Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category

« Older Entries

STUNNING NEW DEVELOPMENT!!! MEDIA CALLS TRUMP RACIST

Monday, June 13th, 2016

Ann Coulter
June 8, 2016

Annoyed at federal judge Gonzalo P. Curiel’s persistent rulings against him in the Trump University case (brought by a law firm that has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches by Bill and Hillary), Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said that maybe it’s because the judge is a second-generation Mexican immigrant.

The entire media — and most of the GOP — have spent 10 months telling us that Mexicans in the United States are going to HATE Trump for saying he’ll build a wall. Now they’re outraged that Trump thinks one Mexican hates him for saying he’ll build a wall.

Curiel has distributed scholarships to illegal aliens. He belongs to an organization that sends lawyers to the border to ensure that no illegal aliens’ “human rights” are violated. The name of the organization? The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association — “La Raza” meaning THE RACE.

Let’s pause to imagine the nomination hearings for a white male who belonged to any organization for white people — much less one with the words “THE RACE” in its title.

The media were going to call Trump a racist whatever he did, and his attack on a Hispanic judge is way better than when they said it was racist for Republicans to talk about Obama’s golfing.

Has anyone ever complained about the ethnicity of white judges or white juries? I’ve done some research and it turns out … THAT’S ALL WE’VE HEARD FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.

The New York Times alone has published hundreds of articles, editorials, op-eds, movie reviews, sports articles and crossword puzzles darkly invoking “white judges” and “all-white” juries, as if that is ipso facto proof of racist justice.

Two weeks ago — that’s not an error; I didn’t mean to type “decades” and it came out “weeks” — the Times published an op-ed by a federal appeals judge stating: “All-white juries risk undermining the perception of justice in minority communities, even if a mixed-race jury would have reached the same verdict or imposed the same sentence.”

In other words, even when provably not unfair, white jurors create the “perception” of unfairness solely by virtue of the color of their skin.

Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck’s entire career of springing criminals would be gone if it were generally accepted that we can’t question judges or juries based on race or ethnicity. Writing about the release of Glenn Ford, a black man convicted of robbing a jewelry store and murdering the owner, Scheck claimed that one of the most important factors in Ford’s death sentence was the “all-white jury.”

On the other hand, the evidence against Ford included: His two black friends telling police he’d shown them jewelry the day of the murder, another Ford acquaintance swearing he’d had a .38 in his waistband — the murder weapon was a .38 — and the gunshot residue on Ford’s hand. His conviction was overturned many years later, on the theory that his black friends had committed the murder, then framed him.

So we know 1) the “real killers” were also black; and 2) any jury would have convicted Ford on that evidence.

Here’s how the Times described Ford’s trial: “A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury in Louisiana in 1984 and sentenced to die, tapped into an equally old and painful vein of race.”

I have approximately 1 million more examples of the media going mental about a “white judge” or “all-white jury,” and guess what? In none of them were any of the white people involved members of organizations dedicated to promoting white people, called “THE RACE.”

Say, does anyone remember if it ever came up that the Ferguson police force was all white? Someone check that.

I don’t want to upset you New York Times editorial board, but perhaps we should revisit the results of the Nuremberg trials. Those were presided over by – TRIGGER WARNING! – “all white” juries. (How do we really know if Hermann Göring was guilty without hearing women’s and Latino voices?)

The model of a fair jury was the O.J. trial. Nine blacks, one Hispanic and two whites, who had made up their minds before the lawyers’ opening statements. (For my younger readers: O.J. was guilty; the jury acquitted him after 20 seconds of deliberation.) At the end of the trial, one juror gave O.J. the black power salute. Nothing to see here. It was Mark Fuhrman’s fault!

In defiance of everyday experience, known facts and common sense, we are all required to publicly endorse the left’s religious belief that whites are always racist, but women and minorities are incapable of any form of bias. If you say otherwise, well, that’s “textbook racism,” according to Paul Ryan.

