Either Hillary Clinton Needs To Be Utterly Destroyed Over Her Emails Or The Experiment In Constitutional Republican Democracy Needs To End.

Hillary Clinton had every right to use all the private email she wanted; all she had to do was STAY THE HELL OUT OF PUBLIC SERVICE.

There is one and only one question that needs to be put to Hillary Clinton.  And put to her again and again at every event in which she talks to ANYONE until she drops out of public life and becomes a recluse with about a thousand cats for the rest of her life.

That question is this: “Secretary Clinton, do you believe that every government official ought to be allowed to do what you did by setting up your own private system such that there is no possibility of impartial third-party accountability, or do you believe that you are an elitist entitlement whore and that you alone ought to be above the laws that protect representative government from corruption?”

I mean, look, either from now on every single person who holds a government job should put his or her emails on a private server beyond access or control by the government such that each government worker must be trusted implicitly, or Hillary Clinton needs to be permanently publicly destroyed and utterly despised as a symbol of tyranny and corruption.

If Hillary Clinton is allowed to do this, then from now on your right-wing Karl Roves or Dick Cheneys working in their uber-right-wing bunkers writing orders and commands to destroy liberalism ought to have the exact same freedom to be above the law and immune from the law.

And any representative democracy needs to be abolished today and from this moment forward.

There is absolutely no question whatsoever that Hillary Clinton set up a system to make her immune from the federal records act and freedom of information requests.  In her system, she and her staff of priestesses get to decide what is relevant and what is not and everyone is required to believe her.

I don’t even think Joseph Stalin’s fascist tyrant balls were that big.

Fact checks reveal that Hillary Clinton is either lying or massively equivocating on every single thing she is saying about her emails.  But then again, the Clintons are people who could find some way to insinuate “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” when they are explaining to a traffic cop whey they refused to stop at a damn stop sign.  Liberals are people who believe that laws are things for them to pass and impose and for little people to follow.

We have a pathologically partisan and dishonest media, but it is nice to know that even the mainstream press is going after Hillary Clinton’s fascist tyrant balls:

The Associated Press said Wednesday it has sued the State Department to force the release of government documents and e-mails from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State, an action taken a day after she defended her use of a private e-mail account to conduct business and after six formal attempts by the news agency to obtain records.

“After careful deliberation and exhausting our other options, The Associated Press is taking the necessary legal steps to gain access to these important documents, which will shed light on actions by the State Department and former Secretary Clinton, a presumptive 2016 presidential candidate, during some of the most significant issues of our time,” AP General Counsel Karen Kaiser said in a statement.

“The press is a proxy for the people, and AP will continue its pursuit of vital information that’s in the public interest through this action and future open records requests,” Kaiser said.

At a news conference following a speech at a United Nations conference on women’s economic status Tuesday, Clinton defended her use of a private e-mail account, saying it was done for convenience. Using a personal account was permissible during her tenure as long as she kept the records, and she did not discuss classified information on her personal e-mail, Clinton said.

“Looking back, it would have been better for me to use two separate phones and two separate e-mail accounts,” Clinton said. “I thought using one (mobile) device would be simpler. Obviously, it hasn’t worked out that way.”

Clinton sent or received 62,320 total e-mails while heading the State Department, and deleted 31,830 that she deemed personal.

She turned over 30,490 e-mails to the State Department last fall at its request. More than 27,500 involved official government e-mail addresses.

Clinton said she “chose not to keep” personal e-mails, such as those related to daughter Chelsea’s wedding in 2010 or the funeral for her mother, Dorothy Rodham, who died in 2011. “No one wants their personal e-mails made public and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy,” she said.

Filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the lawsuit says “AP seeks the records in question from the State Department to inform citizens both regarding the operation of their government and regarding Secretary Clinton’s official actions as Secretary of State.”

Beginning in 2010, AP filed six requests under FOIA to obtain records from the State Department regarding Clinton’s tenure as secretary, including her calendars and schedules and records concerning the designation of Special Government Employee status given to her former deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin.

The news agency also sought records related to the raid in Pakistan in which Osama bin Laden was killed and surveillance and other anti-terrorism programs conducted by the U.S. government.

AP also requested documents detailing the State Department’s dealings with defense contractor BAE Systems. The State Department reached a settlement with BAE in 2011 over violations of the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

Since the first FOIA request was submitted, the State Department “has failed to respond substantively to five of the requests, and has only partially responded to one request” related to BAE Systems, according to the lawsuit.

Consider this factoid: even if you believe Clinton’s story – which makes you a FOOL, just for the official record – you have this issue to deal with: Hillary Clinton says that she spent half of her time (31,830 personal emails out of a TOTAL of 63,320 emails as Secretary of State) engaged in personal business.  Do you know what I call somebody who spends half their damn work time on personal emails?  A FORMER employee.  Because she’s fired.

If you want to believe Hillary Clinton’s story – and again you just identified yourself as a true FOOL – she is an astonishingly incompetent and self-centered pathological narcissist.

But no, Hillary Clinton set up her “private server” to avoid transparency and to avoid accountability.  And she is refusing to turn over her server because she is a liar with something very, very serious to hide.

Meanwhile, the pissy, pathologically fascist Obama Administration that praised and adored itself as “the most transparent” (communist dictatorship) in history has refused for FOR AT LEAST FIVE DAMN YEARS to turn over so much as an email saying “good morning” from the Secretary of State of the United States of America.  Oh, yeah, Obama will have his lawthug Eric Holder investigate the police department in Ferguson forever, but here’s a giant scandal involving his very top official and he can’t be bothered.

Obama is in this over his eyeballs.  He did what he always did and lied about it and said that he is a detached incompetent fool who didn’t even know what the hell was happening all around him, but yeah, he received emails from Hillary Clinton’s private email server that was in graphic violation of the rules and policies and regulations that had been set up to protect the integrity of government service:

President Barack Obama communicated via email with Hillary Clinton while she used her personal email, according to the White House.

In a press briefing on Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that Obama did correspond with his secretary of state via her private email address.

“The president, as I think many people expected, did over the course of his first several years in office trade emails with his secretary of state,” Earnest said. “I would not describe the number of emails as large, but they did have the occasion to email each other.”

Earnest’s admission comes after Obama said on CBS on Saturday that he learned about Clinton’s use of a private email and server “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.” According to Earnest, this comment should not be assumed to mean that Obama and Clinton never emailed back and forth. […]

When pressed on whether Obama was aware that Clinton was conducting business over her private email, Earnest responded, “the point is the president did email with Secretary Clinton. I assume that he recognized the email address that he was emailing back to,” before saying that the important issue is whether she complied with the Federal Records Act.

I mean, “Oh, THOSE private emails!”

Just another day in the fascist life of fascists doing their fascist thing.

Even the leftist Democracy Now is publicly calling Obama “the least transparent president in history”:

“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.” So wrote President Barack Obama, back on Jan. 29, 2009, just days into his presidency. “Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.” Now, six years into the Obama administration, his promise of “a new era of open Government” seems just another grand promise, cynically broken.

As the news industry observed its annual “Sunshine Week” in mid-March, The Associated Press reported that “[m]ore often than ever, the administration censored government files or outright denied access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act [FOIA].” The AP report continued, “The government’s efforts to be more open about its activities last year were their worst since President Barack Obama took office.”

That article is within days of being a year old now, and Obama had only just BEGUN to be a fascist thug at that point compared to what he’s done since.

In the same way, even the leftist New York Times acknowledges that Barack Obama’s regime “is the most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered.”

Consider what this rat-bastard lying fascist thug promised us when he seized power in his own now-proven-to-have-been-demonic-lying words:

“A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government. At the heart of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the Government and the citizenry alike.

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.” {…}

Yeah, that sure happened.

In reality, if you ask ANY SENTIENT LIFE FORM – obviously that description excludes liberals – you get the type of statements I recorded above that Barack Obama is THE most closed, THE most secretive, THE most paranoid, THE most intolerant of the press, THE most intolerant to foia requests, of any president.

Hillary Clinton is nothing more than a fascist thug trying to take over the job of a fascist thug.  Period.  She claims her emails would have gone to .gov accounts that would have fallen under the law (you know, as the lesser people who had to follow the damn laws picked up for Hillary who refused to obey the requirements of government service).  But that’s a lie.  For example, her two most senior aides ALSO had their own private email accounts and did not use .gov accounts.  So those three wicked witches could literally have conspired to commit treason and none of us would ever know about it.  And to the best of my knowledge, the foreign governments – such as the sponsors of terrorism that Hillary Clinton illegitimately raked in MILLIONS from even while she was serving as Secretary of State on behalf of the Clinton Foundation – didn’t use .got accounts and sending all their emails to the US government.

We have to trust that what Hillary Clinton and her two senior priestesses decided to save and what they decided to purge was above-board.  Because we must trust Hillary Clinton’s, Huma Abedin’s and Cheryl Mills’ integrity the same way we should have had boundless confidence and trust in everything that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove did.  We should allow all government officials to conceal their communications and only cherry pick what they deem “relevant” from now on.

It is wrong to brand Hillary Clinton “Nixonian.”  But that is because it is a blatant dishonor of Richard Nixon when Nixon makes Clinton look like Billy Graham or whatever pope you think was the holiest holiness.  Nixon, remember, set up his taping system to PRESERVE THE RECORD.  He installed it to write his memoirs and probably to remind people of exactly what they’d told him.  And he only deleted what, eighteen minutes? from that taping system when those records may have incriminated him.  Hillary Clinton, by contrast, set up her servers to CONCEAL THE RECORD.  And she didn’t delete eighteen minutes, but rather four entire YEARS, from disclosure.

Clinton has now conclusively proven – by setting up a private server in her home to dodge reporting requirements such that there is no possibility whatsoever for transparent, accountable government beyond being required to implicitly trust the word of your dictator; she has already proven in her refusal to turn over records without spending more than two years having her staff of priestesses pouring over them for anything potentially incriminating against her and purging records; she has already proven in her imperious statements that she does not have to turn over anything to anybody because she like Obama is ontologically superior to the rest of us pathetic herd animals – that she is either not fit to be in ANY government position.  Or that our government should be “fundamentally transformed” to a tyranny.

We are now learning that Hillary Clinton’s “personal, private serve” was not so very private, after all, but that it was established by taxpayer funds and should belong to the people and not the tyrant.  Hillary claims she can’t turn over any actual records because after all, her decision to ONLY use a private server for official business somehow inadvertently resulted in mixing her personal emails in with official emails.  And after all, think of all of those intimate email exchanges she had with her husband, Bill.  Mind you, Bill says that he’s only sent two emails in his entire life and neither was to his shrew wife.  So that’s a stinking load of crap.

