Posts Tagged ‘Glenn Beck’

Obama’s LONG LIST Of Broken Promises That Mainstream Media Won’t Remind Us About (Video)

January 25, 2012

What Obama Didn’t Tell You in His SOTU Address… Barack Obama’s Many Broken Promises (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, 9:30 PM

Glenn Beck put together this long list of broken promises that Obama made while on the campaign trail in 2008 and in the White House. Obama forgot to mention these promises in his State of the Union Address tonight.

Glenn Beck’s Wife And Daughter Heckled And Assaulted By Vile Mob Of Liberal Cowards

June 30, 2011

This is what liberals being liberals looks like.  It’s ugly, because liberals are ugly people:

Glenn Beck Harrassed In Bryant Park (VIDEO, PHOTOS) Hate-Fueled Assault
by Jim Brogan

Right-wing Fox host Glenn Beck decided it was finally time that he took his daughter and wife to see a showing of Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘The 39 Steps’ at Bryant, a trip he’d wanted to do for years. He did on Monday night – but was unfortunately met by a bunch of people acting like animals.

Beck has wanted to take his daughter to Bryant Park for a very long time, and when his wife said to him, “You wanna go?” because of the whispering, pointing and texting and other behavior from the people there, he turned and said to her, “Not on your life.”

“It was a hostile situation,” Beck recounted of the trip. The host’s WIFE – yes, his wife, had a bottle of alcohol “accidentally” kicked on to her back, leaving her and the blanket “completely wet.” The crowd behind them laughed about it.

It unfortunately didn’t get any better as the night went on. His wife and daughter were getting up to go to the bathroom when a man pointed his fingers and yelled, “We hate conservatives here!” His daughter had tears in her eyes when she and her mother returned to their blanket.

Another woman stood up behind the family, pointed her finger at them and said, “We’re in New York, and we HATE Republicans!”

Beck and his family were treated like garbage by ignorant, rude liberals at the movie showing. He said Tuesday, “If I had suggested — and I almost did — wow, does anybody have a rope? Because there’s a tree here. You could just lynch me. And I think there would’ve been a couple in the crowd that would’ve!”

But the host somehow maintained his sympathy for others at the showing: “I apologize to anybody who had their movie experience wrecked because of the people that found it so necessary to spew hatred,” Beck said, “but there’s nothing I can do about it.”

Beck was also bothered by the fact that no one jumped to his defense at the park. He said he was “…a little surprised that nobody — nobody — in the crowd said ‘knock it off. Just, stop. Just be cool. I don’t agree with the guy, but just be cool.’ “

The host said his experience was so horrible, he wouldn’t wish it on his worst enemies: “All through the evening, I wanted to say to you today, please, please, please don’t ever treat anybody like that. If Van Jones comes and sits right next to you, please don’t treat anybody like that.”

Video below. Where’s the outrage?

By the way, this isn’t uncommon at all.  It’s not dissimilar to the way that Andrew Breitbart was treated when he showed up in the public common area at a Netroots Nation convention.  He was immediately accosted, surrounded and heckled and treated like dirt by people who actually called themselves “journalists.”

Garden variety liberals are much more classless vermin, of course.  Here’s video of an elderly woman who was assaulted for bringing a cross to a “No on Prop 8″ event in Palm Springs.  Liberals came unglued, because they are godless, wicked people and coming unglued is what they do best.

I have met a fair number of “celebrities” in my life.  As someone who lives in the Palm Springs area, it’s not all that unusual – especially if one is involved at all in the community.  If I genuinely admired a celebrity, I offered my congratulations to him or to her; if I didn’t, I have left them alone and ignored them.

I don’t understand how liberals can think that Nazis have a right to march through a town largely populated by Jewish death camp survivors, but conservatives don’t have a right to anything.  It’s just an exhibit of what vile, vile hypocrites liberals are.  Liberals would probably sneer and say something stupid like, “That’s because conservatives are worse than Nazis,” but what it really proves is that liberals are tolerant of Nazi fascists, but utterly intolerant of anyone with whom they disagree.

I would NEVER have treated a liberal celebrity like this.  And as despicable as these people acted, it was even MORE despicable for these cockroach liberals to treat Glenn Beck’s family this way.

I love Ann Coulter’s take on this vile example of the fact that liberals are genuinely vile people:

Glenn Beck Vs. The Mob
by  Ann Coulter
06/29/2011

Of all the details surrounding the liberal mob attack on Glenn Beck and  his family in New York’s Bryant Park last Monday night, one element  stands out. “No, it won’t be like that, Dad,” his daughter said when  Beck questioned the wisdom of attending a free, outdoor movie showing in  a New York park.

People who have never been set upon by a mob of liberals have  absolutely no idea what it’s like to be a publicly recognizable  conservative. Even your friends will constantly be telling you: “Oh, it  will be fine. Don’t worry. Nothing will happen. This place isn’t like  that.”

Liberals are not like most Americans. They are the biggest  pussies on Earth, city-bred weaklings who didn’t play a sport and have  never been in a fight in their entire lives. Their mothers made excuses  for them when they threw tantrums and spent way too much time praising  them during toilet training.

I could draw a mug shot of every one of Beck’s tormentors, and I wasn’t there.

Beck and his family would have been fine at an outdoor rap  concert. They would have been fine at a sporting event. They would have  been fine at any paid event, mostly because people who work for the  government and live in rent-controlled apartments would be too cheap to  attend.

Only a sad leftist with a crappy job could be so brimming with  self-righteousness to harangue a complete stranger in public.

A liberal’s idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to  a conservative public figure who can’t afford to strike back. Getting  in a stranger’s face and hurling insults at him, knowing full well he  has too much at risk to deck you, is like baiting a bear chained to a  wall.

They are not only exploiting our lawsuit-mad culture, they are exploiting other people’s manners. I know I’ll be safe because this person has better manners than I do.

These brave-hearts know exactly what they can get away with.  They assault a conservative only when it’s a sucker-punch, they  outnumber him, or he can’t fight back for reasons of law or decorum.

Liberals don’t get that when you’re outnumbering the enemy 100-1, you’re not brave.

But they’re not even embarrassed. To the contrary, being part of the majority makes liberals feel great! Honey, wasn’t I amazing? I stood in a crowd of liberals and called that conservative a c**t. Wasn’t I awesome?

This is a liberal’s idea of raw physical courage.

When someone does fight back, liberals transform from aggressor  to victim in an instant, collapsing on the ground and screaming bloody  murder. I’ve seen it happen in a nearly empty auditorium when there was  quite obviously no other human within 5 feet of the gutless  invertebrate.

People incapable of conforming to the demands of civilized  society are frightening precisely because you never know what else such  individuals are capable of. Sometimes — a lot more often than you’ve  heard about — liberals do engage in physical violence against  conservatives … and then bravely run away.

That’s why not one person stepped up to aid Beck and his family  as they were being catcalled and having wine dumped on them at a nice  outdoor gathering.

No one ever steps in. Never, not once, not ever. (Except at the  University of Arizona, where college Republicans chased my assailant  and broke his collarbone, God bless them.)

Most people are shocked into paralysis at the sight of  sociopathic liberal behavior. The only ones who aren’t are the  conservative’s bodyguards — and they can’t do anything without risking a  lawsuit or an arrest.

My hero Tim Profitt is now facing charges for stopping a  physical assault on Senate candidate Rand Paul by a crazed woman  disguised in a wig.

But the disturbed liberal whose assault Profitt stopped faces  no charges — she instigated the entire confrontation and then instantly  claimed victim status. In a better America, the cop would say, “Well,  you provoked him.”

Kentucky prosecutors must be very proud of how they so  dutifully hew to the letter of the law (except in the case of Paul’s  assailant).

Maybe they wouldn’t be such good little rules-followers if they  ever, just once, had to face the liberal mob themselves. But if Beck’s  own daughter can’t imagine the liberal mob, I suppose prosecutors can’t  be expected to, either.

Michael Moore and James Carville can stroll anywhere in America  without risking the sort of behavior the Beck family experienced. But  all recognizable conservatives are eternally trapped in David Dinkins’  New York: Simply by virtue of leaving their homes, they assume a 20  percent chance of being assaulted.