At least when we’re talking about American blacks, there’s a history of white racism, so the double standard is not so enraging. What did we ever do to Mexicans? Note to Hispanics, Muslims, women, immigrants and gays: You’re not black.

Other than a few right-wingers, no one denounced now-sitting Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for her “wise Latina” speech, in which she said “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

But Trump is a “racist” for saying the same thing.

Six months ago, a Times editorial demanded that the Republican Senate confirm Obama judicial nominee Luis Felipe Restrepo, on the grounds that “[a]s a Hispanic,” Restrepo would bring “ethnic … diversity to the court.”

You see how confusing this is. On one hand, it’s vital that we have more women and Latinos on the courts because white men can’t be trusted to be fair. But to suggest that women and Latinos could ever be unfair in the way that white men can, well, that’s “racist.”

The effrontery of this double standard is so blinding, that the only way liberals can bluff their way through it is with indignation. DO I HEAR YOU RIGHT? ARE YOU SAYING A JUDGE’S ETHNICITY COULD INFLUENCE HIS DECISIONS? (Please, please, please don’t bring up everything we’ve said about white judges and juries for the past four decades.)

They’re betting they can intimidate Republicans — and boy, are they right!

The entire Republican Brain Trust has joined the media in their denunciations of Trump for his crazy idea that anyone other than white men can be biased. That’s right, Wolf, I don’t have any common sense. Would it help if the GOP donated to Hillary?

The NeverTrump crowd is going to get a real workout if they plan to do this every week between now and the election.

What do Republicans think they’re getting out of this appeasement? Proving to voters that elected Republicans are pathetic, impotent media suck-ups is, surprisingly, not hurting Trump.

COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-06-08.html

Posted in Liberal Agenda, Media Bias | Comments Closed

Historical Ignorance II

Thursday, October 29th, 2015

Historical Ignorance II
Walter E. Williams | Jul 22, 2015

We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?

Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let’s look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, “I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.” In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: “My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects.” Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

What about Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: “I view the matter (of slaves’ emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” He also wrote: “I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.” When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union. London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states “in rebellion against the United States.” Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln’s own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the secession of Texas from Mexico.

Why didn’t Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation’s history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Tags:,
Posted in Liberal Agenda, Media Bias | Comments Closed

Historical Ignorance

Thursday, October 29th, 2015

Historical Ignorance
Walter E. Williams | Jul 15, 2015

The victors of war write its history in order to cast themselves in the most favorable light. That explains the considerable historical ignorance about our war of 1861 and panic over the Confederate flag. To create better understanding, we have to start a bit before the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

The 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the war between the colonies and Great Britain. Its first article declared the 13 colonies “to be free, sovereign and independent states.” These 13 sovereign nations came together in 1787 as principals and created the federal government as their agent. Principals have always held the right to fire agents. In other words, states held a right to withdraw from the pact — secede.
During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, “A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede.

On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, “No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.”

Both Northern Democratic and Republican Parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded states, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. We Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: “It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”

The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, the federal government can run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution’s limitations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. States have little or no response.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Liberal Agenda, Media Bias | Comments Closed

Reverend Sharpton? Really?

Wednesday, December 10th, 2014

Al Sharpton Is As Much A Reverend As I Am A Black Man

BETHANY BLANKLEY
DECEMBER 9, 2014

In America, many people claim to be something they are not and get away with it, which explains why Al Sharpton continues to use the title Reverend. However, he is as much a reverend as I am a black man.

At age ten, Sharpton was “ordained” by Pentecostal minister Bishop F.D. Washington—a man with no training or education. Regardless of education, no one in his or her right mind can ascribe the title of minister to a 10 year old.

Most professions require relevant credentials and skills. For teachers this includes a master’s degree, certifications, and background checks. For police, graduation from police academy and ongoing job training and evaluations are required. Attorneys and judges must also not only have a law degree and have passed the bar, but follow a code of ethics and maintain accreditation standards to keep their license.