Hillary Clinton is like Al Sharpton, who somehow mysteriously suffered from not one but TWO suspicious fires that destroyed all of his financial records when he was running for public office.  And of course, neither Hillary’s corruption nor Al Sharpton’s corruption is enough to disqualify them from being liberal Democrats in good standing.  Because, of course, it’s actually dishonesty and corruption and a fascist disregard for the rule of law that qualifies them to be Democrats.

Make your choice, liberals.  But realize that if you choose Hillary Clinton, you also just chose your own personal nightmare of the most rabidly right-wing tyrant the world has ever seen having his records immune from disclosure.  And it will have been YOU who set that nightmare up and brought it to life.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama need to go down and go down hard and go down in history as treasonous disgraces to everything that representative democracy and any kind of government by the people should be.  Either that, or else the next rabid right-wing tyrant needs to follow their example and run down the damn field with it.

 

 

Liberal Democrat De Blasio To Blame For Cop Assassinations: The Cops PREDICTED Officers Would Die Because Of Liberals Joining Racist Protestors

[Update, 12/30/14: Well, this additional fact didn’t take long to further document the cancerous climate created by our cop-killer-in chief:

A new report out found a sharp rise in the number of police officers killed by guns in 2014, including 15 of what the Associated Press calls “ambush” shootings.

As the Associated Press reports:

The number of law enforcement officers killed by firearms jumped by 56 percent this year and included 15 ambush deaths… In 2011, 73 officers were killed in gunfire, the most in any year in the past decade. The average since 2004 is 55 police deaths annually.

The AP notes that the motivation of these vicious ambush attacks is politics.

The NY Times further collaborates this fact:

As the city was thrust into mourning, with flags lowered and police badges ribboned in black, the way Mr. Brinsley had stalked the officers set off precautions across the department. Officers who in recent weeks had felt besieged by political attacks found themselves contemplating the specter of far greater peril.

Neither “news” source has the basic journalistic integrity to point out the obvious blatant FACT that these “political attacks” are ALL coming from the vile political left.  [end update]

Liberal Democrat Mayor Bill De Blasio is to blame for the assassination of two NYPD police officers.  And the documented facts prove it:

De Blasio had INCREDIBLY vicious and polarizing things about the police who protect society such as said things such as:

“We’re not just dealing with years of racism leading up to it or decades of racism,” de Blasio said. “We are dealing with centuries of racism that have brought us to this day. That is how profound the crisis is.”

He despicably alienated police with his statement that police should not be trusted:

Mayor de Blasio made “moronic” comments Sunday that prove he “doesn’t belong” in New York, a key police union chief said, further inflaming the war of words between Hizzoner and the NYPD.

The comments from Ed Mullins, head of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, came after de Blasio reiterated his concern that his son, Dante, could be harmed by a police officer if he were to make any sudden movements in a hypothetical encounter with cops.

“What parents have done for decades who have children of color, especially young men of color, is train them to be very careful when they have …an encounter with a police officer,” de Blasio said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Mullins ripped right into de Blasio later in the day, calling his comments “really hypocritical and moronic” and suggesting the mayor get out of his own city.

“He has a security detail of New York City police officers assigned to protect his family. And yet he’s making statements that his son shouldn’t feel safe with New York City cops,” Mullins said on John Catsimatidis’ radio show on AM970.

De Blasio – being a liberal and a Democrat and therefore a despicable roach – has an easy to document history of hiring cop-hating staffers to fill his payroll and carry out his vile policies:

The New York Post reported in March 2013 and again this year on Motley’s offensive Twitter comments.

“NYPD fatally shoot knife-wielding man in Times Square.  F–k. The. Police,” Motley wrote on Aug. 11, 2012, of the police shooting death of Darrius Kennedy, The Post reported.

One of the last straws was when de Blasio brought racist, race-baiting race hustler Al Sharpton to a place of high honor and allowed him to demonize the NYPD:

He [de Blasio] took the unusual step — unimaginable under the mayoralties of Rudy Giuliani or Michael Bloomberg — of inviting Sharpton to City Hall, seating him opposite Bratton at a table where the activist proceeded to strongly denounce the police. (“If Dante wasn’t your son, he’d be a candidate for a chokehold. And we got to deal with that reality,” Sharpton said to de Blasio as Bratton looked on.) Last week, de Blasio privately met with organizers of the Garner protests, another moment that antagonized police.

But the action that turned off cops most of all was his defense of City Hall staffer Rachel Noerdlinger, a longtime Sharpton aide whose son and boyfriend posted anti-police messages on their Facebook accounts. The boyfriend allegedly tried to drive a cop off the road in Edgewater, New Jersey, and later pleaded to a lesser offense, according to the New York Post. The mayor stood behind Noerdlinger for weeks until her son was arrested for trespassing – and even then he didn’t fire her. When she left her job, City Hall officials said she was on leave.

“His words and his deeds don’t match,” said veteran cop reporter Leonard Levitt, who runs NYPD Confidential, a website fed by tips from inside the department and widely read by the rank-and-file. “You had Noerdlinger’s son calling cops ‘pigs’ and de Blasio doesn’t think that’s inappropriate? What message are you sending? De Blasio says it’s just the union guys who are angry. It’s not. It’s everybody. I’ve been covering this for 25 years and I have never seen anything like it… The mayor doesn’t have a clue.”

And here – FINALLY – was the police response:

NY police to mayor De Blasio: Don’t attend my funeral
The police union believes the mayor’s presence would be insulting following support for Garner protests
Dec 14, 2014
By Allen McDuffee The Atlantic

NEW YORK — New York City’s police union, the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, is urging its members to ban Mayor Bill de Blasio from their funerals, the latest episode in the ongoing clash between the mayor and the city’s law-enforcement power structure.

Officers are encouraged to fill out a form on the union’s website titled “Don’t Insult My Sacrifice” to request that neither de Blasio nor Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito attend their funeral, should they be killed in the line of duty.

The form reads:

I, _____________________, as a New York City police officer, request that Mayor Bill de Blasio and City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito refrain from attending my funeral services in the event that I am killed in the line of duty. Due to Mayor de Blasio and Speaker Mark-Viverito’s consistent refusal to show police officers the support and respect they deserve, I believe that their attendance at the funeral of a fallen New York City police officer is an insult to that officer’s memory and sacrifice.

Full Story: Police to De Blasio: Don’t attend my funeral

NOTE THE DATE THE POLICE SAID, “DON’T COME TO OUR FUNERALS.”

It occurred LESS THAN ONE WEEK BEFORE A THUG CITING THE VERY BULLCRAP THAT BARACK OBAMA, ERIC HOLDER, AL SHARPTON AND YES, MAYOR DE BLASIO HAD INCITED:

2 N.Y.P.D. Officers Killed in Brooklyn Ambush; Suspect Commits Suicide
By BENJAMIN MUELLER and AL BAKERDEC. 20, 2014

Two police officers sitting in their patrol car in Brooklyn were shot at point-blank range and killed on Saturday afternoon by a man who, officials said, had traveled to the city from Baltimore vowing to kill officers. The suspect then committed suicide with the same gun, the authorities said.

The officers, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, were in the car near Myrtle and Tompkins Avenues in Bedford-Stuyvesant in the shadow of a tall housing project when the gunman, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, walked up to the passenger-side window and assumed a firing stance, Police Commissioner William J. Bratton said. Mr. Brinsley shot several rounds into the heads and upper bodies of the officers, who never drew their weapons, the authorities said.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION that this vicious thug targeted police because of the racist race-baiting race-hustling cockroach vile slander from the left.

He said, “They take 1 of ours…Let’s take 2 of theirs #ShootThePolice #RIPErivGarner #RIPMikeBrown This may be my final post I’m putting pigs in a blanket.” – See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/wake-ny-shooting-left-abandons-climate-hate-rhetoric-used-slam-sarah-palin-73923/#sthash.pldsJ9BV.dpuf

There is a DIRECT correspondence between what liberals said and what this cop murderer believed and literally claimed was his motive for assassinating police officers.

Remember what THE most honored liberal “journalist” wrote when a deranged shooter who had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH EITHER CONSERVATIVES OR CONSERVATIVE STATEMENTS claimed when a Democrat was shot?

When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?

Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again.

There was absolutely ZERO connection between the deranged shooter and anything that anyone on the political right said or did.  Loughner was as tuned out to political reality as he was to every other kind of reality.  Unlike the present situation, where there is clearly a one-to-one correlation between the statements of the left and the actions of a cop assassin who acted on the demon-possessed hate of the Democrat Party machine.

And yes, beloved liberal Democrat Roach Al Sharpton – who has been at Barack Obama’s White House over eighty-five racist race-bating times to spew his race-hatred – has the same blood on his demon claws that de Blasio has:

FLASHBACK: Al Sharpton’s Marchers in New York City Chant “What Do We Want? Dead Cops!”
Katie Pavlich | Dec 21, 2014

As Obama civil rights advisor Al Sharpton frantically tries to distance himself from the revenge execution style slayings of two NYPD officers Saturday afternoon in Brooklyn, keep in mind that just one week ago protestors at his march in New York City were chanting, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do what them? Now!”

The protesters were part of Al Sharpton’s “Million Marchers” protest against police violence. The protesters chanted “What do we want?… Dead cops!” as they marched in New York City.

Meanwhile, former NYPD Commissioner Bernie Kerik is accusing Sharpton and NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio of having blood on their hands.

“In this circumstance I believe, I personally feel, that Mayor de Blasio, Sharpton and others like them, they actually have blood on their hands,” Kerik said. “They encouraged this behavior. They encouraged protests. These so-called peaceful protests that, where people are standing out there saying ‘kill the cops.’”

“Well, I hope they’re happy, because they got what they wanted,” Kerik added.

H/T Gateway Pundit

Democrats have divided America by income, by class, by race, by gender, by sexuality, by the desire to murder babies.  And now they are dividing America on the level of criminals vs. police.  And always, ALWAYS Democrats take the side of evil and vileness in a way guaranteed to bring America down and bring on the full wrath of a just and holy God in the last days before they vote for the Antichrist.

 

Who Are The ‘X-Men’ And Who Are The Evil Mutants? Racial Demagoguery Exposed.

I’m at my gym, peddling away on the exercise bike (one of my realizations while riding the exercise bike is that “Maybe I don’t know why the caged bird sings; but I sure know why the hamster runs on his little hamster wheel”) while looking at a bank of eight televisions.  My favorite Fox News program is on – Megyn Kelly’s new show – but it’s a commercial.  So I look around at the other televisions and notice that “X-Men: the Last Stand” is playing on the FX channel on one of the other TVs.