Bullying is on the rise everywhere in America — and not just  because Obama decided to address it. It’s because no one hits back. The  message in our entire culture over the last two decades has been: DON’T  FIGHT!

There were a lot fewer public confrontations when bullies got their faces smashed.

Maybe it’s time for Beck to pony up some of those millions of  dollars he’s earned and hire people to rough up the liberal mob, or, at a  minimum, to provide a legal defense to those like Profitt who do.

These liberal pukes have never taken a punch in their lives. A  sock to the yap would be an eye-opening experience, and I believe it  would do wonders.

They need to have their behavior corrected. It’s a shame this  job wasn’t done by their parents. It won’t be done by the police.

As long as liberals can’t be normal and prosecutors can’t be  reasonable, how about a one-punch rule against anyone bothering a  stranger in public? Then we’ll see how brave these lactose-intolerant  mama’s boys are.

Believe me, liberal mobbings will stop very quickly after the first toilet-training champion takes his inaugural punch.

One day liberals will get their comeuppance.  God created hell for Satan and his demons and their legion of demonic bureaucrats that are also known as “Democrats.”  And it is that belief that there IS a divine justice – and that vengeance is God’s – that separates conservatives from liberals.

Americans More Pessimistic About US Outlook Than At Any Time Since Start Of Obama’s Failed Presidency

April 22, 2011

As much as the mainstream media propaganda tries to pretend otherwise by restating Obama’s talking points as if they were facts, things are NOT going well for the U.S. economy.

And the American people know it:

Americans hold dim view of U.S. economic outlook: poll
Thu Apr 21, 10:54 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Americans are more pessimistic about the U.S. economic outlook than they have been since the start of the Obama administration and most believe the United States is on the wrong track, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released on Thursday.

The number of Americans who think the economy is getting worse jumped 13 percentage points in just one month, to 39 percent, the poll suggested.

Just 23 percent said they thought the economy was improving, down 3 percentage points from the previous month.

Seventy percent of respondents said the country was heading in the wrong direction and most think neither President Barack Obama nor Congressional Republicans share their priorities for the country, the poll showed.

The dour mood is dragging down performance ratings for President Barack Obama and both parties in Congress with the 2012 election season already underway, the poll found.

Fifty-seven percent of respondents said they disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy, while 75 percent said they disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job.

While Washington is consumed with debate over deficit-reduction proposals, Americans seemed uncertain about the impact of cutting the deficit on the U.S. economy.

Some 29 percent of those polled said cutting the deficit would create more jobs, while 29 percent said deficit-cutting would cost jobs and 27 percent said it would have no effect on the employment outlook.

The poll found considerable support for Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on the wealthy — 72 percent of respondents approved of that idea as a way to address the deficit.

Obama’s job approval stood at 46 percent, while 45 percent did not approve of his performance in office.

More than half of poll respondents, 56 percent, said they did not have a favorable view of Republicans in Congress, as opposed to 37 percent who said they did.

The Democratic Party fared somewhat better, with a 49 percent approval rating versus 44 percent disapproval.

The telephone survey of 1,224 adults was conducted Friday through Wednesday and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

According to Standard & Poor’s, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”  Which is to say that all of Obama’s financial fascism has made the American economy more vulnerable to total collapse than it has ever been.

If you saw an Obama election victory after the Republican and Democrat Party national conventions in August of 2008 and abandoned the stock market in favor of gold and silver, you would be closing in on about a 90% profit on the gold, which would pale in comparison to the more than 250% profit you would have made in silver. 

I’ve watched the market go up and down, but the numbers reveal it has clearly generally gone up.  But I’ve also noticed that most of the trades are held for a matter of minutes or even seconds and that the low volume that has characterized the market pretty much mean it’s only major-league institutional investors that are making the lion’s share of the profits.

In the market itself, two things are happening: one is that banks are able to borrow money at nearly a zero percent interest rate and then reinvest it in bonds for a safe and easy profit without those risky and pesky loans to small businesses.  The other thing is that there are virtually zero bankrupties of major business and financial sector entities because they can borrow money at the aforementioned artificially low interest to keep themselves alive no matter “artificial” that life is.  The moment we start to see interest rates go to their natural levels, you are going to see a giant swath of reorganizations (which is a fancy word for bankruptices).  It’s coming.

I’ve also watched as QE2 (that’s Quantitative Easing, the Obama Fed plan to manipulate interest rates by creating bogus money based on the government essentially borrowing from itself) has fed this big player stock market gluttony with artificial money creating artificially low interest rates.  The last time quantitative easing ended, the market lost about 16% of its total value in about two weeks.  QE2 is scheduled to end in June.  You do the predictive math about what’s going to happen in June/July.

I am reminded of a rather chilling 7 minute video about a fictional scenario which is starting to look more and more like a prophecy:

The plot of the highly realistic video is that Obama’s announcment of QE4 is met with the world market finally realizing that Obama is a clueless idiot.  And it proceeds to detail the unravelling of the entire financial system.

We are almost certainly going to see QE3.  The only way we WON’T see QE3 is if the “experts” rename what will be virtually exactly the same thing.  The liberal/progressive/socialist powers that be simply don’t have any other plan.  And whether it’s QE4 or QE5, at some point the world markets will come to the same conclusion that they arrive at in the fictional video above.

Last year, Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner actually used the power of the government to launch an investigation into Glenn Beck for pushing gold.  Media Matters mocked Glenn Beck, as usual.  A poster calling himself blk-in-alabam wrote on May 19 (8:08 pm ET):

“Beck cult members probably bought more gold today.  He tells they must taste the hair of the dog that bit them to get over the money they have already spent on gold.  Glen Beck tells them to hurry and buy gold before the facist socialist government take away their right to be used and suckered.”

If you were one of the Beck cult members who bought gold, congratulations: you made ($1,503 – $1,192) $311 an ounce – a 26% profit - without even leaving your house.  Not a bad profit for a paranoid cultist.  I wonder how much blk-in-alabam made on his portfolio, assuming he isn’t living in the basement of his mom’s house and “investing” all of his allowance on video games???

Here’s my question: has there been an investigation of Anthony Weiner for demonizing gold???

The American people are totally confused and divided, which is exactly what you would expect from “No, no, no.  Not God bless America.  God DAMN America!”  The other thing you’d expect from God damn America is that wicked and foolish people will continue to make poor choices and poor decisions.

Mainstream Media ‘News’ Is Another Word For ‘Leftwing Propaganda’: Look At The Difference In Coverage

February 17, 2011

Let’s start with a very recent story of an NAACP president and a quote alluding to violence:

NAACP President Attacks Huntsville School System, Threatens Legal Action
Nick Banaszak
WHNT News 19 Reporter
4:00 p.m. CST, February 14, 2011

HUNTSVILLE, AL — Already dealing with an ongoing financial crisis that’s forcing layoffs and possible school closures, Huntsville City Schools now faces the threat of a lawsuit from the NAACP.

Local NAACP chapter president Alice Sams ripped the school system in a press conference Monday morning, while also presenting a list of demands the organization wants fulfilled immediately.

Sams and other leaders from Huntsville’s black community are accusing Huntsville City Schools of creating a divided system tilted against black students. The NAACP said the school district has failed to abide by a 1970 federal court order that officially eliminated segregation in schools for Alabama and other southern states.

“We have compiled a list of concerns, which in short is entitled ‘What We Want,” said Sams. “If satisfactory steps are not taken to satisfy our concerns, we may petition the state department of education to take over Huntsville City Schools and request Department of Justice and federal court intervention.”

NAACP officials say the alleged inequalities will only be made greater if several schools targeted for closure in predominantly black North Huntsville end up shutting their doors. The organization cited a forty point achievement gap between black and white students on standardized state tests, calling the results unfair and unacceptable. Sams said the blame did not fall on students or their parents, but rather on schools she claims are inferior compared to those in predominantly white South Huntsville. School closures are a likelihood as the district aims to overcome a $20 million budget deficit.

“It is our opinion that we have a divided system,” said Sams. “One for black students in the north end of town, separate, unequal and academically unsucessful; and one for the white students on the south end of town…All efforts to terminate the 1970 court order will be opposed by us until concerns to satisfy the racial and academic inequalities as stated are resolved.”

Sams ended her speech with a bold statement.

“Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolution inevitable,” said Sams, who quoted former president John F. Kennedy. When asked to clarify her remarks hose who make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolution inevitableand how it applied to the context of the school system, she referred back to the original quote.

“You know what the quote means,” said Sams. “I quoted the president (Kennedy). He was a peaceful president, so I did a quote. You can interpret it anyway you want to, I just quoted.”

School board attorney J.R. Brooks declined our request for an on-camera interview and did not respond to the NAACP’s claims. He only said the school district had always been in compliance with federal court orders issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, and that the school board had no control or authority over people who had voluntarily moved in and out of North Huntsville since 1970.

Nothing in the mainstream news coverage about this as a racist remark or an instigation to violence.  No depiction of, “Violent revolution is inevitable.  And it will all be whitey’s fault when it comes.”

Now the media could have heard the words “violent revolution is inevitable” from the NAACP and immediately associated them with the views of a different black organization:

Here’s the new political correctness:

SHABAZZ:  I hate white people.  All of them!  Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him!  You want freedom? You’re going to have to kill some crackers! You’re going to have kill some of their babies.

That certainly isn’t all that the guy Obama wanted to protect said:

Samir: We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.

Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”

“I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”

“We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”

Now, it would have been very easy for the mainstream media to take the statement, “Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” and point out that in this case the inevitable “violent revolution” means killing crackers, killing white babies, and dealing harshly with white, dirty cracker whores.  And the revolution will be over when “whitey dead.”  You’ve got a call or at least a prediction of violent revolution coming from a specifically black and race-based organization, and you’ve got a very detailed description of what such black and race-based violent revolution would look like.

But they didn’t.  After all, John Kennedy said those words, and he was a Democrat, so it obviously can’t be bad.  And the black president of the NAACP is, of course, a sacred cow in the mainstream media, and her motives are beyond questioning.  Ever.

Now let’s look at how the mainstream media deals with conservatives who would dare to quote great minds of the past who held great warnings for the future:

Sharron Angle Joins Calls for Armed Revolution in America
Several prominent figures have hinted that they’d like to see armed Americans storming the Capitol.

Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee for Harry Reid’s Nevada Senate seat, has called for armed revolt against the government. Glenn Beck’s new novel, The Overton Window, encourages concerned citizens to pick up a weapon, too. And they’re not the only public figures calling for violent insurrection. 

In January right-wing radio host Lars Larson asked Tea Party favorite Angle where she stood on Second Amendment issues. She replied:

“You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

“I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, My goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”

We presume she means “take Harry Reid out” by means of the ballot box. Or even more charitably, perhaps for dinner to discuss the bizarre and extreme direction American politics has taken since Barack Obama’s election in 2008. Because Angle is not the only prominent figure, or even the only politician who has recently called for armed revolution.

Rick Barber, a candidate in the Republican primary for Alabama’s Second Congressional District, released an ad which ends with an actor dressed as George Washington declaring “Gather your armies.” Presumably to storm the same Congress that Barber is hoping to join.

The Overton Window, Beck’s new novel, is also out today. According to a Washington Post review, it is a parable on worthy insurrection in which earnest, plucky American patriots arm to fight an evil plot by elites bent on a government takeover. Beck calls it ‘faction’—which is a melding of ‘fact,’ and ‘fiction,’ apparently. “If the book is found tucked into the ammo boxes of self-proclaimed patriots,” writes the reviewer Steven Levingston, “…Beck will have achieved his goal.” 

The Overton Window,” Levingston concludes, “risks falling into the tradition of other anti-government novels such as The Turner Diaries, by William L. Pierce, which became a handbook of extremists and inspired Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.”

Meanwhile, in Oklahoma City in April 2010, Tea Party leaders and conservative members of the state legislature decided to try to create an armed state militia “to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty,” according to the Associated Press. The group hopes to get legislation to recognize the new force by next year. 

At around the same time as that plan was announced, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota told WWTC 1280 AM that she too wanted people “armed and dangerous,” on the issue of Obama’s energy bill, “because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson,” she said, her words becoming eerily familiar, “told us, ‘Having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people—we the people—are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country.”

Violent revolt is a regular theme of Rush Limbaugh’s too. And Sarah Palin made what some considered to be her own coded call to arms when she aired a new catchphrase—”Don’t retreat, reload”—for her followers.  She later said, during a speech in Nevada, that she was telling people, “Their arms are their votes. It’s not inciting violence. It’s telling people, Don’t ever let anybody tell you to sit down and shut up, Americans.”

Will the deniable words and twisted justifications for violence reach critical mass and push one unstable person over the edge? Hopefully we’ll never have to find out. (Or at least find out again.)

That’s Newsweek making all those sweeping connections, hardly insignificant stuff.  Did they look at all the hatred and calls for violence coming from the left and see a pattern?  Not with the king size blinders over their left side, they sure didn’t.  They take a couple of quotes from rightwing figures, run them through the filter of leftwing analysis such as the Washington Post who of course see “rightwing hatred and intolerance,” and then say, “See how evil they are?”  So Newsweek can connect Glenn Beck directly to Timothy McVeigh because another leftist publication made that connection for them, and Newseek is merely “reporting the facts.”

Take a look at this long, long, LONG, LOOOOOONG expose of urgings of hate and violence coming from the left and from leftwing media.  And of course that’s just one of many such compilations.  Read through that and then tell me that you can’t identify any trend to connect to the left wing.

The media could obviously, of course, do unto the left exactly what they manage to do unto the right on a daily, almost second-by-second basis.  But they won’t.  Because they are leftwing propagandists, and honesty, facts and truth are the last things on their minds.  I am quite willing to entertain the notion that NAACP president Alice Sams did not intend to make a call to violence.  But if you’re going to argue that Sharon Angle did, at least be fair for once in your life.  If quoting something because John F. Kennedy – the president who got America deeper into the Cold War, deeper into Vietnam and very deeply indeed into the Bay of Pigs mess – wasn’t violent, then why must quoting something that President Thomas Jefferson said be taken as violent?  If we’re going to be fair for just two seconds?  Shouldn’t the benefit of the doubt swing both ways once in a while?

But it never does.

So the media as a matter of routine blithely ignores all the giant logs of hate and anger and outright calls of violence there are coming from their own beloved left, but man do they spot every splinter coming from the despised right.

Now, you could point out that the NAACP president quoted John F. Kennedy whereas Sharon Angle quoted a hated founding father who helped lay the foundation for the even more hated Constitution.  Which of course the left only hates less than the Holy Bible.

But that only gets us back to the rabid bias and the contempt for truth that the media manages to exhibit every minute of every day.

For the record, I am not a journalist and I do not profess to be one.  I do not claim that I am “objective” and “nonpartisan.”  So please don’t call me a hypocrite for doing the same thing that I say that mainstream media is doing.  If you do so, I will immediately quote what I wrote here and correctly call you an idiot.  Because unless and until the mainstream media says, “We’re a bunch of liberal ideologues and we all only see things from a leftwing perspective and denounce the right as a matter of reflex,” I’m NOT doing what the mainstream media does.  Because unlike the mainstream media, I tell you exactly what perspective I’m coming from.  The banner directly under my “Start Thinking Right” site name reads, “Michael Eden’s discussion of the two forbidden subjects – politics and religion – from a conservative perspective.”  Unlike the deceitful mainstream media which reveals naked bias every single day, I never claim to be a neutral observer and objective reporter of the facts.  Rather, I proudly report the facts from a stated Judeo-Christian and conservative world view.  I never smuggle in my ideological bias and then report “opinion” as news like the mainstream media does in virtually every story they cover.

For the further record, I don’t denounce the mainstream media for their leftwing point of view; I denounce them for their blatantly false self-depiction of neutrality and objectivity when it is clearly not true.

Who Won The Debate? Fox News Goes Through The Roof; Keith Olberman Goes Way Of Dodo Bird

January 22, 2011

Keith Olbermann just got his walking papersMSNBC just announced that it was ending its contract with him.  “Countdown” was appropriately very well named: 5-4-3-2-1-phhfffft.

