Posts Tagged ‘genocide’

Another Example That Liberalism Is The Ideology Of Hate And Violence

March 21, 2011

“Let us keep murdering babies or we’ll resort to terrorist bombing attacks.”  That’s pretty much the message here:

Firebomb Thrown at Elderly Woman at Pro-Life Prayer Event
by Steven Ertelt | Kalispell, MT | LifeNews.com | 3/18/11 5:09 PM

A homemade incendiary device was thrown at one of the participants of the 40 Days for Life pro-life prayer vigil at an abortion business in Kalispell, Montana on Thursday night.

The woman walked on the public sidewalk near the abortion business when an unidentified person threw the device — akin to a “Molotov cocktail” — in her direction. The woman did not see either the firebomb nor the assailant it exploded on the sidewalk behind her, making a loud popping noise like a big firecracker as it burst into flame. Fortunately, the woman was not hurt in the incident.

After she regained her composure, the victim called Karen Trierweiler, coordinator of the 40 Days prayer vigils in Kalispell at the All Family Health Care abortion center, over to her.

After a lengthy delay, a Kalispell police officer arrived. However, according to officials with the Thomas More Society, a pro-life legal group that is helping the participants, instead of inspecting the bomb debris or calling evidence technicians to the scene, the officer remarked that police could never get prints or other evidence from the bomb’s remains and said he would call the city’s garbage service to dispose of all the debris.

The officer then said that the 40 Days prayer vigil participants should expect this kind of reaction if they’re protesting at the abortion business. Questioning Officer Hoover’s assessment of the attack, Trierweiler called the Kalispell desk sergeant to complain, where she was unable to get further assistance.

Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society says his group has filed a formal complaint with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Field Office in Helena, Montana. The organization is for an immediate, intensive investigation of what it calls a “vicious” attack.

“We are appalled by this terrible act of violence, while we’re immensely grateful that God’s grace spared this valiant pro-lifer any serious injury,” he told LifeNews.com this afternoon. “But the reaction of Kalispell police officers after Ms. Trierweiler called them to the scene was equally appalling, indeed outrageous.”

“We intend to file disciplinary complaints against both the officer who came to the crime scene and the desk sergeant whose tepid, indifferent, and grossly unprofessional response to this blatant act of domestic terrorism shows them both unfit to wear a police uniform and at best deserving of severe disciplinary action. We expect much better from the FBI and we will pursue the matter to the very highest levels of the U.S. Department of Justice if this case is not investigated promptly and vigorously and — once the assailant is identified and apprehended — prosecuted to the hilt,” he continued.

Trierweiler also reported that an eyewitness has stepped forward, who was not part of the 40 Days campaign but was a passerby and who the incident occur and may be able to help the FBI track down the bomb thrower and bring him to justice.

Abortion is the ugliest kind of violence against the most innocent human beings.  That said, the abortion movement also has profound ties to disgusting racism and racial genocidePlanned Parenthood is the organization for choice if you’re the kind of sick rat bastard who wants fewer black people in the world.

The left that assists this violent and racist genocide has a very long history of violence.    I’ve talked about it here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here.  Just for starters.  And of course, recently, in Wisconsin, there was this.

We’re also seeing that if you are a liberal today, and it doesn’t matter what you are – a police officer, or an Attorney General, or a journalist, or a public school teacher, or a medical doctor – you drag your ideology into your work in a grossly unprofessional manner.  These are bad people with a dark and frankly demonic agenda.

Advertisements

Why FDR Would Have Denounced The Modern Democrat Party As Un-American

February 25, 2011

Democrats and the Democrat Party they form have become truly despicable.

I can cite former Democrats such as Dennis Prager who has frequently called himself “a Kennedy liberal.”  He has pointed out, “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party; the Democrat Party left me.”

I can cite Ronald Reagan himself as such a man:

Reagan began his political career as a liberal Democrat, admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and active supporter of New Deal policies, but in the early 1950s he shifted to the right and, while remaining a Democrat, endorsed the presidential candidacies of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 as well as Richard Nixon in 1960.[54] His many GE speeches—which he wrote himself—were non-partisan but carried a conservative, pro-business message; he was influenced by Lemuel Boulware, a senior GE executive. Boulware, known for his tough stance against unions and his innovative strategies to win over workers, championed the core tenets of modern American conservatism: free markets, anticommunism, lower taxes, and limited government.[55] Eventually, the ratings for Reagan’s show fell off and GE dropped Reagan in 1962.[56]  That year Reagan formally switched to the Republican Party, stating, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”[57]

One of the things that undoubtedly resulted in these two brilliant political thinkers’ sense of abandonment was the fact that they clearly HAD BEEN abandoned by the Democrat Party as it continued to “evolve” (liberals love that word, worshiping it in place of a God who stays the same) into a degenerate spiral.  And it was that profound abandonment of key Democrat liberal views – the abandonment of classical liberalism into something that can only be described today as a hybrid of Marxism and fascism – that then led these men to question their entire political presuppositions that had resulted in their being Democrats in the first place.

Yes, I know, liberals always confidently assure us that Nazism and fascism are right wing.  But how, exactly?  If they say militarism, then how was it that the Soviet Union had the largest and most powerful military machine in the world?  If they say racism, then – apart from their own bigotry – how do they escape their own racism?  If you want to talk about anti-Semitism of the Nazis, it turns out that Democrats are actually far more anti-Semitic than Republicans.  And, again, the genocide of the leftwing Soviet Union dwarfs even that of the Nazis.

So, what exactly is it that makes Nazism “right wing”?  Well, maybe the left would say that the Nazis were “Christian” and left wing ideologies are secular.  But that is hardly true, either.  I document in a previous article (“Hitler Wasn’t ‘Right Wing’, Wasn’t ‘Christian’; And Nazism Was Applied Darwinism“) that Nazism and Christianity had virtually nothing to do with one another, and that in fact Hitler was an acknowledged atheist.

I did not know at the writing of that article that in fact Hitler actually wanted to kidnap Pope Pius XII, and that the SS officer placed in charge of the operation understood that Hitler would have murdered him following his capture.  I don’t see how that doesn’t do anything more than strengthen my case that Hitler was hardly a “Catholic.”

When it comes to Nazi ideology and Nazi policies (not the least of which was the sort of abortion and Darwinian eugenics that liberal progressive and modern-day Democrat Icon Margaret Sanger engaged in), Nazism was far more in line with liberal progressivism than anything remotely conservative.  A couple quick statements by Margaret Sanger, the patron saint of Hillary Clinton:

In Pivot of Civilization, Sanger referred to immigrants and poor folks as “human weeds,” “reckless breeders,” “spawning  … human beings who never should have been born.”

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” (Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon)

In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. (Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107)

And I also show in a comment to that article that Nazism was far, FAR more in line with Democrat Party liberalism than it ever could be Republican Party conservatism when it came to big government and big government policies.

Jonah Goldberg points out that Nazism was in fact “far right.”  But only in the sense that the Nazi Party, i.e. the National Socialist German Workers Party, was the far right of the extreme left.

A good article I recently found on the subject of socialism and fascism is available here.  Basically, the latter is simply a particular species of the former.

American conservatism calls for a strong military defense, yes.  But as we shall see, so also did FDR.  And in every other aspect, consistent conservatism calls for limited and small national government.  Which was the diametric opposite of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi project, which controlled every sphere of life the same way the Democrat Party tried to do during the last two years when they had power.

If you think for so much as an instant that Adolf Hitler wanted less centralized power for himself and more control in the hands of the states/districts and the individual people – as Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and conservatives constantly talk about – you simply couldn’t be any more ignorant.

That said, just what are the two fundamental issues I claim in my title that FDR would have denounced in the Democrat Party of today?

They are military power and the willingness to use it (i.e., the heart of any foreign policy) and government or public employee unions (i.e., the heart of Democrat’s domestic agenda).

These are no small matters: the former is central to any rational foreign policy and the latter has become central to Democrat domestic policy.

I describe FDR’s fundamental opposition to government unions and the reasons he was opposed to them here.  And I provide FDR’s very own words and his very own reasoning.  Suffice it to say that as pro-union as FDR was, he was profoundly opposed to government/public sector employees having the very sort of collective bargaining rights that Democrats today routinely demand for the public sector unions which constitute the bulk of union power today, and which massively contributes almost exclusively to the Democrat Party machine.  FDR realized that these employees were employees not of some unfair private company, but of the American people.  He also recognized that the government becomes a monopoly unto itself, and that government unions striking 1) exploited that monopoly power in an unfair and un-American way, and 2) was a defacto attack against the American people.

Please read the article above for more.

That leaves the other issue, the foreign policy issue of military power and the willingness to use it to deal with threats to the nation.

A speech by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill could have been given today to expose the American liberal views of Democrats basically since Lyndon Baines Johnson refused to seek re-election after liberals turned on him.  It certainly powerfully applies to the Democrat positions in the war on terror – that Obama once refused to even acknowledge – of today.  Churchill began:

I have but a short time to deal with this enormous subject and I beg you therefore to weigh my words with the attention and thought which I have given to them.

As we go to and fro in this peaceful country with its decent, orderly people going about their business under free institutions and with so much tolerance and fair play in their laws and customs, it is startling and fearful to realize that we are no longer safe in our island home.

For nearly a thousand years England has not seen the campfires of an invader. The stormy sea and our royal navy have been our sure defense. Not only have we preserved our life and freedom through the centuries, but gradually we have come to be the heart and center of an empire which surrounds the globe.

It is indeed with a pang of stabbing pain that we see all this in mortal danger. A thousand years has served to form a state; an hour may lay it in dust.

What shall we do? Many people think that the best way to escape war is to dwell upon its horrors and to imprint them vividly upon the minds of the younger generation. They flaunt the grisly photograph before their eyes. They fill their ears with tales of carnage. They dilate upon the ineptitude of generals and admirals. They denounce the crime as insensate folly of human strife. Now, all this teaching ought to be very useful in preventing us from attacking or invading any other country, if anyone outside a madhouse wished to do so, but how would it help us if we were attacked or invaded ourselves that is the question we have to ask.

Would the invaders consent to hear Lord Beaverbrook’s exposition, or listen to the impassioned appeals of Mr. Lloyd George? Would they agree to meet that famous South African, General Smuts, and have their inferiority complex removed in friendly, reasonable debate? I doubt it. I have borne responsibility for the safety of this country in grievous times. I gravely doubt it.

But even if they did, I am not so sure we should convince them, and persuade them to go back quietly home. They might say, it seems to me, “you are rich; we are poor. You seem well fed; we are hungry. You have been victorious; we have been defeated. You have valuable colonies; we have none. You have your navy; where is ours? You have had the past; let us have the future.” Above all, I fear they would say, “you are weak and we are strong.”

Churchill gave that speech back in 1934.  Just imagine how much unparalleled human suffering would never have happened if only the weak and appeasing policies of the leftist bleeding hearts had not triumphed!  The left wrongly claim to stand for peace and compassion and every good thing.  But the exact opposite is true, as they have in fact murdered millions and millions of innocent human beings with their naive and morally stupid policies.  And to whatever extent liberals have good intentions, the road to hell is paved with liberal intentions.

Think back to Obama’s positions as a candidate in which he demonized Bush’s war in Iraq and his surge strategy.  Think of Obama’s incredibly naive and incredibly failed policy of talking to Iran without preconditions.

I could go on all day about Democrats taking on the views that Churchill condemned; that our enemies really aren’t that evil and how we can talk to them and reach some kind of accord short of fighting them.  It is as naive and morally idiotic today as it was in the era of Churchill and – yes – Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I did not realize this until I watched a program I viewed on the Military History Channel called “Decisions That Shook the World.”  But FDR rapidly became what we would today call a neo-conservative.

In the late 1930s, FDR began to watch with growing horror as the Nazis began to take over Europe.  In secret letters to Winston Churchill, he offered his moral support to the Allies.  FDR knew that if the people – who did NOT want to become entangled in what they saw as a European war – were to find out about these letters, they would turn against him in outrage.  The American people in the 1930s and early 1940s were crystal clear that they did not want to become involved in another world war in Europe.  As it was, at the very time that the American people were the most worried about FDR secretly getting involved in the war behind their backs, FDR was in fact secretly corresponding with Churchill to do that very thing.  FDR also – again secretly – ordered his military commanders to devise a secret military plan with Great Britain for when FDR was able to involve America in the war against Hitler in Europe.

Now, today, it would be very easy to condemn FDR as duplicitous.  And he WAS incredibly duplicitous.  FDR was a man – we find out in the words of the historians who narrated the “Decisions” program – who had no problem saying and doing things in private that he very much did not want to be known in public.  As an example, FDR, in direct defiance of the United States Supreme Court – directed his Attorney General to wiretap suspected spies.  That was literally an impeachable offense.  FDR was breaking the law to deal with what he saw as a growing threat against America.

Rep. Wendell Wilkie, the Republican candidate for president in the 1940 election – warned the American people, “If you elect FDR, he will get you into a war you don’t want.”  And FDR, deceitfully, in a speech, said, “That charge is contrary to every fact, every purpose of the past eight years.”  It was, as history documents, a complete lie.

Another lie FDR told the people came on the eve of the 1940 election.  FDR told mothers, “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”  And it is hard to imagine a more dishonest promise, given that he was at the moment he said those words doing everything he knew how to get America into the war in Europe.

One of the points the historians made clear is that, “If all of Roosevelt’s acts were publicly known, he likely would have been impeached.”  He most certainly would NOT have been re-elected in 1940.

FDR was reelected on the promise that he would not do what in fact he was determined to do.

In 1940, the “anti-war” candidate was the Republican, Wendell Wilkie.  He had the virtue of being honest, but likely on the wrong side of history (we can’t know for sure what would have happened had the United States not become involved in World War II, but it doesn’t look pretty).  Democrat FDR may have had the virtue of being right, but he was certainly profoundly dishonest.

Now, I could write how FDR was quite constant with other modern liberal presidents who say one thing and do the exact opposite (I’m speaking directly about Barack Obama, the examples of which are now already legion).  But that isn’t my project here.  My project is to point out that, when it came to being prepared for war and then fighting that war, FDR was fundamentally in opposition to the modern Democrat Party agenda.

That briefly stated, it was the Republican Party which ultimately came to realize that FDR was correct in his views of the military and the need to vigorously defend American national security.  And it was the Democrats who came to turn on FDR’s realization and abandon his views.

They didn’t do so all at once, or right away.  As much as modern liberals tried to attack Ronald Reagan as putting the world on the brink of nuclear war in his Cold War stand against the powerful Soviet Union, one President John F. Kennedy was every bit the cold warrior that Reagan ever was.  And, again, any liberal who doubts this is simply a fundamentally ignorant human being.  That said, it was during the Kennedy presidency that JFK cynically – and by executive fiat rather than any vote by Congress – allowed the government unions that came to own the Democrat Party lock, stock and barrel to collectively bargain as a means to help the Democrat Party.  And the moral collapse of the Democrat Party was incredibly precipitous after that.