I saw one scene, but it was THE scene to see to frame a very important point regarding racism and discrimination.

In the movie, there is absolutely zero question as to who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.  The good guys are the X-Men, led by Charles Xavier.  Charles, like all mutants, has suffered discrimination and hostility as a result of his powers, but he fights for true justice, for human dignity, for the human spirit.  And he has assembled a group of young mutants to help him in his noble cause.  Whereas Magneto, an embittered mutant, consumed by hate and the desire for not justice but vengeance, leads a massive army of evil mutants in a fight to dominate the human race.

In the scene I started to view, Magneto had assembled hundreds  or even thousands of evil mutants to attack a prison – which turns out to be Alcatraz – to free key evil mutant allies.  The X-Men and a few human prison guards stand on the other side in a struggle to keep evil behind bars where it belongs.

So you’ve got thousands of evil mutants on one side and five good mutants on the other side.

And Magneto, surveying the scene, mutters of the four good mutants, “Traitors to their own cause.”

There is absolutely no question that the creators of the X-Men intended “mutants” to be a metaphor for race.

And given the fact that we have the exact same situation today: with a giant group of minorities on the one side standing for preferential treatment based on race and a very small group of minorities on the other side standing up for human dignity and the human spirit while the leaders of the larger group denounce as “race traitors” the members of the smaller group, well, I think we’ve got a narrative to discuss.

What I want you to realize is that, when Magneto surveys the few X-Men standing against him and says, “Traitors to their own cause,” he is doing THE EXACT SAME THING as black “civil rights” leaders are doing to great black conservatives such as Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Allen West, Herman Cain and Ben Carson.

Magneto – evil mutant intent on bitterness and hate and vengeance as he is – is following the script of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and all your other leftist race baiters.  You’re either with us, on the Democrat Party plantation (it was the Democrat Party in the 19th century that fought a vicious, bloody Civil War to keep black people on slavery plantations), fighting for more welfare, more food stamps, more preferential race treatment, more government dependence, or you’re a “traitor” for fighting for the human spirit and for human dignity which ought to abhor such things and encourage people to work and stand on their own feet.

There’s another line that happens in the scene I watched (until Megyn Kelly came back on) that shows something important.

Because you’ve got to ask: if Magneto won the battle, what kind of society would he have?  Sure, ordinary humans would be slaves, but what about his fellow evil mutants?  And by way of analogy, what kind of society would Al Sharpton have?  Again, surely white people would be second-class citizens as a result of his “reverse discrimination” whereby whites made blacks second-class citizens and therefore blacks should make whites second-class citizens in return and keep the hate of racism alive forever and ever.  But how would black people – and I mean the black people who sided with Sharpton – be treated in Sharpton’s brave new world?

As the battle begins, evil mutants Juggernaut and Pyro begin to rush in to attack the X-Men.  And Magneto – who had ordered the attack – holds them back.  The lesser evil mutants rush in and are destroyed.  And Magneto reveals his incredibly cynical and evil attitude toward them, saying, “That’s why the pawns go in first.”

And that’s all you are to the race baiters, ordinary black person struggling to live in a society where Obama has destroyed the economy and made it all but impossible that you will ever be able to find a job: a damn pawn.

It is simply a FACT that blacks are FAR worse off under Obama and under liberalism than they were under the system they were taught to hate.  But while you get the rare admission of that fact from the race-baiting industry, the rest of the left is doctrinaire rabid “Magneto” support.  These people are nothing but pawns to the left.  And their failure and their misery is nothing but an opportunity to gin up even MORE rage and hate against those who would help them if they were only given a chance.

Just as in the X-Men movie, the truly courageous people in real life aren’t the hordes of blacks screaming for their rights (and their vengeance); it is, as always, the small group of noble heroes who stand with the rest of us against their hate.

That’s why when I see a black conservative standing next to me, I truly cherish that noble soul who stands for what’s right in spite of all the fierce and vicious opposition against him or her.

 

Lunatic Liberals And Their Dumbass Argument Against Voter ID Laws

Al Sharpton explained why checking the ID of voters is tantamount to putting black people in chains and selling them into slavery:

Al Sharpton: Protecting the Voting Rights
Casting a ballot is a right, not a privilege. New laws restricting that right are wrong.
By Al Sharpton
August 7, 2012

A voting rights march in the Alabama town of Selma in 1965 was broken up by baton-wielding police. (Associated Press)

The American Revolution, which created our nation, was a fight for self-governance.

The American Evolution, which delivered the promises of democracy to all Americans, was a longer struggle, requiring countless protests, marches, sacrifices and even lives lost, all of which led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This landmark legislation became the great equalizer, bringing about the end of discriminatory practices of voter disenfranchisement. It was a victory for justice and for all Americans.

Now we face a new threat: that of an American De-volution, which could reverse nearly 50 years of progress since the Voting Rights Act.

Across the country, states have passed or have proposed new rules for voting, such as photo ID requirements and restrictions in early and absentee voting. The laws are new, but to many of us they’re just the same old tricks. I remember when tactics like these were called Jim Crow.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, 10 states now have highly restrictive photo ID laws that require citizens to produce specific types of government-issued documents to vote: Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, Alabama and Texas.

Alabama’s law won’t take effect this year, and others face legal scrutiny, but it’s possible that the restrictive rules will affect 127 electoral votes — almost half of the 270 needed to win the presidency in 2012.

And who are the voters who will be affected? As the Brennan Center reports, more than 1 in 10 eligible voters in the U.S. do not possess the kind of IDs required by those 10 states. More specifically, 1 in 4 African Americans, 1 in 6 Latinos and 1 in 5 Americans over age 65 lack the requisite ID.

Though it may be difficult for some of us to imagine, many of these people simply do not drive or cannot afford a vehicle and therefore don’t possess a driver’s license. And the process of obtaining a valid ID — even when the states issue them for free — can be costly to those on fixed incomes or for those who must take time off from work, lose wages and find the means to travel to a government agency. Often they must produce copies of items such as birth certificates, which not only cost money to reproduce but may take weeks to process.

If these added difficulties weren’t discouraging enough, in Wisconsin, Mississippi and Alabama, fewer than half of all ID-issuing offices are open five days a week and none are open on the weekends. And many have irregular operating hours. The Brennan Center documented an office in Mississippi open only on the second Thursday of the month, and in Wisconsin, only on the fifth Wednesday (only four months in 2012 have five Wednesdays).

Those championing tough new voter ID laws say they are concerned about voter fraud. I’ve heard their arguments: “What’s wrong with requiring voters to have an ID? After all, you need a state-issued ID to drive, to get on an airplane, to write a check. Why not to vote?”

Here’s why. On a fundamental level, that argument confuses privileges with rights. No American has a constitutional right to drive, fly or pay by check. We do not have constitutionally protected rights to rent cars or to use credit cards. That some people think these activities are comparable to voting is alarming — and revealing.

[Me: it’s at this point that Al Sharpton literally refutes himself if we just consider ONE fact that he refuses to mention]

Every American 18 or older has the right to vote. Poor Americans, black Americans, Americans who live in rural areas, Americans of every background. For decades we have recognized this truth, making it easier to vote, expanding options for casting ballots and improving access to registration. These new ID laws take us backward; they truly are nothing more than modern-day poll taxes and literacy tests.

We’re watching history repeat itself.

Why now? For the same reason partisans demanded to see President Obama‘s birth certificate. For the same reason some whisper that the president is a Muslim: to de-legitimize those with whom they disagree. The new voter suppression movement has taken off since the game-changing 2008 presidential race, when minorities and young voters turned out in record numbers.

Most of these first-time or occasional voters cast their ballots for Obama. Very quickly, Republicans began doing their best to stop them from voting again. Even a few hundred thousand votes not counted or cast in battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin could make a big difference in November.

I’ll be in Los Angeles on Thursday to keynote the Western Baptist State Convention. The focus of the convention this year will be on systematic voter disenfranchisement. We as a nation must realize the suppression is spreading. According to the Brennan Center, since the beginning of 2011, at least 180 restrictive bills have been introduced in 41 states, and 19 states have cut back on voting rights in various ways.

Millions of voters are at risk, and wherever we live, we must combat voter disenfranchisement nationwide. The ability for Americans to participate in the process was won by all; we now must join together once again to ensure that it stays that way.

The Rev. Al Sharpton is the president of National Action Network and the host of “PoliticsNation” on MSNBC.

I want you first to consider the picture.  If you support voter ID laws, you’re one of those thugs who are literally beating black people for trying to vote.  You ought to be ashamed of yourselves; you probably clubbed little baby black children, too.  Well, at least the forty percent of black babies that escape Al Sharpton’s abortion holocaust.  Consider that Planned Parenthood was caught on tape agreeing with the statement of being “against blacks in college.” Why? Because “The less black kids out there the better.” And consider that Al Sharpton is all for more killing of black babies.

Consider that liberal heroine Margaret Sanger said “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” 

Liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed and explained, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Reverend Sharpton says “Amen to that!”

Apparently, there is something truly wrong with black children that Al Sharpton knows about.

Anyway, in an article about seeking laws that require that somebody be who they claim they are when they’re voting, Al Sharpton and the LA Times throw in a picture of black people being beaten.  Because it is a well-documented fact (as per MSNBC) that absolutely every single person who wants Voter ID laws has physically taken a bat and beaten a black person into a coma.  So that’s why the picture is so appropriate.

This is the point where Al Sharpton either reveals he is a truly stupid man or that he is an incredibly dishonest one:

Those championing tough new voter ID laws say they are concerned about voter fraud. I’ve heard their arguments: “What’s wrong with requiring voters to have an ID? After all, you need a state-issued ID to drive, to get on an airplane, to write a check. Why not to vote?”

Here’s why. On a fundamental level, that argument confuses privileges with rights. No American has a constitutional right to drive, fly or pay by check. We do not have constitutionally protected rights to rent cars or to use credit cards. That some people think these activities are comparable to voting is alarming — and revealing.

Every American 18 or older has the right to vote. Poor Americans, black Americans, Americans who live in rural areas, Americans of every background. For decades we have recognized this truth, making it easier to vote, expanding options for casting ballots and improving access to registration. These new ID laws take us backward; they truly are nothing more than modern-day poll taxes and literacy tests.

We’re watching history repeat itself.

Put on your thinking caps, boys and girls: is there a “right” that liberals LOVE to regulate and routinely flat-out try to deny and take away?

