Elisabeth Meinecke is Managing Editor with Townhall Magazine.
Prior to joining Townhall.com, Meinecke was a member of Hillsdale College's Dow Journalism Program, sports editor and beat reporter for the campus newspaper, and also contributed to Life Times, the newsletter for Southern Indiana Right to Life. She interned at Comcast SportsNet in Washington, D.C. through the National Journalism Center before joining Human Events in August 2008. She was a valued contributor to Human Events before joining Townhall.com in the fall of 2010.
The MSM is still keeping quiet on the Kermit Gosnell abortion trial. So why is the left keeping mum on a story tailor made for prime time coverage? Zo thinks the media is in denial to protect their pro-choice agenda. Hear more on this ZoNation.
The media will cover everything from Sandra Fluke's birth control needs to the suicide of a Christian leader's son. So why did it ignore the case of the Gosnell abortion clinic for so long? Find out as Trifecta looks at evidence of bias in the media.
Missing in the mainstream media's coordinated outrage over so-called "assault weapons" was a demonstration of their performance characteristics — until the NRA opened up its shooting range and showed Americans the truth.
"You know that these weapons can shoot down airplanes, they can blow up railroads. This is really a whole national security issue,"... Rev. Jesse Jackson
If Rev. Jackson is interested in the facts and wants to return this debate back to earth, he should know that semi-automatic firearms were introduced in the late 1800s, and have been popular for self-defense, hunting and target shooting ever since. Forty percent of all uses of firearms for self-defense are performed with semi-automatic handguns.
Vice-President Biden tells blacks, Romney’s “gonna put y’all back in chains.” Mitt Romney accuses Obama of running a campaign of “anger and division.” Then MSNBC host Toure [see video below] charges Romney with engaging in the “niggerization” of Obama. WHAT? As my black father (note emphasis) said, “That’s the most unintellectual thing I’ve ever heard. Is he [Toure] making up words” ?
Toure’s making up words and spinning fiction! (Evidently, that’s what a former musical journalist turned political pundit does.) If Biden had included the “n-word” in his me (white) versus “you blacks” statement, Toure may have expressed mild outrage at the remarks. But since Biden serves our black president, Toure doesn’t consider Biden’s comments the “niggerization” of blacks.
Nigger or any derivative thereof is the basest, most racially charged word to call a black person or casually throw around and being black doesn’t give a person special permission to use it. Perhaps Toure has never been called the word nigger, otherwise he would not have uttered it with such ease on national television or have had the audacity to accuse Mitt Romney of engaging in “racial coding” which is code for racist politics.
Now that it’s become clear President Obama can’t run on a record of economic success, Democrats like Toure will resort to the only thing they have left in their arsenal, the Obama race card. Finally, on the stump, Romney is fighting back against Obama’s dirty campaign of lies and distortion.
Romney said: “His campaign and his surrogates have made wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the presidency. This is what an angry and desperate presidency looks like. Mr. President take your campaign of division, anger and hate back to Chicago.”
There is nothing untrue in Romney’s comments. As Michael Gerson wrote , “the demonization of Romney is a main element of its strategy, pursued by Obama’s closest associates and former employees.” Gerson reminds us Obama has engaged in racial pandering, intimidated Republican donors, and accused Romney of killing Joe Spotic’s wife, “which represents the crossing of an ethical line.”
Whether you are Romney or any other American, this looks like a campaign led by an “angry and desperate president,” sinking to new lows to win. Obama has been dividing America since he took office. This is why it’s shocking Toure falsely charged Romney of using “racial coding” to try to paint Obama as the stereotypical “angry black man.”
Obama has waged wars on class, gender, religion, and sexuality and now race. He doesn’t look like the “Black Jesus” of 2008, seeking to heal America or the “no-drama Obama, as Toure described him as.
Toure’s accusations were wildly irresponsible. Obama is “angry” because he’s failed miserably at being president but feels he deserves a second term just because of the color of his skin.
Toure went on to say: “This is part of the playbook against Obama. . .This is niggerization, you are not one of us and that you are like the scary black man, we are trained to fear.”
“This is typical GOP politics, Toure added, the “all white party that rejects the black vote.” No, Toure, the GOP isn’t the all white party and white people aren’t scared of Obama. Whites, blacks and other Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of Obama’s misguided policies.
If anyone is engaging in “otherization” politics, as Toure ranted, it’s Obama. From his days as a Senator, Obama put himself above everyone else, using his race to make people believe he was a special kind of black endowed with supernatural powers to heal America. What we’re seeing now is a man so absorbed in self, he can’t see he’s in over his head.
Another example of Obama’s stoking racial politics of “otherization,” was by his Truth Team surrogate Va. State Senator Louise Lucas, Va. State Senator Louise Lucas who accused Mitt Romney of speaking to folks “who don’t like a black man in the White House.” Racist talk is constantly flowing from Obama and his “Truth Team” not Mitt Romney.
I’ve been called nigger mostly by other blacks. In fact when I was in 2nd grade, I heard the word used at school by my black classmates and came home and called my little brother a nigger. My mother told me to never say it again and explained to me how heinous the word was and remains!
If MSNBC has any shred of decency, the network will fire Toure. Not only did he completely misrepresent Mitt Romney’s comments, he offended blacks like me, who’ve been called nigger and find the word both humiliating and disgusting. We know if Toure was white, the termination would have happened before the commercial break.
Is there a left tilt to the media's coverage of the news? If there is, can it be proven? And if it can be proven, can the consequences be quantified in a meaningful way? Acclaimed UCLA Professor of Political Science and Economics, Tim Groseclose, has the startling answers in this new Prager University course. Whatever you do, don't miss his final conclusion.
As his re-election hopes dim, the mainstream “progressive” media continue to run interference for Barack Obama. It’s predictable. They no longer even try to hide it. They persist in slobbering on their over-hyped, under-capable would-be savior as his campaign collapses around them. The sycophancy is embarrassing and the desperation palpable.
Most recently, they’ve created a stir around the NAACP crowd booing Mitt Romney at the decidedly liberal group’s national convention in Houston, Texas. The activist attendees didn’t like the fact that President Obama’s presumptive GOP challenger intends to repeal Obamacare if elected.
Still, what you won’t hear from the mainstream media is the fact that those very same left-leaning activists gave Mr. Romney a rousing ovation when he pledged to defend the institution of real marriage from secular extremists’ ongoing attempts to radically re-define it.
During his speech, Romney quoted former NAACP Executive Director Benjamin Hooks, noting that the family “remains the bulwark and the mainstay of the black community. That great truth must not be overlooked.”
The former Massachusetts governor then promised the conference-goers: “Any policy that lifts up and honors the family is going to be good for the country, and that must be our goal. As president, I will promote strong families – and I will defend traditional marriage!”
At this, the crowd erupted into sustained applause.
Herein lies the ongoing rift between the NAACP leadership, its rank and file and the African-American community at large. By recently joining with President Obama to endorse counterfeit “same-sex marriage,” the NAACP leadership betrayed the very constituency it presumes to represent. It blundered its way directly into conflict with the vast majority of African-Americans.
“Traditional marriage enjoys steadfast support in America, especially among African-Americans,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in response to Romney’s pro-family pledge. “Just this past May, an overwhelming percentage of black voters supported a marriage protection amendment in North Carolina, just as they did several years ago in California and in other states,” continued Brown.
“We know that despite the actions of some African-American elites, rank-and-file voters in the black community continue to support marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” he concluded.
Indeed, by throwing their collective weight behind such extremist, San Francisco-style social engineering, both the president and the NAACP have exposed just how out of touch they are with the rest America – particularly African-Americans. (Consider, for instance, that in 2008, over 70 percent of black voters supported Prop. 8, California’s natural marriage-protection amendment.)
By backing the absurd, oxymoronic notion of so-called “same-sex marriage,” the NAACP leadership has allowed itself to be played by “the man.” (In this case “the man” is the mostly white, “progressive”-elite establishment.)
The black community is having none of it. A group of leading African-American clergy called “The Coalition of African-American Pastors” (CAAP) has called on both President Obama and the NAACP to honor their pledge to represent the interests of the black community instead of radical white special interests.
In an interview with the Christian Post, the Rev. Bill Owens, CAAP president, noted: “The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People needs to be recalled to its founding purpose. Black people face acute and urgent needs, from unemployment to education, family fragmentation, discrimination and crime.
“We are calling on the NAACP, a beloved organization in our eyes, to reclaim its mission. The black church founded the NAACP, and it is not the organization for the advancement of gays and lesbians – whatever the merits of that movement. Return to your roots and stand with the black church on marriage. The black church in our eyes remains the conscience of America.
“More than anything, this is an issue of biblical principles, and President Obama is carrying our nation down a dangerous road,” continued Owens. “Many African-Americans were once proud of our president, but now many are ashamed of his actions.”
For decades now, well-organized, well-funded and politically powerful homosexual pressure groups have, with impertinence, hijacked the language of the authentic civil rights movement.
In what amounts to a sort of soft racism, this mostly white sexual anarchist faction has disingenuously and ignobly hitched its little pink wagon to a movement that, by contrast, is built upon the genuine and noble precepts of racial equality and humanitarian justice.
Indeed, that Barack Obama and the NAACP would align themselves with a militant, immoral lobby that literally takes “pride” in arrogant rebellion against biblical principles is, perhaps, what’s most troubling about this inexplicable political misstep.
It’s offensive – disgusting, in fact – that this pleasure-based, sex-centric movement – delineated by deviant proclivities and behaviors – would dare to equate its demands for celebration of bad behavior to Christian notions of racial equality.
Ken Hutcherson, an influential black pastor from the Seattle area, put it well: “It has been said loudly and proudly that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. If that’s the case, then gays would be the new African-Americans. I’m here to tell you now, and hopefully for the last time, that the gay community is not the new African-American community.
“Don’t compare your sin to my skin!” he demands.
Alas, how far we’ve come from the character-content vision of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. who, like his fellow Republican, Mitt Romney, recognized the critical importance of marriage and family. How we’ve perverted what constitutes true civil rights.
Mitt Romney went to the NAACP and got booed. Zo isn't surprised, but what does surprise him is the liberal media sensationalizing intolerance. Hear more as Zo exposes the racial division promoted by the mainstream media.
Dogma – a prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group; a belief system that remains largely unchallenged.
Sometimes dictionary definitions can seem vague or esoteric. But as it pertains to understanding President Obama and his devotees, it’s best to try and understand them through the lenses of left-wing dogma.
And the Anne Romney has “never worked a day in her life” flap is just the latest example of left-wing dogma colliding with mainstream America. Granted the strategic insulting of Mrs. Romney last week originated from Hillary Rosen, a liberal Democrat pundit, and not President Obama himself (although Ms. Rosen claims that she’s received numerous calls from the White House echoing support for her efforts to malign Mitt Romney’s wife). Yet it in the week prior, President Obama noted at a White House forum on women that in the early days of his marriage and career, he and his wife Michelle didn’t “have the luxury for her not to work.”
To those of us in “fly over country,” it may seem far-fetched to believe that two graduates of elite private east coast universities and an Ivy League law school, and who are stalwarts in what they call the “pro choice” political agenda, were left struggling without any economic choices when they started a family. But this is to view matters in overly literal, concrete terms. On the left side of the aisle, dogma comes first; reality is secondary, and one’s perception of reality is always shaped by that dogma.
Thus, the attitude reflected by President Obama and Hillary Rosen is illustrative of at least a couple of those “prescribed doctrines” understood to be “unquestionably true.” For one, women never freely choose to not be on a career track. Male oppression keeps women out of the marketplace, and, therefore, women who are only mothers are actually victims, and are in need of government programs (think affirmative action, “anti-discrimination” laws, etc..) to correct the injustices done to them.
If you live outside the confines of this dogma as I do, you may be thinking “but wait! Some women actually choose motherhood before career, and some husbands make tremendous sacrifices to allow that stay-at-home mom thing to happen.” But this leads us to another item of “unquestionably true” dogma: any woman who was truly being “herself” would never freely choose motherhood above all else.
On the contrary, a woman who thinks this way is being held hostage to ancient, patriarchal, male-dominated ideas – we’ll call it “ideological victimization” that probably happened within the context of an unenlightened religious setting – and she is need of a swift rebuke, if not more government intervention. Left-wing dogma always tells us that mere motherhood is not really working. That may be painful for some women, but such confrontation is really for a woman’s own good, and certainly adds to the “collective good” of the dogmatic community.
Are you beginning to understand how left-wing dogma works? Here’s another example of it: one should always assume the worst about the U.S. military, except when it is being commanded by a Democrat President and when it is participating in a multilateral mission (U.S. troops deployed side-by-side with troops from other countries).
Because of the “unquestionably true” nature of these assumptions, left-wing America was always going to hold a grudge about having troops in Iraq. The mission in Iraq began with Republican President George W. Bush, and while the “troop surge” was implemented by Barack Obama, it nonetheless was George W Bush’s idea (gasp!).
While not-so-dogmatic Americans may be wondering what is happening to American interests in Iraq since the troop draw-down there, left-wing America is satisfied that our foreign policy is more in line with proper dogma – and current conditions in Iraq don’t matter.
And recall from last month the very dogmatic visit to Afghanistan by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Before American military personnel were permitted to enter the room where Secretary Panetta spoke, they were forced to disarm, and leave their weapons outside. The Administration later noted that the reason for this was because there were Afghani troops in the room who were required to disarm, so therefore the U.S. troops needed to be treated equally with the Afghani’s.
The multilateral mission in Afghanistan is, itself, in line with left-wing dogma – Barack Obama said during his first campaign that the mission Afghanistan was the “real war” we needed to be engaged in, rather than Iraq (so it must be true). And by virtue of being “multilateral,” well – suffice it to say that the Afghanistan mission fulfills two dogmatic requirements.
Yet it would violate another component of dogma if U.S. troops were treated as though they were superior, or more trustworthy, than the members of any other military. Thus, the U.S. military was treated exactly the same as the Afghani troops when Mr. Panetta visited, so it was all dogmatically good.
President Obama’s dogma is often met with opposition on main street America. But until we elect a new President, expect the “disconnect” to continue.
When the former junior state senator from Chicago, one Barack Obama—a man no one knew diddly about—decided, “Hey, I’m gonna run for president!” people were eager to learn more about this promising upstart. Uncle Joe Biden was curious about Barack. Joe said at first blush that Obama seemed “clean” and “articulate,” which, I think, would be a hate crime if a conservative said that about him.
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 theories
· 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
When 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 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.
Elisabeth Meinecke is Managing Editor with Townhall Magazine.