Olbermann has a book titled, Pitchforks and Torches: The Worst of the Worst, from Beck, Bill, and Bush to Palin and Other Posturing Republicans.  Well, let’s look at those “posturing Republicans.”  The question becomes, “Which monster did the townsfolk actually drive away from their village?” Bush is thriving, with polls saying more and more Americans are wishing he were still president, a memoir that will now almost certainly outsell Bill Clinton’s and a generally happy disposition.  Bill O’Reilly continues to dominate.  Sarah Palin is doing just peachy, thank you.  And Glenn Beck?  Liberals are all over the web as we speak posting that Glenn Beck’s ratings have taken a giant dive.  But here’s the facts for Beck in his time slot:

Net 5PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC GLENN BECK 1,920 452 933
CNN SITUATION ROOM 490 130 183
MSNBC HARDBALL WITH C. MATTHEWS 603 93 187
CNBC FAST MONEY 288 53 134
HLN SHOWBIZ TONIGHT 176 71 91

Glenn Beck’s Fox News program is doing considerably better than the next four programs combined.  It looks like he’s just hurting so bad, doesn’t it?

Liberals like Keith Olbermann have their hysterical shrillness, their poisonous fang-dripping hate and their hypocrisy.  Fox News has actual ratings.

Look at the most recent ratings: FNC, for the record, means “Fox News Channel.”  Do you notice how they dominate every single time slot?

The quite left-leaning Public Policy Polling found Fox News “the most trusted” in last years’ survey.  According to their survey this year, Fox has slipped.  But, first of all, read this.  And second of all, just take another look at the ratings.

Dinesh D’Souza, in his great book What’s So Great About Christianity, begins his first chapter with these words:

God has come back to life.  The world is witnessing a huge explosion of religious conversion and growth, and Christianity is growing faster than any other religion.  Nietzsche’s proclamation “God is dead” is now proven false.  Nietzsche is dead.  The ranks of the unbelievers are shrinking as a proportion of the world’s population.  Secularism has lost its identification with progress and modernity, and consequently has lost the main source of its appeal.  God is very much alive, and His future prospects look to be excellent.  This is the biggest comeback story of the twenty-first century.

D’Souza proceeds to document that claim with facts that will make atheists weep and gnash their little rodent fangs.  [You can read the chapter here].  Secular humanists long claimed that the progression of reason and science would conquer religious “superstition.”  It was a groundless and distorted comparison that is now demonstrated to be a lie, another fairy tale myth of secularism.

Now I cite the beginning of a Human Events article titled, “The Conservative Undead“:

“American political parties have disappeared before,” Keith Olbermann warned Republicans in a 2009 “special comment.” The suspended MSNBC host histrionically continued, “You’re rapidly moving from the party of no conscience towards the party of no relevancy. You are behind the wheel of a political Toyota, and before the midterms you will be reduced to obviously being this generation’s home for the nuts.

To play off D’Souza, “Olbermann’s proclamation ‘The Republican Party is dead’ is now proven false.  Olbermann is dead.”

And to allude to a song from The Wizard of Oz: “Ding-Dong.”  It’s about time.

When it comes to liberals a line out of Willie Wonka puts it best: in a world of pure imagination, what you see will defy explanation.

Katie Couric Demonstrates How Moral Idiot Left Will Surrender America To Sharia

January 6, 2011

Glenn Beck (and yes, I know I’ve already lost most liberals, who believe that no matter how factually true something is, if it comes from Fox News or a Glenn Beck, it can be demonized and disregarded) had the following to say about renowned profoundly progressive journalist Walter Lippmann from his book Phantom Public:

In fact, the media is engaged in open propaganda for this administration. Not merely bias — what are you, nuts? They’re following a proud heritage of propagandists before them that began, as you might expect, if you’re a regular watcher of the show, around the time of — oh, I don’t know — what is his name? Woodrow Wilson.

One of Wilson’s close advisors was this guy, Walter Lippmann. He is a journalist who considered himself an icon among the liberal media, and the liberal media agrees. His methods and ideas are taught in college to our journalism students to this today.

You should read some of his books. I wonder if the people in his college that love him so much have actually read — oh, I don’t know — this is an original. This one is “Phantom Public.” You should read it. Spooky!

But what they teach in college is public opinion. These are things that these journalists are taught as a good thing. Quote, “News and truth are not the same thing.”

And quote, “The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality.”

In other words, you’re just too stupid. You don’t know it’s bad for you so we need a group of guys like this. Who has a big head and he can explain everything so we know it’s all for our own good.

Thank you very much. In fact, he believes that most citizens — and you’re going to love this, quote, “are mentally children.” Did you say that? Or barbarians. I can’t imagine why the journalists don’t just think this is guy is awful.

Things are starting to make sense now, aren’t they, about why you see journalists report the things that they do and treat the American people the way they do. Yes, they needed to be guided by intellectuals such as Walter Lippmann.

And hence the origin of the mainstream media class of journalistic snobbery; they’re better than you, they’re liberal as hell (and hellish as liberals), and whatever they think is right merely because they think it.  And of course they’re better than the 80% of the country who don’t share their values.

Katie Couric And Mo Rocca Show Us Why We’re Going To Lose Our Freedom To Sharia
Posted on January 1, 2011 by John L. Work

With thanks to Doug Powers over at Michelle Malkin’s site Hey.  Want to know why we’re headed toward losing this War against the forces of Islam – the same ones that declared eternal war on the World of Infidels way back in the 7th Century?  Watch this CBS video clip, featuring Katie Couric as the host, with Mo Rocca as a guest, in a discussion on the alleged terrible bigotry and hate that Katie says America has exhibited toward Muslims (I removed their stuttering in my transcription):

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/31/katie-couric-maybe-we-need-a-muslim-version-of-the-cosby-show/

KC:  I also think sort of the chasm between, or the bigotry expressed against Muslims in this country has been one of the most disturbing stories to surface this year.  Of course, a lot of noise was made about the Islamic center – mosque down near the World Trade Center.  But I think there wasn’t enough sort of careful evaluation of where this bigotry toward one point five billion Muslims world-wide, and how this seething hatred many people feel for all Muslims, which I think is so misdirected and so wrong, and so disappointing.

MR:  And you know one thing, I don’t know about you or either of you guys, but I’m pretty smart, and I cannot tell you…

KC:  (interrupts) We’ll be the judge of that, Mo.

MR:  …I mean I went to really fancy schools.  I cannot tell you five things about Islam.  I know almost nothing about a major world religion that sits at the intersection of so many issues that are undeniably relevant to all of us.  And I’m embarrassed.  I mean I know nothing about Islam.

KC:  Maybe we need a Muslim version of The Cosby Show.

MR:  Interesting.

KC:  I know that sounds crazy, but the Cosby Show did so much to change attitudes about African Americans in this country and I think sometimes people are afraid of things they don’t understand.  Like you, Mo.  You know, you’re saying you don’t know that much, your not afraid of it, but that you’re sort of, don’t have enough knowledge about it, but maybe if it became more part of the popular (inaudible)…

MR:  (interrupts)  Well, I think that religion should just be taught as an academic subject in public schools…

KC:  (interrupts)  I totally agree with you.

MR:  …much more.  The fear of it, it’s so misguided and the interpretation of separation between church and state

KC:  Alright.  Let’s change the subject in something a little less heavy.

End of clip

I rest my case.  For years this is what we’ve been force-fed by our media and by our elected officials about Islam.  Mindless apologist pabulum.  Ignorance.  Abject denial of reality.  Obstinate refusal to do a little homework and study.  If these so-called media icons had any real grip on the actual doctrines and practice of Sharia in Muslim states, they’d be damned afraid of it taking over here in the U.S.A.

Better to die free than to submit to Sharia.

It doesn’t really matter what the issue is; the mainstream media is waaaayy to the left of the rest of the nation’s values in its “reporting.”

So, for example, we can take the very issue that Katie Couric is lecturing America on – the Ground Zero mosque – and we can take her own CBS network’s polling.

From CBS:

NEW YORK (CBS 2) – Most Americans are against building a controversial mosque near Ground Zero, a CBS news poll has found.

According to the poll results,  only 22 percent of Americans surveyed think it’s appropriate to build the mosque and cultural center two blocks away, on Park Place.

On the other hand, 71 percent who responded said they think it’s not appropriate for the facility to go up so close to the World Trade Center site.