Hey, “Reverend” Al.  Have you ever heard about this thing called the 2nd Amendment?  Yeah, it’s pretty neat: it says, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  It even says “right” right there!

It’s kind of interesting how you forgot about that right, Reverend Al.  But I guess I can understand why: it turns that whole article of yours into something truly idiotic.

Al Sharpton has frequently protested guns.  Al Sharpton’s partner in slime Jesse Jackson actually protested guns shops to try to shut down people from being able to buy or sell the guns that the Constitution says we’ve got a RIGHT which shouldn’t be INFRINGED.

It’s kind of convenient and interesting that Al Sharpton somehow forgot a RIGHT that he has dedicted himself to undermining while he is simultaneously arguing that such rights are sacrosanct. 

This is why people like me use terms like “hypocrite” to describe people like Al Sharpton.

If Al Sharpton had so much as a microscopic particle of credibility, he would be out there demanding that everybody ought to be able to help themselves to a giant pile of guns.  And anybody who tries to check or inspect the IDs of those who want to exercise their RIGHTS to keep and bear arms in any way, shape or form is tantamount to a club-weilding fascist thug beating on the head of some poor victom.

That’s right.  If Al Sharpton and his idiot left were consistent in any way, shape or form, they would be loudly demanding that “ID checks” be immediately suspended for anyone trying to get his or her hands on a gun.  Either that, or these hypocrite slimebags would be affirming that, you know what, yes, some rights carry responsibilities.

It isn’t that we refute the lunatic left with our arguments for voter ID laws; they refute themselves with their own idiotic arguments.

For the historical record, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party was ELECTED to rule Germany.  Voting can be every damn bit as dangerous as guns – unless you’re fine with another Adolf Cockroach Hitler.

Either we have a damn RIGHT to demand that everybody voting be able to document who they say they are in order to prevent elections from being stolen or the left doesn’t have a right to check the ID of anyone who wants to get his or her hands on a gun.  Period.

I write as somebody who views the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms as require some level of inspection.  Criminals shouldn’t be able to own guns; but criminals shouldn’t be able to VOTE, either.  They shouldn’t be able to vote twice or ten times.  They shouldn’t be able to vote in other people’s names.  They shouldn’t be allowed to steal elections as they clearly did in the case of Al Franken.  In other words, I write as somebody having something called “integrity” that Al Sharpton has never had and probably never will have.

As we speak, the same Democrats who are so loudly standing up for the right of undocumented people to vote because those who cheat vote Democrat are at the same time disenfranchising legitimate Floridian voters and military voters.

Let me just say one more thing: Al Sharpton cites the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  For the historical record, I want you to note the Republican-Democrat voting tallies:

Senate: 77–19

• Democrats: 47–17 (73%-27%)
• Republicans: 30–2 (94%-6%)

House: 333–85

• Democrats: 221–61 (78%-22%)
• Republicans: 112–24 (82%-18%)

It is a FACT that Republicans supported the Voting Rights Act by a higher percentage in BOTH branches of Congress than did Democrats.  I point this out because a lot of people are stupid and ignorant of the truth, having been indoctrinated by media propaganda lies.

Republicans are all FOR valid civil rights, just as they were when they fought a Civil War against Democrats to free the slaves.

Update, 8/15/12: Thank God a federal judge just ruled that Pennsylvania’s voter ID law can go forward.

Democrat Front Media Matters Goes Old-Style Soviet Thug In It’s War Against Fox News

One of the interesting things about the mainstream media’s wars on Fox is just how hypocritical the Fox News haters are.

As an example, Geraldine Ferraro passed away.  Fox News spent the day honoring the first woman to truly break the ceiling in the modern political era.  And although a famous liberal, Ferraro was a Fox News contributor.  Because Fox News actually is fair and balanced.  Roger Ailes personally honored Geraldine Ferraro as a woman who “made deep contributions on a number of significant issues.”  Which is to say that Fox News shows a degree of class that is entirely lacking in the media dominated by the unbalanced and hysterical left.

When the mainstream media outlets hires Sarah Palin as a highly-respected contributor, come back and see me.

If you watch leftwing liberal hatchet organizations such as Media Matters, and then watch the mainstream news coverage, it is remarkable how often talking points that started with the KoolAid-drinking Media Matters end up on the “respected” mainstream media coverage.

It’s amazing how you hear a leftwing narrative, and then the rest of the mainstream media start screeching that same narrative like parrots.

And then, unlike Fox News – which frequently features liberals such as Kirsten Powers, Bob Beckell, Geraldine Ferarro, Geraldo Rivera, Wesley Clark, Judith Miller, Mara Liasson,  Harold Ford, Jr. Juan Williams, Al Sharpton, Ed Rendell, and many others – there are no conservative voices to rebut the Media Matters-mainstream media talking points that invariably and regularly appear on the other channels.

Media Matters says it.  The mainstream media outlets pick it up and report it much the way they pick up and report other ideological leftist sources such as the New York Times, and it is spat out as “fact.”

Meanwhile, the Democrats made fellow KoolAid organization the Daily Kos a host of one of their presidential debates, the founder of that organization went to another mainstream media organization (Newsweek), and Arianna Huffington’s ideological liberalism went even MORE mainstream with her going into AOL News.  And then there’s George Soros, the far-leftist money man for Media Matters, also giving $1.8 million to “objective” NPR to hire reporters so they can cover the news more “fairly.”

Hopefully, this will make that hypocritical and intellectually bankrupt pseudo-journalist propaganda a little bit tougher.  But I doubt it.

Media Matters’ war against Fox
By: Ben Smith
March 26, 2011 07:23 AM EDT

The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.

The group, launched as a more traditional media critic, has all but abandoned its monitoring of newspapers and other television networks and is narrowing its focus to Fox and a handful of conservative websites, which its leaders view as political organizations and the “nerve center” of the conservative movement. The shift reflects the centrality of the cable channel to the contemporary conservative movement, as well as the loathing it inspires among liberals — not least among the donors who fund Media Matters’ staff of about 90, who are arrayed in neat rows in a giant war room above Massachusetts Avenue.

“The strategy that we had had toward Fox was basically a strategy of containment,” said Brock, Media Matters’ chairman and founder and a former conservative journalist, adding that the group’s main aim had been to challenge the factual claims of the channel and to attempt to prevent them from reaching the mainstream media.

The new strategy, he said, is a “war on Fox.”

In an interview and a 2010 planning memo shared with POLITICO, Brock listed the fronts on which Media Matters — which he said is operating on a $10 million-plus annual budget — is working to chip away at Fox and its parent company, News Corp. They include its bread-and-butter distribution of embarrassing clips and attempts to rebut Fox points, as well as a series of under-the-radar tactics.

Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Fox’s top executives but on a series of midlevel officials. It has hired an activist who has led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid Glenn Beck’s show. The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox to file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy or other causes. And it has hired two experienced reporters, Joe Strupp and Alexander Zaitchik, to dig into Fox’s operation to help assemble a book on the network, due out in 2012 from Vintage/Anchor. (In the interest of full disclosure, Media Matters last month also issued a report criticizing “Fox and Friends” co-host Steve Doocy’s criticism of this reporter’s blog.)

Brock said Media Matters also plans to run a broad campaign against Fox’s parent company, News Corp., an effort which most likely will involve opening a United Kingdom arm in London to attack the company’s interests there. The group hired an executive from MoveOn.org to work on developing campaigns among News Corp. shareholders and also is looking for ways to turn regulators in the U.S., U.K., and elsewhere against the network.

The group will “focus on [News Corp. CEO Rupert] Murdoch and trying to disrupt his commercial interests — whether that be here or looking at what’s going on in London right now,” Brock said, referring to News Corp.’s — apparently successful — move to take a majority stake in the satellite broadcaster BSkyB.

A spokeswoman for Fox News, Irena Briganti, declined to comment on Media Matters’ efforts, but the group draws regular barbs from Fox hosts Beck and Bill O’Reilly.

“Tonight is not an episode you casually watch and take out of context like Media Matters does,” Beck remarked last month.

A more extended attack came in February on the freewheeling late night show Red Eye, which conducted a mock interview with a purported Media Matters employee.

“It’s horrible. All we do is sit and watch Fox News and make up stuff about Fox News. It is the saddest place I have ever seen in my life. I think about it, and I want to throw up,” the mock employee said. “I get to work and I take off my clothes, and they strap me into a chair in front of a TV with [Fox News Channel] on. They keep my eyelids propped open like in “Clockwork Orange,” and I sit and type all day.

“If there was no Beck, George Soros would come down and demand we make it up,” the “interviewee” continued. “I would watch the “Flintstones” and transcribe Fred Flintstone’s words and attribute them to Beck. It was the only way to get Soros to stop hitting me.”

(A Soros associate said the financier, who gave Media Matters $1 million last year, did not earmark it for the Fox campaign. Soros suggested in a recent CNN interview that the Fox depictions of him as a sinister media manipulator would better be applied to Murdoch.)

In some views, the war between Media Matters and Fox is not, necessarily, bad for either side. Media Matters has transformed itself into a pillar of the progressive movement with its aggressive new brand of media campaigning. And the attacks cement Fox’s status on the right.

“Fox is happy about it — and it makes their position more vivid among their supporters,” said Paul Levinson, a media studies professor at Fordham University. “One way of keeping your core supporters happy is to be attacked by people your core supporters don’t like.”

But Media Matters says its digging has begun to pay off. The group has trickled out a series of emails from Washington Bureau Chief Bill Sammon, leaks from inside the network, which show him, for instance, circulating a memo on “Obama’s references to socialism, liberalism, Marxism and Marxists.”

The leaks are part of a broader project to take advantage of internal dissent, Media Matters Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt said.

“We made a list of every single person who works for Fox and tried to figure out who might be disgruntled and why, and we went out to try to meet them,” he said. “Clearly, somebody in that organization is giving us primary source documents.”

Media Matters, he said, is also conducting “opposition research” on a dozen or so “mid- and senior-level execs and producers,” a campaign style move that he and Brock said would simply involve recording their public appearances and digging into public records associated with them.

And Brock’s 2010 planning memo offers a glimpse at Media Matters’ shift from media critic to a new species of political animal.

“Criticizing Fox News has nothing to do with criticizing the press,” its memo says. “Fox News is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public.”

The tactics that Media Matters are using – “sabotage” even on their own acknowledgment – ought to show any decent person that the mainstream media has truly been infiltrated by fascist, Soviet-style thugs.

I mean, think about it: “guerrilla warfare and sabotage”?  This is done by people and organizations who have “Little Red Books” or “Mein Kampfs” to accompany their tactics.  Fox News isn’t out there using “guerrilla warfare and sabotage”; it’s the people who say Fox News is evil who then use the most profoundly un-American tactics.  That should be very informative to non-moral idiots.

