Showing posts with label Farakhan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Farakhan. Show all posts

Sunday, January 9, 2011

More On Jared Loughner's Slaughter In Arizona & Leftwing Media Hypocrisy

Two exceptional essays by Byron York and Ed Morissey on the mass murder by Jared Loughner and the media / left's rush to tie this act to Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. Byron York compares this rush to the media / left's actions after the Ft. Hood shooting by Nidal Hassan. Morissey builds on that, pointing to CNN's scurrilous reporting, and points to some words used by the left - the very tip of the iceberg - during the last campaign by Obama and the DNC concerning politics and bullseye's on targets for Democratic pickup.

This from Byron York:

On November 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at a troop readiness center in Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13 people. Within hours of the killings, the world knew that Hasan reportedly shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before he began shooting, visited websites associated with Islamist violence, wrote Internet postings justifying Muslim suicide bombings, considered U.S. forces his enemy, opposed American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam, and told a neighbor shortly before the shootings that he was going "to do good work for God." There was ample evidence, in other words, that the Ft. Hood attack was an act of Islamist violence.

Nevertheless, public officials, journalists, and commentators were quick to caution that the public should not "jump to conclusions" about Hasan's motive. CNN, in particular, became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care.

"The important thing is for everyone not to jump to conclusions," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark on CNN the night of the shootings.

"We cannot jump to conclusions," said CNN's Jane Velez-Mitchell that same evening. "We have to make sure that we do not jump to any conclusions whatsoever."

"I'm on Pentagon chat room," said former CIA operative Robert Baer on CNN, also the night of the shooting. "Right now, there's messages going back and forth, saying do not jump to the conclusion this had anything to do with Islam."

Actually, that was responsible reporting at the time, at least until it became conclusively shown that Nidal in fact was motivated by Salafi Islam to carry out his mass murder. But as York goes on to discuss, in the very hours after this murder, with no evidence initially and then with the mounting evidence to the contrary, the left wing generally, and the left wing media in particular, have been falling all over themselves to tie this to Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and the rise in "hate speech" that the left wants everyone to believe is a phenomena unique to the past two years.

Ed Morrisey points out the massive hypocrisy of CNN to speculate that Palin and the Tea Party were responsible in any way for this mass murder and adds:

. . . as has been repeatedly pointed out in the hours since, Democrats have also used crosshairs and bulls-eye imagery in their own political communications, including one in Arizona “targeting” J. D Hayworth of Arizona. As far as the “reload” comment, it was less than three years ago that Barack Obama himself talked about responding to political opponents with a gun analogy:

Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight?

That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

The comment drew some laughs and applause. But it also struck a chord with his Republican rival. John McCain’s campaign immediately accused the Democratic candidate of playing the politics of fear. They also mentioned that Obama said he would use a gun that would be illegal under Obama’s plans to cut down on illegal firearms.

Getting hysterical about the use of war terminology in politics is about as hypocritical as one can possibly get, as Howard Kurtz explained yesterday, especially for journalists covering politics . . .

To add a few thoughts, as to the Tea Party at least, the left would like us to believe that a determination to stop deficit spending, to lower taxes, and an inchoate desire to return to the Constitution at the time of the founding somehow is an invitation to violence. To the contrary, it is a call for a return to law.

The same cannot be said of at least a portion of the violent left wing rhetoric that has been with us since the days of Vietnam. Indeed, that was a world that gave us The Weathermen and many others who called for violence and who, in fact, did commit politically motivated violence, murder and mayhem. And to pretend violent rhetoric is an artifact of the right is ridiculous. The left's violent rhetoric was raised to an art form during the Bush years and, indeed, is still with us.





And on a closely related issue, where is the media outrage when we have seen, over the past few years, vile reverse racism, all of it accepted without comment by the left. Seemingly at the drop of a hat, the left calls virtualy anything they don't like "racism," wholly irrespective of racial animus. These people in fact have motivated mass murders, including the sniper murders by John Allen Mohammed and the murders by Omar Thorton, who last year at a distributorship in Connecticut, killed eight of his co-workers.




Silence.

Read More...

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Reverse Racism and the Politics of Obama

To promote equality of rights and to eradicate caste or race prejudice among the citizens of the United States; to advance the interest of colored citizens; to secure for them impartial suffrage; and to increase their opportunities for securing justice in the courts, education for the children, employment according to their ability and complete equality before law.