But, don’t you see?  “Most Americans” are QUOTE “mentally children,” and  so your beliefs and values can be disregarded.  And if the Katie Courics of the world simply have to flat-out lie to you, well, you’re too freaking stupid to understand the truth anyway.  And, as the great progressive big government bureaucrat Pontius Pilate famously asked, “What is truth?” (John 18:38), anyway?*

And public opinion needs to be managed by that “specialized class” of liberal elites.  Because, after all, liberal progressives have replaced God with themselves and with their superior ideas.  Just ask them.

Fellow progressive elitest “god-complexer” Bill Maher put the mindset well:

MAHER: Right, right. Uh, but, yeah, I mean, you know, they’re talking about 60 votes they need. Forget this stuff, 60…. You can’t get Americans to agree on anything 60 percent. Sixty percent of people don’t believe in evolution in this country.

He just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said, they’re stupid. Just drag them to this.  Get health care done, you know, with or without them. Make the Gang of Six an offer they can’t refuse. This Max Baucus guy? He needs to wake up tomorrow with an intern’s head in his bed.

That’s the amazing thing about liberals.  They are totally fascists; but they are such complete moral idiots that they don’t KNOW they’re fascists.

It would actually be funny, if these people weren’t so dangerous, and hadn’t amassed so much power and control which has enabled them to decide who wins and who loses.

And so they constantly lecture the right even as they do the above, and even as they try repeatedly to impose their oxymoronically-named “Fairness Doctrine,” and even as they now impose their again oxymoronically-named “Net Neutrality” to gain control over the internet.

But getting back to Sharia: it’s not that the left hates religion (atheism itself is a religion, you know, and “state atheism” is the religion of communism); it’s that the left despises Judeo-Christianity and everything it stands for.  And the left agrees with radical Islam that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  Hence the left is all but openly aligning itself with radical Islam and sheltering the movement by demonizing anyone who would criticize it.  Why?  Because Islam becomes another device by which the left can demonize their more hated enemy, Judeo-Christianity, by depicting it as “intolerant” and “hateful.”   And after Christianity is undermined, liberals believe (naively and stupidly) that they can somehow reason with or appease the Islamists.

Which, again, is something only a true moral idiot would think.

I’m certainly not the only one who has perceived a liberal love affair with radical Islam; and I’m not the only one who has seen a liberal-Muslim axis.  And while liberals are too morally moronic to see themselves in this violent power-worshiping movement, all I have to do is say things like “Weather Underground,” “Black Panthers,” “Students for a Democratic Society,” all I have to do is name liberal icons such as “Che Guevara” or Charles Manson (as I once demonstrated to a particularly rabid liberal jerk once).

The fact of the matter is that liberals love violent revolutionary movements.

It’s funny.  General Eisenhower very prominently used the term “Crusade” – that came right out of Christendom – to describe the Allies’ war with and defeat of the evil forces of socialism (Nazi = National Socialist German Workers Party).  The fact of the matter is that Christendom has been the backbone that has allowed the West to stand up and fight its enemies since the first Crusade.

Which is to say that the day “progressivism” supposedly “wins” in its war on Judeo-Christianity, it will lose itself and all the values such as individual liberty that it never deserved in the first place.  And then progressives will get the totalitarian-tyrant they have always truly deserved.

As I’ve pointed out before, the beast is coming.

Dishonest Propagandist Government Network NPR Fires Juan Williams For Muslim Remark

October 21, 2010

Mainstream media outlets an d the apparatchiks who staff them reach low after low; and then keep right on digging.

Monday night Juan Williams appeared on Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly Program and said:

Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don’t want to get your ego going.  But I think you’re right.  I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.

I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot.  You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country.  But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

Now, I remember also when the Times Square bomber was at court — this was just last week — he said: “the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood.” I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts.

NPR is basically firing Juan Williams the day after getting $1.8 million from far-leftist billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations to buy at least 100 “journalists” at NPR.

If that isn’t blatant enough, the same day far leftist radical George Soros gave that $1.8 million to NPR, he similarly gave another million dollars to the profoundly leftwing Media Matters, with the express purpose of attacking Fox News.  From Newsmax:

Billionaire currency titan George Soros, long a patron of liberal political causes in the United States, is giving $1 million to Media Matters in what he says is an attempt to stop the growing popularity of Fox News.

And, just to complete the picture, Media Matters proceeds to tell us the real sin of Juan Williams – appearing on Fox News – as it turns its demonization campaign to Mara Liasson.  From millionaire Media Matters:

News that Juan Williams’ contract with NPR was terminated over comments he made about Muslims while appearing on Fox News shines a spotlight on the radio network’s evergreen controversy: Its continued affiliation with Fox News. Specifically, NPR’s Mara Liasson and her long-running association with Fox News has often raised questions.  This might be the proper time for NPR to finally address that thorny issue.

So liberals, being the dishonest lying slime that they are, can’t just say, “We’re firing Juan Williams because he’s appearing on the most trusted name in news, which and we just can’t have that.”

A study last year by George Mason University stated, “Our results show a very significant liberal bias.”  And identified Fox News as the most balanced.  NPR wants bias, and they most certainly don’t want balance.

They don’t have the decency to say that former Nazi collaborator George Soros bought them 100 paid-in-fill propagandists, and probably instructed NPR to clean house of anyone who won’t properly march to his goose-step.

Instead NPR relied upon the favorite tactic of the left – the politics of personal destruction – in order to try to personally destroy Juan Williams’ character and integrity.

That’s just the kind of slimy reptiles these people are.

And to add “slimy” to “reptilian,” the NPR CEO issued a comment that implied that Juan Williams needed to see a psychiatrist.  Which is to say that that this woman – who just fired the only black journalist on her entire network – should fire herself for bigotry.

A few things come to mind as I think about the craven excuse NPR used to get rid of Juan Williams:

1) Juan Williams was fired for telling the truth, of all things.  You just can’t have truth in liberal “journalism.”  Because truth is an embarrassment to the left.

A Pew survey documented that journalists describe themselves as being even MORE LIBERAL than they were in the past.  Which is frankly amazing, given how liberal journalists were in the past.

NPR’s own ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, has acknowledged that NPR held a bias.

So NPR fired Juan Williams under the guise that Williams took a “personal public positions on [a] controversial issue.” But that wasn’t why he was fired, or else NPR journalist Nina Totenberg would have been fired for wishing that Republican Jessie Helms or his grandchildren would get AIDS.  That wasn’t why he was fired, or NPR journalist Andrei Codrescu who called the Christian doctrine of the Rapture “crap” wouldn’t still be part of the NPR team.  That wasn’t why he was fired, or else Cokie Roberts would have been fired for saying that “Actually, Beck is worse than a clown. He’s more like a terrorist who believes he has discovered the One True Faith, and condemns everyone else as a heretic. And that makes him something else as well — a traitor to the American values he professes so loudly to defend.” It very clearly and obviously wasn’t that Juan Williams expressed a “public position on a controversial issue” that got him fired; it was that he expressed such a position that did not conform to doctrinaire liberal political correctness.  And in particular, it was that he appeared on Fox News, a network that has the audacity to actually allow conservatives to offer (along with many liberals) their point of view.

Further, “government-funded” and “journalism” go together like ketchup and milkshakes.  NPR and PBS stand as embodiments of disgrace to journalism.  And when you add “George Soros” to “government funded,” you get something that is quintessentially dangerous to both journalism and democracy itself.

2) Every mainstream media outlet is fundamentally hypocritical as well as dishonest regarding Islam as the “religion of peace.”

On the one hand, we are constantly told that Islam is peaceful.  And that anyone who fears Islam is some kind of a bigot.

And yet, on the other hand, the same “journalists” and news outlets that say this to us are themselves so piss-in-their-pants afraid of this peaceful religion becoming über-violent at the drop of a hat that they constantly censor themselves lest they end up as terrorist murder victims.

Case in point: the Washington Post, the Denver Post, and many other mainstream media papers, refused to allow the following Non Sequitur cartoon:

“Piss Christ” – an image of Jesus Christ on a cross in a jar of urine – okay.  A cartoon that doesn’t even show Muhammad?  Not okay.

Why?  Because the people the leftist journalists so dramatically insist are “peaceful” will launch a murderous jihad if they feel insulted or offended in any way, shape, or form.

