immigration reform bill that would provide some 12 million illegal immigrants a path toward citizenship, but the administration would still insist on the primacy of its own judgment. It would take Arizona to court, even though the public let it be known that it understood Arizona’s immigration law as an expression of that state’s frustration with the federal government’s abdication of its responsibility over border security.
It was clear as daylight that there was a built-in contradiction between opening the citizenship rolls to a vast flood of new petitioners and a political economy of redistribution favored by the Obama administration. The choice was stark: You could either “spread the wealth around” or open the gates for legalizing millions of immigrants of lower skills. You could not do both.
It was canonical to this administration and its functionaries that they were handed a broken nation, that it was theirs to repair, that it was theirs to tax and reshape to their preferences. Yet there was, in 1980, after another landmark election, a leader who had stepped forth in a time of “malaise” at home and weakness abroad: Ronald Reagan. His program was different from Mr. Obama’s. His faith in the country was boundless. What he sought was to restore the nation’s faith in itself, in its political and economic vitality.
Big as Reagan’s mandate was, in two elections, the man was never bigger than his country. There was never narcissism or a bloated sense of personal destiny in him. He gloried in the country, and drew sustenance from its heroic deeds and its capacity for recovery. No political class rode with him to power anxious to lay its hands on the nation’s treasure, eager to supplant the forces of the market with its own economic preferences.
To be sure, Reagan faltered midway through his second term—the arms-for-hostages trade, the Iran-Contra affair, nearly wrecked his presidency. But he recovered, the nation rallied around him and carried him across the finish line, his bond with the electorate deep and true. He had two years left of his stewardship, and his political recovery was so miraculous that he, and his first mate, Secretary of State George P. Shultz, would seal the nation’s victory in the Cold War.
There is little evidence that the Obama presidency could yet find new vindication, another lease on life. Mr. Obama will mark time, but henceforth he will not define the national agenda. He will not be the repository of its hopes and sentiments. The ambition that his would be a “transformational” presidency—he rightly described Reagan’s stewardship in these terms—is for naught.
There remains the fact of his biography, a man’s journey. Personality is doubtless an obstacle to his recovery. The detachment of Mr. Obama need not be dwelled upon at great length, so obvious it is now even to the pundits who had a “tingling sensation” when they beheld him during his astonishing run for office. Nor does Mr. Obama have the suppleness of Bill Clinton, who rose out of the debris of his first two years in the presidency, dusted himself off, walked away from his spouse’s radical attempt to remake the country’s health-delivery system, and moved to the political center.
It is in the nature of charisma that it rises out of thin air, out of need and distress, and then dissipates when the magic fails. The country has had its fill with a scapegoating that knows no end from a president who had vowed to break with recriminations and partisanship. The magic of 2008 can’t be recreated, and good riddance to it. Slowly, the nation has recovered its poise. There is a widespread sense of unstated embarrassment that a political majority, if only for a moment, fell for the promise of an untested redeemer—a belief alien to the temperament of this so practical and sober a nation.
Mr. Ajami is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
And the media continues to ignore it…
Top 10 Examples of NAACP Racism
by Daniel J. Flynn
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) condemned the Tea Party movement last month for alleged bigotry within its ranks. The mainstream always seems extreme to extremists. As the following top-ten list demonstrates, the NAACP, a hotbed of political hotheads in recent years, isn’t the best organization to be lecturing others about extremism.
10. In March 2008, ABC News revealed that Barack Obama’s pastor had preached that African Americans should sing “not God Bless America, God Damn America,” that 9/11 proved that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” and that the U.S. government invented AIDS. The following month, on April 28, 2008, the NAACP’s Detroit chapter honored the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a keynote speaker at a massive dinner.
9. In 2000, the NAACP filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Mumia Abu Jamal, the former Black Panther who murdered a white police officer in 1981. “I shot the motherf—– and I hope the motherf—– dies,” three witnesses heard a wounded Abu Jamal exclaim in a Philadelphia hospital.
8. The rhetoric of Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP from 1998 to 2000, exemplifies the organization’s migration from the mainstream to the extreme. In his words, Republicans are “the white people’s party” and “a crazed swarm of right-wing locusts,” America morphs into a place where “white supremacy” is “everywhere,” and the George W. Bush Administration exemplifies a regime “whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection.”
7. On July 1, 1934, W.E.B. Du Bois resigned from the organization he helped found after an ugly feud with the NAACP’s more moderate leaders, crudely accusing Walter White, an African American, of being white. The previous year, Du Bois called for a plan that “will involve increased segregation and perhaps migration” for African Americans. “The thinking colored people of the United States must stop being stampeded by the word segregation,” Du Bois insisted in the January 1934 issue of The Crises, adding four months later: “I fight segregation with segregation.” The parting of ways saved the NAACP further embarrassment. Their founder made an ill-advised trip to Nazi Germany in 1936 that resulted in, among other lamentable items, “The German Case against Jews,” an apologia in which Du Bois excused German anti-Semitism as a “reasoned prejudice” based on “economic fear.”