At this point in time, anyone who doubts that radical Islam is easily capable of not only destabilizing the world, but plunging it into economic depression and global war is delusional.  The mere prospect of a collapse of the Libyan government alone could spell enormous problems in the likely event of a civil war in that country.  Oil prices could literally more than double, which would simply obliterate any potential global economic recovery.  If Iran is able to obtain the bomb – which is most assuredly will if it hasn’t already – we will see a rise in Islamic fundamentalism, jihadism and terrorism such that the world has never seen as the Iranian regime rightly sees itself as impervious to any meaningful international action against it.  If that isn’t bad enough, we would also see a nuclear arms race quickly escalate in the craziest region in the history of the planet as Sunni Muslim regimes tried to protect themselves against the Shiite Iranian threat.

For what it’s worth, even as mainstream liberals celebrate and rejoice in the overthrow of one Arab leader after another, it is IRAN which is most benefitting from the chaos.  From the New York Times:

MANAMA, Bahrain — The popular revolts shaking the Arab world have begun to shift the balance of power in the region, bolstering Iran’s position while weakening and unnerving its rival, Saudi Arabia, regional experts said.

I have been warning and warning about this.  But the world listens to Obama, not me.

But in light of Obama’s policy of appeasement, of asking for meetings of minds with no preconditions, allow me to rephrase Churchill’s words to suit our modern-day situation:

Would the invaders consent to hear Barack Obama’s exposition, or listen to the impassioned appeals of Hillary Clinton? Would they agree to meet that famous African, Kofi Annan, and have their inferiority complex removed in friendly, reasonable debate? I doubt it.

Allow me to share with you the consensus view of liberalism today at one of its elite headquarters of Columbia University:

Columbia University is holding a series of public hearings on whether or not to allow ROTC back on campus now that DADT has been repealed. A wounded Iraq veteran who recently enrolled at Columbia took to the microphone and asked fellow students to support ROTC. He was booed, jeered, and called a racist.

Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.

“Racist!” some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.

The former soldier responded to the jeers with this awesome statement:

“It doesn’t matter how you feel about the war. It doesn’t matter how you feel about fighting,” said Maschek. “There are bad men out there plotting to kill you.”

The despicable so-called “Americans” in the audience only laughed and jeered more.

Anthony Maschek was a staff sergeant with the Army’s 10th Mountain Division. He was shot 11 times and spent two years recovering at Walter Reed. He’s an American hero and those thugs at Columbia are a disgrace. This is no different than those pieces of crap who spit on veterans coming back from Vietnam. It’s disgusting that in 2011 our veterans should have to be heckled by cowards.

Read more: http://www.thehotjoints.com/2011/02/21/wounded-veteran-booed-and-jeered-at-columbia-university/#ixzz1Evn0A8qL

FDR would have turned his back on this Democrat Party as a bunch of contemptible and despicable traitors to the United States of America.  He would have looked at the government unions that today are the sine qua non – the “that without which” – of the Democrat Party machine.  And he would have been disgusted that the entire Democrat Party rests today upon an inherently un-American foundation.  Then this president who risked so much to keep America and the world safe from tyranny would have looked upon the modern Democrat Party and its repeated denunciation of those who would fight America’s most terrifying enemies even as those enemies grew stronger and stronger while we have grown weaker and weaker, and he would have vomited in contempt for the party that he had such a profound role in shaping.

By the very standards of the figures that you cite as your greatest heroes, I denounce you as the pathetic, vile, un-American fools that you truly are, Democrats.

I would say that you should be ashamed of yourselves, but I doubt that you are capable of that virtue in this house-of-card world that you are building now.  And the problem with houses of cards is not merely that they fall; it is also that they tend to burn furiously when a match is struck.

And when the Antichrist warned of by the Scriptures for more than 2,600 years comes (as described in the Books of Daniel and Revelation), it will be Democrats, the quintessential fools, who welcome him with cheers and adoration.

Lest We Forget: Liberal Progressive ‘Science’ Was At The Core Of The Holocaust

October 18, 2010

As we plunge toward “climate change” legislation and government health care, let us realize that so much is being done in the name of “science.”  And let us realize that the ideological perversion of science has been the source of the greatest evil in human history.  Particularly when liberal progressives have been involved.

Let us begin with one particularly unpopular group of socialist progressives, the Nazis, and see where the thread leads:

Exhibit displays Nazis’ ‘Deadly Medicine’
By Eryn Brown, Los Angeles Times
Story posted 2010.10.15 at 10:27 PM PDT

The image of the Nazi doctor is a vivid one — and “Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race” doesn’t give it short shrift.

At this traveling exhibit, now on view at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, visitors can see photos of creepy gadgets like the calipers used by Nazi physicians to quantify racial characteristics. They can watch video of doctors testing how long it takes mental patients to die after inhaling tailpipe exhaust. They can learn about Dr. Julius Hallervorden, a neuropathologist who dissected hundreds of brains harvested from “euthanized” children.

But “Deadly Medicine” also aims to show that doctors’ and scientists’ role in the Holocaust wasn’t limited to measuring noses or conducting gruesome experiments in concentration camps.

The exhibit argues that by advancing the theory of eugenics — and then providing cover for the Nazi regime when it used that theory to buttress its racist and genocidal policies — German scientists helped lay the foundation upon which the Holocaust was built.

“This is important in understanding the context of the Holocaust,” said exhibit curator Susan Bachrach of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. “Presenting these ideas under the rubric of science made them more palatable.”

“Deadly Medicine” traces the roots of Nazi science back to the early 20th century and the rise of eugenics, an outgrowth of Darwinian thought that argued it was best for society if healthy people — and, some believed, only healthy people — were encouraged to reproduce. Allowing the “unfit” to thrive and multiply, the thinking went, interfered with natural selection and “degenerated” the population.

Some of the eugenics research funded by Germany after World War I actually led to improvements in public health, including an emphasis on prenatal care. (One poster urges pregnant women not to drink or smoke.)

“There’s been a tendency to dismiss everything done under the Nazis as pseudoscience, to distance ourselves,” Bachrach said. “That’s dishonest. A lot of the scientists we feature in this exhibit were legitimate.”

But most of the exhibit’s artifacts illustrate the dark side of Nazi eugenics, in which scientists called for mass sterilization — and eventually “euthanasia” — for people with a variety of sometimes haphazardly defined physical and mental illnesses.

It wasn’t a terribly long leap, the exhibit suggests, from the (comparatively limited, though still horrifying) task of sterilizing or killing the ill to coordinating the mass murder of ethnic groups that the Nazis — and their scientists — deemed defective, including Jews. “The euthanasia program provided a model for the much larger project that was to come,” Bachrach said.

“Deadly Medicine” offers some surprises. Germany wasn’t the only country to dabble in eugenics — one photograph shows a crowd at a Pasadena exhibit that extolled the “social benefits of sterilization.”

Another display reports that “doctors joined the Nazi party earlier and in higher numbers than any other professional group,” some driven by the hope that forcing Jewish physicians out of German hospitals would create job opportunities.

The exhibit raises thought-provoking questions about how good science — and good scientists — turn bad, said Kristine Brancolini, dean of university libraries at Loyola Marymount.

“At what point does something become unethical?” she said.

For Bachrach, another question is how far scientists might be willing to go to study their ideas — and how to stop them when they go too far.

“As a society, we’ve gone a long way toward establishing safeguards that didn’t exist,” she said. “But this exhibit continues to underscore the importance of informed leadership.”

The exhibit will be on display at the university until Nov. 24.

eryn.brown@latimes.com

For the record, I was writing about this subject long before I ever heard about this exhibit.  Having said that, the “Deadly Medicine” exhibit strongly reinforces everything I said.

The reporter says, “‘Deadly Medicine’ offers some surprises. Germany wasn’t the only country to dabble in eugenics.”  And of course, it might be a surprise to Ms. Brown, but it certainly isn’t a surprise to – oh, I don’t know, Glenn Beck – or to anyone who has actually made an effort to actually learn history.

Where else did we see eugenics?  And where did this monstrously evil form of science begin?  From CBS:

The Fernald School, and others like it, was part of a popular American movement in the early 20th century called the Eugenics movement. The idea was to separate people considered to be genetically inferior from the rest of society, to prevent them from reproducing.

Eugenics is usually associated with Nazi Germany, but in fact, it started in America. Not only that, it continued here long after Hitler’s Germany was in ruins.

At the height of the movement – in the ‘20s and ‘30s – exhibits were set up at fairs to teach people about eugenics. It was good for America, and good for the human race. That was the message.

But author Michael D’Antonio says it wasn’t just a movement. It was government policy. “People were told, we can be rid of all disease, we can lower the crime rate, we can increase the wealth of our nation, if we only keep certain people from having babies,” says D’Antonio.

But surely it came from conservative Republicans, someone might say.  Something so evil could never come from Democrat progressives.

Wrong.

Margaret Sanger, hero of liberalism and feminism, and founder of Planned Parenthood, was an ardent eugenicist.  You can see it in her own words.

Here’s an interesting quote from one of the greatest patron saints of liberalism:

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

Don’t worry, Margaret.  Your secret is safe with the mainstream media.  They’ll never betray the secret that abortion is morally evil, that it is the murder of an innocent human being, and that liberal Democrats to this very day are trying to destroy the black population.

Three out of every five pregnancies of black women in America are exterminated through abortion.  And every three days, blacks kill more of their own through abortion than all the black people lynched between 1882 and 1968.

I also notice that Margaret Sanger also wanted to do this in the name of a “religious appeal.”  Let me say this: Don’t you DARE call yourself a Christian if you support “a woman’s right to choose” to kill her baby.  Because by obvious extension you also then support the Virgin Mary’s “right” to choose to kill Baby Jesus in her womb.  And so Jesus can’t save such a liberal progressive “Christian” from his or her sins, because the Jesus of liberal progressive “Christianity” is dead in an abortion mill.  And so hell awaits you for your part in the murder of nearly 50 million innocent unborn babies in America alone.

Planned Parenthood, founded on the scientific principles of Darwinian-based eugenics, has never changed.  They are still primarily located in minority (read that as “genetically inferior”) populated neighborhoods.  And they are still perfectly at home with the genocide of the black race through abortion.  In fact, not all that long ago, they were caught red-handed:

LOS ANGELES, February 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – UCLA’s pro-life student magazine, The Advocate, has revealed an undercover investigation in which representatives of Planned Parenthood enthusiastically accepted a financial donation targeting the abortion of an unborn black baby for racist motives.

And what does the “great” liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have to say about that?

“Frankly I had thought that at that 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” — 7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The article detailing the apology over American scientists deliberately infecting Guatemalan men with syphilis pointed out that our fascination with eugenics and the ugliest forms of “science” continued long after Hitler was defeated and Nazism destroyed.  And it did.

The Tuskegee experiment – in which black men with syphilis were deliberately left untreated so scientists could study the advance of the symptoms – thrived under Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration.  And we just recently discovered that another similar study thrived under the administration of fellow Democrat president Harry S. Truman:

WASHINGTON (AP) — American scientists deliberately infected prisoners and patients in a mental hospital in Guatemala with syphilis 60 years ago, a recently unearthed experiment that prompted U.S. officials to apologize Friday and declare outrage over “such reprehensible research.”

The U.S. government-funded experiment, which ran from 1946 to 1948, was discovered by a Wellesley College medical historian. It apparently was conducted to test if penicillin, then relatively new, could prevent infection with sexually transmitted diseases. The study came up with no useful information and was hidden for decades.

Liberal progressives haven’t changed their spots.  They arrogantly claimed that they represented the movement of “progress” and “science” when they were leading the way for Adolf Hitler and the most genuinely evil human depravity ever seen in human history.  And they’re saying the same things now.

Barack Obama’s “spiritual mentor” Jeremiah Wright believed and taught all this depraved garbage.  And it should come as absolutely no surprise that Barack Obama is so deeply steeped in the culture of abortion that he supports even abandoning babies who survived the horrific procedure and had been born alive to die.

And, yes, the same Hitler who embraced the Darwinian eugenics movement devised and championed by 20th century American progressive liberal Democrats also embraced the government health care and embraced the environmental movement championed today by 21st century American progressive liberal Democrats.

Same moral garbage.  Same Democrat Party.

Science in and of itself is morally neutral.  There is no conflict between good science and good Christianity.  In fact, science flowed from the universities that themselves emerged directly from the great Christian monasteries.  The man who formulated the scientific method was a publicly confessing Christian, as were the discoverers of every single major branch of modern science.

Science goes “bad” when it is hijacked by an ideological agenda.  And that is precisely what we are seeing over and over again today.  We’ve certainly seen it with “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever the hell you want to call it.  And we have certainly seen the same ideological poison of science and of scientific methodology by advocates of ObamaCare.

Science serves mankind when it is a method.  It becomes man’s greatest enemy when it becomes a tool.

Barack Obama tried to claim that he was somehow above distorting science to serve a political agenda not long after becoming president.  But he has done precisely that more than anyone who has preceded him.  For just two recent examples, Barack Obama distorted the scientific report by scientists who argued that there was no scientific basis to shut down drilling.  And then he again distorted the scientific reports from scientists who tried to assess the extent of the Gulf oil disaster (see here also).

Obama is no guardian of scientific legitimacy.  He is its leading perverter.

I have mentioned abortion several times in this article.  What does science really say about abortion?

To put it simply, science properly understood tells us that human embryos are human by virtue of their parents, and beings by virtue of the fact that they are living things (they grow, feed,respire,excrete,respond to stimuli, and reproduce): they are human beings.  Science further tells us that human embryos are NOT part of their mother’s bodies; rather, they are clearly unique genetic individuals, with their own unique human DNA.  Moreover, scientifically, every single living thing is rigorously classified by the science of taxonomy into the categories of: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.  And a human embryo – an unborn baby – is of the kingdom Animalia, of the phylum Chordata, of the class Mammalia, of the order Primates, of the family Hominidae, of the genus Homo, and of the species sapiens.  Same as you, same as me, and same as any human being who has spent a lifetime living outside of his or her mother’s womb.

Any attempt to claim that “science” legitimizes abortion is totally false and totally perverted science.  And yet science is falsified and perverted on a daily basis today.

Democrats have for years characterized themselves as the party of “science,” while demonizing Republicans as the party that stands in the way of science or progress.  But they long ago forfeited any legitimate credibility that they had to make such a claim.

Update, October 18:  It didn’t take long for Obama to prove me right again.

Obama said:

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” Obama told the assembled Democrats, who paid $15,200 a person to attend. “And the country is scared.”

This from the man who said as he justified the culture of abortion:

“It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,”

Let me leave you with an alternate “scientific” examination of what is going on today: Americans are “hard wired” to survive, and they are growing increasingly fearful as they realize their president is destroying their and their children’s country.

That answer not only is equally “scientific,” but it has the virtue of NOT basically calling the American people a bunch of non-rational meat puppets.

Barack Obama was quite fine with the “scared” American people “not thinking clearly” when they voted for him two years ago.  And the reason it bothers him so much that his demagoguery is now backfiring on him has nothing whatsoever to do with “facts and science and argument.”

Unless you think Obama saying “They’re fighting back.  The empire is striking back” was somehow about “science,” when, given the Star Wars analogy, no one better qualifies as the evil emperor bent on ruling the universe than Barack Obama himself.