Sadly, while conservatives rose up in 2010, it seems that the long-term trend is that there are fewer and fewer decent people who are willing to do less and less.  And all the while the hateful left are busy working like ants stripping the dying carcass of America.

Bad people not only lie; they believe lies.  That’s why we’re seeing more and more lies today.  And it’s why the left can justify openly using “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” that would have been condemned by better people.

Jesus talked about the last days.  He said a lot of terrifying things would happen.  There would be worldwide economic collapses, wars and rumors of wars, many earthquakes and great signs in the oceans in many diverse places, and famines; all anticipating a coming antichrist (“the beast”) who would promise a Utopia but who would ultimately deliver hell on earth.

And it’s all coming while we watch NBC smuggle in Media Matters’ talking points in the guise of “news.”

Obama and his White House has tried to ban Fox News – one of the big four of the media – from being able to cover the news.   Obama’s White House has repeatedly launched flat-out propaganda campaigns against Fox news.  The news media – realizing how outrageous it would be if a conservative president did this same thing to one of them – erupted in outrage against Obama for his blatant attempt to control the media like a fascist dictator.  When Obama tried to freeze out Fox News even though Fox News had been a member of the pool consisting of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox News since 1997, the ALL refused to send reporters until Obama backed down.  But Obama is STILL doing it as recently as yesterday.  At his heart, he is a fascist.  He demands that he be able to control the media and control the message.

The other day the Obama White House demonstrated this instinct toward fascistic control again: they literally shut a reporter in a cramped closet and kept demanding that he stay in there.

You can bet that the antichrist, the beast, will have control over the media and the message.

And sadddest of all, what Jesus said would precede all of this horror and misery as the leftwing socialist big government beast was the final apathetic and self-absorbed era of the Laodicean church.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer – who gave his own life in his stand against Adolf Hitler – said a few things that truly apply to us as we sit idly by watching our boob tubes while bad people with a bad agenda take the world away from us:

“When all is said and done, the life of faith is nothing if not an unending struggle of the spirit with every available weapon against the flesh.” 

“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.” 

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Stop letting these people “frame the news” while you watch like a slack-jawed drooling imbecile. If you’re going to sit there, at least muster the moral outrage to change the channel.

If Glenn Beck Hijacked Martin Luther King, Then Martin Luther King Hijacked Abraham Lincoln

A pretty good (certainly not completely objective, but by today’s horrendous standards of objectivity pretty good) article by Mary C. Curtis sets up the dilemma of Glenn Beck’s “8/28” rally at the Lincoln Memorial:

Glenn Beck Rally in D.C. Saturday: Honoring MLK’s Legacy — or Hijacking It?

Forty-seven years ago today, hundreds of thousands of Americans joined the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and witnessed the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. deliver his “I Have a Dream” speech, which summed up the hopes of generations.

Today, crowds are repeating that trek – by bus, train, car and plane — to the nation’s capital, with their own hopes and dreams about what America should stand for.

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin — two conservative stars known more for their divisive political views than for their King-like stands for social justice — will lead Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally to pay tribute “to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.”

At the same time, the National Action Network plans a “Reclaim the Dream” rally in Washington to honor King and the civil rights movement in its own way. Its leader, the Rev. Al Sharpton, acknowledges Beck’s right to rally, but not his claim to a part of King’s legacy.

One thing all sides and Glenn Beck himself can agree on: Beck is not Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Nevertheless, when Beck and Palin speak to a crowd gathered at the Lincoln Memorial, just like that day in 1963, the symbolism will be unmistakable.

Cindy Spyker, who is driving a group of 10 from Charlotte, N.C, has been to Washington before, for the 9/12 taxpayer rally last year and the protest of the health care reform bill. A member of CAUTION (Common Americans United to Inspire Our Nation), she said Beck is “one of the very few people willing to say what needs to be said, whether people like it or not. America was created on Christian-Judeo values.” The country has “turned away from faith,” she said, and “has to get back to principles like honor.” Spyker, 51, said of today’s rally: “Of course, it’s not so much the civil rights thing. What he’s trying to get across — content of character — is not about what we look like. It’s about who we are and how do we conduct ourselves, especially when people aren’t watching.”

Marette Parker will be taking a bus from Charlotte to a different Washington destination. Parker, 42, who is organizing a North Carolina chapter of National Action Network, is attending the group’s rally, starting at Dunbar High School and followed by a march to the site of the proposed King Memorial, which she said is “long overdue.”

Parker said that if King were alive today, he would “be proud that times have changed,” but would be saddened by problems that still exist. “We all have to come together as a community,” she said, “to mentor and motivate our young people.” She thinks Beck’s rally is “trying to hijack this particular day and steal media coverage,” she said. “We can’t let this happen.”

On his radio show Wednesday, Beck said: “I know that people are going to hammer me because they’re going to say, ‘It’s no Martin Luther King speech.’ Of course it’s not Martin Luther King. You think I’m Martin Luther King?” He said he has prepared only a few talking points so he doesn’t get in the way of “the spirit.” Though he has said the date wasn’t chosen with the anniversary in mind, when he found out he called the coincidence “divine providence.”

Whites “do not own” the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, and “blacks don’t own Martin Luther King,” Beck said on his show in June. “Not only is the event non-political, we have continuously encouraged those attending to avoid bringing political signs, political flyers, ‘I heart the RNC’ T-shirts and other similar partisan paraphernalia. There are plenty of opportunities to talk about politics. This isn’t one of them.”

Like I said, Mary Curtis did fine.  Her only display of bias is her describing Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin as harboring “divisive political views” without characterizing Al Sharpton the same way.  Because I can guarantee you that conservatives find Sharpton’s views every iota as divisive as liberals find Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin’s.  But I can live with that.

What I can’t live with is the notion that Glenn Beck has “hijacked” Martin Luther King, whether he intended to make the great civil rights leader a major part of his event or not.

So-called black “civil rights leaders” are arguing that Glenn Beck has no right to hold his August 28 event in front of the Lincoln Memorial because that hearkens us to Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech.  And that hijacks the legacy of Martin Luther King – who was black.

But if that’s the case, then Martin Luther King himself was hijacking the legacy of Abraham Lincoln – who was white.  Glenn Beck hit that one out of the park.

For those lefties who argue that Glenn Beck should be banned from “hijacking” King not because of race, but because of ideas, then conservatives can argue that King STILL hijacked Lincoln.  Because Abraham Lincoln didn’t stand for the radical race-based crap that the left argues that Martin Luther King epitomized.

The greatness of both Lincoln and King was that they transcended their race and became moral heroes of every people of every color and even every creed.

And like it or not, Glenn Beck has as much right to appeal to Martin Luther King as any black person does.  And it’s frankly racist to argue otherwise.

And speaking of racism, how would blacks have reacted had whites staged a counter-event to compete with, say, Louis Farrakhan’s Million Man March?  You don’t think there would have been cries of outrage?  Yet that’s basically what Al Sharpton did today.

One of the interesting issues underlying this debate about “hijacking” comes from the most famous lines in King’s speech:

I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

For the most part, that last line almost seems to be an embarrassment of the pseudo civil rights movement of today.  Maybe Martin Luther King said it, but he didn’t really mean it.  And conservatives are determined to hold the civil rights movement accountable to that standard.

As the pro-liberal and pro-Democrat so-called “civil rights leaders” denounce Glenn Beck and conservatives, which side is guilty of refusing to make “the color of their skin” the primary issue?

Allow me to quote myself:

I am beyond sick of this crap.  Where’s the CONGRESSIONAL WHITE CAUCUS that dedicates itself to securing political benefits for white people, and blacks be damned???  Where’s the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF WHITE PEOPLE that is operating with prestige and acclaim???  Where are the HISTORICALLY WHITE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES that exist to educate white students rather than black students???  Where’s the UNITED CAUCASIAN COLLEGE FUND that exists to give scholarships to white students for the sake of being white???  Where’s the NATIONAL WHITE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE to secure business opportunities for white people against black people???

Hey, let me ask a more compelling question, given the occupant of the White House: where’s the national major white Republican politician who spent 20-odd years in a “church” that espoused a commitment to the white value system, which entails a commitment to the white community, a commitment to white self-determination, a commitment to the white family, a commitment to white education, a commitment to the white workforce, a commitment to the white ethic, a commitment to white progress, a commitment to support white institutions, and a commitment to pledge allegiance to all white leadership?

It’s not simply that liberals aren’t advancing a color-blind society; it’s that all they see is color, and they rabidly fixate on color and use color as an ideological weapon in every single imaginable way they can.

And, yeah, for the record, I’m just as sick of this crap now as I was back then.

One of the things that made Martin Luther King a transcendent figure was the fact that he straddled more than just a far left ideology.  He reached out and touched ALL people of ALL races.  Frankly, if he didn’t do so, he really isn’t all that great of a figure.

Some of what King said touched white people.  That was why his movement was ultimately so successful.  And why shouldn’t the white Americans who changed their views because of that movement be banned from it now?

The so-called “civil rights leaders” of today don’t want America to know how profoundly racist the Democrat Party has been throughout its history.  And they certainly don’t want you to know how rabidly racist and even rabidly anti-Martin Luther King the “spiritual mentor” of Barack Obama was.

But here’s a quote from Jeremiah Wright:

The civil-rights movement, Wright said, was never about racial equality: “It was always about becoming white . . . to master what [they] do.” Martin Luther King, he said, was misguided for advocating nonviolence among his people, “born in the oven of America.”

And why does Jeremiah Wright – Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for more than twenty years – so despise Martin Luther King?  Because Martin Luther King wanted racial equality, and an emphasis on individual character.  Whereas so-called “civil rights leaders” like Jeremiah Wright want the emphasis to be on race-based preferential treatment apart from personal character.

But at least Jeremiah Wright – bigot that he is – had the integrity to honestly represent Martin Luther King’s primary message.  In that, he is far more honest than men like Al Sharpton, who dance around it with racial rhetoric, but never land on the heart of King’s message.  Sharpton will give equality with one finger, and then immediately take it away with the other hand.

The fact of the matter is that Martin Luther King was a registered Republican, as was his father before him.  And the fact of the matter is that:

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Not many people today – black or white – know that we would have had a powerful Civil Rights Act in 1957, but that Lyndon Baines Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Al Gore, Sr., Robert Byrd, and other Democrats opposed it.  The mainstream media propagandists have really done their job well.