6. For many, April 8, 1994 was the day the NAACP jumped the shark. The group invited a rogue’s gallery of crackpots, extremists, and racists to a secret meeting, dubbed (take a deep breath): “a deliberate mechanism for communication and interrelations between representative leaders of the progressive community and the NAACP within the inclusive mission of the Chavis administration and the African-centered self-determined program thrust of the ‘new’ NAACP.” Attendees included black supremacist Leonard Jeffries, famous for his “sun people”/”ice people” dichotomy to explain the differences between blacks and whites; Maulana Karenga, the originator of Kwanzaa who went to prison for torturing two women; and fringe presidential candidate Lenora Fulani.
5. Louis Farrakhan teaches that an evil scientist named Yakub created white people, claims to have been abducted in a UFO, and has made a mountain of anti-Semitic utterances. So it shocked many when the NAACP invited the Nation of Islam grand panjandrum to participate in a “leadership summit” on June 12-14, 1997.
4. When Al Gore selected Joe Lieberman as his running mate in 2000, Dallas NAACP chapter head Lee Alcorn responded with alarm that a Jewish American had been selected on a national ticket. “I’m concerned about, you know, any kind of Jewish candidate, you know, and I’m concerned about the Democratic Party,” Alcorn said on a radio program. “And if we get a Jew person, then what I’m wondering is, I mean, what is this movement for, you know?” African Americans, the NAACP leader maintained, “need to be suspicious of any kind of partnerships between the Jews at that kind of level because we know that their interest primarily has to do with, you know, money and these kind of things.”
3. The Obama Administration bounced Van Jones out of its administration after the media learned he had led a Communist organization, signed a petition claiming that the Bush Administration “may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen,” and organized a vigil on September 12, 2001 memorializing the victims of U.S. imperialism. Though Jones was ultimately too extreme for the U.S. President, he was just right for the NAACP’s president. On February 26, 2010, the NAACP’s Image Awards bestowed a “President’s Award” upon Van Jones.
2. In the 1970s, a judge sentenced Benjamin Chavis to prison for his role in the firebombing a white-owned grocery store in a black part of Wilmington, N.C. A judge overturned his conviction on a technicality in 1980, with Chavis’s makeover so complete that the NAACP elected him chairman on April 9, 1993. A few months later, Chavis demanded the inclusion of the Nation of Islam in a 30th anniversary celebration of the March on Washington. He explained, “I want everybody here to know that the NAACP is standing with the Nation of Islam.” Angela Davis, Sister Souljah, and Leonard Jeffries were among the extremists Chavis extended an olive branch to during his short tenure as NAACP leader. Chavis, a former Christian minister, has joined the Nation of Islam since his firing from the NAACP.
1. Ten years after the NAACP and W.E.B. Du Bois originally parted company in 1934, the civil rights organization welcomed him back. Whereas Du Bois’s peculiar racial views led to the first parting, his support for communism led to the final parting in 1948. Du Bois subsequently eulogized Stalin as a “great” and “courageous” man that had been “attacked and slandered as few men of power have been,” likened North Korean Communists to the American patriots of 1776, accepted a Lenin Peace Prize, was feted with a nation holiday in Maoist China, joined the Communist Party USA, renounced his American citizenship, and emigrated to Kwame Nkrumah’s Ghana.
Rather than unnamed “racists” operating on the peripheries, or six-degrees-of-separation logic that lamely attempts to project X’s extremism upon Y, the above examples involve the NAACP’s official acts and duly elected leaders. In a few cases, such as with Lee Alcorn and W.E.B. Du Bois, the NAACP repudiated the extremism and severed ties. In each instance, the NAACP’s leadership, and not yahoos acting in its name, brought shame upon the organization.
For most of its history, the NAACP has served as a force of political moderation and sought the laudable goal of an integrated society where people of color could reach their fullest human potential unhampered by discrimination. For most of its recent history, the NAACP has self-righteously designated itself the arbiter of who is and who is not a racist—even as it sponsors black racists.
“What we take issue with is the Tea Party’s continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements,” NAACP CEO Ben Jealous remarked upon his group’s anti-Tea Party resolution. “The time has come for them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear there is no place for racism and anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement.”
Isn’t it time for the NAACP to accept responsibility for its own extremism?Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
I am so sick of the lies and Alinsky tactics!!!
Left Admits: Racism Charges Against Tea Parties a Tactic, Not a Truth
Washington, D.C. – Members of the Project 21 black leadership group are condemning the left’s false use of the accusation “racist” as a political tactic, saying they recognize the strategy from the teaching of left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky.
Former U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Chairman Mary Frances Berry, a long-time prominent liberal activist, has admitted in an interview with Politico that the left is trying to smear the tea party movement as “racist” for strategic reasons, not out of genuine concern that the movement is itself racist.
