Thursday, October 21, 2010

Shocking Report: NAACP Accuses TEA Party of Racism!

If Tiger Woods had accused his wife of infidelity, who would have paid any attention?  If BP had complained that Shell was operating unsafe oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, would they have any credibility?  Reasonable people would have found these claims pretty ridiculous and a poor attempt to shift negative focus away from the accuser(s).  Why, then, would anyone give credence to a report by the NAACP that charges the TEA Party with "elements of racism" within their ranks?

The NY Times reports:

The nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization declares the Tea Party “permeated with concerns about race” in a new report that is likely to reignite a feud between the two groups.
The report by the NAACP, released Wednesday morning, argues that Tea Party groups “have given platform to anti-Semites, racists, and bigots,” and have attracted white nationalists looking for recruits.
“The Tea Party movement has unleashed a still inchoate political movement who are in their numerical majority, angry middle class white people who believe their country, their nation, has been taken from them,” argues the report, called Tea Party Nationalism.
Written by Leonard Ziskind, an author who has written extensively on white nationalism, the report looks at what it calls six nationwide Tea Party networks at the core of the movement. It says that leaders of all but one — FreedomWorks, a libertarian group in Washington headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey – have raised questions about President Obama’s birth certificate or have ties to white supremacist groups.
Big shock.  The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People apparently believe they have a unique entitlement to group people together for the purpose of furthering the objectives of that group.  Well, not EXACTLY unique.  They didn't have a problem with Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor, University of Texas, Arlington and founder of the La Raza Unida (The United Race) political party.  His very public comments didn't elicit any outrage from them.  If you'll recall, he famously declared:
“We have an aging white America … They are dying …We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”
They also had no problem with Malik Zulu Shabazz and his New Black Panther Party.  They were the kind-hearted folks that gave us voter intimidation in Philadelphia.  You can click here to watch Shabazz in his own words expressing admiration for Osama Bin Laden. Yes, he's also very adamantly anti-semitic, too.

We could examine countless examples of the intellectual dishonesty that is part of the very fabric of the NAACP.  But you probably already know that.  So we really should be discussing the question "Who gives the NAACP, or any of these other racist organizations the authority to use this double standard as a weapon against the rest of society?"  In short - you do. 
By holding your tongue in an attempt to be politically correct you are furthering the cause of radicals.  Why is political correctness held in such high regard?  Who benefits?  You've probably become so conditioned that you've not stopped to think about that. 

Well it's high time you did think about it.  We're either a post-racial society, or we're not.  We're either a society concerned with truth and justice, or we're not. 

Monday, October 18, 2010

Obama is not a Kenyan. He is a Counter-Tribalist.

John O'Sullivan wrote an article in National Review just four weeks after the events of 9/11.  He coined the phrase counter-tribalism.  This is a portion of what he said:

This is a form of intellectual snobbery. A person in its grip has imbibed the notion that the patriotism of ordinary people is something simplistic, vulgar, and shameful, and thus to be avoided. He has been told that a genuinely sophisticated person — a university professor, say — has thrown off patriotic prejudice to become a citizen of the world. Now, of course, genuine cosmopolitanism is an admirable thing, drawing upon wide cultural sympathies but perfectly compatible with a simple love of country, as the work of any number of poets demonstrates. It is accordingly very rare. So what the counter-tribalist mistakes for cosmopolitanism is an inverted jingoism — an instinctive preference for other nations and a marked prejudice that in any conflict the enemy of America is in the right.

Sound like anyone you know?  This mindset could go a long way towards explaining Obama's international "Whose Butt Can I Kiss Next?" tour.  This is what Salman Rushdie had to say about counter-tribalism as it relates to terrorism in the world view of Islamic Fundamentalists:

The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal more than buildings. Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex. These are tyrants, not Muslims....
The fundamentalist believes that we believe in nothing. In his world-view, he has his absolute certainties, while we are sunk in sybaritic indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must first know that he is wrong. We must agree on what matters: kissing in public places, bacon sandwiches, disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature, generosity, water, a more equitable distribution of the world's resources, movies, music, freedom of thought, beauty, love.

Let's be clear about why this bien-pensant anti-American onslaught is such appalling rubbish. Terrorism is the murder of the innocent; this time, it was mass murder. To excuse such an atrocity by blaming U.S. government policies is to deny the basic idea of all morality: that individuals are responsible for their actions. Furthermore, terrorism is not the pursuit of legitimate complaints by illegitimate means. The terrorist wraps himself in the world's grievances to cloak his true motives. Whatever the killers were trying to achieve, it seems improbable that building a better world was part of it. 

Isn't it ironic that most of what fundamentalist muslims oppose is exactly what Progressives claim to support?  Are they really that ignorant of the true aims of muslim's dream of global Sharia law?  Or, do they believe they will use Islamofacism until they've reached their goals and then tell radical Islam to leave?

Maybe they should study recent history.  The "Progressive" movement in Iran were allied with the radical Islamists in their collective efforts to overthrow the Shah.  Today progressives there are just as extinct as the Shah, and the country (along with much of the Middle East) are ruled or threatened by a theocracy headed by a madman.


Saturday, October 16, 2010

If Islam is Truly a Religion of Peace, Muslims Should Denounce Terrorism

As we hear the testimony of the service people who were victims or witnesses of the Islamic terrorist attack at Ft. Hood, the sequence of events seems to leave little doubt as to what happened, and why.  Major Nidal Hasan clearly appears to be a US born Islamic terrorist and intended to die while carrying out his jihad, believing this would glorify Allah and earn him instant entry into paradise. 

In three days of testimony, twenty-nine witnesses have appeared in the courtroom or by video link. They have all given substantially similar accounts of how the rampage began, saying Hasan fired into a crowded waiting area and then walked around the building, shooting people as they hid under chairs and tables, pausing only when he needed to reload.  But it bears mentioning that the psychiatrist initiated his rampage by standing up in a processing center, and didn't begin shooting until he yelled "Allahu Akbar!" — "God is great!" in Arabic. 

Nidal Hasan

The Obama administration immediately issued statements that were intended to cloud the issue, and Obama has consistently maintained his love fest with Muslims since then.  From condescending and naive statements about being at war with terrorists and not Islam, to foolishly weighing in on the new Islamafacisct monument being constructed at Ground Zero, Obama defies logic by refusing to acknowledge that there are a great many people of the Muslim faith who want to bring death and destruction to America.  The people killed that day are no less dead because of Obama's elitist ideology. 

The majority of Americans have grown tired of this facade.  We don't want a government that tells us what a valid concern is, or is not.  We want a government that exists for our protection.  And this whitewash of the truth is an outrage.  If the Obama administration wants our trust, then they will need to be candid with the facts.  

And if there are Muslims that don't want to be confused with jihadists like Nidal Hasan, they would be well advised to self-identify by denouncing cowards like him, and all terrorists and terrorist acts. 

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Michelle Obama "Keeping Spirits Clean Around Us"

Why do Progressives always have a problem with any reference to Judeo-Christian religion, unless it's uttered by one of their own?  What if a Conservative candidate or official had said the same thing?  I can imagine some diatribe about seperation of church and state, demands for an investigation into who paid for the trip, and a lawsuit filed by the ACLU within minutes.

This is called intellectual dishonesty.  Wikipedia provides this definition:

Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:
  • the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
  • the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
  • the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.
Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.[1] If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty.
The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light.
The phrase is also frequently used by orators when a debate foe or audience reaches a conclusion varying from the speaker's on a given subject. This appears mostly in debates or discussions of speculative, non-scientific issues, such as morality or policy.

"It means all the world to us to know that there are prayer circles out there and people who are keeping the spirits clean around us," First Lady Michelle Obama said.

This is not language that is clear to many Americans.  And it likely bothers them greatly that she would choose to read that in the same sentence of the teleprompter as discussing prayer circles.  Even people that don't consider themselves to be "religous" were probably mildly uncomfortable, at least. 

However, it makes perfect sense when you consider the intellectual dishonesty that is being displayed.  The people in the room applauded because they wanted to believe whatever she had to say.  But the American people aren't nearly as foolish and gullible as the elite left believes them to be.

A crucial element of the groundswirl that is happening in America today is the demand for intellectually honesty.  The future of our country is depending on it.  And I will be here to hold our government officials, elected or otherwise, to account.