Mission Statement, Charter of the National Association For The Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), 1911

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

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

Martin Luther King, Jr, Speech at the Lincoln Memorial, 28 August 1963

What has happened to so thoroughly corrupt the "civil rights" movement in America. Once it was a noble and laudable struggle for equality. Today, at best, it is nothing more than a naked political tool of the left, to be trotted out as a means of destroying the credibility of the left's opponents. It has nothing to do with achieving equality. It has everything to do with political power and money.

Exhibit 1 - on Tuesday, in a nakedly political move, the NAACP's Board of Directors perpetrated an atrocious libel, voting to condemn the Tea Party for "tolerating racism."

The resolution initially said the NAACP would "repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties" and stand against the movement's attempt to "push our country back to the pre-civil rights era," though the wording was amended to downplay criticism of all Tea Partiers while asking them to repudiate bigots in their own ranks.

"We take no issue with the Tea Party movement. We believe in freedom of assembly and people raising their voices in a democracy," the NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous said in a written statement announcing the unanimous vote. "What we take issue with is the Tea Party's continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements.

"The time has come for them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear there is no place for racism and anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement."

NAACP leaders have referenced an incident in March when Tea Party protesters allegedly hurled racial epithets at black lawmakers on Capitol Hill ahead of a health care vote.

The "March incident" refers to when members of the Black Caucus went out into the crowd of Tea Party protesters seeking to solicit any hint of racism. Later that day, several of the members of the Black Caucus claimed to have heard numerous racial slurs hurled at them. They had Jesse Jackson Jr. walking behind them recording their march through the protests. Virtually every broadcast news network and a great many individuals were also recording. Yet not a single bit of evidence has been produced to substantiate their claim. In other words, Rep. Clyburn and every other member of the Black Caucus seem, in fact, to be engaging in slander of grotesque proportions.



None of that has stopped the left from using the "March incident" to tag the Tea Party with racism, and equally outrageous, none of it has stopped the left wing MSM from playing right along. ABC hyped these scurrilous charges, as did the AP, in their reporting of the NAACP's vote to tag the Tea Party with racism.

Elsewhere in just the past week, we were treated to Jesse Jackson twisting Cleavland Cavaliers owner's statement of displeasure at the lack of loyalty of Lebron James into the most vile of racist charges. Most people merely shrugged. It was just Jesse being Jesse.

Then we have one of more odious individuals on the planet, Louis Farakhan, a man who preaches hatred and racism with every move of his tongue, demanding reparations from "the Jews" for the their history of racism and their role in enslaving the blacks. It actually makes a nice circle to this post to point out that the founders of the NAACP were three white people, and one of those three was in fact Jewish - Henry Moscowitz. Historically, Jews were deeply involved in the efforts to achieve racial equality for blacks. It is estimated that "50 percent of the civil rights attorneys in the South during the 1960s were Jews, as were over 50 percent of the Whites who went to Mississippi in 1964 to challenge Jim Crow Laws." None of that of course makes a dent in the wall of ignorance and reverse racism that oozes from the pours of Farrakhan. Nor does it matter to Farakhan that the worst of the worst when it came to the slave traders have been Muslims - and that includes the enslavement of blacks. It should also be noted that the high minded NAACP, while asking the Tea Party to denounce anti-Semitism in their ranks (is their any), is wholly ignoring the single most virulent font of anti-semitism in the U.S. today - Louis Farakhan.

Then there is Obama, a President deeply, if not overtly, involved in the politics of race. Instead of trying to "heal the racial divide," Obama has injected racism ever more into the laws and the national dialogue. What does it say when the First Lady, Michelle Obama, speaks at the NAACP Convention the day before they vote to tag the Tea Party as racists. What does it say when Obama chides the police for arresting Henry Louis Gates, himself a race baiter of the first order, when Gates refused to cooperate with police conducting a lawful search.

Then there are Obama's legislative proposals. Obama's proposed new financial regulations do not merely continue the race based social engineering into lending standards that brought us to financial ruin, they actually expand that engineering. Further those same regulations establish de facto hiring quotas for minorities and women throughout the financial industry.

All of that is vast racial overreach by Obama. But then there is racial corruption at DOJ. Crediting the testimony of whistleblower J. Christian Adams, the DOJ is no longer accepting voting rights cases in which the defendant is black, they are refusing to enforce the law requiring states to scrub their voting rolls, thus suborning vote fraud, and they have lied to Congress about the decision to drop the civil prosecution of the New Black Panthers. And as outrageous as all of that is, it is perhaps dwarfed by the decision of the Holder DOJ to refuse to answer lawful subpoenas from the Office of Civil Rights seeking to investigate these charges.

