Glamour! It's one of the qualities of a shape-shifter, a creature that appears as you want him to appear. Find out how the watchdogs became lapdogs, from The New York Times' Walter Duranty's cover-up of mass genocide to the giggling girlie-men Obama apologists today.
Showing posts with label Jeremiah Wright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeremiah Wright. Show all posts
Friday, October 12, 2012
Bill Whittle - Bewitched!
Glamour! It's one of the qualities of a shape-shifter, a creature that appears as you want him to appear. Find out how the watchdogs became lapdogs, from The New York Times' Walter Duranty's cover-up of mass genocide to the giggling girlie-men Obama apologists today.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Lurita Doan - Do Democrats Own The Terms 'Racism" and "Lying"?
Democrats have run a number on Republicans.They have skillfully captured certain words in the American lexicon and redefined them, applying Democrat-themed meanings for the specific purpose of cowing Republicans into silence and submission. I have watched the escalation of this vocabulary abuse for almost a decade, and I am sorry to say, this particular Democrat scheme is working.
Republicans seem afraid to speak the unvarnished truth about Democrat party leaders for fear of reprisals in the mainstream media, an organization that has repeatedly proved that it is indisputably in the tank for Barack Obama.
What are Republicans afraid to say?
Republicans seem afraid to say that Barack Obama, 44th president of the United States, seems to be a racist and a liar whose clumsy, inexperienced efforts at leadership have put our nation’s economy and our citizens’ safety in jeopardy and has proven incompetent and unfit for office.
Meanwhile, Democrats seem quite comfortable throwing labels of “racism” and “lying” about freely when they attack Republicans, comfortable in the knowledge that no Republican dare do the same. With full support and acquiescence from a compromised media that long ago lost its objectivity, charges of “racism” and “lying” have morphed into an Orwellian fog, becoming purely political terms to browbeat Republicans, allowing Democrat leaders to dodge the discussion of tough issues.
Americans have seen “racist” tendencies from Democrats who reflexively jump to the assumption that any white Republican who disagrees with Obama’s failed policies is doing so because Obama is a Black man. Meanwhile, many Democrats openly support Obama for the simple reason that he is Black. Furthermore, Obama’s surrogates are quick to circle the wagons and level accusations of “racism” should anyone point out their obvious, raced-based prejudices.
When Obama was elected president by a majority of Americans, it sure seemed that the race-baiting which went on during the 2008 campaign would finally have to be put to rest. But, in the past three years since Obama’s election, the “racist” moniker seems to be flung about with even more frequency than before the election.
In addition, too many Democrats have shown that they do not understand the definition of racism and, instead, seems to think that racism is a one-way street—that it only exists as a White against Black issue. In reality, any person who immediately assumes that a person’s actions towards them are solely based on one’s ethnic origin may be exhibiting symptoms of racism.
Still, almost anyone who criticizes Obama and the Democrats’ failed policies is labeled as a “racist”. When Black Republicans, such as me, criticize the president’s failed policies, Democrats know that the “racist” moniker won’t work, so instead, we are attacked as “traitors to our race”, or the media tries to portray us as stupid or corrupt.
But if a president’s policies are bad, if they fail to achieve their objectives (such as Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Caulkers, green energy investment initiatives, the “summer of recovery” or the Stimulus) is it really “racist” to criticize the policy or to think that the American people deserve better—even if the policy is advocated by a Black man? Is it “racist” to criticize the president because he has failed to submit a viable budget to congress for the past four years, or just incompetence on the part of the president?
The president also seems to be a liar. According to Webster, a liar is “a person who tells lies”, who deliberately “makes an untrue statement with the intent to deceive; to create a false or misleading impression.”
Isn’t that exactly what Obama has done when he says: he didn’t really know or hear the Rev. Jeremiah Wright preach anti-American sentiments, or when he writes about events that are patently untrue in his autobiography, Dreams of My Father, or when Obama deliberately tells lies about Romney and Bain Capital, or when Obama deliberately lies about the debt ceiling, or when Obama tries to claim the attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya was not terrorism?
What about other Democrat leaders? Such as when Harry Reid claims that Mitt Romney didn’t pay his taxes? Or when Eric Holder says he knew nothing about Fast and Furious? Or when Elizabeth Warren claims she is part Native American so she can game a hiring system which is tilted in favor of quotas and minorities?
In the past three and a half years, Republicans have worn out the pages of the thesaurus looking for euphemisms for lying. Republican punditry, speeches and writings are chock full of alternatives: mislead, mischaracterize, misrepresent, untruth, misspeak, prevaricate, fabricate, story, taradiddle, fairy tale, inaccurate, falsehoods, dishonest, distortion, whopper, canard, deceit, stretching the truth.
Supposedly, according to Republican “strategists”, using the word “lie” is too direct, too brutal, too hostile and might coarsen the dialogue between political parties. Using the word “liar”, they contend, would lead to vicious attacks from the mainstream media and would cause Republicans to lose respect or votes or the moral high ground. But, I would hate to hear what these Republican pundits think is too coarse or too harsh, if they think that the attacks from Democrat leaders over the past few years have been friendly banter.
When did our country slip so far, fall so low, that we have become so handcuffed by political correctness that we are unable to call a thing by its true name? Socrates understood that watering down one’s language does not change the truth or make it more palatable, just more confusing.
Our founding fathers understood that too. Our founding fathers were some of the most courageous and least politically correct folks of their century (think Ben Franklin).
Their willingness to speak the truth as they saw it may be one of the reasons why they had the courage to attack tyranny and hypocrisy and hold up the flawed policies of a greedy and ignorant king for the world to see, and in doing so, lay the foundations for the greatest free government in the history of the world.
Republicans need to stop being cowed by rants of “racism” and they need to stop trying to find ways to soften the reality of Obama’s widespread and repeated deceptions.
Perhaps Wednesday’s debate might be a great place to start.
Lurita Doan
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Matt Barber - Fanning the Flames of Left-Wing Violence
To borrow from President Obama’s Black Nationalist mentor, Jeremiah Wright, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate-baiting chickens “have come home to roost.” The hard-left group has become everything it presumes to expose.On Wednesday, homosexual activist Floyd Corkins entered the Washington-based Family Research Council (FRC) armed with a gun and a backpack full of ammunition. He also had 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches (FRC recently defended the food chain’s COO Dan Cathy for pro-natural marriage statements).
The only thing standing between Corkins and mass murder was FRC facilities manager and security specialist Leo Johnson. As Corkins shouted disapproval for FRC’s “politics,” he shot Johnson who, despite a severely wounded arm, managed to tackle Corkins and disarm him (of course, this is all impossible as it’s illegal in Washington, D.C., to carry a concealed weapon).
Of Johnson’s actions, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said, “The security guard here is a hero, as far as I’m concerned.”
I agree.
Upon hearing of Leo’s selfless act of heroism, I was reminded of John 15:13: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
But according to the SPLC, Leo’s heart is, instead, full of hate. In fact, everyone at FRC is hateful. After all, in 2010 the SPLC, with much fanfare, “officially certified” FRC as a “hate group” for its orthodox Christian positions on marriage and family.
Alongside violence-charged photos of actual hate groups like the Aryan Brotherhood and the KKK, the SPLC lists on its website the decidedly mainstream and always peaceful FRC.
It’s a clever strategy, dishonest and reprehensible though it may be. By juxtaposing FRC and other Christian organizations with violent extremist groups, SPLC has engaged in intellectual sloth at its worst (the organization has repeatedly declined to debate FRC President Tony Perkins over its “hate group” smear).
Rather than debating – on the merits – mainstream Christian groups with which it has ideological disagreement, SPLC has chosen, instead, the coward’s way out: demonization and marginalization through false guilt by association.
It’s a scheme not only slimy, but extremely dangerous.
If ever there were a time I’d prefer not to have been right, now is that time. Back in November 2011, I essentially predicted both the FRC shooting and the SPLC’s undeniable complicity therein.
With a column headlined, “Liberal violence rising,” I wrote, “The SPLC’s dangerous and irresponsible (‘hate group’) disinformation campaign can embolden and give license to like-minded, though less stable, left-wing extremists, creating a climate of true hate. Such a climate is ripe for violence.” (If anyone deserves to be taken out – rationalizes the unbalanced SPLC dupe – its members of this or that evil “hate group” whom, as he’s been repeatedly told, mean him great harm.)
That was before the fact. After the fact – one day after the shooting – Tony Perkins addressed exactly that which I forecast:
“Let me be clear that Floyd Corkins was responsible for firing the shot yesterday,” he told Washington reporters. “But Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy.”
The SPLC “should be held accountable for their reckless use of terminology that is leading to the intimidation and what the FBI here has categorized as an act of domestic terrorism.”
Regrettably, Mr. Perkins finds himself in a uniquely credible position to make this charge.
Still, although there remains a vast ideological divide between the SPLC and the tens of millions of Christian Americans represented by the Family Research Council, the Southern Poverty Law Center now finds itself with a brief window of opportunity to both do the right thing and rehabilitate its badly damaged reputation.
To the SPLC, I say this: Your cynical efforts to dehumanize Christians and equate biblical truth to “hate” are working better than I think even you expected. It’s now within your power to right a horrible wrong and restore a sense of peace and security to the rattled folks at FRC. What a gift that would be.
I appeal to your sense of goodwill. This is not a game. Lives are at stake. I know you have good employees (I’ve met some) who believe they’re doing the right thing; so, please, validate that belief. It’s time to remove your metaphorical “hate group” Star of David from mainstream Christian organizations before another of your ideological allies spills blood.
And to homosexual activists and other liberal groups, I say this: Rise above the fray. Let’s come together. Here is something on which even we can agree. Publicly encourage SPLC to lift this veil of fear.
Media, you, too, are on notice. Remember Wednesday’s shooting next time you even think about repeating SPLC’s “hate group” brand while addressing the Christians upon whom it’s tattooed. You also have share in the blame.
SPLC, hear me now: If, God forbid, something like this – or even worse – happens in the future and you have yet refused to retract and apologize for your “hate group” propaganda, then your hands will forever be stained with the blood of innocents.
Still, either way, we Christians are commanded to speak the truth of Christ “even unto death.”
FRC will not be deterred. “We’re not going anywhere,” Tony Perkins told reporters Thursday [8/16/12]. “We’re not backing up; we’re not shutting up,” he vowed. “We feel that – we don’t feel, we know [that] we have been called to speak the truth. Speak it in love, but to speak the truth nonetheless – and we will not be intimidated, we will not be silenced.”
“I was there as [Leo] came to from the anesthesia,” said Perkins, “and I told him, ‘Leo, I want you to know you’re a hero.’ And he thought about it for a minute and he said, ‘You know, this hero business is hard work.’”
Heroes don’t work for “hate groups,” and FRC’s hard work is heroic indeed.
I’m proud to count them my friends.
You should be, too.
Matt Barber
Friday, July 6, 2012
Retired Geek - Barack Hussein Obama Exposé - Must Watch
Obama's 20 Year relationship with Jeremiah Wright, his relationship with Louis Farrakhan, his Muslim background, his "secret" agenda and why Barack Obama must be defeated in 2012!About 50% of the Jewish Task force are NOT Jewish, click here to visit.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Doug Giles - The Media That Ignored Obama’s Beliefs Goes After Mitt’s Mormonism
Anyhoo, Obama impressed many chiefly because he could enthusiastically read vague, cliché-riddled speeches off a teleprompter that included lots of big words like nobody’s business! This ability to read hazy political speeches in public without putting folks into a full-on level IV coma left the bedazzled masses wondering, “Who is this masked man? Who are his buddies?” and … “Are there more like him? He’s a doozy!”
Yep, people wanted to know from whence he came, what books he read and what groups supported him because he was three words: A-May-Zing! As the various news outlets started finding out that BHO’s buddies were sordid, anti-American fellows of the baser sort; his favorite book was dedicated to Lucifer; his endorsers included Communists and Hamas; and his folks weren’t exactly the Huxtables, the mainstream media decided, “Eh, let’s not talk about his past and his present friends and philosophy but rather how inspiring his fuzzy speeches are and how skinny he is.”
Indeed, everybody was like, “Well, those are some strange playmates, and those books are interesting—really not the ones we would read, but who are we to judge? And haven’t we all had, at one time or another, one or two friends in our past who dedicated riot-inducing books to Satan, set off a bomb in the Capitol Building and hated Israel with a passion? Would we like it if people painted us with our friends’ bizarre brush?”
Gadfly Sean Hannity wouldn’t leave well enough alone in ‘07 and decided to investigate not only Obama’s pals but Barack and Michelle’s pastor/mentor and religion that they had enjoyed for the last two decades. Boy howdy, did Hannity and others stumble onto some interesting revelations about Obama’s church. Stuff like ...
· Anti-Semitic conspiracy theoriesWhen common folks discovered Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s religious views were racist, Marxist and nuttier than a squirrel’s turd, some rightly wondered if BHO also believed this bogus smack, and if not, why he would sit for twenty years listening to those race-baiting beliefs if he fundamentally and radically disagreed. Why, they wondered, did he not vehemently condemn this cuckoo stuff?
· The advocacy of bizarre, pseudo-scientific racial ideas
· Opposition to interracial marriage
· Praising Communist dictatorships
· The denunciation of black “assimilation”
· The belief that the American government created AIDS to kill black people
· Preaching that America deserved 9/11 terrorists attacks
· The fact that Reverend Wright was, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, a “close confidant” of Obama
The media, however, decided for us cattle that Reverend Wright’s racially-charged sermons, his black liberation theology and the fact that Obama sat for two decades under this slow drip of heresy wasn’t newsworthy and bypassed those tasty morsels. Instead, they crucified anyone who dared question Obama’s affiliation with his class warfare junkie Jeremiah (who was swiftly tossed under BHO’s campaign bus).
Fast-forward to 2012 and Mitt Romney and his religion.
The same media that ignored information about Obama’s racist religious roots steeped in Marxism is already queuing up with queries about Romney’s Mormonism as somehow being weird and a tad white. MSNBC led the charge this past week wondering aloud if and when Mitt would rebuke Mormonism’s disallowance of blacks into the Mormon priesthood until 1978. The duplicitous journalists who saw no story in the well-documented anti-honky rhetoric of Wright’s/Obama’s “religion” now want to paint Romney with the racist brush? How convenient.
As an evangelical I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t get Mormonism, but I do get Marxism, and we’re now seeing the political fruit coming from Obama’s ignored and divisive theological roots. Which leads me to this conclusion as an evangelical: I don’t care if Mitt is crazy rich and wears magic Mormon underroos. In 2012 I will take a quasi-conservative Mormon who has been ridiculously successful over an uncompromised Marxist any ol’ day.
And lastly, a word of advice for the MSM: I would leave Mitt’s Mormonism well enough alone unless, of course, you want Obama’s religious roots to be exposed, as well. I believe Americans will find in Mormonism more pro-traditional American sentiments than they will in Reverend Wright’s greatest sermon collections.
Doug Giles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)