It’s bad enough that Barack Obama is a demonizing demagogue to the very core of his political, if not his moral, being.  But when he wraps his demonizing and demagoguery in the mantle of “science” as so many “progressives” have before him, you should step back and see how this movie has played out in the past.

This ‘Blame Bush’ Crap Has Just GOT To End

August 23, 2010

Are you sick of Obama and the left unrelentingly blaming Bush for everything that is happening going on two years after he left office?  Do you think that Obama will ever man-up and actually become responsible for his presidency?

Me too, and me neither, respectively.

I went more than a little off on a liberal who dredged up this demagogic rhetorical garbage:

In Europe people laugh at us leaving in false dreams, wall streets spending false money, Bush starting a false war etc.

America is the land of dreams, how come? Idiots like George Bush can get elected to president. If he can Become president, then what can the smart people do? Jump to pluto?.

Do you really expect Obama to fix the worst recession in 80 years in a bit more than 18 months? Which was created by 8 years of Reagan, 4 years by bush, Clinton’s last period and 8 years by Bush? What is he some kind of god?

I didn’t vote for Obama but I expect him to put us in the right direction in this 6 years (he most likely) has left. in 2007-2008 they estimated that the recession will peak in 2012, so there is still a lot left. Just imagine how it would be with Palin/McCain. McCain who wanted to keep Bush’s politics moving and Palin who thought Africa was a country.

Here was my response:

First of all, I must pause to mock you for making Europe the gold standard of measurement. I guess if you like Nazism, fascism, Marxism, socialism, and genocide up the wazoo, Europe must be the coolest place on earth.  I can see why you lefties love it so much.

What was it that Jefferson said? “The comparison of our governments with those of Europe, is like a comparison of heaven and hell.” Not that you give a damn what Jefferson said about anything.

Let me assure you that the Iraq War – which 60% of Democrat Senators voted to authorize (just for the record) – was a REAL war indeed.

Here’s a record of how Democrats were for that war before they were against it:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

And at least Bush had the decency to actually WIN his war. Barack Obama demonized the Iraq War and demonized the surge strategy that enabled us to win it. And Obama made Afghanistan “his war” in order to maintain the facade that he really wasn’t a weakling on foreign policy.  Bush did so well in Iraq that the Obama administration actually tried to take credit for the victory. And now we’re “floundering in Afghanistan” under Obama’s failed leadership.

That Sarah Palin who thought Africa was a country thing? False, you demagogue. It was a made-up “fact” that was reported as truth. And the ONLY documented “source” behind it has been revealed to be a hoax.

Now, you want to see a REAL idiot in action? How about a guy running for president who thinks there are 58 states? This is a man who is so fundamentally ignorant he doesn’t even know jack squat about his own country.

Youtube:

Quote:

It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,” Obama said. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

So let’s talk about what a total and absolute ideologue you are to condemn Sarah Palin for a bogus fabricated quote that she didn’t even say, and to then defend a guy who is on video saying something about 20 times as stupid.  Because that’s how the Democrat Party operates, in a nutshell.

For the factual record, Obama actually called Europe a country.  How is that not just as stupid as calling Africa a country?

Youtube:

Quote:

“One of the things that is a huge advantage for America compared to countries like Europe is, actually, we’re constantly replenishing ourselves with hungry, driven people who are coming here, and they want to work, and they start a business, and our population is younger and more dynamic, and that’s a good thing!”

Which is to say that Obama is unfit to be president by your own deceitful example.

And as for Bush being an idiot, at least he didn’t need a pair of damn teleprompters to say his name right. Maybe Bush would have sounded more “intelligent” to you if he read absolutely everything he said at every venue he went to off his teleprompters.

Here’s Obama without his teleprompter for one minute:

Which is why he needs to bring one everywhere – even to sixth grade classrooms – to not sound like the gibbering idiot he truly is.

So, oh, yeah, the country is much better off with its “Genius-in-chief,” isn’t it?

You don’t give one damn about the truth; you live in your own self-created reality in which Sarah Palin is stupid for something that she never said, while Barack Obama who said something stupider than Sarah Palin ever said in her life is still brilliant.

You would be completely ashamed of yourself, if you were capable of that attribute of moral character.

I write an article that shows how BY THE DEMOCRATS VERY OWN STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT Obama is the worst president in American history. And you’ve got nothing to say about that. Nothing but more “blame Bush.”

Another demonstration of your rabid leftist ideology that will NOT be fair: the economy goes into an absolute TOILET under Obama, but he’s not responsible for any of his policies.

The unemployment rate was 7.6% when Bush left office. But Obama is not responsible for the fact that it’s near 10% now and by most expert accounts will rise higher after he pissed away $862 billion (actually $3.27 TRILLION) in his boondoggle “stimulus”???

Why is it that you refuse to hold Obama to any kind of standard at all – even the standard he set for himself? The Obama administration said this was a terrible economy, but he had the solution, that his stimulus would keep unemployment from going over 8%. And by his own administration’s standard did he not utterly fail? Wasn’t he elected to make the economy better, instead of far worse?

And what do we say about the fact that unemployment is going up, rather than down?  Wasn’t Obama supposed to make things better rather than worse?

Jobless claims rise to highest level in 9 months
By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer – Thu Aug 19, 2010

WASHINGTON – Employers appear to be laying off workers again as the economic recovery weakens. The number of people applying for unemployment benefits reached the half-million mark last week for the first time since November.

It was the third straight week that first-time jobless claims rose. The upward trend suggests the private sector may report a net loss of jobs in August for the first time this year.

Initial claims rose by 12,000 last week to 500,000, the Labor Department said Thursday.

Construction firms are letting go of more workers as the housing sector slumps and federal stimulus spending on public works projects winds down. State and local governments are also cutting jobs to close large budget gaps.

The layoffs add to growing fears that the economic recovery is slowing and the country could slip back into a recession.

Isn’t Obama kind of going the wrong way, Mr. “Blame Bush”???

We’ve got all kinds of measures showing that things are far worse than they ever were under Bush. But you, total rabid fundamentalist leftist ideologue that you are – can only shout “blame Bush!” all the louder.

Here’s one example from August 21, 2010 in the LA Times:

With consumers and businesses keeping a lid on expenses, more and more small and mid-size restaurants are throwing in their dish towels and closing up shop. […]

Nationwide, the number of restaurants dropped in 2010 for the first time in more than a decade, according to NPD, falling 5,202 to 579,416.

So, wow. That means that things haven’t been this bad since Bill Clinton was president and the Dot-com bubble he created blew up. That means that things were NEVER this bad under George Bush.

Bush inherited a terrible economic situation, too. First of all, the Dot-com bubble that Clinton passed to Bush created huge economic upheaval – to the tune of Nasdaq losing 78% of its value. Trillions of dollars of Clinton economic growth were just blown away like a fart in a hurricane.  The mainstream media didn’t report the facts of Clinton’s recession because they are shockingly biased liberal propagandists. Which is why so few Americans trust them anymore. Clinton took all the credit for the Dot-com build-up; Bush got all the pain when it blew up, suffering a huge recession that was all on Clinton’s tab. Then you add to that the 9/11 attack, which crippled the airline and tourism industry for months, and you should understand how bad Bush had it. But he didn’t blame Clinton a gazillion times; he manned up and solved the problem. He took an economic lemon and made 52 consecutive months of job growth.   In contrast, Obama hasn’t solved anything. All he’s done is blame and demonize.

Here’s another one from the August 21 2010 Associated Press report:

In the wake of news about a spike in new applications for unemployment benefits comes another potentially troubling sign: A record number of workers made hardship withdrawals from their retirement accounts in the second quarter.

What’s more, the number of workers borrowing from their accounts reached a 10-year high, according to a report issued Friday by Fidelity Investments.

Wow. Again, things haven’t been so bad since the last time a Democrat was president. Again, it was NEVER this bad under George Bush’s presidency.

How about trade deficit figures? From November 19 2009 Reuters:

WASHINGTON: The US trade deficit widened in September by an unexpectedly large 18.2 per cent, the most in more than 10 years, as oil prices rose for the seventh straight month and imports from China bounded higher, a US government report showed on Friday.

Hey, again, things weren’t so bad since a Democrat president last ran things. And it was never so bad under George Bush.

How about all the foreclosures? Surely Obama has made that better? Oops. Again, things were NEVER this bad under Bush’s presidency:

US foreclosures up 4%; top 300000 for 17th month on the trot
by Jaspreet Virk – August 12, 2010

Foreclosure crisis doesn’t seem to be loosening its hold on the housing sector. After declining for the last three consecutive months, foreclosure activity is back up in the United States.

As per the ‘Foreclosure Market Report’ released by RealtyTrac, an online marketplace, giving insights into foreclosures, 325,229 houses received foreclosure filings in the nation, 4 percent up from June.

Not only there has been a jump in the number of houses receiving filings, the foreclosures have exceeded 300000 for the 17th straight month. One in every 397 houses received foreclosure notice from the lenders in July.

Hmmm. Obama’s been president for all of those 17 months. And Bush was president for none of them. But it’s all Bush’s fault, anyway, isn’t it? At least if you’re a hypocrite liberal, it is.

Under Obama, and ONLY under Obama, foreclosures are up 75% in the major metropolitan areas:

NEW YORK (Reuters)Foreclosures rose in 3 of every four large U.S. metro areas in this year’s first half, likely ruling out sustained home price gains until 2013, real estate data company RealtyTrac said on Thursday [in its midyear 2010 metropolitan foreclosure report].

Unemployment was the main culprit driving foreclosure actions on more than 1.6 million properties, the company said.

We’re not going to see meaningful, sustainable home price appreciation while we’re seeing 75 percent of the markets have increases in foreclosures,” RealtyTrac senior vice president Rick Sharga said in an interview.

Has Obama done anything to solve this problem – which was why our economy blew up in the first place? Absolutely not.

Obama failed – because he is a failure, and failing is what he does:

WASHINGTON – Nearly half of the 1.3 million homeowners who enrolled in the Obama administration’s flagship mortgage-relief program have fallen out.

The program is intended to help those at risk of foreclosure by lowering their monthly mortgage payments. Friday’s report from the Treasury Department suggests the $75 billion government effort is failing to slow the tide of foreclosures in the United States, economists say.

More than 2.3 million homes have been repossessed by lenders since the recession began in December 2007, according to foreclosure listing service RealtyTrac Inc. Economists expect the number of foreclosures to grow well into next year.

The government program as currently structured is petering out. It is taking in fewer homeowners, more are dropping out and fewer people are ending up in permanent modifications,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.

There’s “hope and change” for you.  A failed president with failed policies.

As an update (August 24), I add the following headline:

Instant View: Existing home sales plunge to 15-year low
Tue Aug 24, 10:28 am ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Sales of previously owned U.S. homes dropped in July to their lowest pace in 15 years, implying further loss of momentum in the economic recovery.

Existing home sales dropped by a massive 27% in July.  And, again, omigosh.  We haven’t seen terrible numbers like this since the last time a Democrat was president.  We NEVER saw anything like this during the Bush era.

How about budget deficits? Bush never had a trillion dollar deficit in his entire presidency, and the Democrats still blamed him for his spending; but the CBO now says that Obama will run a trillion-plus dollar defict next year, making it three years in a row. And we will have massive trillion-plus dollar deficits for as long as the eye can see because of Obama’s reckless unsustainable spending programs and the debt they will create. How about this? Obama’s deficit for July alone was more than Bush’s entire 2007-year deficit! And how about this one? Obama outspent Bush’s entire eight-year presidency’s deficit in just 20 months – after demonizing Bush for his spending!!!

From The Wall Street Journal, which, unlike the New York Slimes, the LA Slimes, the Chicago Tribune, and other major liberal papers, ISN’T actually financially and morally bankrupt:

Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush’s decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush’s eight-year total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt. If America “cannot and will not sustain” deficits like Mr. Bush’s, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he’s flogging?

Bush’s deficits were 2-3% of GDP.  Obama’s are at 12.8% of GDP – which is five to six times higher and bringing us closer and closer every day to the point of collapse.

Are the people better off under Obama than they were under Bush? I don’t think so:

More Americans are on food stamps now under Barack Obama’s failed presidency than at any time in history. And that certainly includes George Bush’s presidency.

But now Obama and the Democrats are going to raid the Food Stamp program to pay for their pet liberal projects. Because “Let them eat cake.”

How about bank failures? We kind of need banks for a healthy economy unless we want to go back to the barter system, you know:

Banks are failing at double the rate of last year.  During 2009, which the government claims was the peak of the recession, the total number of bank failures at this point in the year was 40.  It is already 83 for this year.

For the record, only 25 banks failed under Bush in 2008.  That number soared to 140 banks under Obama’s watch in 2009.  And now we’re already past 118 bank failures this year in 2010 with four more months to go.

But you can’t hold Barack Obama responsible for the fact that things are far, far, FAR worse under his presidency than they ever were under Bush’s. The ONLY reason you’ve got to “blame Bush” is that the 2008 economic meltdown happened under Bush’s presidency. You don’t even offer an actual reason or state an actual policy reason for the failure; you just blame Bush because he was there.  You don’t consider the fact that things were great until Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate in 2006 and royally screwed up the country (the unemployment rate before Democrats took over Congress in January 2007 was 4.6%).  Nope. Bush was president in 2008, so it was all his fault. Even though he warned SEVENTEEN TIMES that we needed to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae or have an economic disaster on our hands, and even though Democrats were in lockstep refusal to deal with the landmine that caused us to implode in the first place.  But you are way too much of a twisted unhinged ideologue to apply the same argument to Obama now. What happened while Bush was president was Bush’s fault; and what happened while Zero was president is still Bush’s fault.

Do I want to go back to Bush’s “failed policies” when unemployment never got above 7.6% and averaged 5.2% for his presidency? As opposed to “moving forward” with Obama and his 10%-and-rising level? Pardon me, but I’ll take Bush.

Democrats are currently saying, “Do you want to go back to the way things were when Republicans were in control?”

When Republicans were last in control prior to 2007, we had full unemployment with an unemployment rate of only 4.6%.

So, yeah.  I WOULD like to go back to the way things were when Bush and Republicans were in control.  And I frankly want to know what idiot wouldn’t?

As for your question as to whether Obama is some kind of a god, I can’t help but point out that it wasn’t conservatives who kept putting the halo on Obama’s head:

A funny video provides a giant montage of Obama halos.

We weren’t the ones who said “This is the moment when when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal,” either.

We weren’t the ones who said, “You can divide history. BB Before Barack. AB After Barack.”  So don’t blame us for Obama not living up to the ridiculous expectations he and his liberal minions fed to the culture.

The fact of the matter is that Obama is such a miserable, total failure that I see that even you can’t admit you voted for him.

Bush Katrina Economy Obama Haiti Economy

January 18, 2010

Yesterday on ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos substitute host Jake Tapper interviewed Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.  Bush could not have been more gracious in praising Obama’s relief efforts.

In other words, he didn’t try to do to Obama what Obama and the Democrats so viciously did to him.

And I couldn’t help but wonder: if Democrats believed their own crap about Bush and Katrina, why on earth would they be asking George Bush to lead an effort for Haitian relief now?