Al Sharpton never finished college. He has less education than a kindergarten teacher. He possesses a high school level knowledge of English. And his version of history speaks for itself. He famously quipped: “White folks was in caves while we was building empires…. We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”

Most Christian ministers have earned an MA degree and learned the now non-spoken languages of Greek and Hebrew originally used to write the Bible. Additionally, PhD’s require fluency in French, Latin, and German to understand translations from original texts to the vernacular.

Granted, someone can earn numerous degrees and still be neither a Christian nor a minister, which is why what one says and does reveals their motivation and conviction about Biblical authority and the Gospel.

Sharpton claims to have preached his first sermon at four years old; whether the topic was potty training or a popular song, it undoubtedly was not about Jesus Christ. To state the obvious, toddlers cannot read. They also do not have the capacity to gain knowledge or wisdom from years of prayer and studying the Scripture.

Sharpton has never professed a testimony of conversion, nor has he ever led a church. He has written no books about the Bible, and any language of grace, salvation, forgiveness, repentance, restoration, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or even Jesus are consistently absent from his remarks.

Sadly, Sharpton’s life exemplifies everything that Christianity is not.

Sharpton’s father left his mother for his half-sister. Fortunately, Sharpton chose the lesser of two evils. Between incest and a musician, he chose the latter–James Brown–as his father figure, who he says “taught him how to be a man.”

What was Brown’s example? Having largely raised himself on the streets with a sixth grade education, Brown’s life reads like a rap sheet, no pun intended.

Brown was convicted for robbery at age 16, went to juvenile detention, and was paroled at age 19. By age 40, in 1973, the IRS claimed he owed over $2 million in unpaid taxes. To avoid concurrent problems with the IRS and not pay what he owed, Brown credited his then-second wife and two of their children as the writers of the 1976 hit song, “Get Up Offa That Thing.” In 1986, after several gun possession charges, Brown went to prison again, ultimately for assault and battery with intent to kill. In 1998, Brown was charged with drug possession.

Sharpton’s life follows a similar trajectory. In 2002, a 19-year-old FBI video surfaced, aired by HBO, in which Sharpton allegedly recorded incriminating conversations with the Genovese and Gambino crime families about selling narcotics. No charges were brought against him. He still maintains he didn’t break the law, but others argue he was more than a confidential informant.

In 1989, Sharpton was charged with 67 felony counts of tax evasion, larceny, and fraud. Whatever deal he made was undisclosed; he was acquitted on all counts and only pled guilty to a misdemeanor for not filing his 1986 state income tax.

In 2001, he was sentenced to 90 days in jail for trespassing on U.S. Navy property during an alleged “protest” against military training activities in Puerto Rico.

In 2003, a New York City travel agency sued him for allegedly using fake credit card information.

In 2004, the Federal Election Commission ordered him to repay $100,000 in public matching funds he received for his 2004 presidential run.

In 2008, he was convicted on two counts of disorderly conduct resulting from being arrested for allegedly “protesting.”

In 2013, while still married to his second wife, Kathy Jordan, he unashamedly flaunted his 35-year-old girlfriend, Aisha McShaw, in New York City.

In November 2014, The New York Times exposed his fraudulent life, writing, “As Al Sharpton rose, so did his unpaid taxes.” The article lists a rap sheet of unpaid taxes, rent, and other bills, highlighting that Sharpton and his business owe more than $4.5 million in taxes. He refutes their article.

It’s no wonder, then, that Sharpton would defend young people who continue to break the law, even while on parole.

Or why he remains silent about hate crimes committed by black groups against individual veterans and students, or teens punched to death in knock out games. Or why he has offered no solutions to reduce illegal drug and gun violence in black communities.

Sharpton has had his entire life to provide young men without fathers, like himself, with the basic Biblical principles of self-control, patience, kindness, honoring their parents, respecting authority, being responsible, working hard, doing what is right, causing no harm, or at a minimum, the six out of ten commandments on which US civil law and moral codes are based.

Many black men are addressing the problems within the black community:

Sharpton’s life doesn’t reflect Christianity because he knows not Christ.