Berry called the tactic an “effective strategy” and chose not to denounce it.
“As an active participant in the tea party movement, I know the movement’s motivation is about Obama’s policies and not his race,” said Deneen Borelli, a Project 21 full-time fellow who has spoken at many tea party rallies and is scheduled to speak at the “Uni-Tea” rally in Philadelphia on July 31. “Race card politics is the last-ditch effort to shift the debate away from President Obama’s harmful policies such as the government’s takeover of health care and his failure to create jobs — both of which are having an impact on his popularity. This diversion may also help Obama to try to jam through cap-and-trade legislation through Congress. It’s a grand distraction from policies and may unfortunately increase racial tensions.”
Berry, now the Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought and History at the University of Pennsylvania, was asked, “will branding the tea party ‘racist’ work?”
Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.
“This is exactly the kind of thing that has irked me all of my adult life, to put it mildly,” said Project 21 member R. Dozier Gray. “This willful and purposeful use of the race card for nothing more than political gain is toxic to race relations, and Mary Frances Berry must know that. But she evidently does not care. Based on her comment, political posturing takes primacy over whatever real issues regarding race that she might pretend are her calling cards. I have seen this all before. I find it shameful.”
Project 21 member Bob Parks added: “What’s most disturbing about this very public quote? Not only is Mary Frances Berry making this comment without fear of admonishment, and that progressives have apparently embraced and are employing these very shameful, race-baiting tactics — but Berry is likely teaching this ‘social thought’ hate to children.”
Left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky, whose tactics have been studied and followed by Barack Obama and his followers, taught his activists to “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” The Tea Party movement has unnerved the left and energized supporters of smaller government, causing the left to target it, as per Alinsky’s method, with bogus racism charges.
The Politico interview with Berry is available at http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/mary_frances_berry.html.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Racial Politics: Black Panthers say ‘Kill the Crackers’ and then Accuse Tea Partiers of Being Racist??
Unbelievable!! Oh, the irony!!!!
EDITORIAL: Kill the crackers
Racial politics is rising under Obama
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People put forward a resolution yesterday formally accusing the Tea Party movement of racism. That’s ironic coming from an organization whose mission is to promote the fortunes of one particular racial group.
Post-racial America has yet to arrive for many black leaders. President Obama has shown little interest in leading the national dialogue on race he once proposed, and civil rights groups are unwilling or unable to reach beyond their usual tired rhetoric. Saying the Tea Party movement contains “racist elements that are a threat to democracy” is a shameful slap at the millions of Americans untainted by bigotry who oppose Mr. Obama’s radical leftist policies regardless of his color.
The Rev. C.L. Bryant, a black Tea Party activist who used to be an NAACP chapter president in Texas, said charges of racism are lies intended to further a liberal political agenda. ABC News quoted him as saying the NAACP wants to “create a climate where they can say that those on the right are in fact racist and those on the left are their saviors. This is very much what the liberal agenda is about.” Blacks who show any signs of independent thinking do so at their peril. In August, Kenneth Gladney, a black Tea Partier from Missouri, was severely beaten by two thugs from the Service Employees International Union. The NAACP started a campaign to defend Mr. Gladney’s assailants, saying the victim was an “Uncle Tom” who was “not black enough” to protect.
Last week, the Project 21 black leadership network asked Mr. Obama for the second time to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Justice Department’s failure to prosecute New Black Panther Party members for blatant, race-based voter intimidation in Philadelphia in 2008. Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie wrote that “the problem has festered to a point where perceptions of racial bias within your Justice Department cannot be ignored.” The perceptions were reinforced July 6 when former Justice Department official J. Christian Adams, who resigned to protest the handling of the case, testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that Justice Department attorneys in the Civil Rights Division were instructed to ignore cases that involved black defendants and white victims. Justice apparently is not colorblind.
Black Panther Minister King Samir Shabazz, otherwise known as Maurice Heath, was one of the people engaging in voter intimidation. He also was featured in a January 2009 video proclaiming to a black audience, “You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!” Mr. Shabazz added, “I hate white people – all of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate ‘em.” The Washington Times’ Kerry Picket reported last summer on Jerry Jackson, another accused Black Panther and an elected member of Philadelphia’s 14th Ward Democratic Party committee. His interests, according to his MySpace page, are: “BLACK POWER, BLACK LOVE, BLACK UNITY, BLACK MINDS, KILLIN CRAKKKAS.” These are the kind of violent black extremists that Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department is coddling.
No such comparable hateful language has come out of the Tea Party movement. The NAACP’s tired racial rhetoric is simply the product of a time long gone. It has been almost half a century since the Civil Rights Act was passed. The United States elected a black president. American society has closed the racial divide. However, those who benefit politically from keeping the racial wound fresh continue to wave the bloody shirt and smear those who disagree with their hard-left political agenda. It will take more than a beer summit to heal the racial wounds these black leaders are inflicting on the country.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
« Previous Entries