It has now been six days since the earthquake that destroyed Haiti.  Obama promised an unprecedented massive effort to provide emergency relief.

Has it been organized well?

From USA Today:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. relief effort after the Haiti earthquake started too slowly and cautiously, says a retired general who led the military relief effort on the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

“The next morning after the earthquake, as a military man of 37 years service, I assumed … there would be airplanes delivering aid, not troops, but aid,” said retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who coordinated military operations after disaster struck the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005. “What we saw instead was discussion about, ‘Well we’ve got to send an assessment team in to see what the needs are.’ And anytime I hear that, my head turns red.”

The problem, Honore told USA TODAY, is that the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, instead of the military, take the lead in international disaster response.

“I was a little frustrated to hear that USAID was the lead agency,” he said. “I respect them, but they’re not a rapid deployment unit.”

USAID immediately dispatched an assessment team and search-and-rescue teams, but there has still not been widespread distribution of food or water, three days after the Haiti earthquake.

Let’s file that as a ‘no’.

Very little in the way of actual lifesaving supplies had gone out as of the time of that article.  Has that situation improved?

Yesterday, ABC’s Tapper pointed out:

But it’s five days later, and still a lot of the relief effort, a lot of the aid has not gotten to the people who need it most.”

An exchange between Tapper and Raddatz:

So how about it, Martha? Is the relief effort getting to those who need it most?

RADDATZ: Well, we actually went with a convoy, one truckload of supplies yesterday. We arrived really early in the morning, expecting to track this truck, come back, and go out with another truck. It took us five-and-a-half hours to get these supplies where they were needed.

General Keen, the military commander, said that 70,000 bottles of water and 130,000 food rations had been handed out Saturday – four days after the disaster!  70,000 bottles of water for 3.5 MILLION people in need.  They needed 10 million bottles of water a day.

Let’s file that as another big ‘no.’

How many days did Bush get before Democrats hatefully and viciously attacked him?

Well, are they at least providing security for the relief supplies yet to come?

Another exchange during the ABC program between Jake Tapper and Martha Raddatz:

TAPPER: Speaking of chaos, Martha, we keep hearing about reports of sporadic violence. Where is the U.S. military in all this? Are they making attempts to secure the island?

RADDATZ: Absolutely not, Jake. They really aren’t. I keep hearing these numbers. There are about 4,200 American military supporting this mission, but mostly they’re out on the ships. They’re on the cutters. You’ve got the 82nd Airborne, not all of the 82nd Airborne, a brigade, about 3,500 soldiers are here. They’re expected to be here sometime next week. The Marines are not yet here, 2,200 Marines.

Jake Tapper pointed out to the US military commander for the region, General Keen, that:

General Keen, I’d like to go to you first. Martha Raddatz just reported that U.S. troops are not out there securing Haiti, even though there are sporadic outbursts of violence, some of them horrific. We heard a report of — in Petionville, a suburb of Port- au-Prince, a policeman handed over a suspected looter to an angry crowd. They stripped him, beat him, and set him on fire. We’ve also heard that some medical personnel are clearing the area because they don’t feel secure.

Sounds like another rather big ‘no’ vote.

I think I’ve amply proven the case that a week after the Haiti disaster a great deal separates what has been done from what could have been done.  I can’t help but remember how bitterly the left attacked Bush for the same failures following an unprecedented natural disaster.

This is what liberals would be saying about Barack Obama if they weren’t hypocrites: Barack Obama hates black people!!!  Barack Obama is creating a genocide of black people!!!

And Republican elected officials, if they were like Democrats, would be claiming accusing the Obama administration of “ethnic cleansing” in Haiti.

Because that’s how loathsome Democrats rolled just a few years back.  And yes, that’s right: the same Democrats who regard any criticism of Barack Obama as a form of blasphemy.

I was pointing that out last year during the Democrat National Convention when Democrats were STILL demonizing and demagoguing Bush for Hurricane Katrina.

The left ignored the fact that Hurricane Katrina was a supermassive disaster that simply overwhelmed the resources of the federal government regardless of who was in charge of it.  They ignored the fact that Bill Clinton hadn’t prepared New Orleans for such a disaster any better than George Bush did.  They ignored the fact that the heavily Democratic city of New Orleans and state of Louisiana had utterly failed to prepare, when such preparation should have been at the very core of their agenda.  They ignored details such as this:

The vultures of the venomous left are attacking on two fronts, first that the president didn’t do what the incompetent mayor of New Orleans and the pouty governor of Louisiana should have done, and didn’t, in the early hours after Katrina loosed the deluge on the city that care and good judgment forgot. Ray Nagin, the mayor, ordered a “mandatory” evacuation a day late, but kept the city’s 2,000 school buses parked and locked in neat rows when there was still time to take the refugees to higher ground. The bright-yellow buses sit ruined now in four feet of dirty water.

They ignored everything but their ideological agenda and the political axe-to-grind they had in their hands to swing at George Bush with.

And the propagandistic mainstream media helped them do it.

The same media that basically demanded that George Bush push a button and FIX New Orleans have gone out of their way to make excuses for the numerous failures in Haiti under Obama.

What is funny is that it was largely the attacks against Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina that led to the Democrat takeover of the House and the Senate in 2006.

Unemployment was 4.7% when the Democrats took over Congress.  It was 4.7% when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid assumed their respective majority leadership positions.  They have been in control of Congress ever since: and what is unemployment at now?

The Democrat Party/lamestream media narrative is that Bush was responsible for the economic meltdown because it happened during his watch.  There was never once a mention that it happened during Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s watch.  Because that particular narrative doesn’t fit their agenda.

George Bush called for reform of the housing finance market 17 times in 2008 alone — and Democrats ignored him.  They had been blocking his every effort to prevent disaster ever since Bush first tried to do so beginning in 2003.  At that time, Democrat Barney Frank led the effort to block reform, saying:

These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

George Bush and John McCain repeatedly warned that if we didn’t address the situation, we would suffer a financial collapse.

John McCain wrote an urgent letter in 2006 that read:

These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform. For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs—and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns.

In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

John McCain signed another letter that ended with these words:

With the fiscal challenges facing us today (deficits, entitlements, pensions and flood insurance), Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie or Freddie could not?

Substantial testimony calling for improved regulation of the GSEs has been provided to the Senate by the Treasury, Federal Reserve, HUD, GAO, CBO, and others. Congress has the opportunity to recommit itself to the housing mission of the GSEs while at the same time making sure the GSEs operate in a manner that does not expose our financial system, or taxpayers, to unnecessary risk. It is vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to ensure that these institutions benefit from strong and independent regulatory supervision, operate in a safe and sound manner, and are primarily focused on their statutory mission. More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American taxpayer is protected in the event either GSE should fail. We strongly support an effort to schedule floor time this year to debate GSE regulatory reform.

And they DID fail.  They massively, massively failed.

Only about a month before the whole system crashed, Barney Frank went on the record and said this:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: “I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.”

They sure were, you fat, miserable, loathsome, obscene, disgusting, slobbering, lying toad.

The top three headlines under the Google search “Fannie Mae collapse”:

Freddie, Fannie Scam Hidden in Broad Daylight

Financial Markets Reeling from Fannie & Freddie Collapse and Evitable Government Bailout

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Too big not to fail

But as our economy exploded along with the boondoggle housing finance market artificially sustained by Fannie and Freddie, the Democrats demagogued the Republicans.  And the lamestream media duly reported it as though it were all the liberal’s-god-socialist-big-government’s truth.

And thus you see how the liberal demagoguery surrounding Hurricane Katrina led to the liberal demagoguery surrounding the economic collapse.

And it just never stops.

The Obama White House has been rather shamelessly politicizing the Haitian earthquake disaster to bolster up its low support.

And even when Obama abandons Haiti to go to Massachusetts to prop up Democrat Martha Coakley’s failing candidacy, Democrats manage to demagogue over Haiti.

Bill Clinton, the Obama-appointed special envoy for Haiti, didn’t bother to go there, but focused on what was far more important: Martha Coakely’s election bid in Massachusetts.

Someone asked Bill Clinton about that, and he said that relief for Haiti and the election of Martha Coalkey in Massachusetts were “just two sides of the same coin.” The blatant and breathtaking politicization is mindboggling!!!

What would the mainstream media be saying about Republican George Bush literally turning his back on a disaster to fly north to Massachusetts to campaign for a Republican – bringing us special envoy to Haiti to do so with him – rather than turn south to deal with the Haiti disaster?  What would these demagogues who deceitfully call themselves “journalists” have said?

Even if you’re a liberal, you’re not stupid enough to realize that the media would have unleashed hell on earth to attack George Bush for such a partisan political act of abandonment.

And that’s what I’m really getting at.  The double standard between treatment of Democrats and Republicans is so massive it is positively unreal.  Obama can screw up every which way and the media will let it pass; Bush could hit a homerun and the media would declare it a foul ball and then attack him for his incredibly poor swing.

Meanwhile, of course, millions of Haitians are suffering, and not getting helped.

Just as millions of Americans are suffering, and not getting helped.

Meanwhile, the news media largely continues to spin the economy positively, even as more jobs were lost under Obama in 2009 than for any president in any year since 194o.

Update January 29:

HUMAN TRAFFICKING, FOOD RIOTS AND LACK OF MEDICINE PLAGUE HAITI
John G. Winder , The Cypress Times
Published 01/29/2010 – 10:28 a.m. CST

Mass graves. Tent cities.More than 90% of the nation’s structures damaged or destroyed. No food.Amputees and orphans left to fend for themselves.  Nearly all of the businesses gone.  No employment.  Yet it still gets worse for the people of Haiti.

Haiti’s Prime Ministery, Jean-Max Bellerive told CNN that he is receiving reports of children being stolen and trafficked as slaves, sex slaves and for the purpose of having their organs harvested to be sold.

“There is organ trafficking for children and other persons also, because they need all types of organs,” Bellerive said.

UNICEF is also reporting that children are being taken from hospitals by traffickers.

Had this happened under George Bush, with these results, the lamestream media would be attacking Bush as the most evil man since Hitler and the most incompetent buffoon since God created incompetent buffoons.

Just pointing out the obvious truth.

The Democrat Party As The Party Of The Clean, Light-Skinned, Coffee-Serving Negro

January 11, 2010

Apparently, liberal filmmaker Oliver Stone is planning to give Adolf Hitler the sympathetic treatment that the left could just never bring themselves to give to George Bush.  Said Stone:

“Stalin has a complete other story… Not to paint him as a hero, but to tell a more factual representation. He fought the German war machine more than any single person. We can’t judge people as only ‘bad’ or ‘good.’ Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and its been used cheaply. He’s the product of a series of actions.”

That pesky objective, transcendent Judeo-Christian morality.  Good thing we have postmodernist liberals around to tell us that we can’t judge whether Hitler and Stalin are ‘bad.’

Apparently, the left is willing to see anyone in a more favorable light.  Again, except for one George W. Bush.

That’s pretty much the way it is.  Liberals will give their own – even the most vile of their own – the benefit of the doubt.  The only unpardonable sin for these people is being a conservative.

A book entitled Game Change reveals Democrats demonstrating profound racism, with both Harry Reid and Bill Clinton letting us know what they REALLY think of their darker-hued brethren.

But the narrative is pretty much that they’re Democrats, so there clearly must be some other explanation other than racism.  And as long as other liberals agree that the liberals can’t have been racist, everything is clearly okay.  Just a slip of the tongue.  Nothing to see here.

It was just last month that Harry Reid invoked slavery to attack Republicans, which is to say that Republicans were as guilty of opposing health care as they were during the days of slavery.  Only, of course, it was DEMOCRATS who were the party of slavery, and it was Republicans – the Party of Lincoln – who literally went to war in their opposition to defeat the Democrat Party of slavery.

Well, the same mealy-mouthed racebaiter who insinuated that Republicans were racists last month is having his own racist attitudes revealed this month.

Two journalists, Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, made this assertion in a book to be released next Tuesday.

“He [Reid] was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama’s race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination,” they write.

Here is what Senator Reid had to say: “I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words,” Reid said in a statement to CNN. “I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments. “I was a proud and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama during the campaign and have worked as hard as I can to advance President Obama’s legislative agenda.”

I’m sure that Joe Biden quickly jumped in to add that the light-skinned African Americans are “clean” compared to the dark-skinned ones, too.

The funny thing is that Reid’s liberal defenders are pointing at “context.”  They claim that Harry Reid was speaking POSITIVELY about Barack Obama, so what Reid said really wasn’t all that bad.

But the “context” in which Harry Reid was speaking positively about Obama was that he was a “light-skinned” negro, rather than one of those foul, dirty DARKIES.  And what Harry Reid was marveling at was that Obama – unlike all those darkies – talks fancy white rather than that slovenly “negro dialect.”

I mean, seriously, if I were a dark-skinned black guy who occasionally said “ax” instead of “ask,” I’d be awfully pissed off at this arrogant elitist white bastard who leads the United States Senate – and at the party he belongs to.

Harry Reid’s Democrats weren’t nearly as forgiving toward Trent Lott as they think we should all be now.  Trent Lott was trying to honor long-serving US Senator Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday and made a comment that admittedly could have been said a LOT better.

The words that doomed Trent Lott’s political career:

“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

For what it’s worth, just to underscore the obvious massive hyperbole, Trent Lott in fact did NOT vote for Strom Thurmond; he was only seven years old when Thurmond ran.  Note, also, that Trent Lott did NOT say, “When Strom Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat segregationist, we voted for him so we could keep black folk in the back of the bus.”

He was trying to honor an elderly man who had landed in Normandy on D-Day with the 82nd Airborne Division, and been decorated for heroism, among other things.  Lott wasn’t honoring racism or segregation; he was simply honoring an old man who had been America’s longest serving US Senator.

Trent Lott apologized, too, and attempted to explain what he had intended to say.  But his words fell on deaf ears with Democrats screaming for his head.

Now, maybe Trent Lott should have resigned for his apparent racial insensitivity.  But only if Harry Reid should resign, now.

Barack Obama, who so “graciously” accepted his fellow Democrat’s apology, had no graciousness in his heart for Trent Lott.  He demanded Lott’s resignation.  And in the December 12, 2002 issue of the Chicago Defender, Obama had this to say:

The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party.”

And if the Democrat Party doesn’t want to be the Party of light-skinned African Americans who don’t have a Negro dialect, they should stand up and drive out Harry Reid.

When the Don Imus “nappy headed hoes” comment came out, Barack Obama tore into Imus, saying he should be fired.  But how are Harry Reid’s comments one iota less heinous than Imus’, particularly given that Imus’ words were at least offered as a joke, rather than as a serious and honest assessment, as Reid’s remarks were?

What if a Republican had said exactly the same thing that we now know Reid said?  Do you seriously think Obama would have benignly accepted his apology?  Or would the president have angrily told the country that the Republican “acted stupidly,” before really launching into him?

Michael Eric Dyson, a professor at Georgetown University, said it this way:

To be honest, the Republicans are given a high hand here because our side refuses to say anything that is even intelligible or coherent about the issue of race and to sweep it under the carpet as if it makes no difference. If a white Republican had said this, this would be huge news. They would be making hay out of it, calling for his resignation. I think we’re hypocrites and we’re morally weak here.