But he does have time to know the Gospel and genuine zeal expressed by many ministers.

And time to heed the warning in the New Testament book of Acts. A demon asks a false teacher, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are you?”

As one minister wisely said, “To be unknown in hell as a minister is a great disgrace.”

Tags:,
Posted in Liberal Agenda, Media Bias | No Comments »

Romany Malco on Trayvon ….

Sunday, August 4th, 2013

Actor Romany Malco attends Screen Gems Presents The Steve & Marjorie Harvey Foundation Gala at Cipriani Wall Street on May 14, 2012 in New York City

Actor Romany Malco attends Screen Gems Presents The Steve & Marjorie Harvey Foundation Gala at Cipriani Wall Street on May 14, 2012 in New York City

*Romany Malco, who reprises his role as Zeke in the recently wrapped “Think Like a Man, Too,” weighed into the Trayvon Martin topic from a different angle.

In a blog on The Huffington Post, the actor pointed out the role of mainstream news, pop culture and economics in this story steamrolling over more prevalent black on black shooting crimes that are largely uncovered by the press.

He wrote:

I haven’t touched on the Trayvon Martin issue because race matters in this country are the paralysis of the American people. To constructively discuss Trayvon would require empathy, introspection and an understanding of America’s social and economic history. This is why the open forums we have seen thus far seem to fuel more ignorance and bias than reasonable debate.

To be brutally honest, the only reason people are even aware of Trayvon Martin is because it became a topic within mainstream news and pop culture. Meaning: News directors saw it as a profitable, sensational story. Hundreds of blacks die annually in South Side Chicago without even a blurb. Trayvon isn’t in the mainstream news for any reason other than ratings and profit. The news coverage on the Zimmerman case almost implies that the killing of this young black man is somehow an anomaly and I resent that.

In this country, if it isn’t streamlined through mainstream media and pop culture, it doesn’t seem to warrant national debate. Our “government” continues to wreak havoc on our civil liberties and there is little to no protest from the black community because of media diversion tactics that keep such pertinent issues out of mainstream media. But if Jay-Z or Rihanna were to make mention of it, we’d suddenly be jolted out of our sugar comas and protesting on freeways.

My point being, people are up in arms about Trayvon based on regurgitated pundits and manipulated facts aired to elicit emotion while fueling America’s anger and division. That’s how you boost ratings. No different from Piers Morgan’s desperate rant over gun control when he knew his ratings were in the dumps. And from where I stand, anyone who still relies on corporate-owned media pundits to support an argument isn’t equipped to offer worthwhile solutions.

People are using Trayvon Martin’s death as an excuse to project their own deep-seated issues with racism and will not be capable of intelligent, empathetic debate until they’ve cooled down and afforded themselves an education.

Addressing Trayvon without first addressing the absence of critical thinking in our schools, the lack of introspection, the reasons for our low tolerance and our country’s skewed value system does nothing more than create a sounding board for the ignorant. So rather than facilitate more racism outcry, I’d like to address young black people specifically.

I believe we lost that trial for Trayvon long before he was killed. Trayvon was doomed the moment ignorance became synonymous with young black America . We lost that case by using media outlets (music, movies, social media, etc.) as vehicles to perpetuate the same negative images and social issues that destroyed the black community in the first place. When we went on record glorifying violent crime and when we voted for a president we never thought to hold accountable. When we signed on to do reality shows that fed into the media’s stereotypes of black men, we ingrained an image of Trayvon Martin so overwhelming that who he actually may have been didn’t matter anymore.

Don’t you find it peculiar that the same media outlets who have worked so diligently to galvanize the negative stigmas of black men in America are now airing open debates on improving the image of black males in American media? Do you honestly think CNN is using their competitive time slots for philanthropy?