Nor do they know that the often-lauded 1964 Civil Rights Act was largely the result of Republicans’ efforts and support:

Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit our Party for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson played no direct role in the legislative fight, so that it would not be perceived as a partisan struggle. There was no doubt that the House of Representatives would pass the bill.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call “the conscience of the Senate”, filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote. The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 126, a vote in which 79% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no. President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964.

Liberals have fought long and hard for racial quotas and preferential treatment for blacks.  But the greatest civil rights leader of all was fundamentally opposed to them.

Let’s listen to Frederick Douglass, escaped slave and greatest of all champions of civil rights, has to say:

Frederick Douglass ridiculed the idea of racial quotas, as suggested by Martin Delany, as “absurd as a matter of practice,” noting that it implied blacks “should constitute one-eighth of the poets, statesmen, scholars, authors and philosophers.” Douglass emphasized that “natural equality is a very different thing from practical equality; and…though men may be potentially equal, circumstances may for a time cause the most striking inequalities.”  On another occasion, in opposing “special efforts” for the black freedmen, Douglass argued that they “might ‘serve to keep up very prejudices, which it is so desirable to banish’ by promoting an image of blacks as privileged wards of the state.”

So, as a Republican, exactly why is it that I should be banned for life from honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King, and why can’t I explain what aspect of his message won my support?

Al Sharpton and those who decry Glenn Beck as “hijacking” Martin Luther King are profoundly wrong for insinuating that nothing Martin Luther King preached supported the Republicans’ message.  Especially when King himself was a Republican when he was teaching those things; and especially when it was Republicans who were hearing his message and responding to the changes he urged on America.

And for the record, given the fact that Glenn Beck specifically focused on honoring our heroic troops and the tremendous Special Operations Warrior Foundation (go here to donate), it’s all the more despicable that demagogic ideologues such as Al Sharpton would demonize it.

I’ll guarantee you whose side our SEALs Delta Force, and other Special Operations warriors are on, whose children will be provided for if they fall fighting for this nation because of Glenn Beck’s event today.  Beck raised more than $5 million today.

Update, August 30: Al Sharpton said this about Glenn Beck:

“They want to disgrace this day and we’re not giving them this day. This is our day and we ain’t giving it away,” said Revered Al Sharpton. He and other civil rights leaders staged a separate rally nearby to mark the dream speech anniversary.

A day for “us.”  Black people.  And specifically, only black people who think like Al Sharpton.

The only racist bigot who “disgraced this day” was Al Sharpton and those who think like him.

Demagogue Democrats Now Support Violence And Swastikas

Nancy Pelosi didn’t need actual incidents of violence to demonize the tea party movement; all she needed was pure distilled demagogic rhetoric when she said:

I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”

As I pointed out, that terrible violence in 1970s San Francisco was committed by DEMOCRATS.

Basically, the actual substance of Nancy Pelosi’s diatribe against the tea party movement is this: “I’m afraid that the right is becoming so angry against the totalitarian government-is-god rule we’re trying to impose on them that they could become as hateful, as vile, as loathsome, and as violent as the Democrat Party and its progressive allies have been for the past forty years.”

Nancy Pelosi also had her take on swastikas as symbol:

Interviewer: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?

Pelosi: “I think they’re Astroturf… You be the judge. “They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.”

She proceeded to demonize the tea party movement as “simply un-American.”

I dealt with those demagogic and frankly hateful charges, too.

Nancy Pelosi told a crowd of supporters, “I’m a fan of disruptors!”  What she really meant to say was that she’s the kind of hypocrite who doesn’t mind pouring gasoline on the fire one day, and demonizing those who oppose her party-line agenda the next.

The AP had this story:

PHOENIX (AP) – The furor over Arizona’s new law cracking down on illegal immigrants grew Monday as opponents used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol, civil rights leaders demanded a boycott of the state, and the Obama administration weighed a possible legal challenge.

Activists are planning a challenge of their own, hoping to block the law from taking effect by arguing that it encroaches on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration and violates people’s constitutional rights by giving police too much power.

The measure – set to take effect in late July or early August – would make it a crime under state law to be in the U.S. illegally. It directs state and local police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal.

“If you look or sound foreign, you are going to be subjected to never-ending requests for police to confirm your identity and to confirm your citizenship,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which is exploring legal action.

Employees at the Capitol came to work Monday to find that vandals had smeared swastikas on the windows. And protesters gathered for a second straight day to speak out against a law they say will lead to rampant racial profiling of anyone who looks Hispanic.

The White House would not rule out the possibility that the administration would take legal action against Arizona. President Barack Obama, who warned last week that the measure could lead to police abuses, asked the Justice Department to complete a review of the law’s implications before deciding how to proceed.

And how did the protesters “speak out”?  By throwing rocks and debris at police officers as they tried to escort a man who had himself been physically attacked by the mob.  Rocks and bottles full of water were hurled at the retreating police by what is clearly a mob of hundreds who are pursuing them:

The mainstream media depicted this as a “largely peaceful demonstration,” and then subsequently pointed out that it was just a “small” riot as video of the violence began to appear. Well, “small” riot my butt.

The problem from my perspective isn’t “police abuse,” but “liberal protester abuse.”

Swastikas.  Violence.

Where’s San Fran Nan?

She’s with the people who are smearing all the swastikas and assaulting the police officers, that’s where she is.  She and her fellow San Franciscans are trying to boycott the peaceful people of Arizona to show their solidarity with swastikas and violence.

The same Nancy Pelosi who demonized peaceful tea party protesters as “simply unAmerican” also said last March that anyone who basically tried to enforce our borders and our national sovereignty were likewise “unAmerican.”

HotAir put it this way:

Frankly, the rioting seems to do nothing except bolster the argument for why this bill was needed. The federal government has failed Arizona residents. Despite growing numbers of crime — drug smuggling, assault, rape, kidnapping, murder — nothing has been done to secure the borders or crack down on illegal immigration. While not all illegal immigrants are violent criminals or drug smugglers, they are all criminals. Even if our borders aren’t well-enforced, it is still a crime to cross them illegally. The federal government has just sat back and let it happen. The state of Arizona responded to the overwhelming crime… and the protestors of this bill responded to the state with violence.

Kind of just proves the whole point of why this bill was needed, doesn’t it?

And what are people so angry about? The bill requires law enforcement officials to basically do nothing more than aggressively enforce our immigration laws. Arizona voters overwhelmingly approve of the bill, and that includes a majority of Democrats and independents. Something has to be done in Arizona, and if the federal government won’t step up, then the state absolutely should.

Nancy Pelosi loves disruptors.  And Al Sharpton is prepared to take “civil disobedience” “on the streets” to fight the new law.  These were the people who demonized the peaceful tea party rallies.  You know, the ones where there was no violence, and where the protesters left the parks where they protested cleaner after they left than they were before they showed up.

And do you remember the constant demagoguery over the whole “party of no” thing?  Whose the damn “party of no” now?

Just another charge that only matters when it’s being employed by liberals to demonize conservatives.  Never the other way around.

The charge doesn’t even have to be true.  The evidence now clearly shows that tea party rallyers did not use the “n-word” or ominously threaten to assault congressional Democrats who did their own version of the “Nazis marching through Skokie march,” as Democrats maliciously claimed.

Speaking of Skokie, we have Obama’s National Security Adviser telling a joke depicting Jews as greedy swindlers even as Obama proves he’s the most blatantly anti-Israel president in U.S. history.  But that’s another story.

Now we’ve got Barack Obama directly race-baiting and calling upon blacks and Latinos “to stand together once again” and oppose the white honky bastards.  Can you imagine the massive stink bomb that the left would have detonated had George Bush tried to rally white men and evangelical Christians to his political cause???

Racism, swastikas, and violence are fine – as long as it’s coming from liberals.

Al Sharpton: ‘The American Public Overwhelmingly Voted For Socialism When They Elected President Obama’

This is an article about raving moral idiocy.

What follows will be Al Sharpton’s version of what Adolf Hitler basically told his people: “Look, you voted for me in 1933.  You made me your Chancellor, and then you made me your Fuhrer.  So the fact that I wrote about killing all the Jews in my Mein Kampf while on the campaign trail to absolute power means that YOU voted to kill all the Jews.  And therefore you are now duty bound to round up as many Jews as you can find.”

You may not like my analogy regarding Hitler and Jews, but it is exactly the same as what Al Sharpton is essentially saying about Obama and ObamaCare.

There’s not a single major polling organization that has found that the people want ObamaCare.  And most polls have support for ObamaCare in the 30s, with basically 2-1 margins against it.  Here’s an example from CNN’s poll out yesterday:

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that 59 percent of those surveyed opposed the bill, and 39 percent favored it. All of the interviews were conducted before the House voted Sunday night, but the contents of the bill were widely known.

In addition, 56 percent said the bill gives the government too much involvement in health care; 28 percent said it gives the government the proper role and 16 percent said it leaves Washington with an inadequate role.

On the question of costs, 62 percent said the bill increases the amount of money they personally spend on health care; 21 percent said their costs would remain the same and 16 percent said they would decrease.

That matches the 20-point margin from the Fox News poll, which had the margin at 55% against versus only 35% for ObamaCare.

We’ve had three statewide elections during the ObamaCare debate.  All three states had voted heavily for Obama; and all three states elected Republicans over Democrats.  Even Camelot voted Republican, as Massachusetts voters elected a man who campaigned to be the 41st vote against ObamaCare to replace Ted Kennedy as their senator.

But none of that matters for Al Sharpton.  We voted for our Fuhrer on November 2008.  And the will of the Fuhrer is therefore ergo sum the will of the people.

Here’s Al Sharpton’s moral “logic”:

“I think that the president and Nancy Pelosi get credit,” Sharpton said. “I think this began the transforming of the country the way the president had promised. This is what he ran on.”

And if that transformation is socialism, then so be it, he explained. That is what the American public “overwhelmingly” voted for.

“First of all, then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama,” Sharpton said. “Let’s not act as though the president didn’t tell the American people – the president offered the American people health reform when he ran. He was overwhelmingly elected running on that and he has delivered what he promised.”

Despite polling showing otherwise leading up to the momentous occasion of the vote on health care reform, the claim this goes against the wishes of the American people is false based on the 2008 presidential election.

“I don’t understand Republicans saying this is against the will of the American people,” Sharpton said. “They voted for President Obama who said this was going to be one of the first things he would do and he has done the first hurdle of that tonight. So I think the American people was very loud and clear. This was not some concept the president introduced after he won. He ran on this and the American people won tonight because they got finally something from a president they voted for.”