And on a final note, there is the ultimate betrayal - the fact that virtually all of the "black leadership," in pushing their vile reverse racism, are doing precious little to actually improve the plight of that significant minority of blacks still mired in the poverty and violence of inner cities. These race hustlers preach and push everything through the lens of racism to accrete power and wealth. They would keep all blacks focused on America circa 1859 for the same reason. They don't preach advancement, they preach balkanization. Merely juxtapose two relatively recent bits of news to demonstrate this reality.

The first bit - the death of former KKK member Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Byrd was never a believer in equality of man. As the Daily Caller points out, he did not merely vote against both the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he filibustered the latter for three months. "In 1997, he voted against a voucher program for D.C.; when the program passed almost a decade later despite his objections, it ended up helping African-American students in ways that the District’s failed public schools could not." Yet upon his death, this same man was feted by the NAACP.

Juxtapose against that the utter travesty of Obama and the left's handling of the school voucher program in DC. By all accounts, the DC voucher program was a huge success, offering hope to numerous inner city students whose public school system was the worst in the nation. Within months of his coronation, Obama shut the program down. Why he did so is not a mystery. On the one hand were blacks mired in poverty who were benefiting significantly from a program. Weighed against their plight was a teachers union flush with money taken involuntarily from all teachers and who did not want to see the voucher program continue. It was no contest. So where was the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan and the Congressional Black Caucus when Obama decided to end the DC Voucher Program?

And to it all, a corrupt media yawns, imposing on America the most outrageous of double standards. Where people should be hounded out of office and the public square for their vile reverse racism, for their gross hypocrisy, they instead given a pass by the media and feted by the left. It is perverse and grossly unfair. Most of America supported the call for equality of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the NAACP, else it would not have happened. There can be no doubt whatsoever that most of America fully supports the notion of equality today. But what the NAACP, the "black leaders," and the far left in Washington are seeking today has absolutely nothing to do with racial equality. And tagging Middle America as racist - not the brightest of moves. I said two years ago that electing Obama would set back race relations in America by decades, because it was clear from his history that his claim that he would "heal the racial divide" was purely false. His entire history pointed in the opposite direction.

Read More...

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Wright Matters & A New Definition of Hope


Barack Obama's Wright problems did not end when he denounced Rev. Wright two weeks and claimed, yet again, that he flatly had heard no racism, anti-semitism, nor anti-Americanism from Rev. Wright while sitting in Wright's pews for twenty years. It is a defense that may prove as damaging as his actual connections to Rev. Wright. Recently released exit polls showed that the Rev. Wright connection was a significant factor in the votes of many who voted in the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. And Stanley Kurtz has examined Rev. Wright's magazine, The Trumpet. He finds further reason to believe Obama is lying about what he knew and when he knew it. Further, Kurtz finds that "hope," as defined by Rev. Wright in his sermons, itself takes on a distinct layer of racism.
_______________________________________________________

The Washington Post reported on a recent exit poll that shows the issue of Obama's twenty year relationship with Rev. Wright played a major factor in the votes of many in Indiana and North Carolina, suggesting that Obama's speech on race and then his denunciation of Wright in a subsequent news conference have in no way put this issue to bed:

. . . In network exit polling, about the same number of voters in each state said they considered the situation with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. "very important" to their vote as those who said it was "not at all important." And most who gave the issue a heavy weight voted for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), while those who said it was not a factor went for Obama, the Illinois senator, by wide margins.

In both states, frequent churchgoers were more apt to say they were influenced by Wright than were less actively religious voters. In North Carolina, among those who said they attend religious services weekly, nearly six in 10 called Wright important to their vote, almost double the figure among those who never attend services. Even among Obama's own supporters in the Tarheel state, 45 percent who attend services weekly called the controversy important to their vote; among those, a third who rated it "very important." . . .

Read the article. If the above is any indication, Obama's Wright problem are not going to fade into obscurity. To the contrary, it may well be fatal in the general election, particularly if there are any further revelations to call into question the truthfulness of Obama's frankly unbelievable claims. In this vein, Stanley Kurtz, writing at the The Daily Standard, has been examining Rev. Wright's magazine, the Trumpet. What he finds goes beyond simply establishing that racism and anti-Americanism are at the heart of Rev. Wright's black liberation theology. It calls into question how, if Obama learned the "audacity of hope" from Rev. Wright, how Obama defines "hope:"

To the question of the moment--What did Barack Obama know and when did he know it?--I answer, Obama knew everything, and he's known it for ages. Far from succumbing to surprise and shock after Jeremiah Wright's disastrous performance at the National Press Club, Barack Obama must have long been aware of his pastor's political radicalism. A careful reading of nearly a year's worth of Trumpet Newsmagazine, Wright's glossy national "lifestyle magazine for the socially conscious," makes it next to impossible to conclude otherwise.