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” – Rahm Emanuel

If we really wanted to ensure Trayvon Martin’s killing was not in vain, we’d stop perpetuating negative images that are now synonymous with black men in America. We’d stop rapping about selling drugs and killing niggas. The next time we saw a man beating a woman, we’d call for help or break it up, but one thing we would not do is stand by with our cellphones out — yelling WORLDSTAR! Instead of rewarding kids for memorization, we’d reward them for independent and critical thinking.

We’d spend less time subconsciously repeating lyrics about death and murder and more time understanding why we are so willing to twerk to songs that bemean women and boast of having things we cannot afford. We’d set examples of self-love for our youth by honoring our own hair, skin and eye color. We’d stop spending money on designer gear that we should be spending on our physical and psychological health. We’d seek information outside the corporate owned-media that manipulates us. We’d stop letting television babysit our kids and we’d quit regurgitating pundits we haven’t come up with on our own.

Education, introspection, self-love and excellence are the only ways to overcome the wrath of ignorance. So before going back to popping molly and getting Turnt Up, I urge you to consider the implications of your actions. Your child’s life may depend on it.

Tags:,
Posted in Liberal Agenda, Media Bias | No Comments »

Give Who a Break?

Monday, August 22nd, 2011

–

Did you read that commie bitch Kathleen Parker last week? She referred to Rick Perry as “George W. Perry”  …  She was cancelled on an MSNBC (or was it CNN, or who cares?) show with Elliot Spitzer … What does that tell ya?   

Why is Fox News beating the crap out of CNN and MSNBC? Simple – It’s because the illiterate morons that elected obama watch Captain Kangaroo in their pajamas all day, eating Coco Puffs and Fruit Loops  …  They don’t watch news and do not even know what the issues of any campaign are.  During Howard Stern’s 2009  street interviews, obama supporters claimed to support him in part because Sarah Palin was his running mate.  Ah, don’t get me started …

Tags:,
Posted in Media Bias | No Comments »

High School Principal Takes a Bold Stand

Monday, November 1st, 2010

This is a statement that was read over the PA system at a football game at Roane County High School in Kingston, Tennessee  by school Principal, Jody McLeod … The speech was later read into the Congressional Record by Representative Zach Wamp of Tennessee.

Even that left wing leaning arm of socialism snopes.com confirms this one:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/mcloud.asp

“It has always been the custom at Roane County High School football games, to say a prayer and play the National Anthem, to honor God and Country.”

Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is a violation of Federal Case Law. As I understand the law at this time, I can use this public facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it “an alternate life style,” and if someone is offended, that’s OK.

I can use it to condone sexual promiscuity, by dispensing condoms and calling it, “safe sex.” If someone is offended, that’s OK.

I can even use this public facility to present the merits of killing an unborn baby as a “viable! means of birth control.” If someone is offended, no problem…

I can designate a school day as “Earth Day” and involve students in activities to worship religiously and praise the goddess “Mother Earth” and call it “ecology..”

I can use literature, videos and presentations in the classroom that depicts people with strong, traditional Christian convictions as “simple minded” and “ignorant” and call it “enlightenment..”

However, if anyone uses this facility to honor GOD and to ask HIM to Bless this event with safety and good sportsmanship, then Federal Case Law is violated.

This appears to be inconsistent at best, and at worst, diabolical. Apparently, we are to be tolerant of everything and anyone, except GOD and HIS Commandments.

Nevertheless , as a school principal, I frequently ask staff and students to abide by rules with which they do not necessarily agree. For me to do otherwise would be inconsistent at best, and at worst, hypocritical. I suffer from that affliction enough unintentionally. I certainly do not need to add an intentional transgression.

For this reason, I shall “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s,” and refrain from praying at this time.

” However, if you feel inspired to honor, praise and thank GOD and ask HIM, in the name of JESUS, to Bless this event, please feel free to do so.. As far as I know, that’s not against the law—-yet.”

One by one, the people in the stands bowed their heads, held hands with one another and began to pray.

They prayed in the stands. They prayed in the team huddles. They prayed at the concession stand and they prayed in the Announcer’s Box!

The only place they didn’t pray was in the Supreme Court of the United States of America- the Seat of “Justice” in the “one nation, under GOD.”