Let me go back to my Hitler analogy.  It is my contention that, even if I had been fool enough to vote for Hitler in 1933, I had absolutely  no duty whatsoever to support his policy of killing Jews, even though I should have known all about his promise to do so when I voted for him.  Quite the contrary: I argue that I would have had a moral duty to oppose Hitler from carrying out his “final solution” policy, whether I had voted for him or not.

It is not only a bogus argument that Sharpton is making; it is a fundamentally immoral argument.

In one way, and one way only, I can’t disagree with Sharpton.  Barack Obama is a socialist – that’s what conservatives have been pointing out all along.  Sharpton now acknowledges that, but Democrats were falling all over themsleves to not only deny but denounce the charge during the campaign.

Now, Obama’s socialism is obvious to all, and Sharpton is saying, “You bought it, now you have to drive it and like it.”

The thing is, Al Sharpton fundamentally misunderstands a democratic republic.  In Marxist countries, you vote for your leader, and then that leader uses that vote to remain in power forever.  But in direct contradiction to those type of states, in America you have the right to change your mind.  You have the right to say, “I didn’t sign up for this.”  You have the right to say, “This isn’t what I voted for.”  You have the right to turn against the ideology, the policies, and even the person you voted for.

Al Sharpton’s “America” really looks more like Venezuela.  And Barack Obama should be president for life.  After all, didn’t we vote for him once?

Al Sharpton’s “America” is also a very hypocritical place.  Remember Iraq?  Americans – who voted for George Bush and even re-elected him – were once highly favorable of him, and supported the war in Iraq to numbers that dwarfed any support Obama ever had for ObamaCare.  But that didn’t stop Al Sharpton from railing against it, did it?

Suddenly, under Sharpton’s incredibly hypocritical vision, Republicans have utterly forfeited the right to oppose that Sharpton himself never seemed to feel he had forfeited when Bush was in power.

Now, I’m glad that Al Sharpton has finally openly affirmed that Barack Obama is a socialist.  I knew that was the case since March 2008, when I discovered that Obama had for 23 years been going to a “church” that spewed Marxist theology.  Sharpton is right about Obama’s socialism; but he’s wrong about America, he’s wrong about our political process, and he’s wrong about the American people.

Sharpton is right: Obama DID openly reveal his socialism.  But you had to read between the lines, because Obama would say one thing, and then say something else that was clearly in direct contradiction with the first thing he said.  And he did that over, and over, and over again.

Obama appeared to an audience in San Francisco and said of Pennsylvanians, “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”  It was hard-core Marxism, right out of Karl Marx’s “religion is the opiate of the masses”, except with a specifically anti-American twist.

He told another San Francisco audience that he planned to destroy America’s most plentiful source of energy (coal) with the power of government, bankrupt private coal producing businesses, and force the price of energy to “necessarily skyrocket.”

Nothing socialist about that one, eh?

He told Joe the plumber that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.”  Obama said, “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” And you just can’t get away from that “socialism” word.  It comes right out of Karl Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” playbook.

Al Sharpton is right.  It was socialism.  And Americans should have recognized that.

But many Americans didn’t.  Because Obama was saying all kinds of other stuff.  Because the Obama campaign and the mainstream media that was just spewing propaganda kept saying, “It’s not socialism!  Socialism, you say?  That’s outrageous!!!”

And too many Americans said, “Okay.  The New York Times says he’s wonderful.  He wouldn’t lie.”

But he DID lie.  And it was the New York Times that provided the core promise that Obama broke into a thousand cynical, disingenuous pieces.

I write about Obama’s biggest and most cynical lie in an article entitled, “Obama Promise to Transcend Political Divide His Signature Failure And Lie.”  I provide a New York Times article that begins:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But he never even came close to healing anything.  He pushed a radical agenda, and demonized his opposition, right from the get-go.  Instead of reaching out to Republicans who were opposed to the slant of what turned out to be the gigantic stimulus boondoggle, Obama didn’t reach out: instead he said, “I won.”  Was THAT moving beyond the divisive politics of Washington???  Did that bring Democrats, independents, and Republicans together???

Not even close.

Do you call ramming a bill that will fundamentally transform our health care system, our society, and our very way of life on a narrow hard-core partisan vote by a nasty reconciliation process “moving beyond divisive politics”?

When John McCain spoke out about the incredibly corrupt process the Democrats had used to buy Democrat votes for ObamaCare behind closed doors, Obama told McCain, “We’re not campaigning anymore.  The election’s over.”

Excuse me?  Obama’s CALLING THAT DAMN SUMMIT IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS AN ACT OF CAMPAIGNING.  And John McCain was not talking about the election; he was talking about the incredibly cynical process that was crafting a terrible health care bill.

But you see in Obama the same arrogance of power that Al Sharpton is trying to describe, that, “I am your elected Fuhrer and you WILL bow down and obey.”

Neither Obama or Sharpton ever gave Bush or HIS election (or re-election) one iota of the fealty they now demand Republicans and opponents must give to Obama.  It’s just an amazing act of hypocrisy.

In point of fact, the man who violated his CORE PROMISE – according to the New York Times – is now THE MOST POLARIZING PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.

Allow me to wrap up: Is Obama a socialist?  yes, Al Sharpton is quite correct that Barack Obama told us all about his socialism.  Does that mean that we now must bow down before the Obama agenda?  No, nothing could be further from the truth – and the very fact that Sharpton thinks so should mark him as an anathema to the American political process.  Did Obama fundamentally lie and misrepresent himself to the American people?  Absolutely.  And do the American people now have a right to turn against Obama and his socialist policies?

To quote Sarah Palin, “You betcha we do!”

Barbara Boxer Caught In The Act Exhibiting Classic Liberal Racism

As we reflect upon the profound racial bias exhibited by Sonia Sotomayor in both her speeches (a wise Latina woman can reach a better conclusion than a white male) and her rulings (the New Haven firefighters case), stop and think that she is well within the liberal mainstream in her racism.

It’s liberal racism.  And liberal racism is multiculturalism, pluralism, identity politics, moral relativism, a profound hostility to American exceptionalism, and the most cynical kind of demagoguery for partisan political benefit all rolled into one incredibly self righteous package.

Reflect for a moment on a situation that was going on simultaneouosly to Sonia Sotomayor’s hearing:

Black Business Leader Charges Sen. Boxer With Racial Condescension
The president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce accused Sen. Barbara Boxer Thursday of racially condescending to him during an Environment and Public Works hearing.

FOXNews.com

Thursday, July 16, 2009
Recommendations by Loomia

The president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce accused Sen. Barbara Boxer on Thursday of racially condescending to him during an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing.

Republican members of the committee had sought the testimony of Harry C. Alford, an opponent of a climate change bill that narrowly passed in the House.

Alford said in his opening statement that he spoke on behalf of his organization when he argued that the bill would have devastating consequences for small and minority-owned businesses.

But he took offense when Boxer countered his statement by quoting an NAACP resolution that approved the climate change bill and putting it on the record.

Clearly agitated, Alford asked why Boxer would cite that group’s resolution.

“Sir, they passed it. They passed it,” Boxer responded. “Now, also, if that isn’t interesting to you, we’ll quote John Grant, who is the CEO of 100 Black Men of Atlanta.”

Alford protested that Boxer was condescending to him.

“I’m the National Black Chamber of Commerce and you’re trying to put up some other black group to pit against me,” he said angrily.

Boxer claimed that if Grant was there, he would be proud she was quoting him.

“He should have been invited,” Alford exclaimed. “All that’s condescending and I don’t like it. It’s racial. I don’t like it. I take offense to it. As an African-American and a veteran of this country, I take offense to that.”

When Boxer asked if he was offended that she would quote Grant, Alford said, “You’re quoting some other black man. Why don’t you quote some other Asian. You are being racial here. And I think you’re getting to a path here that’s going to explode.”

Boxer defended herself by saying she believes statements by the NAACP and 100 Black Men, who acknowledge the threat of global warming, are relevant.

“There is definitely differing opinions in the black community, just as there are in my community,” she said, adding that she was trying to show the diversity of support behind the climate change bill.

But that didn’t satisfy Alford.

“We are referring to the experts regardless of their color,” he said. “And for someone to tell me, an African-American, college-educated veteran of the United States Army that I must contend with some other black group and put aside everything else in there. This has nothing to do with the NAACP and really has nothing to do with the National Black Chamber of Commerce. We’re talking energy and that road the chair went down, I think, is god-awful.”

Boxer’s office later declined to comment about the exchange.

Harry C. Alford is a great American patriot.  And may God bless him for his integrity and his courage.

Why was he so outraged?

It bothered him that a liberal white elitist like Barbara Boxer would cite other blacks to dismiss and undermine him.  Like race is a card you can deal in a game and say, “I’ve got the Ace of Spades in my hand.  I win.”

What you say really doesn’t matter, Harry, because I’ve got blacks on my side, giving me political cover.  My blacks are better than your kind of black, Harry.  Just like Sonia Sotomayor’s conclusions are better than a white man’s – at least as long as both continue to oppose traditional or conservative principles.

What was Alford’s argument?  Let’s see that opening statement again:

Alford said in his opening statement that he spoke on behalf of his organization when he argued that the bill would have devastating consequences for small and minority-owned businesses.

It wasn’t, “Look how black I am.  Look how black my group is.”  He said, “You’re going to hurt small businesses, including minority-owned small businesses.”  And there are facts galore to back up the devastation Democrats are going to reap among small businesses.  And red or yellow, black or white, small business owners are going to get nailed by these massive tax increases.  They are going to experience a double whammy, seeing the taxes on their earnings shoot up with higher rates and surcharges even as they get nailed with an 8% payroll tax to fund health care.

And Barbara Boxer’s response was none of that matters, because she’s got even BETTER blacks (liberals universally agree the NAACP raises the best blacks, after all) on her side.  Her blacks cancel out Harry’s blackness and make it so it doesn’t even matter that Harry C. Alford happens to be black.

We’ve seen what liberals think of the “other kind” of black.  Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowell, and others: they’re “House negroes.”  They’re “Uncle Toms or Aunt Jemimahs.”  They’re “Oreo cookies.”  Or as Janeane Garofalo contemptuously dismisses them, they are stupid negroes with Stockholm Syndrome, slobberingly kissing the feet of their massahs.  Nothing to see here, folks.  These black people don’t count.  It’s okay to demonize conservative blacks in the most racist fashion imaginable because we’ve got our own blacks.

Colin Powell and Bill Cosby seem to leap in and out of their “house negro” status, depending on what they say on any given day.  Today, as long as they spout the language of global warming alarmism, they are not house negroes.  But they had damn well better tow the liberal line.