If NPR, the New York Times, the “ladies” of The View, or anyone else, wants to tell me that Muslims are peaceful, or that Islam is the religion of peace, let them publish pictures of an image of The Prophet immersed in a jar of urine.  So we can see Islamic “tolerance” in action.

And don’t let them hide and change their identities like cartoonist/journalist Molly Norris recently did, because THEY HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM THESE PEACE-LOVING MUSLIMS, DO THEY???

The fact of the matter is that the very mainstream media news outlets that are the most vocal in telling us that fear of Islam equals bigotry are in point of fact the most terrified of Islam.  And journalists have literally bowed down to the point of becoming the most pathetic form of useful idiots out of fear of the thing they constantly tell the American people they must not be afraid of.

3) NPR, in firing Juan Williams, committed a terrorist act itself.  With this firing as their “jihadist propaganda bomb.”

I think that’s what Rush Limbaugh was getting at when he started referring to Muslims today as “Middle Eastern liberals.”

Let’s face it.  This wasn’t just about Juan Williams.  This was about any journalist who dares to cross the line from propaganda to truth.  If you tell the truth – especially on the most trusted network in news – they will bury you.

The idea was to strike terror in any journalist who would say, “I’m going to be objective for once in my life.”

I always got the sense that Juan Williams was both a personally gracious man and a straight shooter who called it as he saw it.

Now, having said all of that, I found most of Juan Williams’ offerings to be frankly idiotic.  And if the man was to be fired by anyone, it should have been by Fox News for offering mostly stupid, doctrinaire liberal crap.

Instead, he was fired by the left for telling the truth, and for appearing on a network these First Amendment-despising, “Fairness Doctrine” propagandists despise.

Hitler Wasn’t ‘Right Wing’, Wasn’t ‘Christian’; And Nazism Was Applied Darwinism

September 27, 2010

Glenn Beck’s program on Friday, September 24, 2010, was devoted to the subject of Adolf Hitler, Christianity, and the nightmare that ensues when big government seizes religion in order to legitimize, even divinize, its socialist and totalitarian policies.

I have written about this myself, mostly in responses to atheists who want to foist Adolf Hitler onto Christians and Christianity.  I have grown up reading that Nazism represented the threat of a conservative, right wing government.  It’s a giant load of bunk.

To put it briefly, the communist Soviet intellectuals – and all leftist Western intellectuals influenced by them – created a false dichotomy between fascism and communism.  Zeev Sternhall observed how study of fascist ideology had been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” [Sternhall, "Fascist Ideology," in Fascism: A Reader's Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 316].  Marxism simply redefined fascism as its polar opposite in order to create a bogeyman: If Marxism was progressive, fascism became conservative.  If Marxism was left wing, fascism had to be right wing.  If Marxism championed the proletariat, then fascism had to champion the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism was socialist, fascism needed to be capitalist.  And the fact that none of the above was even remotely true was entirely beside the point.

“Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”

As Gene Edward Veith points out:

“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  [And in fact, Both movements were "revolutionary socialist ideologies."  Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

And if the Nazis didn’t represent the far left, they were at best the right wing of the extreme left wing.

Jaroslav Krejci demonstrated the inadequacy of the “unilinear imagery” of left wing versus right wing.  He pointed out that the metaphor derived from the seating arrangements of the French Parliament  following the Revolution.  Politically, those seated on the right side favored an absolute monarchy.  Economically, they favored government monopolies and a controlled economy.  Culturally, they favored authoritarian control of the people.  Those seated on the left favored democracy, a free market economy, and personal liberty [see Krejci, "Introduction: Concepts of Right and Left," in Neo-Fascism in Europe, 1991, pp. 1-2, 7].

Gene Edward Veith points out that these models simply break down in 20th century politics [see Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 27].  In terms of the model above, American conservatives who want less government and trust the free market would be on the left.  Liberals who want more of a government-directed economy would be on the right.  And so, while the Nazis would be “right wing” on this model, so also would the American liberal.  Furthermore, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are relative, depending upon what one has to conserve.  The classical liberals of the 19th century, with their pursuit of free-market economics and resistance to government control, became the conservatives of the 20th century as they sought to conserve these principles.

And, to quote myself:

And just what on earth do liberals who call Nazism a form of conservatism even think Hitler was trying to “conserve”?

Adolf Hitler was a violent revolutionary out to overthrow the current system and impose his own radically different system in its place.  He was hardly a “right wing conservative” in any way, shape, or form.  Rather, Adolf Hitler was, as Jonah Goldberg accurately described him in Liberal Fascism, a “man of the left.”

Further, many American leftists embrace communism as though that somehow precludes them from guilt – even though many of their ideas and actions have been objectively fascist in spite of their rhetoric.  But even aside from this fact, don’t forget that communism itself was the single most evil ideology in the history of human civilization.

Were Hitler and Nazism among the greatest evils in the history of the world?  Of course they were.  But actually, Hitler and his Nazism were only the third worse mass murderer in all human history, behind Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, who were both communist leaders of officially state atheist governments.

With that said, let us discuss Hitler and Nazism in terms of Christianity.

Did Adolf Hitler package some of his public remarks as “Christian”?  There is no doubt that he did precisely that at different times his rise to power, and even during his regime.  But that hardly means that Adolf Hitler was a Christian believer.  Politicians often have had clear and obvious reasons to say things that they didn’t really believe for political expedience.  And it is obvious on its face that Adolf Hitler was a liar and the worst demagogic political opportunist in human history, and that Nazism was utterly evil and based almost entirely on lies. Thus, to cite the propaganda of such a regime as evidence that Hitler or Nazism were somehow “Christian” is itself both sick and evil.

Germany had at one time been the seat of the Protestant Reformation.  But by the late 19th century Christianity in Germany had devolved into a near meaningless official state religion.  And Germany was the LEAST Christian nation in all of Europe.  The most prominent German theologians embraced a form of theological liberalism that disconnected the foundational elements of Christianity from historical fact, in what amounted to a sustained attack on the Holy Bible.  The school of “higher criticism” attempted to undercut traditional views about the authorship, composition and legitimacy of the Bible.  This project weakened biblical authority by assuming that the Biblical text and the events described were to be explained entirely in naturalistic terms, and rejected completely the possibility of supernatural revelation.  And it was almost entirely an undertaking of German scholarship (just look at the names: Eichhorn, De Wette, Wellhausen).

The Germany that voted for Adolf Hitler was influenced by an academic elite that had a total hatred for orthodox Christianity.

Given the state of our own university intelligentsia, one of Hitler’s more terrifying comments is this:

“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf Hitler, 1930

And so, yes, Hitler tried to package his Nazism in a way that superficially “Christian” Germany would accept, just as the Marxist Sandinistas deceitfully packaged their godless communism into “liberation theology” in order to deceive the overwhelmingly Catholic population of Nicaragua to support them.  As to the latter, the Catholic church said from the start that it wasn’t legitimate Christianity; but that it was a heresy. And the Cardinal Ratzinger who went on to become Pope Benedict even called the movement “demonic”.

Quote:

“…it would be illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites them (liberation theologies), and to accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the (Marxist) ideology, or to enter into the practice of the class-struggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads.
– (Author: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, now Pope Benedict XVI; written in 1984)

Quote:

“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.” — Pope Benedict XVI

And Hitler also packaged his hard-core of Nazism with a candy-coating of lies in order to fool the people. And the people were fooled indeed:

….Any opposition to Hitler is ruthlessly eradicated.  Tens of thousands are imprisoned.  Journalist Stephan Laurent dared to criticize The Fuehrer…..

“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing.  Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

Soon, the next wave of profoundly anti-Christian German scholarship took the next logical step in their attack against Judeo-Christian ideals which had stood for two millennium.  Friedrich Delitzsch, a biblical scholar from the University of Berlin, published a work arguing that the Old Testament published a book arguing that the entire Old Testament was dependent upon Babylonian culture and mythology.  Delitzsch concluded that:

“the Old Testament was full of deceptions of all kinds – a veritable hodge-podge of erroneous, incredible, undependable figures, including those of Biblical chronology…. in short, a book full of intentional and unintentional deceptions (in part, self-deceptions), a very dangerous book in the use of which the greatest care is necessary.”