[Youtube video]

And how about Harry Reid?  How did Reid deal with the remarks made by Trent Lott, his Senate colleague from the other side of the aisle?  He uttered words that now resound with rank, vile hypocrisy:

“He had no alternative,” said Reid at the time claiming, “If you tell ethnic jokes in the backroom, it’s that much easier to say ethnic things publicly. I’ve always practiced how I play.”

Yeah, we sure see how you practice and how you play now, don’t we, Harry?

Trent Lott is GONE for lifting up a 100 year old man on his birthday.  And he didn’t even say anything about light-skinned versus dark skinned Negroes, or Negroes with versus without “Negro dialect.”

Let me ask you a question: one day soon, Senator Robert Byrd will retire from the US Senate.  Do you think that Democrats will say kind words or harsh words about the career of the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan?

What will they say to honor the man who once said:

“The Ku Klux Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth in West Virginia”.

What are they going to say to honor the man who once wrote:

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944

Shall we stipulate up front that every single Democrat who ever has had or ever will have a single kind word to say about Senator Robert Byrd or his career be required to submit his or her resignation and forever afterward wear a scarlet “R”?

Democrats were the party of slavery, and the party of the Klu Klux Klan (and see the link here for a thorough treatment).  They were the party of the Klanbake at the 1924 Democrat National Convention.

But at some point, the Democrat Party began to morph into the party of the immediate post-civil war reconstruction, when elitist whites decided that ignorant, inferior blacks couldn’t do anything for themselves.  They needed whites to lead them.

They went from being the Confederate Party of institutionalized slavery to the Union Party of the white benefactor, as epitomized by the words of the Colonel James Montgomery character in the movie Glory:

“They’re little monkey children, for God’s sake. And you just gotta know how to control them.”

Good little monkey child.  Keep voting for us and we’ll keep handing out bananas.

Although, to be fair, in the case of Harry Reid, apparently we’re only talking about the DARK-skinned Negroes.

If you can’t own them outright, then bribe them with handouts until you basically DO own them.

Here’s what should be a famous line after Obama was elected:

“I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help he is going to help me.”

This exchange should be even more famous:

KEN ROGULSKI: Why are you here?

WOMAN: To get some money.

ROGULSKI: What kind of money?

WOMAN: Obama money.

ROGULSKI: Where’s it coming from?

WOMAN: Obama.

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?

WOMAN: I don’t know. His stash. I don’t know. I don’t know where he got it from but he’s giving it to us, to help us. We love him. That’s why we voted for him. Obama! Obama!

Another line of dialogue from the movie Glory comes to mind, with Sgt. Major John Rawlins telling an embittered and defeatist Private Tripp:

“And dying’s what these white boys been doin’ for goin’ on three years now.

Dyin’ by the thousands.  Dyin’ for you, fool!

I know, ’cause l dug the graves.

And all the time I’m diggin’, I’m asking myself, “When?”  When, O Lord, is it gonna be our time?”

Time’s comin’ when we’re gonna have to ante up.  Ante up and kick in like men.  Like men!

You watch who you call a nigger.  If there’s any niggers around here, it’s you.”

And in the film Pvt. Tripp DID “ante up.”

That’s what the Party of Lincoln wanted for black people going on 150 years ago; and it’s what we want for black people today.  Now, as back then, we want black Americans to be able to ante up like men and take responsibility for their own lives rather than leashing themselves to the welfare lifestyle and race-based preferences.  And live in the pride, dignity and freedom that such self-responsibility engenders.

Blacks were slaves to the Democrats into the 1860s.  And then beginning in the 1960s they started becoming slaves to the Democrats again.  Today the Democrat Party owns their vote, even though the Democrat Party is the party of the four deadly S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.  Meanwhile, in the words of wised-up former leftist radical David Horowitz, “black Americans are the human shields of the Democrat Party.”

And they were far more noble in the 1860s, because unlike today, they didn’t sell themselves into slavery for welfare checks, “community reinvestment” loans, affirmative action quotas, and all the other programs that so corrode the black community today.

That’s the gist that emerges from my reading of Anne Wortham’s incredibly powerful article, “No He Can’t.”  She ends her article saying:

You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine – what little there is left – for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

The very worst of shackles are the kind you put on yourself.

And worst of all, blacks have been co-opted into participating in their own genocide.  While blacks only account for less than 14% of the population, 36% of all abortions in the United States kill black babies.  Half of all black pregnancies end in abortion.  And black babies are five times more likely to be killed in the womb than white babies.  The liberal and Democrat-supported Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist eugenicist who shared the same views as liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

“Frankly I had thought that at that 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.” — 7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

And we find that the targeted killing of black babies is still very much at the heart of the liberal and Democrat pro-abortion agenda today.

Alveda C. King writes of this Democrat Party-supported holocaust:

[Martin Luther King, Jr.] once said, “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.” How can the “Dream” survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate.

When will blacks turn away from the Democrat Party and say, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”?  (as spoken by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., registered Republican).

Harry Reid’s comments are excused because Harry Reid is a Democrat – and I suppose that racism is simply to be expected of these people.

I leave you not with Harry Reid’s racism, but with the transparent racism of the previous Democrat president – a man who was actually called “the first black president” – Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton told Ted Kennedy that Obama ‘would be getting us coffee’ a few years ago: ‘Game Change’

BY Helen Kennedy
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Sunday, January 10th 2010, 2:44 PM

Bill Clinton helped sink his wife’s chances for an endorsement from Ted Kennedy by belittling Barack Obama as nothing but a race-based candidate.

“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,” the former president told the liberal lion from Massachusetts, according to the gossipy new campaign book, “Game Change.”

The book says Kennedy was deeply offended and recounted the conversation to friends with fury.

After Kennedy sided with Obama, Clinton reportedly griped, “the only reason you are endorsing him is because he’s black. Let’s just be clear.”

The revelations in “Game Change” are guaranteed to reopen the 2008 Clinton racial wounds that had been scabbing over amid his post-election public silence and his wife’s high marks as Secretary of State.

Laden with potent pass-the-torch symbolism, the January 2008 endorsement of Obama by Kennedy and his niece, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg was a pivotal campaign moment that allowed the Democratic establishment to abandon the Clintons.

Bill Clinton wasn’t the only one to bungle handling the Kennedys –  the book says Hillary Clinton managed to alienate Caroline by fobbing off a key request on staff instead of calling personally.

When a group of prominent New Yorkers headed to Iowa to campaign for Hillary Clinton, Caroline “dreaded” getting a call to join them because she “would have found it impossible to refuse,” the book says.

When Hillary Clinton’s staffer called, someone “who sounded awfully like” Caroline said she wasn’t home.

Bill Clinton, whose stock with black voters was so high he used to be referred to as “America‘s First Black President,” severely damaged his rep in his overheated drive to help elect his wife.

The Democrat Party stands nakedly revealed.

Martin Luther King famously 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.

Well, at least Harry Reid grants that wish to light-skinned African Americans who don’t have a Negro dialect; Bill Clinton even wants that group of blacks relegated to serving coffee.

Frankly, while Harry Reid owes black people more than just an apology, he owes white people more than just an apology, too.  Why?  Because he assumed that all the other white people thought in the same racist terms that he did.

I suppose it’s possible that whites were dumb enough to think that way last year.  But they sure aren’t thinking that way now.

I end with what liberals need to hear:

Dear Liberals,

Please be advised that your Race Card account has been closed.  This decision was based on your account history of excessive over-limit spending.  Please destroy your card immediately as it will no longer be honored.

Sincerely,
The American People

.

Barack Obama for President of God Damn America

October 13, 2008

John Edwards to his class warfare cue from Karl Marx and turned “the proletariat vs. the bourgeoisie” dialectic into “two Americas.”

Well, I think that both Marx and Edwards are full of crap; but there clearly are two Americas these days.

I think that Barack Obama’s pastor, spiritual mentor, and member of the family for 23 years hit the “two Americas” nail closer to the head.  Jeremiah Wright said there were two Americas, too:

No, no, no, not ‘God Bless America,’ ‘God Damn America.’

There’s the United States of God bless America, and there’s the United States of God damn America.  Ronald Reagan tried to lead us toward the former, and Barack Obama will try to lead us toward the latter.  And we shouldn’t confuse Wright’s and Obama’s two America’s anymore than we should confuse Marx’s and Edwards’ version.

Am I being unfair?  Absolutely not.

Barack Obama made this church – and its theology, and its pastor, and its congregation – his home for 23 years.  That’s a long time.  It’s way past long enough to realize that you’ve made a mistake.  And it’s way, way past long enough to claim ignorance as an excuse.  How many years can you freely choose to immerse yourself in an environment before you become personally responsible for your choice?

The leftist Rolling Stone had this to say:

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama’s life, or his politics. The senator “affirmed” his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a “sounding board” to “make sure I’m not losing myself in the hype and hoopla.” Both the title of Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright’s sermons. “If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from,” says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, “just look at Jeremiah Wright.”

So I’m looking at him.

John McCain once had the famous line that “I looked into Putin’s eyes and I saw K.G.B.”  Well, when I look into Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama’s eyes I see, “God damn America.”

The whole nation looked at Jeremiah Wright, and we all heard him shout, “God damn America!”  And how Barack Obama’s congregation cheered and applauded when Rev. Wright shouted, “No, no, no.  Not God bless America.  God damn America!”  We heard him viciously attack America and white Americans on any number of fronts.  Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years – who married him, bappized his children, and was like family to him – said that racism was how this country was founded and how it is still run.  He said that America was the number one killer in the world.  He said that we immorally bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki without batting an eye.  He said that we killed women and children by bombing Cambodia, Iraq, and Nicaragua (where Marxist liberation theology came from). He said 9/11 was merely America’s own chickens coming home to roost and we deserved to be attacked by terrorists because WE were the real terrorist.  He said that the government gives black people drugs just so it can put them in prison.  He said that AIDS is a white-America-created genocide against black people.  He spelled America with three KKKs.  The very sermon that so inspired Obama that it inspired his book title, “The Audacity of Hope,” had the phrase, “white greed drives a world in need.”

If you would have sat through that year after year, then you vote for the man who did sit through it year after year.  Vote for God damn America.

Jeremiah Wright preached his famous “God damn America” message and all the others before thousands of Barack Obama’s fellow congregation more than five years ago.  Barack Hussein Obama’s pastor preached a lot of vicious, vile, racist, and profoundly anti-American stuff while Obama’s fellow congregants stood up and cheered.  And it never bothered Barack Obama one little bit until the public started finding out about it.

Obama said he wasn’t ever at the church when anything REALLY bad was said.  But how could such an intelligent man be so completely ignorant, and be such a pathetic judge of character?  Thousands of his friends heard those messages, and the same vicious stuff that was coming out of Jeremiah Wright’s mouth on Sundays was similarly featured in the Church’s Trumpet Magazine (which featured Obama on its cover several times). Even AFTER those “soundbites” came out, Obama continued to sit on the fence.  He said he could no more disown Wright than he could disown the black community.  In the same way that we would later find out that Obama did not care about the terrorist past of William Ayers – whom Obama partnered with to advance a “education” agenda that taught children radicalism rather than “the Three R’s,” Obama revealed how comfortable he was to be immersed in a radicalized environment.

He continued to remain in the church after ALL of the above sermon messages surfaced, and he remained in the church until it became more of a political liability than an asset.

Barack Hussein Obama has known about Jeremiah Wright’s radical nature from day one, and embraced it.  The Rolling Stone biography of Obama continues:

In his 1993 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” Obama recounts in vivid detail his first meeting with Wright in 1985. The pastor warned the community activist that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church’s radical reputation.

And that incredibly radical influence is very much a part of him, as the Rolling Stone article embraces:

Obama has now spent two years in the Senate and written two books about himself, both remarkably frank: There is a desire to own his story, to be both his own Boswell and his own investigative reporter. When you read his autobiography, the surprising thing — for such a measured politician — is the depth of radical feeling that seeps through, the amount of Jeremiah Wright that’s packed in there. Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising.

It isn’t at all surprising that a man who spent 23 years immersing himself in the radical theology of a radical spiritual guru at a radical and racist church would himself be a radical.  What is incredibly surprising is that so many millions of voters would so ignorantly and so naively dismiss that background and embrace the man who was so profoundly shaped by it.

So they are voting for God damn America.

I’m not going to try to tell anyone not to vote for God damn America.  If you want it, vote for it.  I’m simply saying, don’t be an uninformed ignorant fool who doesn’t even have a clue who the man he or she is voting for actually is.  You aren’t what you say in your flowerly speech; you’re what you do.  And for the overwhelming majority of Barack Hussein Obama’s life, he has been a willing part and participant in God damn America.  Open your eyes.

Iraq War Justified: Lessons from Saddam’s History (Part 1)

May 5, 2008

In short: the war in Iraq was justified. There were good reasons for the United States’ attacking Iraq when we did.

I am so tired of hearing the “Bush lied, people died” mantra and the labels of “fascist” being liberally applied to President Bush by liberals that I want to provide the underlying justification for the war. While I do not claim that my justification for the war against Iraq is the best one out there, I am frustrated by the lack of pro-American accounts of the war being offered in the media.

Let me begin by providing an offering of articles prior to the LAST war with Iraq. Prior to Saddam Hussein’s attack and subsequent rape of Kuwait, it is simply mind boggling to contemplate the refusal of both media and government intellectuals to comprehend Saddam Hussein’s clearly-stated intentions. The man had massed tens of thousands of troops on the border; the man had vowed to attack Kuwait in public speech after public speech. But this is a smattering of what the “experts” believed in the days immediately prior to August 2nd, 1990, when Iraqi tanks and troops poured into the tiny country of Kuwait:

Time Magazine had the following story by Jill Smolowe on 11 June 1990, less than two months before Saddam invaded:

“… most are convinced that Saddam is cunningly sane. “He is not a lunatic,” says a high- ranking Israeli intelligence official. “He is a megalomaniac, but he is rational.” Concurs Philip Robins, head of Middle East programs at the London- based Royal Institute of International Affairs: “He is not driven by ideology or whim. He coldly calculates every move.”

For that reason Saddam is not likely to do anything that would jeopardize his standing either in Iraq or in the Middle East. Many Western analysts believe Saddam would not be so foolish as to initiate a first strike against Israel, a move that would invite only his destruction.

The article concluded:

“The U.S. Administration and Middle East moderates, including Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Hussein, feel that the best antidote to Saddam’s potential barbarity is to keep him engaged in dialogue. In November 1988 the U.S. used quiet diplomacy to extract from Saddam a promise that he would not be first, in future, to use chemical weapons. Despite his confrontational tone in Baghdad last week, Saddam signed on to a watered-down communique that fell short of his call for oil sanctions against the U.S. That was only a minor victory for the region’s moderates, who have much to fear from Saddam’s breed of radicalism. But it provided some encouragement that as long as they can keep Saddam talking, there is hope of persuading him to pursue a more reasonable course.”

Well, shoot, maybe dialogue and diplomacy doesn’t work every time? Maybe at some point it actually becomes counter-productive, in that it prevents us from taking essential steps in a timely manner? Hey, maybe reasonably intelligent people might conclude that we shouldn’t count on such diplomacy working the next time we had a go-around with Saddam Hussein? (Of course, the words reasonably intelligent exclude liberals, who are rarely ever either reasonable or intelligent). The point is that those who are ignorant to the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat the failures of the past.

But let us continue on our tour of the “experts'” “analysis” of the buildup to Gulf War I:

On 3 April 1990, Nick B. Williams, Jr. and Daniel Williams of the Los Angeles Times wrote a page one story under the headline, “Iraq Threatens Israel with Use of Nerve Gas.” But the Times’ story went with the assesment of an expert from London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies who dismissed the threat as “good propoganda, saber-rattling stuff.”

The Washington Post had a 2 July 1990 story by Caryle Murphy and Jackson Diehl titled, “New Middle East War Seen Unlikely; Threats, Saber-Rattling Abound, but Deterrents Curb Both Sides” on 2 July 1990, one month before Saddam invaded. It began: Rumors of war are sweeping through a tense Middle East, but the region’s military and political balance weighs against the outbreak of a new Arab-Israeli conflict, in the view of a wide range of officials and experts.

And, on the same day that the Post dismissed Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait as a nonevent, a headline on the washington Times on 2 July 1990 headline read, “New Middle East War Seen Unlikely.”

The media “experts” were wrong, wronger, wrongest and wrong all over again.

But official government “experts” were every bit as wrong. Let’s not omit the failings of the “geniuses” who draw their paychecks from the public dole:

In November of 1989, a DIA assessment concluded, “Iraq is unlikely to launch military operations against any of its Arab neighbors over the next three years… To protect its image of moderation, Iraq is unlikely to take military action against Kuwait.

On 20 July 1990, the DIA advised top Pentagon officials that “Iraq is unlikely to use significant force against Kuwait,” though it concluded that “small-scale incursions are possible.”

On 25 July 1990, a Defense Special Assessment stated, “Iraq is using rhetoric, diplomatic pressure, and significant military posturing to force Kuwait to comply with recent oil and economic demands. Although unlikely to use military pressure, Iraq is marshalling forces sufficient to invade Kuwait.”

On 27 July 1990 – just six days before the invasion – the DIA actually reported to top Pentagon and Bush administration officials that “tensions between Baghdad and Kuwait are subsiding… Kuwait will give Saddam most of what he wants to avoid military confrontation.”

On 2 August 1990, Saddam Hussein poured his forces into hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned Kuwait. The brutality that would follow would shock and stun the world.

Newsflash: we can’t see into either an evil mind or an evil country and know what it is doing or what its intentions are. If we’re smart, we’ll quit believing we can.

In his book Epicenter, Joel C. Rosenberg writes: “As the summer progressed, I kept asking experts throughout Washington, “Doesn’t all the evidence add up to an invasion, not just bluster?” Most of them said no. And it was not only what they said, it was how they said it, as if the only sophisticated, intellectually-defensible answer was “Of course not, you uneducated moron” (45).

Interestingly, this perspective is offered by a man who, in his novels, had predicted that the United States would attack Iraq, and predicted that a plane flown by an Islamic terrorist would deliberately crash into an American building – both BEFORE the events occurred. A 3 Nov 2003 article by Paul Bedard of U.S. News & World Report refers to Rosenberg as a “modern Nostradamus” and begins, “It’s getting a little weird being Joel Rosenberg…” Rosenberg thinks and writes from the perspective of an informed man who believes in God and in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures – including such prophetic passages as Ezekiel chapters 37 and 38. Beginning on page 40 of Epicenter, Rosenberg describes how he relied on Scripture to creatively reason to a vision of the future. He realized that only two Islamic countries were not mentioned as taking part in the last days invasion of Israel led by what is modern-day Russia and Iran: Modern day Egypt and Iraq. Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel that has lasted some 35 years; but Rosenberg couldn’t understand how an Iraq under Saddam Hussein would refuse to take part in such an attack. So, as a plot device, he “overthrew” Saddam at the hands of a U.S. invasion.

Secular liberals will enjoy calling Joel Rosenberg “a religious lunatic” until they run out of breath, but nobody can deny that Rosenberg accurately understood events in the Middle East, and the secular-minded “experts” did not. Based on his track record alone – in which he understood before the events what these experts failed to understand even as the events were unfolding right before their eyes – the man deserves a hearing.

He continues:

A miscalculation of such magnitude simply boggles the mind. This was not a secret conspiracy plotted in the shadowy caves of Afghanistan. To the contrary, Saddam Hussein had broadcast his ambitions and his intentions to the whole world. He amassed tens of thousands of men and hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of military equipment on Kuwait’s border in full view of U.S. spy satellites and Western news reporters. Yet so few believed him. Why? How could people so smart, so well versed in ancient and modern history, and so well informed by the best classified intelligence money can buy have so badly misread the situation?

Again, the answer lies not in the failure of inteligence gathering per se but a failure of imagination. The experts simply refused to believe that Saddam was so evil that he would order the rape and pillaging of an Arab neighbor. They refused to believe that he was so evil that he would launch thirty-nine Scud missiles against Israel, and more Scuds against Saudi Arabia. What’s more, they refused to believe Saddam when he described himself as a “modern Nebuchadnezzar,” one of the most evil tyrants ever described in the Bible. And therin lies the problem.

Too many in Washington today have a modern, Western, secular mind-set that either discounts – or outright dismisses – the fact that evil is a real and active force in history. They insist on interpreting events only through the lenses of politics and economics. Yet to misunderstand the nature and threat of evil is to risk being blindsided by it, and that is precisely what happened on August 2, 1990, and September 11, 2001. Washington was blindsided by an evil it did not understand, just as it had been blindsided by Auschwitz, Dachau, and Pearl Harbor, and much as I believe it will be blindsided by future events (pp. 46-77).

In other words, the “experts” do not understand religion, and they utterly fail to comprehend human nature, or human evil (which they frequently dismiss as a religiously manufactured concept). Before I proceed with my justification for war against Iraq, let me digress for a bit on the refusal to understand the nature of evil, which I hope will serve to provide a landscape for the decision as to whether to invade Iraq.

Even today, the U.S. government, as well as the media, routinely talk about the politics and economics of the crisis in the Middle East. I have for years routinely heard discussions about poverty and desperation in the Islamic world, and discussions as to what extent American foreign policy is bringing the Muslim violence and cries for more violence about. But again, we’re not listening. The 19 men who carried out the 9/11 attacks were educated members of affluent families. Our experts – who think they know everything – didn’t understand a word from the people who carried out these attacks. And they’re still not listening. We talk in terms of the political, the economic, and the military situation in Iraq and in the Middle East and completely forget the one thing that matters most: the religious extremist view of the jihadist terrorist.

Listen to the videotaped speeches of Osama bin Laden or any of the spokespeople for al Qaeda, and you will clearly hear them telling you – literally again and again – that 9/11 was a religious act, just as the war being carried out against the Great Satan (that’s the United States) and the Little Satan (that’s Israel) was and continues to be a religious act. And – as difficult as it is for Western Europeans brought up under the Judeo-Christian worldview – we must try to understand this vision of the world that seeks our submission or death.

We frankly still haven’t even begun to address the religious dimensions of Islamic terrorism, simply because the same “experts” who inform our thinking fundamentally don’t understand religion and therefore don’t understand the nature of evil. And so they simply choose to ignore the elephant in the room.

Let me now turn to a discussion of the magnitude of Saddam Hussein’s moral evil. Again, it was right before the world’s eyes all along, but somehow the secular humanist “experts” – in failing to understand Saddam’s evil – also completely failed to understand the actions that this moral monster would take.

I “googled” the keywords ‘Iraq, mass graves, rape, torture, Hussein‘ (without commas or quotes), and was frankly stunned by the content found in links appearing at the top of the list. Some of the articles literally trivialized Saddam Hussein’s brutality, and fixated instead on the abuses of the U.S. detention facility known as Abu Ghraib. The idea was to make the United States under President Bush as evil as Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Now, please don’t get me wrong; the abuses of Iraqi detainees under U.S. custody were despicable. But in the overwhelming number of cases, these abuse involved psychological humiliation rather than genuine physical torture. No one was discovered to have been slowly lowered into barrels of acid, or to have had holes drilled into their heads with power drills. It is noteworthy that the subsequent investigation found that – with 7,000 detainees versus 450 inadequately-trained guards – the command structure simply broke down. In this environment, a few soldiers demonstrated that evil is something any people can manifest. Nevertheless, of the nine U.S. servicemen convicted, no officers were found to have been directly involved in either their own actions or their orders to their subordinates. And no one was convicted for anything resembling homicide.

Now allow me to contrast the travesty of Abu Ghraib with actions taken under the rule of Saddam Hussein:

Saddam’s oldest son, Uday, as commander of the Fedayeen Saddam, publicly beheaded more than 200 women throughout the country. The Iraqi Government systematically used rape and the sexual assault of women to extract information and force confessions from detained family members; to intimidate Iraqi opposition members by sending videotapes showing the rape of female family members; and to blackmail Iraqi men into future cooperation with the regime. Some Iraqi authorities even carried government personnel cards identifying their official “activity” as the “violation of women’s honor” – literally a license to rape in the name of “official business.” In addition to systematic and repeated acts of rape, women in Saddam’s jails were subjected to tortures such as brutal beatings, electrical shocks, and branding. And the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women reported that more than 4,000 women have been victims of so-called “honor killings” just since Article 111 went into effect in 1990.

But that these crimes against Iraqi women are just the tip of the iceberg. Saddam committed genocide on a scale not seen since Pol Pot. A USAID report contains the following:

Since the Saddam Hussein regime was overthrown in May, 270 mass graves have been reported. By mid-January, 2004, the number of confirmed sites climbed to fifty-three. Some graves hold a few dozen bodies—their arms lashed together and the bullet holes in the backs of skulls testimony to their execution. Other graves go on for hundreds of meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies.

“We’ve already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves,” said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20 in London. The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein’s regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. “Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been ‘disappeared’ by the Iraqi government over the past two decades,” said the group in a statement in May. “Many of these ‘disappeared’ are those whose remains are now being unearthed in mass graves all over Iraq.”

If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot’s Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.

And the numbers HAVE proven accurate. Realize: 400,000 bodies had been discovered as of January 2004. Over a million Iraqi people have simply vanished. Saddam Hussein has a lengthy documented record of unending brutality and genocide. Another official source contains the following:

Mass graves in Iraq are characterized as unmarked sites containing at least six bodies. Some can be identified by mounds of earth piled above the ground or as deep pits that appear to have been filled. Some older graves are more difficult to identify, having been covered by vegetation and debris over time. Sites have been discovered in all regions of the country and contain members of every major religious Examination of mass grave sites by the coalition team and local Iraqis. CPA photo and ethnic group in Iraq as well as foreign nationals, including Kuwaitis and Saudis. Over 250 sites have been reported, of which approximately 40 have been confirmed to date. Over one million Iraqis are believed to be missing in Iraq as a result of executions, wars and defections, of whom hundreds of thousands are thought to be in mass graves.

Most of the graves discovered to date correspond to one of five major atrocities perpetrated by the regime.

* The 1983 attack against Kurdish citizens belonging to the Barzani tribe, 8,000 of whom were rounded up by the regime in northern Iraq and executed in deserts at great distances from their homes.
* The 1988 Anfal campaign, during which as many as 182,000 people disappeared. Most of the men were separated from their families and were executed in deserts in the west and southwest of Iraq. The remains of some of their wives and children have also been found in mass graves.
* Chemical attacks against Kurdish villages from 1986 to 1988, including the Halabja attack, when the Iraqi Air Force dropped sarin, VX and tabun chemical agents on the civilian population, killing 5,000 people immediately and causing long-term medical problems, related deaths, and birth defects among the progeny of thousands more.
* The 1991 massacre of Iraqi Shi’a Muslims after the Shi’a uprising at the end of the Gulf war, in which tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians in such regions as Basra and Al-Hillah were killed.
* The 1991 Kurdish massacre, which targeted civilians and soldiers who fought for autonomy in northern Iraq after the Gulf war.

Opponents and critics of the regime from all religious and ethnic groups were also executed and buried in mass graves. Many of these are believed to be located at or near prisons and former military establishments.

These crimes have acquired a measure of notoriety and salience. Thousands of other Iraqis, including Marsh Arabs, Shi’a Muslims in the 1970s and 1980s, and students involved in uprisings in Najaf in 1999 may also be lying in mass graves in Iraq.

In short, the people who wrote these articles blithely comparing what they label American “atrocities” to Saddam’s massive crimes against humanity are moral idiots who could have served in Joseph Goebbel’s Reich Propaganda Office. They are genuinely stupid people, not because they have low IQs (which would amount to an acceptable excuse), but because they are so radically committed to a perverse worldview that they are unable to look beyond their own political causes to see the world either as it really is, or as it really should be. A normal person does not look at what occurred at Abu Ghraib, and what occurred under Saddam Hussein’s vicious, genocidal regime and view them as equivocal. Such people are incapable of experiencing moral outrage beyond their own narcissistic, perverted, narrow-minded ideological agendas.

There are as many as one million Iraqi people lying dead in unmarked graves as a direct result of Saddam Hussein’s brutal tyranny.

Jano Rosebiani, a filmmaker of the documentary “Saddam’s Mass Graves” held a press conference with two survivors of Saddam Hussein’s torture and mass murders, and – under the title “Unearthed Mass Graves: Iraqis Coming to Terms with Their Past” – said:

And I hope these two films will reach the American public, because it is somewhat apparent that there is a lot of misinformation. There are films that are coming out that are actually belittling what has happened to the Iraqi people, how life was under Saddam, and that the American public has the right to know the type of dictator we had, the type of terror we had, who we hope is the last one of his kind. As you see, the past century had a handful of them, and let’s hope Saddam is the last one. But we can only do that if we fully understand the extent of his crimes and we all work together as a human body, as human beings, and help prevent the creation of such dictators. And that could only be possible by removing Saddam. And I think the greatest gift of life that has been given to the Iraqis — myself, I’m an Iraqi Kurd from the north — was the removal of Saddam, because otherwise, the many mass graves we already have in Iraq — we have an Iraq of 22 million people sitting on mass graves — there would have been tenfold more for the many years to come.

Those who trivialize Saddam Hussein’s brutality and emphasize the United States’ complicity with evil do so because a realization of the true extent of Saddam Hussein’s genocide would become a defacto justification for the invasion – and they will not allow that. But the fact remains: Saddam Hussein was so completely evil that he would pose a threat to the world as long as he remained in power. We were right to remove such a monster.

David Hirsch, describing the disintigration process of the collective psyche actualized by the postmodern (what he also calls the “post-Auschwitz” dehumanism) provided this account from Bruno Bettelheim, a psychologist who spent a year at Dachau and Buchenwald prior to the the “Final Solution” beginning in 1939: The most dedicated followers of the Nazi state were destroyed as persons in our sense, as may be seen from … the story of Rudolph Hoess, commander of Auschwitz…. While his physical death came later, he became a living corpse, from the time he assumed command of Auschwitz … But he had to divest himself so entirely of self-respect and self-love, of feeling and personality, that for all practical purposes he was little more than a machine functioning only as his superiors flicked the buttons of command” (David H. Hirsch, The Deconstruction of Literature: Criticism after Auschwiz, 1991), p. 247.

I submit that not only were the torturers and murderers of Saddam Hussein’s regime so dehumanized, but so also – albeit to lesser extents – are the individuals who would trivialize Iraq’s brutality under Saddam Hussein as a rhetorical device for the purpose of denying American legitimacy. Something is missing in these people.

After the 9/11 attacks on 11 September 2001 which left 3,000 Americans dead, the question facing President George W. Bush was a simple one: are we willing to be so blindsided again with yet another terrorist attack, this time with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons being involved; or should we proactively attempt to prevent an attack that could be much, much worse? If these terrorists had possessed WMD, would they have hesitated to use them? Should we trust a man like Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass terror and destruction? Should we assume that he would never allow them to be used against the United States or one of its close allies?

I wonder how many conversations George W. Bush had with his father, former president George H.W. Bush, who had found himself so surprised by the evil of Saddam Hussein – an evil none of his “experts” considered – prior to his decision to end the regime of Saddam once for all. Perhaps one day we will know. I look forward to reading President Bush’s memoirs for that singular reason. In any event, after being so blindsided once by “experts” who strenuously argued that Saddam wouldn’t dare invade a fellow Arab state, President Bush II was determined that the United States would not be blindsided by Saddam Hussein or his demonic evil again in the new post-9/11 world. Once bitten, twice shy.

Naysayers point to an inability to link Saddam Hussein with al Qaeda, and in many cases they point to the claims of the same “experts” (who have proven so wrong in the past) that a secularist such as Saddam would never work with terrorists or terrorist organizations. But the fact is, Saddam Hussein HAS worked with terrorists.

Saddam Hussein was providing a $10,000 payment to Palestinian gunmen killed during firefights with Israelis and a $25,000 payment to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (see also this BBC account of the same program). If that isn’t enough to dispel the myth that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism, former Iraqi intelligence agents have detailed a terrorist training camp located at Salman Pak, Iraq, in which both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations. Given such established links between Saddam’s Iraq and terrorism, who can rationally make the case that Saddam Hussein would not possibly clandestinely provide WMD weapons to terrorists? You don’t need videotape of Saddam Hussein shaking hands with Osama bin Laden: all you need is a realization of the evil of both men, and an awareness of the anti-American agenda both men clearly share in common.

I found an article that was eye-opening in terms of what we knew, what we thought we knew, and what we believed but could never hope to verify, concerning what was going on in secretive, totalitarian Iraq in the years immediately preceding the second American invasion in 2003. Sorry to inform you liberals, but it comes right out of your own crew over over at PBS.

From 1991 to 1998 UNSCOM and IAEA carried out numerous inspections in Iraq, but with varying degrees of success.

For the first few years, Iraqi officials failed to disclose much of their special weapons programs to the inspectors. In 1995, Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law Kamel Hussein defected. He had been in charge of the bioweapons program and revealed to UNSCOM that there was a vast arsenal of weapons they had failed to uncover, including biological weapons, and described how the Iraqis were hiding them. This was a breakthrough for the inspection teams, and they continued their work until 1998, when Iraq blocked further access and expelled UNSCOM…

In summary, the IAEA report says that following the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Iraq launched a “crash program” to develop a nuclear weapon quickly by extracting weapons grade material from safe-guarded research reactor fuel. This project, if it had continued uninterrupted by the war, might have succeeded in producing a deliverable weapon by the end of 1992. [PBS source: Tracking Nuclear Proliferation, a Guide in Maps and Charts, 1998, Rodney W. Jones and Mark G. NcDonough, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (1998). p. 191]…

Nuclear physicist and Iraqi defector Khidhir Hamza agrees. He told FRONTLINE that Iraq did not relinquish certain critical components of the nuclear program to the inspectors, and that it retains the expertise necessary to build a nuclear weapon. He believes that Iraq may have one completed within the next couple of years.

Note: IAEA was allowed back into Iraq in January 2000 and again in January 2001. But its inspectors were blocked from full access inspections…

The following information is found under the section titled, ” Iraq’s Biological Weapons (BW) Program“:

Between 1991 and 1998, UN inspectors conducted more than 70 inspections into Iraq’s biological warfare activities. In its 1999 final report to the U.N. Security Council, UNSCOM noted that Iraq’s biological warfare program was “among the most secretive of its programs of weapons of mass destruction.” It said that Iraq “took active steps” to conceal the program, including “inadequate disclosures, unilateral destruction, and concealment activities.” Therefore, the Commission concluded, “it has not been possible to verify” Iraq’s statements about the extent and nature of its biological weapons program.”

A 58 page annex to the final report describes what the Commission was able to learn about the BW program, despite Iraq’s concealment activities, and documents discrepancies between what Iraq claimed to have developed, or destroyed, and the physical evidence. Some of the findings include:

* Extensive BW program: Iraq had an extensive BW program from 1973 until at least 1991. In mid-1995, Iraq admitted that it had weaponized BW agents, but claimed that the entire BW program had been in “obliterated” in 1991 and that all BW weapons had been destroyed and all bulk BW agents had been deactivated. The Commission found, however, that the evidence produced in support of this claim was not credible, and that Iraq “retained suitable growth media, BW facilities, production equipment, teams of expert personnel, and the essential technical knowledge” after 1991.

* Bulk production: In July, 1995, Iraq acknowledged that between 1988 and 1991, it had produced two BW agents in bulk: botulinum toxin and Bacillus anthracis spores (anthrax). Iraq reported 19,180 liters of botulinum toxin (10-20 fold concentrated) and 8445 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores (10 fold concentrated). UNSCOM found, however, that “bulk warfare agent production appears to be considerably understated,” given the resources available to Iraq’s BW program, including growth media and fermenter capacity. The Commission said that the production rate of Botulinum toxin could be as much as double the stated amount, and 3 times greater than that stated for Bacillus anthracis spores.Iraq claimed that it unilaterally destroyed more than 7500 liters of the Botulinum toxin and 3412 liters of Bacillus anthracis spores in 1991; UNSCOM noted that there was not evidence to support quantities claimed to be destroyed. The report concludes “the Commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed… and that a BW capability does not exist in Iraq.”Iraq also claims to have produced lesser quantities of clostridium perfringens spores, ricin, and wheat cover smut.

* BW Warheads: Iraq claimed to have produced 25 Al-Hussein missile warheads and filled them with BW agents. The Commission found that there was no credible evidence to show that only 25 missiles were produced and filled. Iraq declared that the 25 missiles were unilaterally destroyed; the Commission found enough physical evidence to account for the declared quantities of BW warheads, but the location of the remnants were inconsistent with Iraq’s story.

* BW bombs: Iraq declared that 200 R-400 aerial bombs were manufactured for BW purposes, but acknowledged that the numbers of bombs filled with particular agents (100 with botulinum toxin, 50 with bacillus anthracis spores, and 7 with aflatoxin) were “guesses.” UNSCOM did find evidence of the destruction of some BW bombs at the site declared by Iraq, but found that the remnants account for less than one third of the bombs Iraq claims to have destroyed. In addition, UNSCOM found evidence of R-400A bombs carrying BW at an airfield where no BW weapons were declared.

* Aircraft drop tanks: Iraq claimed that it produced 4 aircraft drop tanks to disseminate BW agents, and was developing a pilotless aircraft that could carry the tanks, holding either BW or chemical weapons, and release the toxins at a preset time. UNSCOM found that there was no evidence corroborate that only 4 were produced, and noted that interviews indicated that 12 were planned. Remnants of only three destroyed tanks were recovered. UNSCOM also rejected the evidence offered by Iraq–a letter thanking the project workers–that the pilotless aircraft project was shut down.

* Aerosol Generators: Iraq developed aerosol generators for the dispersal of BW agents by modifying helicopter-borne commercial chemical insecticide disseminators. Although Iraq claimed the devices were ineffective, UNSCOM received documentation that they were successfully field tested. Interview evidence suggests that there were 12 devices produced; none were destroyed by UNSCOM.

The next section, titled, “Iraq’s Chemical Weapons (CW) Program,” is every bit as disturbing in terms of detailing Iraqi concealment, deception, cover-up, delay, and lies as regards to those programs.

PBS links to official sources, such as the UNSCOM Report to the Security Council dated 25 Jannuary 1999 from which I was able to find a link titled, “ACTIONS BY IRAQ TO OBSTRUCT DISARMAMENT.” The facts that are reported detailing a longstanding pattern of the same delay, deception, and concealment tactics that are detailed above are related in point after point. Point 31 states, “By the end of the 1998, there remained significant uncertainties in the disposition of Iraq’s prohibited programmes.”

And what I have documented here is nowhere near close to a full presentation of Iraqi efforts under Saddam Hussein to stymie U.N. and American efforts to discover what was going on with Iraqi WMD capabilities. From what we see here, however, a child in a carnival fun house would have a had a far more accurate picture of what the world around her looked like than one of the 30 or so U.N. inspectors looking for signs of WMD in Texas-sized Iraq.

In the Volume 7, No. 1 – March 2003 issue of the Journal MERIA (Middle East Review of International Affairs), Ibrahim al-Marashi begins his article, “How Iraq Conceals And Obtains Its Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” with the following two sentences: “After the 1991 Gulf War, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein conducted a systematic concealment operation to disrupt the mission of the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM), whose mandate was to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This article surveys and analyzes the different techniques used to fool and foil inspectors so as to conceal continued development or possession of these weapons.”

He then details the methods behind what the U.S. Department of Defense called, “The deliberate, methodical, extensive and well-organized national-level strategic effort which aims at deceiving not just the United States, not just the United Nations or even the public media, but, in fact, the entire world.” According to UNSCOM, the goals of this concealment apparatus have been to “retain production capability and the “know-how” documentation necessary to revive programs when possible.”

In his article, he provides the following, researched and carefully footnoted information:

In May 1991, Saddam Hussein formed a Concealment Operations Committee (COC) to be supervised by Qusay. UNSCOM inspectors became aware of the existence of this covert network as a result of inspections and interviews conducted between 1991 and 1996. They believed that this apparatus, created in 1991, was designed to hide documents, computer records, and equipment related to its WMD program. When the COC was created, the Iraqis believed that the inspection process would last only a few months. They based their assessment on the model of previous IAEA inspections, which had examined Iraqi nuclear facilities without detecting the Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

UNSCOM investigations into the activities and tactics of the concealment apparatus began in March 1996 and were continuously impeded by the Iraqis. As a result, UNMOVIC’s, and its predecessor UNSCOM’s, mandate evolved from inspection agencies to detective agencies in order to investigate, impede and unravel the activities of this Iraqi concealment network. Chairman of UNMOVIC Hans Blix declared on January 28, 2003, “As we know, the idea that Iraq would declare its weapons and then the inspectors would verify these statements too often turned into a game of ‘hide and seek.'”

The “hide and seek” game mentioned in Blix’s statement has characterized the interaction between the Iraqi concealment apparatus and UN inspectors. Blix adds, “Rather than just verifying declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programs and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations.” Blix indicated that the deception practiced by the Iraqi concealment apparatus continues unabated.

In his conclusion, al-Marashi states:

The Iraqi concealment apparatus has over seven years of experience now in countering UN inspections, as well as a four year “window-of-opportunity” to hide, conceal and camouflage its WMD program in the absence of any inspectors. The concealment apparatus benefited from these years of expertise to call on numerous intelligence agents, scientists, and soldiers to fill its ranks.

French inspectors on the UNMOVIC team have remarked that the Iraqis have made progress in their know-how and ability to hide things in the twelve and a half years of embargo. Other inspectors expressed how impressed they were with the apparatus’ professional skill, which makes it “difficult to find irrefutable proof and evidence of flagrant violations.”

The UNMOVIC team in Iraq has a formidable adversary. UN inspections have slowed Iraq’s progress in further developing its WMD capability, but the scope of this concealment apparatus could indicate that many of these programs remain largely intact.

I can provide articles justifying and elaborating upon this position again and again and again. I can point to history documented by the weapons inspectors themselves, such as when: “On one of UNSCOM’s first assignments, inspectors demand access to an Iraqi military facility. The base commander will not allow inspectors into the building, but lets them climb onto a water tower, where inspectors spot Iraqi trucks slipping out the back gate. Although U.N. vehicles catch up with the trucks and try to pull them over, the Iraqis refuse to stop and fire warning shots at the inspectors. However, the inspectors obtain photographs showing the trucks are carrying calutrons — giant iron magnets that can be used to enrich uranium.”

Or when (again detailed in the same PBS link along with MANY other similar stories): “In a surprise raid on an Iraqi government building, UNSCOM inspectors, led by David Kay, discover a hidden archive of documents that reveals Saddam’s plans to develop a nuclear weapon. Incensed by the inspectors’ discovery, the Iraqis haul off the original documents, and demand the inspectors turn over their photographs of the documents. The standoff lasts for four days and the weapons inspectors are held hostage in the parking lot outside of the building. They are finally allowed to leave with their evidence when the U.S. announces it will intervene militarily on behalf of UNSCOM.”

I submit that I can do a far better job defending the hypothesis that Hans Blix was arrogant, naive, and eager for continued personal celebrity than a critic of my position can defend the hypothesis that Hans Blix would ever be able to complete a full, thorough, and complete determination as to the extent of Iraq’s WMD capability. Blix was arrogant in believing that he would be able to discover Saddam Hussein’s entire WMD capability in what amounted to a fools’ game; and naive in not realizing that the deck had been completely stacked against him by a legion of Iraqi men officers and scientists every bit as expert as himself.

In short, there were no inspections whatsoever for a period of four years between 1998 and 2002; Iraq was flush with cash – and thus able to purchase WMD-related components – from illegal activities associated with the now-known to be completely corrupt U.N. Oil for Food Program; Iraq had benefited from uncountable illegal weapons sales; the number of U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq never reached 100 in a secretive, totalitarian state the size of Texas; and Iraq had no reason to change its delay and concealment tactics because it had allies in France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, and China who would allow no meaningful action whatsoever to be taken against Iraq in either the U.N. or its Security Council. To ask just one pertinent question: who on earth would believe that UNSCOM inspectors could ever hope to succeed in discovering all of Iraq’s secret WMD-related documents given that they could literally have been hidden anywhere in the country?

A 10 December 2002 New York Times editorial titled “Smoking Gun” put the situation into perspective pretty well:

Those determined to avoid war at all costs may demand more direct and irrefutable evidence than this kind of coercive inspection program is capable of producing in the face of willful Iraqi deception. But the rigorous evidentiary standards of an American courtroom do not apply here. A case for military action is likely to be made by highlighting any major discrepancies between Iraq’s report and American and other findings. Given Baghdad’s track record, which includes serial aggression against neighbors, wholesale duplicity toward the Security Council and missing stocks of nerve gas and biological weapons material, this seems a reasonable approach. …

Iraq is entitled to no presumption of innocence. It has arrived at this point after invading, occupying and looting Kuwait and then failing to honor the cease-fire terms it accepted after that conflict. Had Baghdad kept its word then, its unconventional weapons would long ago have been destroyed and the sites where they were developed permanently monitored. If careful scrutiny of Iraq’s new report shows it to be still defaulting on its promises, it will have forfeited the chance for a peaceful solution.

I completely agree, and I cannot understand how someone can impeach the basic grounds for this position. An inability of a few U.N. inspectors to obtain “irrefutable proof and evidence of flagrant violations” in such a hostile environment doesn’t even begin to provide convincing evidence for the argument that Saddam Hussein had totally destroyed his WMD program, or that the United States had no right to attack to protect itself from an evil tyrant. Given Saddam Hussein’s repeatedly demonstrated evil and his similarly repeatedly demonstrated ability to completely fool the “experts,” President Bush and allies such as England and Australia were rightly demanding nothing less than a complete accounting of Iraq’s WMD program.

Finally, the dilemma of the Iranian nuclear program serves as a sober reinforcement of the rightness of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. As with Iraq, we have in Iran a closed, totalitarian society that our intelligence cannot reliably penetrate. How will we know for sure when and if Iran develops nuclear weapons? Do we simply choose to allow them to do so? Are we willing to suffer the consequences of the world’s largest terrorist state and supporter of terrorism to have nukes? Are we willing to give President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – who has publicly described his belief in an apocalyptic figure known as the “Twelfth Imam” who will come into the world via an act of global catastrophe – a nuclear trigger to place his finger upon? Are we willing to put nuclear weapons into the hands of someone who has repeatedly vowed to “wipe Israel off the map“?

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, you can pretty much figure that World War III is coming soon. For one thing, the country is led by apocalyptic religious fanatics who will likely either use the bomb to attack Israel, or else will smuggle it into the hands of terrorists who will do the job for them. For another, a nuclear weapon in Shiite Iran will trigger a nuclear arms race in the craziest region in the history of the world, as Sunni states feverishly work to build their own bomb to balance the power.

Meanwhile, we find both Democratic presidential candidates vocalizing longstanding opposition to the Iraq war, and promising a swift pullout if elected. The question is this: how can a president who claimed that the United States was wrong in attacking Iraq over legitimate concerns that it possessed weapons of mass destruction proceed to threaten to attack Iran over legitimate concerns that IT possesses nuclear weapons? And conversely, as the United States attempts to prevent Sunni Arab nations from developing their own nuclear weapons programs to balance Shiite Iran, how will a president – who refused to honor the American commitment to stand by Iraq – proceed to succeed in convincing Sunni countries that we will stand by them against any threat posed by Iran?

If we say that the United States was wrong to attack Iraq, then we tacitly affirm that it will be wrong to attack Iran even as it feverishly works on creating enough centrifuges to have the type of refined uranium it needs for one and only one purpose.

ABC News’ Brian Ross and Christopher Isham report that it is now known that Iran has enough centrifuges to produce enough uranium to have a weapon by 2009 – a full six years earlier than previous estimates. And analysts further point out that the uranium they are enriching could NOT be used in the Russian nuclear power reactor they are currently building.

Something serious is coming right around the corner. What are we going to do about it?

See also Part 2: Iraq War Justified: What the Chronology Reveals

See also Part 3: Iraq War Justified: Paralysis, Corruption at U.N. Made Truth Impossible

Jeremiah Wright’s Stupid Views on Black and White Learning

April 29, 2008

I can pretty much stand by what I’ve said before: a Jeremiah Wright in context is nothing but an even more racist, more hateful, more anti-American Jeremiah Wright than a Jeremiah Wright out of context. Now – in living, glowing context – Jermemiah Wright is saying things that would make even a self-respecting fascist blush.

You have simply GOT to hear these words from Wright, spoken before a cheering crowd of 10,000 at the 53rd annual Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner sponsored by the NAACP on April 27.

In the past, we were taught to see others who are different as being deficient. We established arbitrary norms and then determined that anybody not like us was abnormal. But a change is coming because we no longer see others who are different as being deficient. We just see them as different. Over the past 50 years, thanks to the scholarship of dozens of expert in many different disciplines, we have come to see just how skewed, prejudiced and dangerous our miseducation has been.

Miseducation. Miseducation incidentally is not a Jeremiah Wright term. It’s a word coined by Dr. Carter G. Woodson over 80 years ago. Sounds like he talked a hate speech, doesn’t it? Now, analyze that. Two brilliant scholars and two beautiful sisters, both of whom hail from Detroit in the fields of education and linguistics, Dr. Janice Hale right here at Wayne State University, founder of the Institute for the study of the African-American child. and Dr. Geneva Smitherman formerly of Wayne State University now at Michigan State University in Lansing. Hail in education and Smitherman in linguistics. Both demonstrated 40 years ago that different does not mean deficient. Somebody is going to miss that.

Turn to your neighbor and say different does not mean deficient. It simply means different. In fact, Dr. Janice Hale was the first writer whom I read who used that phrase. Different does not mean deficient. Different is not synonymous with deficient. It was in Dr. Hale’s first book, “Black Children their Roots, Culture and Learning Style.” Is Dr. Hale here tonight? We owe her a debt of gratitude. Dr. Hale showed us that in comparing African-American children and European-American children in the field of education, we were comparing apples and rocks.

And in so doing, we kept coming up with meaningless labels like EMH, educable mentally handicapped, TMH, trainable mentally handicapped, ADD, attention deficit disorder.

And we were coming up with more meaningless solutions like reading, writing and Ritalin. Dr. Hale’s research led her to stop comparing African-American children with European-American children and she started comparing the pedagogical methodologies of African-American children to African children and European-American children to European children. And bingo, she discovered that the two different worlds have two different ways of learning. European and European-American children have a left brained cognitive object oriented learning style and the entire educational learning system in the United States of America. Back in the early ’70s, when Dr. Hale did her research was based on left brained cognitive object oriented learning style. Let me help you with fifty cent words.

Left brain is logical and analytical. Object oriented means the student learns from an object. From the solitude of the cradle with objects being hung over his or her head to help them determine colors and shape to the solitude in a carol in a PhD program stuffed off somewhere in a corner in absolute quietness to absorb from the object. From a block to a book, an object. That is one way of learning, but it is only one way of learning.

African and African-American children have a different way of learning.

They are right brained, subject oriented in their learning style. Right brain that means creative and intuitive. Subject oriented means they learn from a subject, not an object. They learn from a person. Some of you are old enough, I see your hair color, to remember when the NAACP won that tremendous desegregation case back in 1954 and when the schools were desegregated. They were never integrated. When they were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn’t stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them.

Reverend Wright believes that white children and black children learn differently. White children are left-brain object oriented; and black children are right-brain subject oriented. White children are “logical and analytical.” Black children are “creative and intuitive.”

Imagine if a white man had said that. Imagine, furthermore, if the pastor of John McCain’s church had presented such a pet theory to a national audience. There would be a firestorm of unimaginable proportions. As it is, not so much as a peep from the elite media. They are too busy hoping that they can either whitewash Wright’s views as “an acceptable form of culturally-black expression” or at least distance Barack Obama from any damage if plan A fails.

Jeremiah Wright says, “Turn to your neighbor and say different does not mean deficient. It simply means different.” The problem is that different actually very often DOES mean deficient. Pol Pot was different from the Dalai Llama. Adolf Hitler was different from Winston Churchill. Ice cream is different from colon cancer. Saying “different is not deficient” over and over again don’t make it so.

Do you see the can of worms Jeremiah Wright’s views open? should we now re-segregate our schools, so that black right-brain children can learn “their kind’s” way? The answer is ‘absolutely yes,’ according to Barack Obama’s mentor. And decades of hard-earned integration go right down the drain. Different classrooms come first. Different water fountains and bathrooms, of course, presumably come later. Do you see how completely radical these views are?

And, if there truly is a biological difference between black and white intelligence, as Wright claims, how does that not mean that one might very well be superior to the other? The record of history comparing the success of white European society to that of black African society now comes into play as a rather powerful prima facia argument that “logical and analytical” biologically trumps “creative and intuitive.” Racists have been making the very point that Wright embraces for generations. And from that understanding of difference, they argue to the deficiency: Prior to and during the Civil War, southern white elites professed to be taking care of blacks through the institution of slavery. “Blacks can’t think like whites. They are like monkey-children, and we have to use our superior white intellect to take care of them,” they claimed. We got the phrase, “That’s mighty white of you” from that sort of attitude. Jeremiah Wright himself now opens the door to a return to some of the darkest racial times this country – and the world – has ever seen.

You simply must understand that the kinds of “differences” Wright points to have been – and are to this very day – viewed very much as “deficiencies” by many others who have dreams about solving such “deficiencies.” Jeremiah Wright, who argues that he is “descriptive,” not “divisive,” is indeed extremely divisive – and this particular brand of divissiveness has led humanity down dark and terrifying pathways.

Genuine Christianity – unlike Wright’s racist brand – does not fixate on such “differences,” but instead fixates on the image of God that all humanity shares in common. It’s not about what separates us, but what we share in common.

I have a dream 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,” Martin Luther King, Jr. said rather famously. But let us instead follow the thought of Jeremiah Wright and separate those children on his perceived difference in learning ability?

Let me take you down that dark path, from the idea to the consequences:

Out of Darwinism comes social darwinism. If the former theory is true, the latter is a necessary corolary. And Darwin’s subtitle for The Origin of Species was “the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.” Darwin described the development of life-forms in terms of an ongoing struggle for existence. The result of this struggle would be a natural selection of those species and races who were to triumph over those weaker ones who would perish.

In his Descent of Man, Darwin wrote:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

People have argued about Darwin’s racial views, but don’t think for a nanosecond that a vast array of intellectuals did not pick up on the clear implications of Darwinian thought – or that the consequences of that thought brought us horror on a scale that humanity had never dreamed of in its worst nightmares.

Francis Galton ackowledged that he was greatly influenced by Darwin’s Origin of Species. In his book Hereditary Genius he extended Darwin’s theory of natural selection into a concept of deliberate social intervention in his work, which he held to be the logical application of evolution to the human race. Galton was by no means satisfied to let evolution take its course freely. Having decided to improve the human race through selective breeding, brought about through social intervention, he developed a subject which he called “Eugenics”, the principle of which was that by encouraging better human stock to breed and discouraging the reproduction of less desirable stock, the whole race could be improved.

Darwin congratulated Galton on the publication of Hereditary Genius, telling his younger cousin in a letter that, “I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original.”

In his essay, Eugenics as a Factor in Religion, Galton laid out arguments that would one day lead to Nazi death camps. He left no doubt about the link between evolution and eugenics: “The creed of eugenics is founded upon the idea of evolution; not on a passive form of it, but on one that can to some extent direct its own course….”
http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/legacy.asp?ID=crm&ec=I1301
http://www.galton.org/books/memories/chapter-XXI.html

A quote from Tom DeRosa’s “From Darwin’s Theory to Hitler’s Holocaust” fills in the picture:

When Hitler came to power in 1933, he installed a dictatorship with one agenda: enactment of his radical Nazi racial philosophy built on Darwinian evolution. He sought, in Darwin’s terms, to preserve the “favoured” race in the struggle for survival. Brute strength and [superior white Aryan] intelligence would be the driving force of the Nazi plan.

The first task was to eliminate the weak and those with impure blood that would corrupt the race. These included the disabled, ill, Jews, and Gypsies. Second, the Nazis sought to expand Germany’s borders in order to achieve more living space, or “Lebensraum,” to make room for the expansion of the “favoured” race. Third, the Nazis set about to eliminate communism because of its threat to the Aryan race and because, according to Hitler, communism was the work of Bolshevik Jews.

The plan quickly unfolded. An order to sterilize some 400,000 Germans was issued within five months of Hitler’s rise to power. The order, set to take effect on January 1, 1934, listed nine categories of the unfit to be sterilized: feebleminded, schizophrenia, manic depression, Huntington’s chorea, epilepsy, hereditary body deformities, deafness, hereditary blindness, and alcoholism. The Nuremberg Laws were passed in 1935 to prohibit marriage between Jews and Germans and to strip Jews of their German citizenship.

The Nazis established eugenic courts to ensure that the eugenic laws were enforced. To identify the unfit, German eugenicists compared the individual health files of millions of Germans with medical records from hospitals and the National Health Service. The American firm, IBM, aided the effort by automating a national card file system that cross-indexed the defective.

American eugenicists celebrated the German sterilization program. A leading U.S. eugenics publication, Eugenical News, published an admiring article on a German eugenics institute and extended “best wishes” to its director “for the success of his work in his new and favorable environment.” The New England Journal of Medicine editorialized in 1934 that “Germany is perhaps the most progressive nation in restricting fecundity among the unfit.”

Eugenics in America was not a fringe movement. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 1927 ruling that authorized the sterilization of a “feeble minded” Virginia woman. In his majority opinion for the Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

DeRosa points out that “Today when evolutionists are questioned as to how Darwinian evolution gave birth to Hitler’s Nazism, they immediately want to beg the question, answering that racism has nothing to do with science. They are correct! Racism has nothing to do with science, but it has everything to do with evolution—a fact that is unavoidable.”

It might be worth mentioning at this point that Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in order to put her philosophy of eugenics to life. And blacks were near the top of her list of “deficients.”

Eugenics is back in the news today. Recently, a UCLA pro-life student group conducted a “sting” that exposed the fact that the organization created by racist-eugenicist Margaret Sanger may well be as racist as ever. An overwhelming number of “Family Planning clinics” are located in predominantly black neighborhoods, helping black women terminate half their pregnancies.

Pro-abortionists call it “exercising a woman’s right to choose.” Francis Galton called it “discouraging the reproduction of less desirable stock.” Should I again mention Jeremiah Wright’s mantra, “Different does not mean deficient” here? I argue that such views are morally deficient.

Black pastors are coming out in force to condemn the genocide of black babies in Planned Parenthood clinics. Unfortunately, Jeremiah Wright is not among their number; he supports abortion. I don’t know how he feels about the fact that half of all black babies are killed before they can see the faces of the mothers who don’t want them.

Now, I have no doubt that Jeremiah Wright would immediately disassociate himself from Nazis, from eugenics, from the genocide of black babies, and maybe even from Darwinism.

The problem is that there is a world of unintended consequences. Liberals once added a luxury tax on items such as yachts to collect more revenue. They were very quickly forced to suspend the tax because wealthy people quit buying yachts resulting in the layoff of thousands of workers. In this case, Wright wants to pursue an agenda of black racial separatism, but I am arguing that the consequences for blacks will be anything other than good.

The problem is that, for all of his intelligence, Jeremiah Wright is a moral idiot who does not understand that Adolf Hitler, Margaret Sanger, and every other racist social Darwinist would listen to the comments I’ve quoted from Jeremiah Wright and completely agree with them.

The problem is that ideas have consequences, and Jeremiah Wright has a head crammed full of vile ideas.

The problem is that the more the American people hear these vile ideas, the more they will legitimately question whether a man who sat under such teaching for twenty years is fit to be president.