Barbara Boxer wants “her kind” of house negro.  And that nasty Harry C. Alford doesn’t want to be her house negro.  My gosh.  That uppity black man doesn’t want to be anybody’s house negro.  He wants to be his own man, if you can believe it, and stand up for legitimate business principles that will benefit anybody of any color.  That kind of attitude will get him in trouble.  Because liberalism is the new “bus.”  And conservative blacks had better get in the back and stay quiet if they know what’s good for them.

Barbara Boxer’s “kind” of house negro is Al Sharpton.  Think of Al when confronted by the fact that the Tawana Brawley “assault” was the worst kind of racist hoax:

‘The Brawley story do (sic) sound like bullshit, but it don’t matter. We’re building a movement. This is the perfect issue. Because you’ve got whites on blacks. That’s an easy way to stir up all the deprived people, who would want to believe and who would believe—and all [you’ve] got to do is convince them—that all white people are bad. Then you’ve got a movement…It don’t matter whether any whites did it or not. Something happened to her…even if Tawana don’t (sic) it to herself.’

Ah, now THIS is the kind of negro white liberal elitist like Boxer wants.  She can use them like laborers in the liberal plantation to spread the message of Marxist class warfare turned identity politics.  Bourgeoisie versus proletariat, white versus black, it’s all the same to us: We can exploit both versions in our big government narrative just the same.  “You’re a helpless victim!  Let us help you!  Let us grow government to encompass your entire world to create a cocoon of safety for you!”

Some years back, philosopher Francis Beckwith related a story of participating in a radio talk program with the subject under discussion being rape.  A woman calling in said Francis had no right to an opinion because he was a man.  And Francis asked her, “How do you know I’m a man?  My name is Francis.”  The woman said, “You have a deep voice.”  And Francis said, “So does Bea Arthur.”  Francis continued to object to being called a man, until finally the woman was resorted to shouting, “You’re a man!  You’re a man!” over and over again.

As Francis later related, actually that felt pretty good.

Francis Beckwith IS a man.  But his point was that arguments don’t have testicles.  An argument is true of false by virtue of whether it corresponds with logic and reality; it is not dependent upon the gender of the one making the argument.

Arguments don’t have melatonin, either.

Unless of course, you are a liberal.  If you are a liberal, nothing counts as being “true” unless it is said by a member of an official, certified victim group.  And then it becomes irrefutable whether it has anything to do with logic or reality.

Truth doesn’t matter.  Facts don’t matter.  The quality of the arguments being presented don’t matter.  Only the status of being a minority or a victim matters.  I am victim.  Hear me whine.

And if the fact is that a white male would have without question been crucified upside down for saying, “I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life,” so much the worse for the facts.  Blatant discrimination is fine, as long as the one being discriminated against isn’t a member of a liberal victimhood group.  Or as long as you have your very own blacks to draw upon.

Harry Alfred, thank you.  And not, “Thank you as a white man to a black man,” but rather, “Thank you as a man for standing up for values that transcend race because they equally apply to all men and women of all colors.

Allow me to say one final thing.  And if someone wants to tell me, “You’re just like Barbara Boxer, playing the ‘My black is better than your black’ game,” so be it:

Martin Luther King was a Republican who stood for the content of peoples’ character and the quality of their ideas being far more important than the color of their skin.  Does anyone believe that Dr. King would have been anything other than appalled that a man like Al Sharpton would be a leading figure in the movement he gave his life to advance?  Does anyone believe that he would have been anything other than outraged that a Latina woman could utter such profoundly racially biased words with such aplomb?  Tragically, Martin Luther King embodied transcendent principles that have largely been dismissed and even reviled by the left in favor of their near polar opposites.

Why Jesse Jackson’s Use of “N-word” Is So Awful

When I was a child – about five or six – something happened that left a vivid impression on me.

I heard the word “nigger” for the first time.

It wasn’t the word that left such an impression (I didn’t even know what it meant); rather, it was my father’s reaction to it.

My dad used curse words at the man who said it. The other man yelled at my dad, and my dad yelled back at him. The other man was big and angry and mean. I was terrified that my dad was going to fight that bad man.

After that incident, my dad sat me down. He apologized for using bad words, and then he said that there were two kinds of words: bad words and evil words. And he said the word “nigger” was an evil word. He said he got so angry because it was wrong for that man to say such a hateful thing around children. He said that sometimes you had to stand up and say that something was wrong.

My father said that people who used that word meant that black people weren’t human beings like other people, but were something less. He said that the most awful things that ever happened happened because people thought like that about other people who were different from them, and that he hoped that I would never be like those people.

I wonder what children who heard Jesse Jackson use the word the other day thought.

There was a discussion about it on The View, in which Whoopie Goldberg and the liberals on the program justified black people using the word. It’s only wrong when white people use it.

Black people use it as a “term of endearment.”

Is that the case?

I don’t think so. There’s nothing “dear” about the word, and there never has been. Hey, I’m calling you a sub-human beast of burden, but I really mean it in a really nice way.

For one thing, it perpetuates the use of both the word, and the content of the word. If you think that racist white people don’t justify their use of the word with, “Black people use it all the time. They use it to talk about each other!” then you simply aren’t living in the real world.

If black people want white people to stop using the “N-word,” then they have to stop using the word themselves. Until that word is off-limits for everyone, it will continue to be fair game for everyone.

As an example, activists such as Al Sharpton have said that it is the (white) executives of the major recording studios who are most to blame for the N-word’s impact on culture.  But let me ask you a question: is it the white executives who are using the word, or are they recording the use of the word by black artists?  Apart from the related issue of what would actually happen if white music executives started refusing to produce the works of black artists, the fact remains: if black artists refused to use the word, it would immediately die out of the music industry.  White executives simply would not dare produce works that used the N-word without the “cover” of it being spoken/sung by blacks.

Ultimately the greatest question of all is this one: how many children – every single day – discover racism by hearing that word for the very first time?

Thank God for my dad, who stood up and said, “Don’t you dare use that word around my son!”  My dad’s act of teaching me not to tolerate the N-word helped me learn to be intolerant of the racism that it always has and always will symbolize.

Elizabeth Hasslebeck literally cried because that word so upset her. It ought to upset everyone. Period.

Instead, when I googled “elizabeth hasslebeck” and “n-word” I saw the full hate and meanness of the left come out in all its vile ugliness. I discussed the viciousness of the left the other day in writing about the hatred expressed over the passing of Tony Snow. Viciousness is increasingly coming to characterize the left.

For a second thing, claiming that one group of people can use a word, and another group of people can’t, is the quintessential example of a double-standard.

The double-standards that have been a constant element of “the civil rights movement” for years are a big part of why so many white people have become so embittered over the movement. Racial quotas. The N-word. The very anger over demands for personal responsibility that so enraged Jesse Jackson in the first place.

How on earth does anybody think that a reliance upon one double-standard after another is the path to racial harmony? It just isn’t, and it never was.

Dr. Martin Luther KIng, Jr. said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” But the civil rights leaders – such as Jesse Jackson – turned that statement on its head.

Don’t you talk to us about the “content of our characters!” You had better never forget the color of our skins!” And you better give us stuff on the basis of the color of our skins!

How are poor whites supposed to feel when they are systematically denied equal opportunity in the very name of “equal opportunity”?

Dr. King’s murder was a terrible thing. But the worst thing of all was that lesser men were able to hijack the civil rights movement and substitute their own ideas for his.

The third thing is that the use of the “N-word” itself becomes a political expression and an example of everything that is wrong with politics.

When Don Imus referred to “Nappy-headed hoes” he was attacked by the very “civil rights leaders” (including Jackson himself) who are now defending Jackson’s use of the word.

When Republican Senator George Allen used the word “macaca” to describe a Democrat plant, he was literally driven out of politics. To this day, I have never been able to find out what that word actually means. It didn’t matter. It could be construed to sound racist, and that was enough.

Now the same people who were so completely outraged over a conservative using the nonsensical word “macaca” are defending a liberal using the genuinely evil word “nigger.” It is simply Kafkaesque.

If you want to say, “It’s different because Jackson is a black man using a word about blacks!” then let me mention Barack Obama’s use of “typical white person.”

What we are seeing today is nothing less than selective outrage being employed as a political weapon.

And it’s wrong. It’s wrong because it makes genuine racism meaningless as politically-motivated pseudo-charges or racism drown out the real thing.

I am a conservative white male. And like the overwhelming majority of genuine conservatives, I would gladly support the candidacy of Dr. Condileeza Rice for president. She is – of course – both black and female.

I wouldn’t vote for her “because she’s black”; rather I would vote for her because she has the experience, the judgment, the competence, the character, the values, and the policies to be our president.

I do not support Barack Obama. And I refuse to support him not “because he’s black”; rather, I won’t vote for him because he doesn’t have the experience, the judgment, the competence, the character, the values, and the policies to be our president.

Jesse Jackson used the “N-word” because he thinks entirely in racial (and I would argue racist) terms. One of the worst examples of racism is the continuous use of terms like “Uncle Tom” and “race traitor” to describe prominent black leaders such as Condileeza Rice, Colin Powell, and Clarence Thomas.

As far as many in the “civil rights movement” are concerned, unless you are “our kind of black,” they feel entirely free to call you “a house nigger.”

That’s exactly what Jesse Jackson was doing. Barack Obama wasn’t being “his” kind of black.

They are the real racists, because they can only think in purely racial terms, and they see racism in everyone but themselves. And it’s truly sad that such people have somehow been able to put themselves in charge over who gets to branded as a “racist” and who doesn’t.

One black intellectual spoke of bargainers and challengers in the black community. The first group is willing to give whites and white society the benefit of the doubt, and work with them to try to create a better society. The second group (and Jesse Jackson is in this group) holds that whites and white society should be regarded as racist until they prove they are not.

But Jesse Jackson himself once said that crime was such a problem in the black community that when he saw a group of young black men he automatically looked around and found himself reassured by the presence of white people. Given the black crime rate, why shouldn’t I assume that blacks aren’t criminals and “thugs” (as Barack Obama’s NEW pastor himself put it) until they prove otherwise?

Because that’s not the way my dad taught me how to regard people, is why. That view doesn’t lead to peace and harmony, but suspicion and mistrust.

Anyone who has read even one of my articles about Barack Obama knows that I am not an Obama supporter. But on this issue, Barack Obama is clearly right, and Jesse Jackson – who has been the paradigmatic “civil rights leader” for a generation now – should now stand revealed for just how terribly wrong he is and always has been.

I dream of a day when Dr. King’s dream comes true. That’s why I have always been an opponent of Jesse Jackson.