Wright founded Trumpet Newsmagazine in 1982 as a "church newspaper"--primarily for his own congregation, one gathers--to "preach a message of social justice to those who might not hear it in worship service." So Obama's presence at sermons is not the only measure of his knowledge of Wright's views. Glance through even a single issue of Trumpet, and Wright's radical politics are everywhere--in the pictures, the headlines, the highlighted quotations, and above all in the articles themselves. It seems inconceivable that, in 20 years, Obama would never have picked up a copy of Trumpet. In fact, Obama himself graced the cover at least once (although efforts to obtain that issue from the publisher or Obama's interview with the magazine from his campaign were unsuccessful).

. . . If you've heard about the "Empowerment Award" bestowed upon Louis Farrakhan by Wright, or about Wright's derogation of "garlic-nosed" Italians (of the ancient Roman variety), then you already know something about Trumpet. Farrakhan's picture was on the cover of a special November/December 2007 double issue, along with an announcement of the Empowerment Award and Wright's praise of Farrakhan as a 20th- and 21st-century "giant." Wright's words about Farrakhan were almost identical to those that, just four months later, led a supposedly shocked Obama to repudiate Wright. The insult to Italians was in the same double issue.

I obtained the 2006 run of Trumpet, from the first nationally distributed issue in March to the November/December double issue. To read it is to come away impressed by Wright's thoroughgoing political radicalism. There are plenty of arresting sound bites, of course, but the larger context is more illuminating--and more disturbing--than any single shock-quotation. Trumpet provides a rounded picture of Wright's views, and what it shows unmistakably is that the now-infamous YouTube snippets from Wright's sermons are authentic reflections of his core political and theological beliefs. It leaves no doubt that his religion is political, his attitude toward America is bitterly hostile, and he has fundamental problems with capitalism, white people, and "assimilationist" blacks. Even some of Wright's famed "good works," and his moving "Audacity to Hope" sermon, are placed in a disturbing new light by a reading of Trumpet.

. . . Wright is the foremost acolyte of James Cone's "black liberation theology," which puts politics at the center of religion. Wright himself is explicit:

[T]here was no separation Biblically and historically and there is no separation contemporaneously between 'religion and politics.' .  .  . The Word of God has everything to do with racism, sexism, militarism, social justice and the world in which we live daily.

. . . [T]he pages of Trumpet resonate with enraged criticism of the United States. Indeed, they feature explicit repudiations of even the most basic expressions of American patriotism, supporting instead an "African-centered" perspective that treats black Americans as virtual strangers in a foreign land.

Although the expression "African American" appears in Trumpet, the magazine more typically refers to American blacks as "Africans living in the Western Diaspora." Wright and the other columnists at Trumpet seem to think of blacks as in, but not of, America. The deeper connection is to Africans on the continent, and to the worldwide diaspora of African-originated peoples. In an image that captures the spirit of Wright's relationship to the United States, he speaks of blacks as "songbirds" locked in "this cage called America."

Wright views the United States as a criminal nation. Here is a typical passage: "Do you see God as a God who approves of Americans taking other people's countries? Taking other people's women? Raping teenage girls and calling it love (as in Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings)?" Anyone who does think this way, Wright suggests, should revise his notion of God. Implicitly drawing on Marxist "dependency theory," Wright blames Africa's troubles on capitalist exploitation by the West, and also on inadequate American aid: "Some analysts would go so far as to even call what [the United States, the G-8, and multinational corporations] are doing [in Africa] genocide!"

. . . Again and again, Wright makes the point that America's criminality and racism are not aberrations but of the essence of the nation, that they are every bit as alive today as during the slave era, and that America is therefore no better than the worst international offenders: "White supremacy undergirds the thought, the ideology, the theol-ogy, the sociology, the legal structure, the educational system, the healthcare system, and the entire reality of the United States of America and South Africa!" (Emphasis Wright's.)

One of Wright's most striking images of American evil invokes Hurricane Katrina. Here are excerpts of a piece in the May 2006 Trumpet:

We need to educate our children to the reality of white supremacy.

We need to educate our children about the white supremacist's foundations of the educational system.

