February 8, 1915: Birth of a Nation Debuts in Los Angeles

Wednesday, February 8, AD 2017


The film Birth of a Nation, D.W. Griffith’s masterpiece, was  controversial at its release and remains so.  At three hours the film was a pioneering effort using then cutting age technology to produce a movie that stunned viewers with its cinematic quality, something that no one had ever seen before.  At the same time the film, based on the pro-Ku Klux Klan novel the Clansman by Thomas Dixon, a friend of President Woodrow Wilson, drew outrage from Grand Army of the Republic Union veterans and black groups with its depiction of the Klan as noble heroes attempting to fight against evil Unionists and its depiction of blacks as little better than beasts who walked erect.  Race riots broke out in cities where the film was shown.  President Wilson viewed the film in the White House and was reported to have said, “It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true”.  The White House denied the remark, and in the wake of continuing protests, Wilson eventually condemned the “unfortunate production”.  The film used quotes from Wilson’s scholarly works to buttress its negative depiction of Reconstruction and its positive depiction of the Klan.  Considering the fact that Wilson imposed segregation on the Civil Service it is difficult to discern what he found to be “unfortunate” about the film.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to February 8, 1915: Birth of a Nation Debuts in Los Angeles

  • I have seen “Intolerance,” or at least most of it. It is a brilliant piece of film-making and the origin of the “cast of thousands.” Some of the shots still astound.

    It does a beautiful job of condemning religious prejudice, feeding into a Protestant audience’s feelings with a grim depiction of the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre and then throwing a brutal change-up: the next chapter features an innocent Catholic man being framed for a crime and sentenced to execution.

    If only he could have done something with respect to the hatred depicted in the also-brilliant but hellishly racist “Birth,” which is no less than grotesque in parts.
    “Intolerance” is still worth a watch, despite its predecessor.

    Oh, and Wilson turns my stomach. If only Teddy had won in 1912…

  • DW Griffiths’ movie “Birth of a Nation”: “with its depiction of the Klan as noble heroes attempting to fight against evil Unionists.”

    Then, as now, Hollywood was controlled by the Demonrats: then, the military wing of the Demonrat party was the KKK; now it is “Occupy!”, BLM, and “Black Rock.”

    How little has changed.

  • Dale
    If you can tolerate 3 hour movies here is the link

Obama and the Politics of Race

Tuesday, July 12, AD 2016


When it comes for seeing the forest through the trees, you can always rely on Brit Hume:

In Dallas, Tuesday, President Obama will be trying to calm racial tensions that his own behavior has done much to aggravate. From his denunciation of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, police as acting, quote, stupidly in the arrest of law professor Henry Louis Gates, to his assertion that the motives of the Dallas cop killer are unclear, they aren’t.

The president has consistently chosen to see things through the eyes of an aggrieved black activist rather than of a president of all the people. He’s not failed to speak out whenever a black is killed by a white police officer, but has said next to nothing about the continued slaughters of blacks by other blacks in the streets of Chicago, Baltimore, and other cities.

He has made his sympathy for the Black Lives Matter movement obvious and never mind that the whole premise of the movement seems to be fallacious. No case has given the movement more impetus than the false claim that Michael Brown was shot down in cold blood while trying to surrender to a cop in Ferguson, Missouri two years ago.

And now a study led by a black Harvard law professor has examined 15 years of crime data from 5 major cities and 2 counties. The study found that while police were more often likely to get physical with black suspects than with white ones, when it came to police shootings, there was no racial bias. Did you hear that, Mr. President? No racial bias.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Obama and the Politics of Race

  • Obamazilla….the great destroyer.

  • America (red state America) truly is a great nation. It has survived seven-plus years of Obama fundamental transformation – translated total destruction.

  • I think Pres . Obama has no moral authority to address our nation anymore. I wish we could have a new president who does.

  • “Obama has no moral authority to address our nation anymore.”- Anzlyne

    He never held moral authority.
    He is a renegade and imposter-in-chief.
    Moral authority from an immoral source is an oxymoron.
    At best he is Chicago punk. A thug. At worse, he is an Isis sympathizer…a Muslim who claims Christianity and wishes all Americans to be without their firearms as to make it easy for the “gathering of peasants.”
    Lame duck?
    Lame individual. Absolutely.

  • Like it or not, both Obama and Bergoglio – two peas in a pod – were validly elected to their offices. Like it or not, one is validly the President and the other is validly a Pope. Yet both are liberal progressives, both are heretics and neither has any moral authority due to their abandonment of authentic Christian principle (assuming either one had any to begin with). I for one would do much better if I pay as little attention to each man as possible. It is far healthier for my serenity and sanity, and it prevents unnecessary resentments and fits of rage at things I clearly cannot control (nor should I). Let God deal with each of these men, and when He does, there will be hell to pay, of that i assure you.

  • Thank you Pinky for the link.
    Well written President Bush.

  • I was really touched by Bush’s words. There’s a Lincolneque quality to them. Bush – who knew, right? Definitely there’s a decency there that you could almost forget we could have in a president. And I don’t think I’ve heard a better description of our current crisis than this:

    “Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions. “

  • Pinky, thank you. President Bush’s address could not have been written and delivered any better. Yes, our values are what makes up a nation; that bind us together. Values that are Judeo-Christian. Nonpartisan. Speaking from the heart as a Texan and a believer in God.

  • Heard a very telling comment on the radio by a Wash. DC police officer who had been on the Anacostia beat for 15 years. He said that the response from black males when pulled over for questioning or arrest is to always resist, to give the cops a hard time. If they don’t, they loose street cred with their “brothers” who are standing by.

  • I often have wondered what Obama and his puppet masters end game is on race when fanning the flames on Ferguson, etc . I’m starting to believe it’s to have an excuse for instituting martial law.

  • Regarding Obama’s “pronouncements” yesterday at the Dallas Police Officers’ Memorial:
    Anyone who listened to it had to find it disturbing, of course self-exaltatory (he used “I” 47 times in the space of the address”), and crackling with electric tension, like the sound you hear when suddenly you look up and find out that you are under high-voltage electrical towers.

    The man, sociopathic and egotistical, is on the edge, now more than ever. His reign, even with HIllary, ends in a few months, and sociopaths DONT TRUST ANYBODY, let alone a Clinton, were Shrillary to ascend the Imperial Throne. And if it is Trump…well, full psychosis is close around the corner—Supreme Injustice Ginsberg has already succumbed.

    I am in the thrall of Dr. Andrew G. Hodges (noted forensic psychiatrist) and his evaluation of Obama. For those who haven’t read his book (“The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury”) or noted his youtube explanations (there are about 7 parts: “The Obama Confession”), Hodges “regresses” Obama to his first 18 or so years to explain the man we have in the White House today.

    It is chilling to listen to Obama in this speech, and then to compare it with Hodges’ predictions for his final months in office: Hodges believes Obama is torn between saving America and destroying it, and now, at the present time, the hate-filled destroying side is obviously winning. Rejected as “not black enough” by his abandoning father, also later abandoned by his “stormchaser” mother and embarrassingly raised by upper-middle-class white grandparents, who yet also abandoned him to the hate-filled anti-American pornographer and communist Frank Marshall Davis, Obama believes that America is a sham and a lie and must be torn down completely. It is one of the reasons that he lies with such facility: “America is a lie, and has always been: my lies are nothing by comparison”. “Black children abandoned on the street (=myself) are owed a reckoning by America, and the time is now.” (of course paraphrases).

    But he is so psychotic now, he cant see the restlessness and disturbance that you could see in the audience that he elicited, in contrast to the hopeful and consoling message of former president GW Bush.

    He cant stop himself at this point: and the next few months are going to come to a climax. Nothing frightens him except the loss of his power—power which did nothing to “heal” his rage and fear—and now it is slipping away.

  • One other thing: Dr. Hodges focuses on the apparent discussion that his radical mom, Stanley Ann Dunham, apparently disclosed to him as a boy, that she had considered having an abortion when she discovered she was pregnant, out of wedlock (he tried to hide that in his autobiography, but was forced later to admit he was illegitimate—you know the street word for that), and abandoned by his father.

    Dr. Hodges believes whatever she told him, namely that he “could have not been”, possibly in his early years (age 6-10), a colossal error by a completely narcissistic mother, was the fulcrum of pushing this man into sociopathy for the rest of his life-time. Dr Hodges makes a convincing examination of several comments Obama has had on fatherhood, and on abortion. He always contradicts himself, showing an enormous hidden conflict.
    It also explains his contradictory desire for total abortion on demand in the country: he feels America should have known better than to “have him”, and now he will “do pay back”. It is very disturbing: and concordant with Obama.

  • “Dr. Hodges believes whatever she told him, namely that he ‘could have not been’, possibly in his early years (age 6-10), a colossal error by a completely narcissistic mother, was the fulcrum of pushing this man into sociopathy for the rest of his life-time. Dr Hodges makes a convincing examination of several comments Obama has had on fatherhood, and on abortion. He always contradicts himself, showing an enormous hidden conflict.
    It also explains his contradictory desire for total abortion on demand in the country: he feels America should have known better than to ‘have him’, and now he will ‘do pay back”. It is very disturbing: and concordant with Obama.”

    Very interesting. One thing that has always stood out to me is his continual expression of self hatred through every mechanism available to him. Because he hates himself, he transfers that hatred into others–including Americans at large.

  • Another matter, regarding Dr Andrew G. Hodges forensic psychoanalysis of Obama is telling on the occasion in the 2008 campaign (3/29/2008, Johnstown PA) — you can see it here, and the self-confession of Obama is arresting:


    Dr. Hodges infers, based on many references to Obama’s childhood reminiscences of his mother, that in his childhood years Stanley Ann Dunham, ever the self-absorbed promiscuous proto-liberal, advised him that she had considered abortion. Can you imagine the impact that had on a boy already abandoned by his father (if his father really was Barack Obama, Sr: she slept with many men—another shock to an innocent child, that was a fertile ground for his bitter cynicism and hatred today).

    He is simply re-telling the story of his own contemplated abortion, and confessing that he doesn’t want his daughters to suffer the way his mother, abandoned by Barack O, Sr., did.
    More reason for him to hate the lies and sham of America, of everything and everyone.

  • “I often have wondered what Obama and his puppet masters end game is on race when fanning the flames on Ferguson, etc . I’m starting to believe it’s to have an excuse for instituting martial law.”
    No, there is no end game CAM. The current situation is meant to be eternal, a sponge that can be squeezed forever for whatever political and legislative gain can be realized,

  • Steve Phoenix, that evidence and more all shows that Obama really turned out better than might have been expected. On a personal level he will always need our prayers.

  • Steve Phoenix, that evidence and more all shows that Obama really turned out better than might have been expected.

    When that evidence is “the terror attacks were not nuclear,” that is NOT praise.

Surprise! The Democrat Party Plays the Race Card!

Wednesday, October 22, AD 2014




“Garrisonian theories may do for village lyceums, and he-woman and she-man abstractionists, but the people of Illinois—the white men of the prairie state—who deal in facts, and take the world as it is, will never submit to the amalgamation theories which the black republican aspirant for senator bases upon his construction of the declaration of independence—that the negro is the white man’s equal—that he is entitled to political privileges equal with the white man.”

Illinois Register editorial attacking Abraham Lincoln during the 1858 Senate Race in Illinois

Throughout its history the Democrat Party has always used racist appeals and appeals to racial paranoia to gin up votes, especially when it looks as if the election may be close.  Therefore it is absolutely no surprise that in the closing weeks of the 2014 campaign Democrat political strategists reach for the race card from the bottom of the deck.  John Hinderaker at the Powerline Blog gives us the details:

Faced with major electoral losses this year, the Democratic Party is pulling out all the stops. For them, that means descending, again, into racism. As Glenn Reynolds says:

Democrats used to use racial fearmongering to get white voters to turn out. Now they use racial fearmongering to get black voters to turn out. Not much else has changed….

The Democratic Party is trying to use the shooting of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri to stimulate black turnout. There is zero reason to believe that the Brown incident had anything to do with race. Is there any evidence that Wilson, if attacked by a 6′ 4″, 292 pound white man, would not have shot him? No. Wilson may or may not have overreacted; we may never know for sure. But connecting the incident to race is sheer political opportunism by the Democrats.

In Georgia, the Democratic Party is circulating a despicable flyer, which doesn’t refer to any particular campaign but likely was intended to stimulate turnout on behalf of Michelle Nunn:




Meanwhile, in Ferguson, a cadre of professional protesters continues to stir the pot in order to keep the Michael Brown story in the news. I wrote here about Ferguson protesters who disrupted a performance of the St. Louis Symphony, where they got a predictably genteel reception. I said I would respect them more if they demonstrated at a St. Louis Cardinals game. Which they did, not long thereafter, with not very happy results.


Continue reading...

4 Responses to Surprise! The Democrat Party Plays the Race Card!

Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

Friday, March 14, AD 2014


The Washington Times reminds us that many people who use the term “diversity” prize uniformity above all:


An event meant to celebrate diversity and combat racism at a Washington state community college has been cancelled after a flier emailed to guests said white people weren’t invited.

A group of employees, under the name “Staff, Faculty and Administrators of Color,” at South Puget Sound Community College in Olympia sent an invitation to all 300 staffers to attend a diversity “happy hour,” a local news station reported.

School officials were asked to reply to the invitation to find out the confidential date and time of when the event would be held. According to the station, the invite made it clear white people were not invited.

“If you want to create space for white folks to meet and work on racism, white supremacy, and white privilege to better our campus community and yourselves, please feel free to do just that,” the email read.

Diversity and Equity Center staffer Karama Blackhorn helped write the invitation and said she stands by her opinion that staff members of color would have a more honest discussion about race without white people there.

“When trying to explicitly talk about race it can be a really difficult conversation for a lot of people,” she told the station.

“That space is not for white people. That space is for people of color,” she said of the center.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

  • “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

  • “School officials were asked to reply to the invitation to find out the confidential date and time of when the event would be held. According to the station, the invite made it clear white people were not invited.”
    If the school operates on tax money paying for the utilities and all, and only black are invited it is definitely racist. What it does do is insinuate that because your skin is white, you are racist, a white supremacist who practices racism, This is false witness and discrimination. It is also a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of peaceable assembly. It is not peaceable assembly for any one to gather to discriminate, slander, bear false witness or incite to riot.

  • “If you want to create space for white folks to meet and work on racism, white supremacy, and white privilege …”

    I think this could have been phrased differently. “Work” may not have been specific enough.

  • Pingback: The Miserable End Of The Miserable Fred Phelps - God & Caesar

Liberal Rules for Racism

Wednesday, August 14, AD 2013





On my way to Gen Con with my family, with a short detour to bankruptcy court on the way for a client.  (Ah, for those halcyon days of yore when a week’s vacation for a me meant a week’s vacation!)  While I had the time this morning I decided to post this brilliant piece by John Hawkins at Town Hall.  Something to recall as liberals play the only card they have left, the race card:


1) Liberals aren’t held to the same rules as Republicans: When liberals say racist things, it’s just excused out of hand as if it’s no big deal. If Dick Cheney had said, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man” instead of Joe Biden, you’d read about it every time he criticized Barack Obama. When Christopher Dodd said, “I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation,” it was shrugged off. On the other hand, Trent Lott ended up resigning from the GOP leadership for making very similar comments about Strom Thurmond.

2) Minority racism must be ignored:According to Rasmussen polling, “Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans.” This isn’t coming out of the ether. Black Americans voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton because he was black. If George Zimmerman had been black and Trayvon Martin had been Hispanic, most black Americans would have been indifferent to the case or would have supported Zimmerman. This is one of the great ironies of the liberal obsession with racism. While they can turn practically anything into evidence of Republican racism, the most grotesque examples of racism from minorities are just shrugged off.

3) You pay no penalty for falsely accusing people of racism: False accusations of racism can do just as much damage as actual racism. People can be ostracized for it, lose endorsement deals or even lose their jobs over being falsely accused of racism. Yet, the only reason you’ve heard of people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Touré, and Melissa Harris-Perry is because they’re willing to accuse people of being racists on the flimsiest of pretexts. It’s tempting to compare these race-hustling poverty pimps to the KKK, but the more appropriate analogy is the Spanish Inquisition. The attitude is, “So what if we unjustly accuse a lot of people as long as we get a few heretics in the process?”

4) Outrage matters more than facts: It doesn’t matter what Bush actually did in New Orleans or that the local government failed the people of the city; it matters how people FEEL about it. It doesn’t matter that Democrats have run Detroit since 1962; it matters that people FEEL Republicans are responsible. It doesn’t matter that Trayvon Martin wasn’t really a twelve year old kid and that he was slamming George Zimmerman’s head into the pavement; it matters that Zimmerman’s acquittal FEELS symbolic of law-abiding black Americans being profiled because so many other black Americans are criminals. Once an accusation of racism is made, facts are treated as if they’re of secondary importance to FEELINGS.

5) It’s okay to discriminate against white Americans: It’s unbelievable that in 2013, we still have race-based discrimination in America and liberals are perfectly fine with it. The rationale for what should be an incredible violation of the equal protection clause in the Constitution? It’s that whites are doing better than blacks are as a group. That’s probably a cold comfort to the son of a white single mother making minimum wage whose son loses out to one of Obama’s daughters because he happened to be Caucasian.

Continue reading...

30 Responses to Liberal Rules for Racism

  • J. Christian Adams: President Alinsky Threatens Americans With Rising “Social Tensions.” “Chaos Umpire sits, And by decision more imbroils the fray. By which he Reigns.”

    “About 52% of whites and 38% of blacks think race relations are positive, according to the poll by Hart Research Associations and Public Opinion Strategies. In January 2009, it was 79% of whites and 63% of blacks. This signals (for those without a clue) worsening race relations: Hope and Change!”

    I read that the smartest democrat woman on the Planet in a speech to her adulators praised Medgar Evans, for advancing the racist “ball.”

    Salena Zito, “Washington’s media class spends much of its energy inciting political divisions or writing about them, dedicating great gobs of print, airtime and social media to chopping up Americans by race, political party, culture or religion.”

  • I’d run across this article already. My bet is that it explodes through the internet. I think I’ve reconciled myself to all of these irregularities on the playing field except for #3. The implication of it is that serial accusers don’t really care about racism, and if that’s true, it’s hard to attribute any virtue to them at all.

  • When Cardinal Dolan dealt the race from this very same deck against the sate of Arizona, I don’t remember Donald or anyone else in the Catholic blogosphere expressing any concern about it. I guess in their world,playing the race card is only a bad thing when certain people do it.

  • IOWAHAWK: Key issues of the American left:
    2007: War, Deficits, Civil Liberties
    2013: Impertinent Rodeo Clowns, Gang Bangers’ Civil Liberties to Bang.

    Tweeted Re: banning-for-life the Obama rodeo clown: “Above all else, the Devil cannot stand to be mocked.” – C.S. Lewis

  • When Cardinal Dolan dealt the race from this very same deck against the sate of Arizona, I don’t remember Donald or anyone else in the Catholic blogosphere expressing any concern about it. I guess in their world,playing the race card is only a bad thing when certain people do it.

    Come again?

  • The implication of it is that serial accusers don’t really care about racism, and if that’s true, it’s hard to attribute any virtue to them at all.

    What someone once said about Gus Savage applies: “half of it is real feelings; half of it is just shtick”.

  • Art

    When AZ passed SB 1070 Cardinal Dolan equated it with the actions of the KKK and the Know Nothings:


    No one in the Catholic blogosphere said anything about it. If that’s not playing the race card what is?

  • 1. You have some exceptions (Harold Pollack, Jeralyn Merritt), but as a rule soi-disant liberals are not in our time purveyors of a perspective on public policy. They are purveyors of a long-running adolescent commentary on competing and jostling subcultures and inveterate poseurs. Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed remains after 18 years a fine diagnosis of the pathology of political discourse.

    2. Bad attitudes among blacks are an offense, not a threat. The trouble is when you have school administrators and government lawyers giving life to bad attitudes.

    3. Well, no. The whole point is to harass the hoi polloi. Fair dealing and decency have nothing to do with it.

    4. George Zimmerman – he’s the new Sarah Palin. Striking attitudes against him is a necessary gesture for liberal journalists (bar those who are working criminal defense lawyers) and social-climbing Republicans. It has been amusing to watch this crew move from one square to another on the board as the factual basis of what they had to say collapsed. (It is maddening to see the rest simply rehash discredited nonsense). They have been reduced to arguing that justice demands feral young men get one free beatdown of those they fancy have looked at them cross-eyed. The courts are not yet that insane; Judges have to walk through downtown parking garages to get to their reserved spaces.

    5. Wage earners and salarymen with butch jobs are at the receiving end of the injuries inflicted by our increasingly deranged system of labor market signaling systems. These are the sort of people about whom attorneys and hr directors and the higher-education blob care nothing.

  • No one in the Catholic blogosphere said anything about it. If that’s not playing the race card what is?

    Mr. McClarey has a law practice to run. He does not necessarily notice every idiot thing uttered by one of the 200-odd bishops in North America. The same applies to Tito Edwards, Deal Hudson, Austin Ruse, Jimmy Akin, &c. Others have a very particular vocation int their public advocacy and discussion that does not include much if any commentary on topical questions of that sort (the late Ralph McInerney, for example, or Wesley Smith). If you wanted to know what David Mills or James Hitchcock or Brian St. Paul had to say about that, you might have e-mailed and asked them.

  • Whatever Art.

  • These guys find plenty of time to not only rail incessantly about the bad behavior of others outside their circles, turn a deaf ear when those inside their circles act the same way, and demonize anyone who dares point that out. This is not an issue of “I don;t have time,” Somehow I suspect you already knew that.

  • What are you talking about? There is a huge mass of media out there and public figures of all sorts saying all manner of things. Did David Mills or Austin Ruse notice or read about what Cdl. Dolan said?

  • “Did David Mills or Austin Ruse notice or read about what Cdl. Dolan said? ”

    What does this have to do with anything?

  • I am beginning to think you are intoxicated.

    You have been complaining that so and so did not comment on Cdl. Dolan’s remarks. A necessary antecedent to that is that they noticed Cdl. Dolan’s remarks in the newspaper. Another antecedent is that they make it their business to offer general topical commentary. A third antecedent is that they take some interest in the matter at hand or that they do not have other things taking up their time and attention. Again, if you have a complaint that Brian St. Paul is not offering a forum for complaints about Cdl. Dolan’s remarks, you ought to e-mail Brian St. Paul. Complaining someone did not comment on x is generally a waste. There are 100,000 wretched things in this world that someone does not notice or think to remark upon.

  • There are 100,000 wretched things in this world that someone does not notice or think to remark upon.

    But when it is done by those who are prominent in orthodox Catholic circles like a Cardinal Dolan or even a Mark Shea for that matter, it doesn’t go unnoticed. Nor is it without ill effect. And these are far from isolated incidents. It is a chronic problem in orthodox Catholic circles. Prominent figures in orthodox Catholic circles can behave like left wing hack jobs and not only are not held accountable by their colleagues, but are protected and even allow their publications to be used as venues for their bile.

    Complaining someone did not comment on x is generally a waste.

    Remember that the next time you want to complain about the mainstream media not reporting on something.

  • ….Are you seriously claiming that every nutty thing Mr. Shea says is commented on here?

    Good heavens.

    I know the general questionable level of informed opinion of our Church leadership on illegal immigration has been brought up several times; I’m not going to go back over three years in our archives to see what was said here at that time in response to a blog post, but less than three months ago the subject came up and was dealt with again.

  • I will say Paul’s post was a good beginning on the subject of the bishops’ bad faith arguments on the immigration issue. The same could be said for Motley Monk’s post about how much federal money the USCCB gets and how the lion’s share goes to immigration “services”, This makes the fact that the Catholic media outlets that claim to be about Catholic orthodoxy and an honest search for the truth have a serious responsibility to raise concerns about how the bishops are approaching this issue all the more clear.

  • Is that an apology, or admission of being somewhat mistaken?

  • No, why would it be? Those two posts, as good as they are, are just a drop in the ocean on this blog alone let alone the entire Catholic blogosphere and Catholic media landscape.

  • Ah. One of those standards where you just complain about other folks not doing exactly as you want, when you want, rather than doing it yourself; any counterpoint that isn’t exactly what you want done is insufficient.

  • Furthermore, I don’t remember either of these two posts pointing out the race card that is often dealt by the bishops in regards to this issue and other issues like capital punishment. And that was my original criticism anyways.

  • We spend more time focusing on rational arguments than talking about this or that person who said that or this, unless it’s a matter where someone in the popular culture brought up a subject.

    Incidentally, here is the blog post you’re harping on– please note the comments at the bottom– and it does not play the “race card.” It uses history to build a narrative of fear-of-other, with “other” being immigrant.

    Unless I’m supposed to be able to pull the “Irish” race card?

  • “Incidentally, here is the blog post you’re harping on– please note the comments at the bottom– and it does not play the “race card.” It uses history to build a narrative of fear-of-other, with “other” being immigrant.”

    Drawing parallels of the KKK is playing the race card. It’s the same attempt to freeze any rational argument on this issue. And it is drawn from the same playbook as those on the left.

    We spend more time focusing on rational arguments than talking about this or that person who said that or this, unless it’s a matter where someone in the popular culture brought up a subject.

    Actually, a great deal of time is spent “talking about this or that person” which is fine in itself. It’s just that there is often a bad case of Selective Outrage Syndrome as to who. Certain Catholics, both clerical and lay, prominent in orthodox Catholic circles act in a manner no better than many of the worst elements on the left, but are given a pass from much of the Catholic blogosphere, including TAC.

    By the way, the last post concerning Mark Shea was Donald’s sorry attempt at whitewashing Mark’s conduct when Mark made his last non-apology apology. Beyond that, if you were to judge Mark’s behavior on the basis of Donald’s post, you would wonder what Mark had to apologize for.

  • Drawing parallels of the KKK is playing the race card.

    No, it is not.

    Here is the entire mention of the KKK, from the link above, and in keeping with what actually happened:
    the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920’s who spewed hate against blacks, Jews, Catholics, and “forn-ers”.

    You do not get to make up your own facts, nor dictate what others do or what they meant in flat contradiction to observable facts.

  • What is it of late where I end up having to defend folks I disagree with from those supposedly on “my” side?!?!

  • Blacks are a race, yes, Jews, part race and part religion. And foreigners. Playing the ethnic card and the race card are substantively the same. Either way, hurling false accusations of bigotry against the State of AZ on the part of someone of Dolan’s stature is a scandal. Orthodox Catholic silence on that is also a scandal.

  • He drew an incorrect conclusion from the information he had access to– via the mainstream media, most likely. Amusingly, not that different from what a lot of extreme libertarians I know believe– that all immigration is the same, and that culture doesn’t matter.

    As evidenced by your silly characterization of Donald’s post about Mr. Shea, you mistake not sharing your personal judgements for actual failures.

  • He drew an incorrect conclusion from the information he had access to– via the mainstream media, most likely.

    Let’s see, trusting the same MSM that often mischaracterizes the Church. Really? Common sense should have told him not only that but that no Republican Governor in his/her right mind would sign a bill into law that would have any whiff of the kind of bigotry he characterized that law. I’m sure he also knew that a copy of the law is available on the web. And he, as well as the AZ bishops could have contacted Governor Brewer and got her side of the story. If they had. they certainly couldn’t have come up with the characterization they did which they later claimed the law was a threat to religious liberty. even if they disagreed with the law.

    As evidenced by your silly characterization of Donald’s post about Mr. Shea, you mistake not sharing your personal judgements for actual failures.

    Well, here is the closest Donald comes to critiquing Mark’s behavior:

    “It is difficult to blog without sharp elbows being thrown and I think it safe to say that in Saint Blog’s Mark has had two of the sharpest elbows.”

    Really Foxfier, Mark’s biggest problem is that he has the “sharpest elbows” at St Blog’s? You know that’s not the case. I know that’s not the case. And Donald knows that’s not the case. So, my “silly characterization” is right on.

  • Really Foxfier, Mark’s biggest problem is that he has the “sharpest elbows” at St Blog’s?

    … Are you really that obtuse?
    After several re-writes, that is the most polite way I can put it. Then again, the problem is that you seem unable to recognize “polite” when it’s painted hot pink and is doing a dance on a table yelling “I am being polite.”

    You’ve made it perfectly clear. You don’t like it that people disagree with you, and you’re willing to impute whatever motives you feel like on those who fail to do what you want.

    Got a lot more in common with Mr. Shea than I’d be comfortable with, for sure.

  • Oddly related:

    So imagine my surprise yesterday to see a post on the Bar from someone accusing Baen of lying about never accepting manuscripts from “new” writers. His proof of this was that there were no “new” authors listed on the schedule for the last year or then next few months. When some responders pointed out that there were new authors on the list, he came back and basically moved the goal posts. He said these authors weren’t “new” because they were known to be writers in other areas: gaming, non-fiction, etc. What he was talking about were authors who had never been published before, ever. He went on to basically say the slush pile was just a ploy by Baen to build brand loyalty.

    Now, this poster did admit that he’d tried going through the slush process but had been turned down. He complained about how long it took (but when someone checked the time involved, it was within the time frame Baen tries to stick to). What got me about his comments were that he was there to rant and each time someone responded with proof that his premise was wrong, he basically said, “but that’s not what I meant. This is what I meant.”

O’Reilly and the Race Hustlers

Friday, August 2, AD 2013

I normally don’t have much use for Bill O’Reilly, but he was on target in the above video.  Here is the editorial he complained of:

The governor and others stood up publicly in Milford because the word “KKK” was involved. Everyone knows the disgusting history of that movement and how disgusting one’s mindset has to be to embrace the label today. And everyone should know what a “neighborhood patrol” by the KKK is all about.
Meanwhile, though, the same basic message that the KKK has promoted for 148 years is embraced by the likes of Ted Nugent, Fox News, Ann Coulter, a burgeoning array of fringe “conservative” media and members of our own community commenting on stories on the New Haven Register’s website.

Nugent will be in New Haven Aug. 6 with prominent billing for a concert at respected local music institution Toad’s Place. He has brought the KKK’s traditional message to the mainstream — to the point of being embraced by the leaders of the Republican Party during the last presidential election campaign (against the re-election of a black president, it should be pointed out).

Here is the non-apology apology printed after O’Reilly’s on air mention of them:

We did not intend to compare Fox News specifically to the KKK and we should have done a better job clarifying that when we said that the “same basic message that the KKK has promoted for 148 years is embraced by the likes of Ted Nugent, Fox News, Ann Coulter, a burgeoning array of fringe ‘conservative’ media.” It was a poor choice of words that created an unfortunate comparison between Fox News and the KKK.  We’re sorry for that. We did not intend to make any such comparison. This comparison should have been more specific to Nugent’s and Coulter’s views and statements about people of color, immigrants and gay people, and to be clear, was relating that to the ideology of the KKK, not its abhorrent history of violence.

We stand by our criticism and call for Fox News to challenge and condemn the hatred and racism advocated by guests such as Ted Nugent and Ann Coulter instead of continuing to give them a platform.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to O’Reilly and the Race Hustlers

  • “The Left reaches for the race card like an alcoholic . . . ”

    For shame! You insult drunks everywhere.

    The only agruments liberals have are constant calumnies, ugly assaults, and inane insults.

    Re: the so-called media a.k.a. the praetorian guard of national lies, George Orwell wrote:

    “At an early age, I became aware that newspapers report no event correctly. But in Spain, I read for the first time articles which bore no relation to the facts, not even the relation implicit in an ordinary lie.”

  • We apologize for calling them racists. We didn’t intend to criticize the things they do when they’re not being racists, and had only intended to criticize their racism.

  • Being a recovering drunk, ditto to what T Shaw wrote. 😉

  • The reason you don’t have much use for Bill O’Reilly is because you don’t watch him enough. He is quite good at discussing issues that need to be discussed. There have been numerous times that I do not agree with him but the majority of the time is “right on.”

  • Actually in the past I used to watch him virtually every night. Changes in my daily schedule prevent that currently. I always watched him for humor rather than for any other reason. Although he usually comes down on the same side of issues that I do, the man is a buffoon. He is however an amusing type of buffoon: a buffoon who thinks he is a genius.

George Zimmerman, the Media and the Search for the Great White Racist

Monday, July 29, AD 2013

Coverage of the George Zimmerman trial gives ample demonstration that most of our agenda driven media today makes the facts fit the story and not the other way around.  Cathy Young at Reason examines how the media has constantly attempted to falsely portray George Zimmerman as a white racist:



This narrative has transformed Zimmerman, a man of racially mixed heritage that included white, Hispanic and black roots (a grandmother who helped raise him had an Afro-Peruvian father), into an honorary white male steeped in white privilege. It has cast him as a virulent racist even though he once had a black business partner, mentored African-American kids, lived in a neighborhood about 20 percent black, and participated in complaints about a white police lieutenant’s son getting away with beating a homeless black man.

This narrative has perpetuated the lie that Zimmerman’s history of calls to the police indicates obsessive racial paranoia. Thus, discussing the verdict on the PBS NewsHour, University of Connecticut professor and New Yorker contributor Jelani Cobb asserted that “Zimmerman had called the police 46 times in previous six years, only for African-Americans, only for African-American men.” Actually, prior to the call about Martin, only four of Zimmerman’s calls had to do with African-American men or teenage boys (and two of them were about individuals who Zimmerman thought matched the specific description of burglary suspects). Five involved complaints about whites, and one about two Hispanics and a white male; others were about such issues as a fire alarm going off, a reckless driver of unknown race, or an aggressive dog.

In this narrative, even Zimmerman’s concern for a black child—a 2011 call to report a young African-American boy walking unsupervised on a busy street, on which the police record notes, “compl[ainant] concerned for well-being”—has been twisted into crazed racism. Writing on the website of The New Republic, Stanford University law professor Richard Thompson Ford describes Zimmerman as “an edgy basket case” who called 911 about “the suspicious activities of a seven year old black boy.” This slander turns up in other left-of-center sources, such as ThinkProgress.org.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to George Zimmerman, the Media and the Search for the Great White Racist

  • Pingback: The Magnanimity and Humility of St. Ignatius Loyola - BigPulpit.com
  • Recently, the NYT invented a new racist category: “White Hispanic.”

    The media (except, on occasion, FOXNEWS) are co-conspirators in one massive fraud after another.

    Lenin set up Pravda (Russian for truth). The commissar running Pravda was asked, “What is truth?’ His answer, “That which serves the revolution.” Same same with America’s contemporary, useless idiots.

  • To be fair, members of la gauche who have done criminal defense work (e.g. Alan Dershowitz and Jeralyn Merritt) have been steadfast defenders of due process and the grounding of evaluations in discrete facts. The case has also smoked out certain starboard opinion journalists. National opinion magazines are not obligated to make too much of local crime stories. The editors of the American Spectator published two articles on this case that were so stupid they should have been rejected for publication without a second thought. It emerged after Zimmerman was acquitted that among those who did not wish to be confused with the facts was Richard Lowry’s deputy at National Review (Harvard, ’03, natch). The regime class has its berths not only at the Republican National Committee and the House Appropriations Committee, but in and among putatively independent observers.

  • Mr. Zimmerman has been framed as a racist the same way the Tea Party has
    been, and by the same decadent media.

    It’s always baffled me that the meme “the Tea Party is racist” ever got traction
    when so many of stars of the party have been Black, Hispanic or other minorities.
    Mia Love, Allen West, Herman Cain, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez,
    Tim Scott, Ted Cruz, etc.. If the Tea Party is racist, they’re sure doing it wrong.
    Yet our so-called journalists of today repeat their libels, in spite of all evidence
    to the contrary. Like the charges of racism against Mr. Zimmerman, the
    attacks are manufactured from thin air, and in spite of evidence to the contrary.

    Whatever one chooses to call what’s being practiced by most major news outlets
    today, it’s not journalism.

  • Another example of the party line from the lapdog media follows.

    THE MEDIA CALLS THEM “TEENS”: Black Thugs Brutally Beat Another Man

    By Clash Daily / 29 July 2013 / 130 Comments

    * ClashDaily- If you were listening to this via satellite radio you’d have no idea that the attackers were black. The also don’t mention the color of the victim. No word from Obama or Sharpton regarding this incident…

    BALTIMORE (WJZ) — A man is brutally attacked by a group of teens in Little Italy. Police say four of the attackers are in custody. Three of them are juveniles.

    The victim was walking home from work when he was attacked near Bank and Exeter Streets. Police say the brutality of the crime is why three juveniles arrested are being charged as adults.

    A brutal attack in the heart of Little Italy. Police say a man walking home from work at an area restaurant is attacked and severely beaten near Bank and Exeter Streets by a mob of at least ten teens.

    Four of the alleged attackers, three of them minors, have been arrested and charged.

    “It’s very upsetting because you feel suspect now. Now you see a group of kids, children, and you have to worry if they’re not going to pounce on you,” said Giovanna Blattermann, neighbor.

    The assault happened in front of Giovanna Blattermann’s house. She’s also watched video of the attack–captured by her neighbors surveillance camera.

    While the suspects took the man’s phone, Blattermann says that’s not what they were after.

    “They beat this boy. He got up, he’d run, they beat him. He got up, he’d run, they beat him. He got up, he’d run, they beat him,” said Blattermann.

    The suspects range in age from 16 to 19, but police say because of the brutality of the crime, the minors aren’t being charged lightly.

    Read more at baltimore.cbslocal.com

    Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2013/07/the-media-calls-teens-black-thugs-brutally-beat-another-man/#ixzz2aUNF3GSY

  • On KOMO news, they’re starting to treat the random beatings seriously. Mostly ‘cus of Tuba Man.

The Left and Race

Wednesday, July 24, AD 2013



Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so frequently in defense of the Church that I have designated him Defender of the Faith, explains at Midwest Conservative Journal why the Left is so obsessed with race and finding racists, if not under every bed, certainly within every white skin:

Never let it be said that Naughton’s joint serves no useful purpose because I found this there.  If you’re wondering why all the Episcopal Organization reactions to the George Zimmerman verdict read pretty much the same way, some chick named Mia McKenzie explains it all for you, illustrating why national “conversations” about race are worse than worthless because they’ll go somewhere only when white people admit that they’re wrong now, they’ve always been wrong and they always will be wrong:

Racism is, in reality, a huge, systemic, deeply-rooted plague that exists everywhere and affects everything, that degrades and starves and rapes and murders people without losing its breath. It is built on hundreds of years of oppression and genocide. It is in our government, in our entertainment, in our literature, in our corporations, in our language. This entire country was built on it. It is everywhere, and it is insidious and subtle just as often as it is open and obvious.

It is not that crazy dude over there.

I see the appeal to white folks in thinking about racism this way. The “whack job” approach allows people to separate racist thinking and behavior from themselves. It’s that crazy screaming dude over there who’s racist. It’s your drunk uncles. It’s your he-was-so-quiet-and-seemed-so-normal-before-he-walked-into-the-mall-and-started-shooting-people neighbors. All of whom you can shake your heads at with furrowed brows while proclaiming that you’re “not like that.”

But you are.

White people, you need to get this: you are racist. The first step is admitting that you are part of the problem.

I am not going to tell you why or how you are racist. I’m not here for your education.

Whatever, kitten.

A question and a comment.  What is the difference between Miss McKenzie declaring and the Episcopal Organization tacitly agreeing the concept that every Caucasian becomes a “racist” the moment his or her umbilical cord is cut and some old National Socialist concentration camp guard somewhere claiming that we had to gas all those Jewish children because of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?  And before you mindlessly invoke Godwin’s Law, at least take a run at answering my question.

You and I both know certain facts about certain countries in the world and certain cities in the United States.  But I’m not going  to mention any of them right now for the same reason why, when I drove an orange Pinto several decades back, I refused, much to the consternation of a mentally-challenged friend of mine to put a Confederate flag on my car’s roof (my man was a huge Dukes of Hazard fan back in the day).  I saw no reason to needlessly offend anyone over something that eventually wouldn’t matter anyway.

But keep up this “guilty until proven innocent” line and I’ll stop caring about your feelings and mention these facts that everyone knows.  I own two Confederate flags, a Second and a Third National, that I bought from the Museum of the Confederacy.  I obviously have no pole to raise either of them on but I do have several walls.  If by some miracle, I ever let you in my place, you should happen to see one and wonder why it’s there, I’ll tell you it’s because of my pride in my Southron heritage. 

If you happen to get mad at me, I’ll happen to not give a crap.  Because the result of attitudes like Miss McKenzie’s and the Episocopal Organization’s can never be racial understanding and certainly won’t be increased racial hostility.  It’ll be something far worse for the liberals than either of those two outcmes.


Put simply, the left needs “racism” and needs it desperately.  Take that crutch away and large numbers of leftists are going to be forced to do pretty much the most difficult thing in the entire world.  Look in the mirror.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to The Left and Race

  • It reminds me of “dry drunks”, people who aren’t drinking but haven’t moved past the alcohol. They’re no longer racist, but they can only think about race, and think that everyone else is only thinking about race.

  • Nasty and dishonest/inane attacks, and ugly ridicule are at the heart of liberal arguments.

    And, then they send in the infiltartors . . .

    Instapundit: “Her name is Renee Vaughn. Her employer, the ‘Texas Campaign For The Environment’, has also apologized. Nonetheless, I hope the picture of her standing with a sign reading ‘We’re Racist And Proud’ winds up being tagged to both. . . . Regarding the leftist activist that carried a signing saying that sign at a TX pro-Zimmerman rally. All they have are lies.

  • Cheap grace.

    Denounce an entire race to show your purity– of course all whites are racist, just the good ones are willing to “admit” it for all the rest. *eyeroll*

    If the “racism” is so nebulous that they can’t even give good examples, it’s clearly not the “racism” that was a big deal.

  • We need to think about the consequences of this: if all whites are racists, that absolves white people of the responsibility to try not to be racist–and it makes Klansmen and Nazis the most sincere white men on Earth, and therefore the most authentic. Is that the world we want to live in?

    Never mind the fact that this claim is itself racist. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, anyone can be a racist–or not. You don’t fight racism by being racist, but by treating people as individuals, not as groups.

  • Pingback: Fifty Shades of Nothing - BigPulpit.com

IRS Scandal: Racism!

Thursday, June 6, AD 2013

MSNBC, the network that has worse ratings than most test patterns, can always be relied upon to plumb the depths of American politics in their ceaseless struggle to defend the Obama administration.  Martin Bashir, a British journalist who has seen his career reduced to ashes before his eyes as the went from the BBC to ABC and now to MSNBC, the last stop in journalism before yelling insults at passersby on street corners, and self-proclaimed committed Christian, seizes upon racism as an explanation for all the furor over the IRS. 

Continue reading...

7 Responses to IRS Scandal: Racism!

  • MSNBC = Obama’s Pravda

    Instapundit: “Sorry comrade, but what you’re offering is mere bourgeois truth, concerned with tedious facts. The truth is any narrative that advances the revolution.”

    Russian for truth = pravda.

  • Yaaawwwwnnnn…..who’s dat’? Bashir who?

  • If it were not for this post, I would not know Sir Bashir and MSNBC (Am-Pravda6c) exist.

  • The only Bashir to whom I have ever paid any attention is Dr. Julian Bashir of Deep Space Nine:



  • This video’s a keeper. I try not to be to schadenfreudish, but for some reason I can’t stop watching The Young Turks’ video denouncing Andrew Breitbart for daring to accuse Anthony Weiner. It just gets better with each viewing. The Rachel Maddow “these are some of the ways Weiner’s account could have been hacked” video is entertaining as well. If this IRS scandal does prove to be major, I may have to keep watching Bashir’s video.

    And note the reasoning of it. Thirty-two years ago a Republican said something to the effect that a lot of political issues hit the same trigger as race, therefore, every political issue that’s been raised since then (and presumably forever) by Republicans is a proxy for race.

  • Paul….thank you. Thats funny.

  • If I had been asleep the last twenty years, I would think the man has lost his mind but the wide awake reality is that much of journalism has lost its soul and become a propaganda machine for the Left. The only way Mr. Bashir’s accusations can appear credible is as a latter day, Soviet style, socialist reality.

The Second Amendment and Racism

Friday, February 1, AD 2013

Actor Danny Glover recently stepped outside of his role as an actor and assumed the roles of historian and constitutional scholar:

I don’t know if you know the genesis of the  right to bear arms,’ said Glover, well known for his roles in the ‘Lethal  Weapon’ franchise. ‘The Second Amendment  comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from  uprisings by Native Americans,’ he said.

‘A revolt from people who were stolen from  their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the  genesis of the second amendment is.’

Glover should stick to his day job.  The main concern of the Founding Fathers in regard to the Second Amendment was to provide the citizenry the ability to resist a tyrannical government.  As James Madison noted in Federalist 46:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

Prior to the Civil War there were laws passed in many of the slave holding states attempting to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to whites.  Challenges to these laws by free blacks almost always asserted the second amendment.  A passage in the Dred Scott decision indicates what a preoccupation blacks carrying weapons was to slaveholders:

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to The Second Amendment and Racism

  • Pingback: FRIDAY GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • Would Mr Glover believe The Atlantic? Gov. Reagan and the NRA are the bad guys passing gun-control, oppressing Black Panthers exercising their Second Amendment rights.


  • Professors Robert Cottrol and Raymond Diamond explored this issue in a tour de force law review article in 1991:


  • Hitler denied the human soul and the sovereign personhood of the human being to the Jews, calling Jews subhuman. By denying Jews sovereign personhood, Hitler was able to deny the Jews membership in Homo Sapiens, the human species. Hitler was able to deny Jews life.
    The Supreme Court in Dredd Scott, the slaveholders too, denied the human being composed of human body and immortal soul, the sovereign personhood endowed by “their Creator”, because the man’s skin was colored black. Sometimes his skin was yellow or red or white, or any color. The state does not create men and certainly does not endowed men with unalienable rights. The state, being constituted by the sovereign personhood of man, is sovereign only in that the state may fulfill its mission inscribed in the Preamble to our U. S. Constitution for the United States of America.
    Denying the black man sovereign personhood enabled the ignorant to enslave and abuse his brothers and sisters in Christ. This is the crux of the matter. Once denied, any reason could be used to embarrass, insult and deprive the black man, of everything, and among everything was his right to be innocent until proved guilty, to self-defence, to share in the culture. The civil rights movement was about reestablishing, acknowledging and respecting the person. And the civil rights movement did overcome. The black man’s unalienable civil rights are acknowledged as self-evident truths, that all men are created equal and endowed by our Creator, as inscribed in our founding principles.
    The crux of the matter resurfaces now, because the Sovereign Person of the Supreme Sovereign Being has been expelled from our culture. God is exiled from the human race. The soul of man is in jeopardy of being preempted by the evil one, the devil. The devil has no soul and therefore, is perfect evil. Man has a soul and needs God to fulfill his personhood. The atheist says NO. You cannot have your soul fulfilled until I say so. Perfect tyranny.
    Once the human being’s sovereign personhood is acknowledged and afforded all unalienable rights as enumerated in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the black man and all men will be able to enjoy responsible gun ownership and reasonable self-defence.
    Note: I use the spelling of self-defence from the Preamble. The civil rights movement was about restoring the acknowledgement of personhood to all persons. The gay’s movement has never been denied sovereign personhood and therefore, their civil rights are not being violated. They are gay persons. So, too with abortion’s right to choose. What “civil right” has been denied to the pregnant woman? Is she still not a sovereign person with the personhood of a pregnant woman and the sovereignty of a mother? Only our Loving God’s person is being denied fellowship, courtesy and respect in the public square. Civil rights for the Supreme Sovereign Being.

How Not To Be A Racist

Tuesday, August 28, AD 2012



I wish I could say  the above video is an exaggeration, but it really isn’t.  Timothy Noah demonstrates this in The New Republic in a charming article entitled, Romney Cribs from the GOP’s Willie Horton Playbook.  In the article Noah somehow fails to note that in 1988 the first candidate to bring up the fact that Michael Dukakis as governor of Massachusetts defended a furlough policy for prisoners, including convicted first degree murderers serving a life sentence, was Al Gore.  Willie Horton, a first degree murderer serving a life sentence, received a weekend furlough, did not come back, and committed the crimes of rape, assault and auto theft.  Horton was sentenced to two life sentences plus 85 years in Maryland.  The Maryland judge refused to return him to Massachusetts, saying, “I’m not prepared to take the chance that Mr. Horton might again be furloughed or otherwise released. This man should never draw a breath of free air again.”  Michael Dukakis as governor of Massachusetts thought that such furloughs were a great idea and defended the policy.  Bush is accused by Noah of racism for bringing up these very inconvenient facts against Dukakis.

So much for history.  How is Romney guilty of racism according to Noah?

Edsall sees the Romney campaign using race in two ways. Most overtly, the Romney campaign is accusing President Obama by of gutting welfare reform by dropping the work requirement—a gross distortion of an unexceptional waiver Obama granted several states allowing them to experiment with alternative ways to meet the work requirement. Two of the five governors requesting the waivers were Republicans, and among those who have denounced the workfare accusation as flat-out untrue is the Republican former congressman and current talk-show host Joe Scarborough. The second way Edsall sees the Romney campaign using race is more subtle. According to Edsall, Romney is conveying a racially-charged message in accusing Obama of taking money away from (mainly white recipients of) Medicare to fund (majority non-white recipients of) Obamacare.

According to Edsall, Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, have so far been leaving the race-baiting to ads on TV and the Internet while taking the high road in their own appearances. That isn’t quite right, as TNR’s Alec MacGillis has shown; Romney is not above integrating the welfare-based attack into his speeches. Now Romney has taken the game to a new level in an interview published today in USA Today. Romney tells USA Today’s Susan Page that Obama issued the welfare waivers to “shore up his base.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to How Not To Be A Racist

  • I believe it was Newt who earlier today said something to the effect that if you can hear a dog whistle, that must mean you are a dog yourself. Res ipsa loquitur, Mr. Noah.

  • The Democrats have to play up race, since that is the only way they’ll win. They cannot run on their record. It is not racist for blacks to break 90% for a supposed black man, but any white voting for Romney is definitely KKK at heart, I mean just look at the man’s family. The Democrat propagandists have mastered the highest art of totalitarianism – how to commit any crime, but make the victims bear the guilt.

  • More racism uncovered at the RNC:

    “She said America’s narrative has never been one ‘of grievance and entitlement.’”

    That “she” is Ms. Condi Rice.

    Seems the race card may not trump massive unemployment and expansive poverty.

    “For the very first time, the favorable/unfavorable ratios are now higher for the Republican Party than for the Democratic Party. For the first time ever, the Democratic favorability ratio, which has always been within the range of 1.20 to 1.56, is now below 1. It is a stunningly low .83, which is 31% lower than the prior Democratic Party low of 1.20, which was reached in 2004. . . . Under President Obama, there has been an unprecedentedly sharp and first-ever switch to preferring the Republican Party over the Democratic Party. In fact, the damage that has been done to the Democratic brand under the Obama Presidency, going from a historically normal Democratic ratio of 1.38 in 2008, down 39% to the present .83, compares with the Republican fall-offs under George W. Bush’s Presidency, which declined from the Republican ratio of 1.41 in 2000, down 18% to 1.16 in 2004, and then down yet another 31% to .80 in 2008, when the Republican Party hit its all-time (back until 1992) pre-convention low – which virtually doomed the campaign of Presidential candidate John McCain and made Obama’s win almost inevitable. The Democratic brand has thus suffered more (down 39%) under Obama than the Republican brand suffered under either of George W. Bush’s two terms (-16%, then -31%).”

Its Official: I’m Not a Racist

Thursday, June 14, AD 2012

I was worried there for a while. The narrative that the professional race industry and its subsidiaries across the spectrum of the American Left puts forth about what constitutes racism in the United States changes so often that I’m not sure from one day to the next whether or not I am a racist. But the latest missive from an authority no lesser than the Congressional Black Caucus has clarified the issue for me, and I have never been more relieved.

If I think Obama is “cool” and use the word to describe him, I am a racist (had I used the word to describe him when Ebony magazine and CNN did, I would have been fine). Logically, therefore, if I don’t think Obama is cool, I am not a racist. I’ve never really thought Obama was cool. Most of the time he bores me to sleep. So you might say I was a racist when Ebony/CNN thought it was ok to say that Obama was cool, since I didn’t find him cool then. Now, though, my racism has been revoked.

Of course, I may be jumping the gun. Logic is not exactly high on the priority list of people who manipulate emotions with hysterical rhetoric for raw political power. At some point, expressing one’s opinion about Barack’s uncoolness may well be considered racist again, or even simultaneously with a belief in his coolness. Both could be racist, or  neither, in which case it might be racist not to have an opinion one way or the other. What will we do then?

We can always look to the emotional cues of our enlightened superiors in the political and media establishment. At a moment’s notice, we can, like the citizens of Oceania, change our opinion on the racist content or lack thereof in the notion that Obama is cool. We can hysterically denounce all those who hold the currently racist opinion one day, then rehabilitate ourselves when the non-racist opinion becomes the racist opinion the next.

What happens if we find ourselves far from a telescreen to tell us what to think and show us how to react to the latest meme? We find a way to believe that Obama is both cool and uncool at the same time. All we have to do is discover how to double-think, which is:

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

So there you have it. As diligent consumers of the mainstream American media, you should already have an advanced degree in the subject. Avoid the stigma of racism, which we have been psychologically programmed to fear more than the boubonic plague and nuclear annihilation, with vigilant double-think. If you don’t, you’re a racist.

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Its Official: I’m Not a Racist

  • Um… members of the party should never be in a situation where they are far enough away from the telescreen to be that uninformed.

    I would have thought that you would be aware of that.

  • In Oceania, yes. In modern America, it is theoretically possible still.

  • I despise, loathe and abhor Barack Hussein Obama not because of the color of his skin Heck, I love Congressman Allen West, again, not because of the color of his skin. I abhor Obama because he is an evil man who will not repent. I love West because he is unfraid to tell the politically incorrect truth in the public square.

    But by accident of birth my skin color is white, so by definition I suppose that makes me racist.

    Liberal. Progressive. Democrat. Three of the dirtiest words in the English language, even more so than the “N” word.

  • The President is definitely cool in the sense Lincoln used the word in 1860:
    “In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear and mutters through his teeth, ‘Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!’ ”

    “Vote for my economy-destroying programs or YOU will have destroyed the economy.”

  • If I think Obama is “cool” and use the word to describe him, I am a racist (had I used the word to describe him when Ebony magazine and CNN did, I would have been fine). Logically, therefore, if I don’t think Obama is cool, I am not a racist. I’ve never really thought Obama was cool. Most of the time he bores me to sleep.

    Yep. I’m with Mark Steyn in that I don’t think he is or ever was a great orator. He speeches are more like those tempermental shower faucets that go from freezing to scalding with a mere twitch. One minute it’s “Audicity of Hope”; next minute we are all going to die. Blech.

  • Here’s a reason I refuse to waste my eyesight or money on HBO, the NY Times, Newsweek, etc.

    Reportedly, HBO ran a scene in its (I assume) crappy series “Game of Thrones” depicting the decapitated head of President George W. Bush on a pike.

    Counterpoint: the lying liberal press “goes nuts” over every imaginary insult against the Won.

    If you don’t watch the news, you are uninformed. If you watch the news, you are misinformed.

  • @Klansman Paul. Thanks for proving my point \. You racist slimeball. Yes you ARE a racist. Allen West is an Uncle Tom who insults African-Americans for not thinking like him!
    Barack Obama is not an “evil man.” I voted for him in 2008 and will do so again in 2012.
    On the night of Barack Obama’s presidential election victory, Americans seemed to shed our troubled legacy of racism. Or did we?

    Obama’s victory did offer at least one gift to conservatives. It gave them a new excuse to tell black Americans to stop complaining about white racism.

    people like Klansman Paul

  • Questionman,

    Are you trying to outdo me in the humorous writing department?

    I’m also a little offended here. I went out of my way to mock Obama and the CBC. Why didn’t you hysterically accuse ME of racism!?

    I’ll have to try harder next time.

    Oh, by the way –

    If you’re black, stop complaining about white racism. We have a black president.

    If you’re white, which my money says you are, what’s the word for white people who insult white people who don’t think like them?

    Uncle Hitler?

  • Not that this would apply to you. Only those people who insult others who don’t think like them. That could in no way be applied to your post.

  • Questions Questionman. Would Thomas Sowell be a Klansman in your view since he opposes Obama, or be an Uncle Tom since he has the termerity to oppose Obama while being a black man, or can he be both? Do the criticisms he raises about Obama’s policies not have to be considered since by definition any criticism of Obama is racist? How persuasive do you think a majority of Americans will find the idea that Obama has an immunity to criticism due to the color of his skin? Does your Mom allow you free use of the internet in her basement, or do you have to use the computer at the library because she limits you to certain hours? Perhaps you work at the library and were browsing the net while you should have been working?

  • It seems as if questionbumbler is a liberal.

    How is Col. West an Uncle Tom? Because he doesn’t think like the worst POTUS in history?

    One thing for sure Col. West wasn’t educated and raised by Indonesian muslims and white, commie hippies.


    Why do you blacks and liberals hate whites?

  • What’s your beef with Oceania?
    Do you understand Oceania as I do?
    Or are you using “Oceania” as Thomas More used “Utopia?” 😉

  • “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Oceania”

    Oceania is the name of one of the three super-states in Orwell’s “1984” and is the setting of the novel.

  • Growing up in the US I was always annoyed with the notion that I owed black people more regard than white people because there were black people enslaved two hundred years ago in the south. First off most black people I knew did not assert this and second the idea that because of something somebody did before I was born I should be punished seems unjust and I am pretty sure that other than my my Dad, my Mom, and for a short while just as a long trip my Uncle have been the only ancesters I know of who lived in America. Unless you include Brasil when talking about America than my Grandma and her parents might be included other than that no one else.

  • The problem with the way people like questionman is they act like the way you act or what you believe changes your genetic makeup. the reasoning people like that have goes like this: If a black man wheres a clean cut suit, thinks baggy pants are stupid, and thinks Marijuana is a deadening drug than he is obviously white because black people in the hip hop business are otherwise.

  • Oh my, what are all the former college students who voted for Obama going to do about this? They BANKED on the idea that they were voting for the “cool” candidate and not the old, non-exotic white guy! All these poor twenty-somethings are now… uncool?!

    Oh well, they’re probably too busy with Koby 2012 or whatever the latest Internet cause is at the moment to think about it.

    I can see where the CBC is coming from, though. Positive stereotypes (the cool black guy, the magic negro, the wise old Asian) can be damaging. However, Obama’s campaign didn’t seem to notice the “cool black guy” vibe they were giving off – or if they did, they milked the heck out of it.

  • Kristin I specifically remember lot’s of people being vicious towards this one boy from Georgia who had a McCain shirt on but as you said the Obama campaign did not take much notice of people going insane over the fact that he was a black candidate (he is mulatto by the way not black or white).

  • Yeah, I’ve always wondered why Obama identifies as black instead of mixed race or white since he never really knew his black father. I guess he looks more black than white, so growing up, people labelled him as black. I’m not asking this to criticize him; I’m genuinely curious about how people of mixed race identify themselves.

  • I have seen Romanians with darker skin than Obama they’re caucasion.

  • Ah – George Orwell.

    Its many years since I read 1984, and being so vague in my (rapidly deteriorating 😉 ) memory, didn’t even register.
    Of course, where I am, NZ, Oz, and the Pacific islands make up the current Oceania. 🙂

Shorter Glenn Beck: Please Pay Attention to Me Again

Monday, December 12, AD 2011

Oh look, Glenn Beck said something outlandish to gain attention for himself.

“If you have a big government progressive, or a big government progressive in Obama… ask yourself this, Tea Party: is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy [Gingrich], it must be about race. I mean, what else is it? It’s the policies that matter.”

Glenn Beck is like a lot of not very smart people who dabble in philosophy and history.   He’s read a couple of Ronald Pestritto books and now he reduces everything to the same paradigm.  Everyone who deviates slightly from Beck’s brand of conservatism is just a re-incarnation of Teddy Roosevelt.

Now is Beck completely off about Newt?  No, as I’ve said before, Newt is a conservative technocrat, which is really no kind of conservative at all.  But to state categorically that there is NO difference whatsoever between Obama and Newt, and to indicate that any conservative who supports the latter over the former is a racist, means that you should not be taken seriously.

And that leads me to a couple of general comments about conservative critics of Newt Gingrich.  First, stop acting like the man is a closet Bolshevik.  Many of you have made fine points about Gingrich’s less than conservative instincts.  But not to content to make subtle points, you choose the headline grabbing THIS GOES TO 11 hyperbole that only weakens your argument.  Second, if Newt is so terrible please indicate which of the other candidates you prefer.  I can understand the establishment pundits looking to engage in intellectual jujitsu in order to weaken Gingrich in favor of Mittens, but what is the aim of conservative pundits?  If you actively support Perry or Santorum or even Bachmann, fine.  All of the above are certainly more conservative than Newt, and in the case of the guys named Rick are also much better candidates.  But then you have to make the case for those candidates and not simply the case against Newt.  Because if you’re not crazy about those candidates either, then you simply come off as a purist crank who won’t be content until the re-animated corpse of Ronald Reagan emerges as the front-runner.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Shorter Glenn Beck: Please Pay Attention to Me Again

  • I’m not so sure about Reagan.

  • If we’re going to resurrect, I would prefer we resurrect Goldwater.

  • Sadly, c matt, for some conservatives today Reagan would fail their test of purity.

    And are we resurrecting the pro-choice libertarian Goldwater?

  • “Glenn Beck is like a lot of not very smart people who dabble in philosophy and history.”

    I am definitely going to repeat that and pretend I thought of it. That’s just beautiful.

  • And that leads me to a couple of general comments about conservative critics of Newt Gingrich.

    He’s a politician, and he’s got issues in his past. Not as bad of a politician as some others, and his issues aren’t as big as some others. *shrug* It’s always a matter of who will screw up the least and screw us over the least.

  • Beck’s comment is idiotic, but it seems to be a new stupid Newt comment coming to the surface every day. The effusive praise of Andy Stern in 2008 is the latest recent Anewteurysm to come back to haunt the front runner.

    A choice between Svelte Romney and Chubby Romney pretty much the definition of a Hobson’s Choice.

    Third look at Perry.

  • Glen Beck is a loosely wired ignorant man and this comment demonstrates that fact. In regard to Gingrich, I will say one thing for him: the debates show that he is unafraid to fight and to get bad press from the media. Romney strikes me as a Tom Dewey redo of the 1948 election, a man who believes he can coast to victory. I have little love for Gingrich Lord knows, but if it comes down to the Weathervane and Gingrich, I reluctantly go for Gingrich. It is still quite early however, and I could see some other member of the pack coming to the fore and getting the Anyone-but-Romney-vote which I think will be the decisive factor in this primary contest.

  • “And are we resurrecting the pro-choice libertarian Goldwater?”

    To say the least. He arranged an abortion for one of his daughters in the fifties. His wife was a big time supporter of Planned Parenthood in Arizona. When it looked like he was going to lose in 1980 he came out in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and right to lifers went door to door for him making the difference. He then did an immediate about face after he got re-elected and spent his last term making caustic comments about the right-to-lifers who saved his political hide. In retirement he was a reliable talking head when the networks wanted some Republican who would give them a pro-abort comment, be pro-gay rights or criticize the religious right.

  • I am an independent and won’t vote in a GOP primary.

    In 1952, Eisenhower basically could have been a Dem or a Rep.

    Romney is no Supreme Allied Commander, and he has some seriously bad “baggage.”

    One wonders, with the money Romney has and the professional GOP party support he seems to enjoy, why no one has thought to “package” him as a self-made, successful man who alone can solve America’s problems.

    Too bad he has such horrid baggage (which he refuses to disavow) and, like Beck, is a light weight.

    I thought his father was okay. What happened with Mitt? Why would anyone name his kid Mitt?

    For me, it is anybody but Romney. Rich, sleezy [email protected] offer $10,000 bets to tell the rest of us to shut up the eff up.

    Only thing I want to say about Goldwater: maybe he would have fought the so-called war in Vietnam.

  • For me, it is anybody but Romney. Rich, sleezy [email protected] offer $10,000 bets to tell the rest of us to shut up the eff up.

    To be fair, I do somewhat the same thing when I tell my husband or other family member “betcha a thousand bucks” or “betcha twenty bucks” or “fill in the blank large amount of money” on a topic. I wouldn’t phrase it as “shut the eff up” but that’s because I actually say “shut the Eff up” if I mean it. It means “look, you do NOT know what the heck you’re talking about, so stop blowing smoke.”

    I can’t believe I’m actually somewhat defending Mitt in some shape, but there’s that. The phrase doesn’t automatically mean “I am a rich moron.” If anything, I’m a lower middle class baka.

  • I considered going to find a clip of the exchange to see if I could detect the annoyance that accompanies my use of that phrase, then I realized that I doubt I’d be able to tell if he was annoyed.

  • A choice between Svelte Romney and Chubby Romney pretty much the definition of a Hobson’s Choice.

    This exchange between the two affirms that.

  • ‘ “… If you’re against him but you’re for this guy [Gingrich], it must be about race. I mean, what else is it? It’s the policies that matter.” ‘

    Oh brother.

  • Beck is a Mormon convert. His old FNC shows were chocked full of Mormon theology.
    The DVD he mentions is also Mormon in origin and has been denounced by the Ohio Historical Society.

  • Foxfier – Have I been watching too much anime lately, or did you just slip into Japanese? (“Both” is an acceptable answer.)

    T. Shaw – What makes you think of Romney as a lightweight?

  • Pinky-
    C, all of the above and having a love of gratuitous Japanese. ^.^ It’s got to be possible to watch too much anime, but I haven’t hit that line yet myself….

Who You Calling Racist, Racist?

Friday, August 19, AD 2011

By now roughly 20 times more people have seen the clip below than when it originally aired on the Keith Olbermann Show.  Yes, Keith Olbermann has a show again.  It runs on a channel called Current TV.  It’s basically a cable access channel gone national.  Keith had political philosopher Janeane Garofalo on his show to discuss the Tea Party movement, and she uttered these sage remarks about Herman Cain.

For those of you who don’t feel like watching the clip, here’s a transcript of the relevant portion.

Garofalo also said successful businessman Herman Cain is either being paid to run or is suffering from Stockholm syndrome because he is a “person of color” running as a Republican in the party’s presidential primary.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Who You Calling Racist, Racist?

  • To many people on the Left it is an article of faith that racial minorities cannot be conservative, which would be news to Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Congressmen West and Scott, etc. They explain the existence of black conservatives using the type of psychobabble that Garafolo spewed. Just another example that whatever reality much of “the reality based community” is tuned into, it is not the one the rest of us occupy.

  • God willing, virtuous men and women like Col. West, Associate Justice Thomas, Herman Cain, Thomas Sowell, et al will lead black America out of democrat dependency and desperation.

    Recently, terrorist sympathizers at CAIR “called out” Congressman West for associating with certain Americans that oppose terror. His written, one-word response was: “NUTS!” Of course, the idiot progressives (I repeat myself) didn’t get it.

  • One wonders if Obama himself might not be racially suicidal given that abortions disproportionately affect persons of color, and Obama is a person of color.

    One also wonders why those who voted for Obama only because of the color of his skin are not themselves racist.

    Indeed, it’s not the accident of birth into a specific race or culture, or the pigment of the skin that counts, but the color of one’s heart. As Matthew 15:10-19 state:

    When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear and understand: Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.” Then His disciples came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.” Then Peter answered and said to Him, “Explain this parable to us.” So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

  • I particularly like hearing Keith Olbermann talking about “delusions of grandeur” as if he wasn’t the poster child for such things.

  • So, Michael, Olbermann’s “delusions of grandeur” remark could be paraphrased thusly:

    Pot: “Hello, Kettle. You’re black.”

    … Or would that be racist, too?

  • Olbermann’s best gig was doing SportsCenter on ESPN at 1 in the morning when no one was watching. Amazingly, MSNBC gave this bonehead a $30 million, 4-year contract. Of course, no one of any intelligence watches that network much less Current TV. Garofalo’s so desperate for face time she’s a regular on Maher’s HBO show, another sources of enlightenment for the leftist loons.

  • Yawn! She would be more relevant if she said that Christianity is the reason why we have blacks like Herman Caine and women like Sarah Palin and Bachmann running under a conservative ticket. “Afterall” ,she would follow, “such a religion baits people into believing that a moral code is necessary to be live in this world.”

White Tea Party Racist to Run for 2012 US Presidency

Friday, September 24, AD 2010

[Update:  There is already a Draft Cain 2012 website up!]

Oh wait, the picture doesn’t follow the mainstream meme does it!

I guess Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann’s running narrative of extremists running the Tea Party doesn’t quite fit the pic.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to White Tea Party Racist to Run for 2012 US Presidency

  • Token… or Uncle Tom?

  • Neither.

    He’s the real deal.

    Alex V.,

    That’s a bit of a borderline racist comment there. Be careful, we don’t tolerate that here at TAC.

    We’ll let it slide this one time in case you weren’t aware of how your comment could be read.

  • After reading this post, about a man I had never heard of, I simply had to click the link to his website, which you put in your post.

    I read the following and simply must comment that what I am posting is a quote from Mr. Cain himself, which made me laugh for the content/comment in the final line of this quote and the joy it brought to me for his having said it and the relief of having not said it myself, although I wish I did.

    He said:

    “Keep one thing in mind as we get into 2011. There are a lot of people that may be interested in seeking the Republican nomination, but I want you to remember one thing, there might also be a dark horse candidate that you don’t know about.”
    Herman Cain

    Mr Cain. Thank you. Tito, thanks to you too. I love this guy’s sense of humor.

  • Maybe it’s time again to elect someone who’s not a career politician. Couldn’t do any worse than the one we’ve got.

  • Sounds like a good man with alot of common sense. Thats exactly what we need.

  • I voted for this class act in the primary in 2004. While Isakson has been much better than expected, we really missed our chance to send a great conservative to the Senate. Herman is the real deal.

  • if you elect a career politician… you get a career politician. if you elect someone who isn’t a career politician… eveyone complains because they aren’t experienced enough.

    I’m beginning to see a slight difference with the crowd the tea party is gathering. there is a faint “so what” when someone in the media tries to make the “not enough experience” argument.

Political Correctness Trumps Expertise in Gulf Oil Spill Response

Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010

During his press statement last week, President Obama said that in dealing with the recent oil spill in the Gulf, he was “examining every recommendation, every idea that’s out there, and making our best judgment as to whether these are the right steps to take, based on the best experts that we know of.”

That, however, is not entirely true:

A St. Louis scientist who was among a select group picked by the Obama administration to pursue a solution to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has been removed from the group because of writings on his website, the U.S. Energy Department confirmed Wednesday.

Washington University physics professor Jonathan Katz was one of five top scientists chosen by the Department of Energy and attended meetings in Houston last week.

Though considered a leading scientist, Katz’s website postings often touch on social issues. Some of those writings have stirred anger in the past and include postings defending homophobia and questioning the value of racial diversity efforts.

Continue reading...

0 Responses to Political Correctness Trumps Expertise in Gulf Oil Spill Response

  • Pingback: The Patriot's Flag » BP – Update Page
  • In addition to his “expertise”, he did find Jesus burial box: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus

    And President Obama is supposed to be “smart”.

    I have a bridge to sell you if that’s true.

  • 1/20/2009: Beginning of an Error.

    Hold them regime responsible for the misery.

  • To be fair, I did just learn that James Cameron is also an engineer. Didn’t know that, and it puts his involvement in a different light.

    But to exclude someone because he has differing opinions on unrelated topics? Well, that’s only something conservatives do, right? /sarcasm

  • Engineer is a very broad category (like doctor). You wouldn’t call in a cardiologist to do brain surgery (heck, you wouldn’t even call him in to do heart surgery, since cardiologists are not surgeons).

  • This whole situation will be extremely unforunate for the environmental life and for the economy in a number of clashing ways. This problem could have been baffled however sometimes accidents happen. These companies should be held responsible for this global catastrophe.

  • It is nearly unbelievable that this oil spill is still not taken care of. It’s been what, like 46 days now?? All i see on the tv all day long is washed up fish, and poor pelicans covered in oil.

  • The Gulf is a nightmare and the oil has been seen as far as Alabama and Florida…Obama didn’t do himself any favors by criticizing Bush’s response time to Katrina

  • This whole catastrophe with BP is out of control. The amount of spilling into the Gulf of Mexico sprung up by thousands of barrelfuls Wednesday right after an underwater robot seemingly hit the containment cap that has been getting oil from BP’s Macondo well. I question how much desolation this entire oil spill is going to cost the sea when it’s all over

  • Well finally they have a plan to cap this thing, but given their track-record so far, I’m not holding out a ton of hope for this. I was in Tampa when that tanker caught fire (I was driving over the Skyway right when it happened, saw the smoke) and the beaches are still washing up tar balls. I think it has effectively ruined the economy of southern LA, MI and AL towns. I have a ton of family there and they are really desperate.

Sanger: "We Want To Exterminate The Negro Population"

Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010

“We Want To Exterminate The Negro Population”

— Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. [1]

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Sanger: "We Want To Exterminate The Negro Population"

  • The fruit of liberalism, leftism and “Demokracy” which is but the other side of the coin whose head is “Socialism.”

  • I hate to complain, but if we’re going to win the argument on abortion, we need to be fastidious. The quote that you use as a title for this article is badly taken out of context. If you use that particular quote, you’re inviting an embarrassing refutation. Sanger said a lot of things that would offend modern people. Don’t use this one.

  • Yeah, not sure it’s a good idea to have a headline like on a blogpost. It could appear that American Catholic is saying that.

  • Interesting that EMILY’s List has an ad on this vid–are they hoping to cash in on backlash?

  • I have a different complaint. These sorts of arguments aren’t very convincing. Should we boycott Volkswagen because it began as a Nazi program? Convincing pro-choicers of their error requires addressing their concerns, not the concerns of their ancestors.

  • Gee, Volkswagen branched out from trying to kill Undesirables to trying to kill everyone?

    Dang, how did I miss that story?

  • As an American Catholic, the basis of my ‘anger’ with Planned Parenthood is that they receive Federal funding under false pretenses. They are the main US organization to procure and facilitate abortions, the US abortion-brokers, though stated reason for their existence is to provide family planning education.

    From a superficial viewpoint, founding of Planned Parenthood is not unlike the founding of Nazi party in Austria and Germany during the 1930s by a charismatic crackpot supported by those with nefarious and inhumane intent and purpose, that incidentally was detrimental to human society as a whole, and individually by outright killing of fellow humans in an effort to eliminate opposition to their supremacy.(

    The Planned Parenthood gang stoops to lies and distortions to gain political leverage and provide a political platform for one stated purpose while setting the stage for another purpose altogether, in part funded by our tax dollars. This ‘fact’ may be disputed, but I did receive 5-8 expensive colorful fliers in a State political election 3-4 years ago asking for support of their candidate because of unfair authority of ‘pharmacists making decisions about woman’s reproductive rights’ in filling certain type of prescriptions, which was indisputably wrong information.

    According to 2001 estimates, 76% Americans are Christian adherents (with 25% of US population Catholics). This ‘fact’ is barely disputable, with data showing a wide majority of Americans as Christian, and a major denomination the original Christians.

    There is a consistency between Constitutional rights and Christian beliefs that women have a basic right to bear a child, a healthy child as a gift from God, especially if provided necessary attention to fetal growth and development. So is Planned Parenthood promoting support of delivery of healthy babies, even similar to March of Dimes efforts in minimizing congenital birth defects? I think NOT. I don’t this is a debatable fact.

  • Yeah, using that as a headline was a terrible idea, it DOES make it sound like the the blog authors are the ones advocating genocide. The next conclusion one is led to by the picture of Barack Obama under the title is that Obama is the one who said it. It is not explained why a picture of Obama is even included.

  • ….because he’s standing in front of a huge wall covered with “PLANNED PARENTHOOD” in huge, red letters?

    Even if one didn’t know he’d spoken for PP in the past, it does kind of offer a large chunk of dark humor, kind of like having a chicken for the “spokesman” of KFC or something.

  • PP is no different than the KKK.

  • I think that’s a very serious concern as regards the title of this post — and given that know Tito is not able to be at the computer for long stretches at the moment, I’ve gone ahead and edited it.

  • restrainedradical’s Volkswagon comparison would be more convincing if PP no longer lauded its founder.

    Sanger’s portrait hangs in the board room of PP’s Atlanta office. Good luck finding Hitler’s portrait in any VW office.

  • The creation of an affordable People’s Car was actually one of the better and legitimate initiatives of the Third Reich (legitimate from a fascist perspective). A better comparison might be with buying Zyklon B if it were being marketed as a chemical to rid your yard of all pests from Ants to Zionists. I just don’t see that happening.

  • About the first comment… I don’t understand why all Americans seem to just misunderstand the whole of socialism? Would someone please answer?

  • Like the portraits of slaveowners in the White House?

    If the point of this post was to argue that Sanger should not be celebrated, then I join the author and I think even many PP supporters would approve Many would probably support a campaign to remove Sanger’s portrait from the boardroom. Other PP supporters might say that her racism is but a small stain on an otherwise great woman.

    But if the point is to paint PP as racist, you’ll have to provide modern-day evidence. And if the point is to discredit the larger pro-choice movement, you’ll have to tackle the issue of abortion itself, not these tangential stories of Depression-era activists.

    I only point this out because I see this sort of tactic often and I just don’t think it’s effective. To use another analogy, it’d be like someone using the priest sex scandal to imply that the Church is on a mission to molest children.

  • “But if the point is to paint PP as racist, you’ll have to provide modern-day evidence.”

    Perhaps the fact that reps of PP are on tape having no problem accepting a donation from someone who explicitly wishes to have his donation used to abort black kids.


    Then we have the charming habit of Planned Parenthood locating their abortion clinics in or adjacent to minority neighborhoods.

  • Hey Foxfier,
    Meebbe we better get rid of the Interstate Highway system while we’re at it–that was another idea that owes some inspiration to the Nazis.;-)

  • Thanks Darwin!

    The quote is attributable 100% to Margaret Sanger.


    If you can come to those conclusions then let me introduce you to some truthers and birthers.

  • I agree w/ restrained radical. I’m seeing this line of attack cropping up more and more and it disturbs me b/c I think a) it’s not fully accurate and b) it’s ineffective and possibly harmful to our cause.

    The racist roots of planned parenthood and it’s founder don’t necessarily mean that’s what planned parenthood stands for today. Planned parenthood stands for unrestrained sexual freedom and abortion as their cash cow backup plan. Simple. Evil. They think they’re providing a good – that women need these “services” in order to fully realize their freedom. Sex is good. Sex without consequences is better and is the ultimate goal. So yes, they provide their evil twisted services in poor neighborhoods (which tend to be disproportionately minority populated) because that’s where their clients are. That results in a disproportionate impact on black children, but in their eyes that’s disproportionate for the good – minority women are getting what they (and all women) need. I see no evidence of a Sanger-like intent to reduce the number of black children b/c they are undesirable. Abortion and sexual freedom are the only desired ends here. As for the undercover tapes, I never found them as damning as everyone else did. Certainly it showed me that PP people have no principles (though, what do you expect from people who literally make their living on blood money). However, I don’t think it evidenced a racist motivation on their part. They think they’re providing a good and I’m SURE that look at minority specific donations as a benefit to a poor minority (like a minority specific college scholarship). That they didn’t care that the person giving the money was a racist doesn’t mean they were acting in a racially motivated way. Even the one employee who said she “was excited b/c she’d never done this before” seemed to me to be stalling for time and trying not to piss off the caller so she could still get the money. Again – no principles at all, but none of them seemed to be REALLY agreeing w/ the caller so much as yessing him just to get the money.

    We don’t need this line of argument b/c I think it is open to valid dispute. The pro-life movement has everything it needs in the scientific fact that a human life is being taken. Point out the disparate effects, sure (just like it’s good to point out that 1/3 of this generation is missing). However, it’s counterproductive to attribute that impact to a racial motivation that I see very little evidence for.

  • CT,

    I respectfully beg to differ.

    I am on the board of a pro-life organization and am quite familiar with the many practices that PP does.

    The racist beginnings of PP are carried on through their policies and actions.


    I can see your point to a certain degree, but if we are playing by the liberal playing book, then PP is inheritantly racist and they should be called out for it.

    Especially when a the first president of African heritage has spoken at a PP event, it’s amazing how Margaret Sangers plan to use “social activists” within the “negro community” has panned out.

  • Perhaps the confusion is between the word ‘racist’ and ‘eugenicist’. PP is formerly named the Birth Control League and it was designed to exterminate the ‘inferiors’ so that we can be the masters of our own evolutionary process and become gods. Yeah, in its simplest form PP is the modern manifestation of the first lie.

    As for the modern agenda of PP, it is no different than it ever was. The only difference is the masterful deceit of masking the true intentions with socially acceptable images and politically correct terms.

    Anyone, especially a professed Catholic, that thinks PP is simply trying to help women make choices is sorely misguided. The are designed to kill as many babies as possible because lower-forms of humanity are a cancer on the planet and for our master race to thrive we need to reduce the population of undesirables including effete fag**ts, nig**rs, kik*s and the lowest of the low: Orthodox CATHOLICS.

    Ugly words. Face the truth. This is what PP is all about. Be honest. There is nothing defensible about this anti-human conspiracy.

    Not to mention their desire to engineer humans with embryonic stem cell and cloning technology. The massive dollar supporters of PP want to engineer eternal life for themselves to reign as gods over their homo-simian slaves. It is insanity.

  • American Knight, I’m not sure if something in my post lead you to believe PP is “simply trying to help women make choices.” I know PP has an evil agenda. But I just haven’t seen any evidence that this agenda is currently racist at an organizational level. Yes they are designed to kill as many babies as possible, but I don’t know that they care which babies they kill (ie I see no design to kill black babies b/c they’re black). They’ll kill anyone’s baby as long as they pay and I don’t think they care at all how that falls on the racial spectrum.

    Tito, I still don’t see how those investigations show racism on the part of the employees rather than an indifference to the racism of the caller so long as money is coming their way. Now, maybe that indifference IS a sort of racism and I’ll give you that. But the accusation is that PP in it’s current form carries forth the same overt/race-elimination kind of racism that it’s founder had. I would like to see more than quotes from their founders and videos showing that employees don’t care where their money comes from.

    Just for the record – I absolutely abhor PP and in NO way do I think they provide anything good for anyone. In my above post, I was referring to PP supporters’ subjective perspectives that abortion is a good thing to provide for women.

  • CT, I hope I did not make you feel as though I thought you support Planned Parenthood. I was just emphasizing that their agenda is a general reduction in population with a specific emphasis on the ‘undesirables”. The largest percentage of killing centers are in ‘minority’ neighborhoods. A third of the babies killed are black. Poor whites and South American Indians are considered as undesirable as Negros.

    Planned Parenthood is ultimately a tool of the Devil; however, it has a human face and the humans that perpetrate it are in favor of having a small white Super Race rule the world and a ‘manageable’ amount (500,000,000 or so) of sub-human, engineered homo-simian slaves. This only sounds like science fiction until the science catches up with the fiction. The fiction is not a fantasy it is an evil delusion that is shared by a sick cadre of rich trans-national eugenicists.

    To think otherwise is to disregard a large part of the New Testament. Don’t give the Devil and his minions the benefit of the doubt. The Evil One is real and he presents destruction as a pleasurable goal.

  • Here’s the thing. If a neutral person were to read that quote, “we want to exterminate the Negro population”, they’d assume that Sanger was a monster. But they might also find the whole quote on any number of internet sites:

    “The minister’s work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs.”

    Sanger wasn’t calling for the extermination of black people in that quote, she was seeking to prevent that false impression from getting out. The truth is, she didn’t want to exterminate them, she just wanted to thin out their numbers because she believed them to be inferior. Given that truth, we shouldn’t use selective editing to make it sound worse than it is. There are plenty of words and actions of Sanger’s that can make the argument fairly.