But it soon becomes clear that the reason that Delitzsch believed the Old Testament was “a very dangerous book” was because it was Jewish, and Delitzsch was an anti-Semite first, and a scholar second.  Delitzsch went so far as to argue the plain historical fraud that Jesus was not Jewish, arguing that there was some difference between “Jews” and “Galileans.”  He also maintained an equally bogus distinction between Jesus as a warm humanitarian versus Jewish moral intolerance.  Thus Delitzsch “de-Judaized” Christianity, and “contended that Christianity was an absolutely new religion, totally distinct from that of the Old Testament” [See Gene Edward Veith, Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 53-54].

And so it became an easy next-step for Nazi propagandists such as Ezra Pound (who is also known as the godfather of modernism) to state that the Jewish religion began when Moses, “having to keep a troublesome rabble in order, scared them by inventing a disagreeable bogie, which he called a god.”  And Pound concluded “the greatest tyrannies have arisen from the dogma that the theos is one, or that there is a unity above the various strata of theos which imposes its will upon the substrata, and thence upon human individuals.”

And Adolf Hitler could then state in his Mein Kampf that:

“The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history [the necessity of intolerance] arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature” [Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 454].

The chain began by German scholars was complete: Hitler argued that it was okay to be intolerant of intolerant people, and that the Jews literally epitomized intolerance.

And none of this was “Christian”; it was a project straight from hell.

Friedrich Nietzsche – a patron saint of Nazism – correctly pointed out the fact that:

“Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion part excellence” [Nietzsche, "The Twilight of the Idols"].

And so, a good Nazi was a Gottglaubiger.  Rather than putting “Christian” on personnel forms they wrote down “Gottlaubig” – representing a “vague pseudo-philosophical religiosity” – to indicate that, while they were not “godless communists,” they were most certainly not “Christian.”

So Hitler publicly said what he needed to say in speeches to deceive a mass population who had been bombarded with anti-Christian heresy and anti-Christian anti-Semitism, to bend them to his will.  But to his inner circle he said very different things than what he said publicly.  Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

What else did those closest in Hitler’s inner circle say about his “Christianity”?

From Joseph Goebbels’ diary, dated 8 April 1941 (Tue):

The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.” [Elke Frölich. 1997-2008. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Munich: K. G. Sauer. Teil I, v. 6, p. 272].

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler's Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Author Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Albert Speer – another Nazi who worked extremely closely with Hitler – reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler:

You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” [Albert Speer. 1971. Inside the Third Reich Translated by Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. New York: Macmillan. p 143; Reprinted in 1997. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 96. ISBN 0-684-82949-5].

Adolf Hitler sounds like an atheist to me. Certainly, Hitler was absolutely not a Christian. He cynically used Christianity like he cynically used everything else that was good; he took ruthless advantage of it as simply another means by which to package his lies to the German people.

The fact of the matter is that Fascism and Nazism were quintessentially hostile to Christianity, and even to monotheism.

Hannah Arendt describes Nazi spirituality in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem:

When convicted Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann went to the gallows, “He was in complete command of himself, nay, he was more; he was completely himself. Nothing could have demonstrated this more convincingly than the grotesque silliness of his last words. He began by stating emphatically that he was a Gottglaubiger, to express in common Nazi fashion that he was no Christian and did not believe in life after death” [p. 252].

One of the leading experts on fascism, Ernst Nolte, defined fascism as “the practical and violent resistance to transcendence” [Nolte, Three Faces of Fascism: Action Francaise, Italian Fascism, Nazi Fascism, 1965, p. 429].  Fascism was anti-God, anti-supernatural and anti-transcendence.

Gene Edward Veith says:

It is particularly important to know, precisely, why the Nazis hated the Jews. Racism alone cannot explain the virulence of Nazi anti-Semitism. What did they see in the Jews that they thought was so inferior? What was the Jewish legacy that, in their mind, so poisoned Western culture? What were the Aryan ideals that the Nazis sought to restore, once the Jews and their influence were purged from Western culture?

The fascists aligned themselves not only against the Jews but against what the Jews contributed to Western civilization. A transcendent God, who reveals a transcendent moral law, was anathema to the fascists” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 13].

By killing the Jews, Hitler intended to kill the God of the Bible.

Of Protestant Christianity, Hitler wrote:

Protestantism… combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established. Yet here we are facing the question without whose solution all other attempts at a German reawakening or resurrection are and remain absolutely senseless and impossible” (Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 113).

Hitler talked about solving the “church problem” after he’d solved the “Jewish problem.” He said:

“The war is going to be over. The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem. It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure” (Hitler’s Tabletalk, December 1941).

Hitler boasted that “I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”

Martin Bormann, head of the Party Chancellery and private secretary of the Fuhrer, said pointedly:

National socialist and Christian concepts cannot be reconciled. The Christian churches build on the ignorance of people and are anxious so far as possible to preserve this ignorance in as large a part of the populace as possible; only in this way can the Christian churches retain their power. In contrast, national socialism rests on scientific foundations” (cited in Ernst Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler, p. 303).

At a Nazi rally a speaker proclaimed: “Who was greater, Christ or Hitler? Christ had at the time of his death twelve apostles, who, however, did not even remain true to him. Hitler, however, today has a folk of 70 million behind him. We cannot tolerate that another organization [i.e., the church] is established alongside of us that has a different spirit than ours. We must crush it. National socialism in all earnestness says: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

Nazism was pagan to its very core. Carl Jung (a onetime fascist sympathizer himself) described Nazism as the revival of Wotan, who had been suppressed by Christianity but now was released. Germany was being possessed by its archetypal god. (Odajnyk, Jung and Politics, p. 87-89). The Farmer’s Almanac of 1935, published by the Ministry of Agriculture, replaced the Christian holidays with commemoration days for Wotan and Thor. And Good Friday was replaced with a memorial for those killed by Charlemagne in his efforts to convert the Saxons.

In addition, at the very heart of the Nazi’s race programs and at the center of the Holocaust was the belief in atheistic Darwinian evolution. The principle rationale for the Holocaust was that the Jews were biologically inferior, and interfered with the Nazi scientists’ efforts to aid evolution by creating a master race.

Listen to these words and tell me who wrote them:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

It was none other than Charles Darwin himself (Darwin, C.R., “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, 1874, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242).  Charles Darwin literally predicted that someone would come along and extend his Darwinism to its logical conclusion – and thus literally predicted both the Holocaust AND the motivations FOR the Holocaust.

Charles Darwin spake as a prophet, and Adolf Hitler was the messiah who fulfilled the demonic prophecy.

But it wasn’t just the Jew that Hitler was willing to exterminate as being “biologically inferior.”  Adolf Hitler – who had made the Holocaust of the “biologically unfit” and “sub human” Jew the centerpiece of his campaign to create a “Master” Aryan race – ultimately made his “master race” the victim of his hateful Darwinian views:

“If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”

How is that not the World War II that Adolf Hitler started not being explained into a test of Darwinism that the German people had to pass to justify their existence?  The simple FACT of the matter is this: that Adolf Hitler thought in entirely Darwinian terms.  He decreed the Jew had failed the test of Darwinism, and believed that if the German people could not prevail in his war that THEY TOO should be exterminated.

Why is this so?

Gene Edward Veith points out that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection had implications far beyond biology.  What must be true for nature must likewise be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition, struggle, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then clearly all progress must come the same way (unless we are not part of the natural system, which would mean that we were the product of divine Creation).  According to Zeev Sternhall, social Darwinism in Nazi Germany “stripped the human personality of its sacramental dignity.  It made no distinction between the physical life and the social life, and conceived of the human condition in terms of an unceasing struggle, whose natural outcome was the survival of the fittest” [Sternhall, "Fascist Ideology," in Fascism: A Reader's Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 322].

Similarly, Sternhall pointed out how scientific positivism “felt the impact of social Darwinism, and underwent a profound change.  In the latter half of the [19th]century its emphasis on deliberate and rational choice as the determining factor in human behavior gave way to new notions of heredity, race, and environment” [Sternhall, 322].

“Nazism was ‘applied biology,’ stated Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess.”

Nazism was also a direct attack against Christianity and Christian humanity.