Somehow, Kingston , Tennessee Remembered what so many have forgotten. We are given the Freedom OF Religion, not the Freedom FROM Religion. Praise GOD that HIS remnant remains!

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Liberal Agenda, Media Bias, Political Correctness, religion | No Comments »

Conservatives to Liberals … We Want a Divorce!

Sunday, December 20th, 2009

We have stuck together since the late 1950’s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that many of us want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the  sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way. Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy!

Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We don’t like to redistribute taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.

You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them at once).

We’ll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and give you MSNBC and Hollywood ..You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them with security.

We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru and Volvo station wagon you can find. You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.

We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute “Imagine”, “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing”, “Kum Ba Ya”, or “We Are the World”.

We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it so often offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag. Would you agree to this? If so, please pass a link to this blog to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, don’t.  In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll be willing to bet as to who will need whose help in 15 years.

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.

P. S. S.  And we won’t have to press 1 for English.

In God We Trust!!                            

Tags:, ,
Posted in Liberal Agenda, Media Bias | No Comments »

Support for Obamacare?

Monday, October 5th, 2009

Tags:, ,
Posted in Humor, Media Bias | No Comments »

Americans and a blind eye to history

Thursday, August 13th, 2009

 pam geller

Pam Geller

I am a student of history.  Professionally, I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied history all my life.  I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis.  Yes, these exist but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus. 

Something of historic proportions is happening.  I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it.  Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about 10 – 15 years.  The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two. 

We demanded and then codified into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people whom we knew could never pay back?  Why?  We learned recently that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has “loaned” two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms.  That is our money. Yours and mine.  And that is three times the $700B we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. 

Who has this money?  Why do they have it?  Why are the terms unavailable to us?  Who asked for it?  Who authorized it?  I thought this was a government of “We the People,” who loaned our powers to our elected leaders.  Apparently not. 

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy.  Why? 

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving.  Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate.  Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity.  Why? 

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman.  Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?).  We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic.  To what purpose? 

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government.  Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about.)  The list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth.  It is potentially 1929 x 10.   And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.  And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska.  All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders?  No?  Oh, of course.  The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it.  Sarah Palin‘s pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more important.) 

Mr.. Obama’s winning platform can be boiled down to one word:  Change…radical change.  Why? 

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.  This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life.  In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure.  Change is indeed coming.  And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again. 

And that is only the beginning. 

I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s.  In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing.  What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises.  Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker..  And he smiled and waved a lot.  And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his “brown shirts” would bully them into submission. 

And then he was duly elected to office, with a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression].  Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy.  The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think.  How did he get the people on his side?  He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex.  He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world. 

He did it with a compliant media – Did you know that?  And he did this all in the name of justice and…change.  And the people surely got what they voted for.  (Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.)  Read your history books.  Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of.  When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker.  He was right, though. 

Don’t forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe  It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities.  And in less than six years – a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency – it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors.  All with the best of intentions, of course.  The road to Hell is paved with them. 

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice:  I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong, close my eyes, have another latte and ignore what is transpiring around me. 

Some people scoff at me; others laugh or think I am foolish, naive, or both..  Perhaps I am.  But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe – and why I believe it.  I pray I am wrong.  But, I do not think I am. 

About the author via Google… Pamela “Atlas” Geller began her publishing career at The New York Daily News and subsequently took over operation of The New York Observer as Associate Publisher.  She left The Observer after the birth of her fourth child, but remained involved in various projects including American Associates, Ben Gurion University and being Senior Vice-President Strategic Planning and Performance Evaluation at The Brandeis School. 

After 9/11, Atlas had the veil of oblivion violently lifted from her consciousness and immersed herself in the education and understanding of geopolitics, Islam, terror, foreign affairs and imminent threats the mainstream media and the government wouldn’t cover or discuss.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Liberal Agenda, Media Bias, Obama, Political Correctness | No Comments »

« Older Entries