When the levees in Louisiana broke alligators, crocodiles and piranha swam freely through what used to be the streets of New Orleans. That is an analogy that we need to drum into the heads of our African American children (and indeed all children!).

In the flood waters of white supremacy .  .  . there are also crocodiles, alligators and piranha!

The policies with which we live now and against which our children will have to struggle in order to bring about "the beloved community," are policies shaped by predators.

We lay a foundation, deconstructing the household of white supremacy with tools that are not the master's tools. We lay the foundation with hope. We deconstruct the vicious and demonic ideology of white supremacy with hope. Our hope is not built on faith-based dollars, empty liberal promises or veiled hate-filled preachments of the so-called conservatives. Our hope is built on Him who came in the flesh to set us free.

Given Wright's conviction that America, past and present, is criminally white supremacist--even genocidal--to its core, Wright is not a fan of patriotic celebration. Predictably, Columbus Day is a day of rage for Wright. Calling Columbus a racist slave trader, Wright excoriates the holiday as "a national act of amnesia and denial," part of the "sick and myopic arrogance called Western History."

. . . Hostility to capitalism is another of Trumpet's pervasive themes. As we've seen, Wright blames multinational corporations for conflict and poverty in Africa. Trinity Church urges parishioners to boycott Wal-Mart, and Wright decries what he calls "the "Wal-martization of the world." In another one of his regular Trumpet columns, Reginald Williams criticizes McDonald's for failing to heed leftist advocacy groups by voluntarily raising the price it pays for tomatoes (so as to raise the wages of tomato pickers). Williams apparently wants to replace market mechanisms with a pricing system dictated by "human rights groups."

. . . Wright's swipe at Italians is actually directed toward the Romans who crucified Jesus (in what James Cone calls a "first-century lynching"). Following black liberation theology, Wright emphasizes that the black Jesus was "murdered by the European oppressors who looked down on His people." In a sense, then, disclaimers notwithstanding, Wright turns the crucifixion into a potential charter for "anti-European" anger.

. . . Wright opposes "assimilation," expressing displeasure with the likes of Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, and Colin Powell. He dismisses such blacks as "sell outs." Wright's hostility to assimilation goes beyond classic American expressions of pride in ethnic or religious heritage. For example, Wright claims that "desegregation is not the same as integration. .  .  . Desegregation did not mean that white children would now come to Black schools and learn our story, our history, our heritage, our legacy, our beauty and our strength!" This, for Wright, is genuine "integration."

One of the most striking features of Wright's Trumpet columns is the light they shed on his longstanding theme of "hope." Wright's "Audacity to Hope" sermon is built around a painting he describes of a torn and tattered woman sitting atop a globe and playing a harp that has lost all but a single string. In that sermon, Wright's allegory of hope amidst despair concentrates on our need to soldier on in faith amidst personal tragedy. Yet the "Audacity" sermon also features allusions to South Africa's Sharpe-ville Massacre (1960) and "white folks's greed [that] runs a world in need."

In Trumpet, the political context of the "hope" theme is harsher still. Instead of counseling determination amidst personal tragedy, Wright uses "hope" to exhort his readers to boldly carry on the long-odds struggle against white supremacist America: "We deconstruct the vicious and demonic ideology of white supremacy with hope." Here's another passage in the same mode:

[O]ur fight against Wal-Mart's practices has not been won and might never be won in our lifetime. That does not mean we stop struggling against what it is they stand for that is not in keeping with God's will and God's Kingdom that we pray will come every day.

In that earlier striking passage on the post-Katrina flooding in New Orleans, Wright speaks of his determination to "drum into the heads of our African American children (and indeed, all children!)" the idea that America is flooded with the "crocodiles, alligators and piranha" of white supremacy. That image creates the context for one of Wright's most energetic invocations of "hope":

We are on the verge of launching our African-centered Christian school. The dream of that school, which we articulated in 1979, was built on hope. That hope still lives. That school has to have at its core an understanding and assessment of white supremacy as we deconstruct that reality to help our children become all that God created them to be when God made them in God's own image.

The construction of a school for inner city children undoubtedly falls into the category of the "good works" which nearly everyone recognizes as a benefit bestowed by Trinity Church on the surrounding community, Wright's ideology notwithstanding. But is a school that portrays America as a white supremacist nation filled with predatory alligators and piranha a good work?

. . . Radical politics is no sideline for Wright, but the very core of his theology and practice.

There can be no mistaking it. What did Barack Obama know and when did he know it? Everything. Always.

Read the entire article.

(H/T Dr. Sanity)

Read More...