Friedrich Nietzsche blamed Christianity, which he described as a creation of the Jews, for the denial of life that was represented in Christian morality.  Gene Edward Veith points out that, in his attack on Judeo-Christian morality, Nietzsche:

“attacked the Christian value of love.  Notions of compassion and mercy, he argued, favor the weak and the unfit, thereby breeding more weakness.  Nature is less sentimental, but ultimately kinder, in allowing the weak to die off.  The ideals of Christian benevolence cause the unfit to flourish, while those who are fit are burdened by guilt and are coerced by the moral system to serve those who are beneath them” [Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 82].

Nietzsche, epitomizing the spirit of Darwinism as applied to ethics, wrote:

We are deprived of strength when we feel pity … Pity makes suffering contagious….  Pity crosses the law of development, which is nature’s law of selection.  It preserves what is right for destruction; it defends those who have been disinherited and condemned by life; and by the abundance of the failures of all kinds which it keeps alive, it gives life itself a gloomy and questionable aspect” [Nietzsche, "The Antichrist"].

In short, the Christian ethic of compassion is a kind of sentimentality that violates the laws of nature, in which the strong thrive and the weak die out.

Speaking of this new, Nazi, anti-Christian, Darwinian view of morality and ethics, Reichmaster Alfred Rosenberg said:

“Justice is what the Aryan man deems just.  Unjust is what he so deems” [Alfred Rosenberg, as quoted in Victor Farias, Heidegger and Nazism, 1989, pp. 205-206].

“Justice” for the Jew according to the Aryan mind possessed by Darwinism meant extermination as racially inferior and biological unfit to exist.

Thus, whatever you might want to say about whether Hitler was an atheist or not, his Nazism was inherently opposed to Judeo-Christianity, opposed to Judeo-Christian monotheism, and opposed to Judeo-Christian transcendent morality. The spirituality that resulted was intrinsically pagan, and inherently anti-Christ and anti-Christian.

And in stark contrast to Adolf Hitler’s big government totalitarian Nazi atheism, here’s what our religious founding father’s believed:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

A 1954 Air Force Training Manuel had this commentary on these great words which founded the greatest nation in the history of the world:

The idea uppermost in the minds of men who founded the United States was that each and every human being was important. They were convinced that the importance of the individual did not come from any grant of the state, that the importance of the individual did not come from any position that he had achieved nor from any power he had acquired nor from any wealth he had amassed.

They knew that the importance of man came from the very source of his life. Because man was made in the image and likeness of God, he had a destiny to achieve. And because he had a destiny to achieve, he had the inalienable right and the inherent freedom to achieve it” (FTAF Manual 50-1).

Thus the question, “If God doesn’t exist, who issues rights to man?” becomes profoundly important.  Because the answer is, “Whoever has the power to issue those rights.”

It becomes the State which issues rights to man. And, welcome to come and crush the human spirit, next dictator.

Postscript: you can go here to see how this question about who issues rights to man is becoming increasingly important right here in the USA.

Of Obama Democrats, Their Contempt For Freedom, And Their Vile Health Care Takeover

September 3, 2010

The American people are now finally beginning to realize the fact that “Democrat” actually stands for “Demonic bureaucrat,” rather than having anything whatsoever to do with “democracy.”

Let me quickly set a beautiful recent illustration for you:  Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick had just been asked by an interviewer about the Glenn Beck 8/28 “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.  He was asked, “Are you troubled that it was there when it was and where it was?”

And Democrat Deval Patrick, the author of the “Just Words” speech that Obama pirated with such stunning success that it likely won him the presidency, responded:

“It’s a free a country.  I wish it weren’t, but it’s a free country.”

I guess “freedom” is just a word, too, isn’t it, Deval?

And of course Patrick wishes it wasn’t a free country.  Because he’s a Democrat, and Democrats have been fundamentally opposed to freedom ever since the REAL Lincoln that the Lincoln Memorial honored was fighting Democrats to free the slaves.

From HotAir:

And you thought that a libtalker declaring a public space too sacred for God would be the dumbest quote from the Left on the Restoring Honor rally hosted by Glenn Beck.  Michael Graham from Boston’s WTKK posts a clip of Governor Deval Patrick responding to a question about the rally by noting first that it’s a free country — and then that he’s not terribly happy about that, either:

Youtube audio:

Let’s look at prominent Democrats’ statements and see if there’s any reason to worry about our freedom:

We can put Gov. Patrick’s wish that we didn’t have freedom into the context of  Rep. John Dingell’s (D-MI) remark:

Let me remind you this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.

So don’t you worry your stupid, ignorant (and if you live in Arizona racist) little proletariat heads, American people.  Democrats are taking care of you like the apathetic herd animals you are.  They’re ensuring your freedom from tyranny by incrementally taking over every aspect of your lives.

Except:

(CNSNews.com) – During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.

What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

And:

In remarks at the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), who – believe it or not – is on the record as being the AUTHOR of the ObamaCare legislation:

“I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It’s statutory language,” Baucus said. “We hire experts.”

That’s right.  You can’t understand the bill.  Even our congressmen who voted for it didn’t bother to read it.  If you want to know what’s in the bill, you have to first bite into it like mystery meat and vote on it first.  And, of course, reading the bill is a complete waste of time.  If the experts in Washington think so, then it surely must be true.  So don’t read it, because there’ s a long, ugly process about controlling the people.

These Democrats were outraged – OUTRAGED – that the unwashed masses would dare – would DARE – to read the bill that they wouldn’t bother themselves to read and point out the many lies Democrats were spouting off to defend a bill that (and I must say it again) they didn’t even bother to read.

Obama and the Democrat Party assured us that ObamaCare would “lower the cost curve.”  That’s now been revealed to have been a whopping lie, just like Republicans yelled themselves hoarse predictingEven Democrats are now walking away from their false claims upon which they rammed this boondoggle legislation through.  But now we’re cursed with this terrible and frankly evil legislation that may well be the fiduciary anvil that broke the camel’s back.  And as we speak, health care premiums are soaring in advance of and because of ObamaCare.

In the same way, Obama and the Democrat Party promised that Americans would be able to keep their doctors and their plans if they chose to do so.  That was just another vile lie.  As Peter Ferrara of the Heartland Institute points out based on its study of ObamaCare:

“The bottom line is that you will lose your health care under this legislation, if not your job, your country as they bankrupt America, and maybe ultimately your life or the life of a loved one.  All that to make dreamy, emotionalized, liberals happy, even though many of them are not happy because the socialism in the bill is not overt enough. Moreover, the promises made to the American people to pass the bill are shown in the study to be thoroughly false.”

The fact of the matter is that the Democrats who didn’t even bother to read the damn bill – or more precisely the “God damn America” bill – may have just passed “The Freedom Enslavement Act” and dubbed it “ObamaCare.”  Because let us never forget that it was DEMOCRATS who passed The Fugitive Slave Act.  The passage of ObamaCare triggered the creation of more than 160 new boards, bureaucracies, programs, and commissions – or shall I call them death panels, given what we’re already starting to see?  And ignorant and despicable Democrat fools were just as certain that they were the champions of freedom when they were imposing slavery as they are today.

Democrat = Demonic bureaucrat.  Vote them out, or suffer the catastrophic result of “God damn America.”

In an incredible news break just as I prepare to publish this, Democrat Ron Wyden – who was one of the principle backers of ObamaCare – has just defected and ran, not walked away from the profoundly freedom-slaughtering legislation he voted for.

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

August 28, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On his radio show Wednesday, Beck said: “I know that people are going to hammer me because they’re going to say, ‘It’s no Martin Luther King speech.’ Of course it’s not Martin Luther King. You think I’m Martin Luther King?” He said he has prepared only a few talking points so he doesn’t get in the way of “the spirit.” Though he has said the date wasn’t chosen with the anniversary in mind, when he found out he called the coincidence “divine providence.”
Whites “do not own” the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, and “blacks don’t own Martin Luther King,” Beck said on his show in June. “Not only is the event non-political, we have continuously encouraged those attending to avoid bringing political signs, political flyers, ‘I heart the RNC’ T-shirts and other similar partisan paraphernalia. There are plenty of opportunities to talk about politics. This isn’t one of them.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allow me to quote myself:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But here’s a quote from Jeremiah Wright:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers