I just spent a half hour listening to NPR and some LLL talking about the incident in which a couple of Black Panthers could be seen hanging around outside a polling station wielding batons.
The guy was wondering what all the fuss was about. He said it's a predominately Democratic district, so what difference does it make? Apparently this is a popular view among the LLL which would explain why they are so apathetic about it. I'm sure it would be different if it were say, a more evenly divided or predominately Republican district. Right?
Oh, BTW: The speaker was representing some terrorist or cleric who had been waterboarded, so he was taking every opportunity to lay out his case about how waterboarding was torture and W was bad and Holder was weak, etc, etc, etc.
Rangel, who has served nearly 40 years in the House of Representatives, including a tour as head of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, illustrates the corruptive nature of political tenure.
Ask those who keep watch over our congressional scoundrels for the most common characteristic of nominees to the annual Most Corrupt list, and they will nominate prolonged service. Indeed, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has listed Rangel as one of our 15 most corrupt politicians since 2008.
The tragedy is that despite serial misbehavior, Rangel will not lose his job. The Ethics Committee (formally known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct) will likely give him a slap on the wrist, possibly in conjunction with an apology and perhaps a bunch of roses to make sure there are no hard feelings. (Rangel has been extremely helpful in raising money for his colleagues.) Moreover, voters in his home district appear poised to reelect him. Such is the power of incumbency. Even if the House throws him out his district will re-elect him just like Adam Clayton Powell is predecessor. Following allegations that Powell had misappropriated Committee funds for his personal use (see below "Family Scandal") and other charges including evading a subpoena in New York and failing to appear on a post judgment hearing involving the slander case he lost, in January 1967 the House Democratic Caucus stripped Powell of his committee chairmanship. The full House refused to seat him until completion of an investigation by the Judiciary Committee. Powell urged his supporters to "keep the faith, baby" while the investigation went on. On March 1 the House voted 307 to 116 to exclude him. Powell said "On this day, the day of March in my opinion, the end of the United States of America as the land of the free and the home of the brave."[5]
Powell won the special election in April to fill the vacancy caused by his exclusion, but did not take his seat. He sued in Powell v. McCormack to retain his seat. Powell was again elected in November 1968, and on January 3, 1969, was seated as a member of the 91st Congress, but was fined $25,000 and denied seniority.[6] In June 1969 the Supreme Court ruled that the House had acted unconstitutionally when it excluded Powell, a duly elected member.[7]
Powell's absenteeism was increasingly noted. In June 1970 he was defeated in the Democratic primary by Charles B. Rangel. In fall 1970, he failed to get on the ballot for the November election as an Independent. He resigned as minister at the Abyssinian Baptist Church and moved to Bimini. Rangel has continued to represent the district, as of 2010.
One of the strengths of Rantburg, built in by Mr. Pruitt from the very beginning, is that posted articles -- or excerpts from articles -- link to the original, wherever in the world it may have been published. Thus we can see for ourselves the journalist's context and intent, not only those bits the poster thought most important at the moment he presented it here.
Yesterday there was a discussion here at Rantburg about the Shirley Sherrod adventures.
The title of my very little essay -- in the original sense of to attempt -- links to Mr. Breitbart's piece breaking the Sherrod/NAACP story on his Big Government site, with the notorious Sherrod videos (there are two of them) therein embedded. I dare make no claim to orginal insights, as everything here was better said in the Rantburg thread yesterday, not to mention all over the internet. I only bring you what Mr. Breitbart actually wrote, which generated so much Sturm und Drang. He opened his piece with
Context is everything.
In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient and in another clip from the same event a perfect rationalization for why the Tea Party needs to exist.
The key paragraphs, halfway through the essay, put his point in sharp relief (bolding mine):
We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.
In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn't do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from "one of his own kind". She refers him to a white lawyer.
Sherrod's racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups' racial tolerance.
The second video affirms the real reason there is tension between the Democratic Party and a growing mass of middle Americans -- and it's not because of race.
The NAACP which has transformed from a civil rights group to a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party and social-justice politics, supports a new America that relies less on individualism, entrepreneurialism and American grit, but instead giddily embraces, the un-American notion of unaccountability and government dependence. Shirley Sherrod, a federal appointee who oversees over a billion dollars of federal funds, nearly begs black men and women into taking government jobs at USDA -- because they won't get fired.
This is why the Democratic Party is scared. This is why the NAACP is scared. This is why black conservatives, previously marginalized as "Uncle Toms" by these progressive bullies, and shamefully, the NAACP, are coming out of the woodwork to join and, in many cases, lead the Tea Party movement.
Mr. Breitbart very clearly aimed his expose at the NAACP, triggering the kind of response from the NAACP and the White House that would have made Saul Alinsky beam with pride.
But why did he target the NAACP, of all groups, at this time? He explains that at the top of the essay, when he reviews the recent NAACP's attack on the Tea Party movement as inherently racist, a meme common in the mainstream media from the beginning of their reportage on the subject. But it's new that the NAACP, with all their authority, has chosen to weigh in on the subject.
Mr. Breitbart chose their own videoed behaviour as the tool with which to spike their very powerful guns.
And spike he did. As a result the charge of racism has lost much of the power to harm that its wielders held over the heads of the rest of us for the past two generations. With it goes much of President Obama's remaining power and appeal.
Y'all still think Mr. Breitbart needs to apologize for what happened to Ms Sherrod?
#3
The ones that need to apologize are those that rushed to judge and fired her so quickly. An investigation was perhaps warranted and firing could have followed but firing her for what is on that tape seems a bit illegal.
What is interesting to me is the audience reaction. It reminds me of the Trent Lott comments during the Strom Thurmond scandal. Nobody at the event thought the comments were out of line. Not the lefties or the journalists or anybody there until bloggers picked up the feed and realized the moronic meaning of what was said.
Perhaps people are just too polite when stupid things are said from a podium.
#5
The woman is a minor bureaucrat who spoke about her own internal change of heart. The video of this speech was edited in order to make her seem like an unrepentant racist when in fact her speech indicates the exact opposite, that she recognized her behavior-- from a quarter century ago!-- and then CHANGED her behavior, in fact becoming close friends with the farmer in question!
She's not a hero, and neither is anyone in her audience, but she like anyone else does not deserve to have her speech selectively edited and twisted to mean the 180-degree opposite of what she actually said.
Breitbart acted just like the MoveOnners. He is not a journalist; he's a culture warrior. He should give up the pretense of "reforming" journalism and admit he's no different from Moulitsas or any of the other little ideological partisan bloggers braying through their tin megaphones.
If you read the transcript, which at this point, you did not, yet, I am sure you will after reading this comment and then roar back here with "I read the transcript and you are wrong!"... But if you read the transcript Sherrod swings wildly back and forth between saying "it's all about being poor" and not race to those people who are against Obama's Health Care are racists, just like the NAACP says.
Yeah, thats right. She spoke glowingly anti-racism and then dived right into racism in her 45 minute rambling speech. Sherrod was all over the map in her transcript, saying it is a shame their are no whites in the meeting of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as well as saying anyone who opposes Health Care are racists.
Why??? Because the sole purpose of such talk is to level false charges against people who, as Trailing Wife stated, believe in "individualism, entrepreneurialism and American grit" and are a danager to Government Administered Health Care by Beaurocrats like she was at the time of her speech.
Why??? Because she is the government beaurocrat that is trying to protect her turf. That is her REAL ambition. To take as a government beaurocrat from people in the private sector who workeded hard for what they have and give it to people who don't work in the government entitlement sector that Sherrod and her "small time beaurocrats" as you refer to her as, who she and Obama rule over.
Now, get on your knees, crawl up to her and beg for a hand out! You deserve no less. And don't act "high and mighty" doing so or you will be the butt of her next story at a closed door for sure this time NAACP meeting.
#7
I never thought Sherrod was spouting racist remarks after listening to the Breitbart video. What interested me was the response of the NAACP audience when they thought she was discussing payback to "whitie" a la O.J trial. Some of them may have never figured out she was discussing a pivot point in her life as it relates to race.
My gripe with Sherrod has been her accusations of "Racism" against Fox and Glenn Beck. Hell, Beck didn't say a word the first day after her firing and defended her on the second day even before the NAACP released the full video.
It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of ones acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many timesin Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis....
Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at worka type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature. He has been fed vitamins and filled with energies that are beyond the capacity of his intellect to discipline. He has been treated to forms of education which have released him from inhibitions. His body is vigorous. His mind is childish. His soul has been almost completely neglected. (Sound like anyone you know?)
At any rate, let us look round the room....
Read the whole thing. I think Thompson got it very right. And people havent changed so very much the types she surveys here are all around us, in our homes, our communities and most certainly within our pundit and political classes; they are before our eyes in every venue, these sorts who will, and will never, go Nazi.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/27/2010 10:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
All this talk of the ultra left being like Nazis leaves me flat.
Nazis gained power and fueled their war machine by cultivating a deep and abiding love of the country in its citizens. The excesses of Nazi Germany were committed to make Germany great.
Liberals hate this country and all that it stands for. Worrying about them going Nazi is pointless, they are too fractured and centric to their own tiny interest group to unite behind anything too powerful to be stopped. And they are a bunch of limp wristed, tofu eating pussies that own no guns.
Now if you're worried about a group going Nazi, conservative elements are much more at risk of nationalist sentiment than the 'salad shooters'.
Many are veterans, strong in their person and have a closet full of guns. They really shouldn't be f*cking with us at all.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
#2
the problem with the Nazis was not their stated goals, but that ANY means of achieving it were acceptable. in effect, the gathering of power over other people itself was the ultimate means and became the defacto goal. nationalism was what worked to sell it to the Germans, but the fact is that the mindset that any means were acceptable was the evil. the hard-core political left has a different stated goal than the original Nazis but the fact that for them ANY means are acceptable to reach those goals and to implement those means they seek more and more power over our lives is what should be scaring the shit out of us. they talk about personal freedom and respect for other points of vies and tolerance but those are just what it takes to sell enough of the populace on giving them the power they need to make the "real" changes. their ultimate goal is to destroy the America they hate and change into one we would not recognize.
Posted by: abu do you love ||
07/27/2010 13:02 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The philosophical difference between Pelosi liberalism, Marxist socialism, National Socialism, Juche, and fascism in the original Mussolini sense is a lot less than the so-called smart folks would have you believe. Someone even wrote a book about the subject.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/27/2010 13:12 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Not worried about neocomms (a.k.a. progressives) going Nazi, worried about going Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot.
#5
There were several strong impulses to Nazism, both inside of and external to Germany.
To start with, before unification under von Bismarck, the rest of Europe sneered at Germans as ignorant peasants, except for Prussians, who were seen as hyper militaristic.
Though to a great extent, World War I was pretty much a draw, the other European powers decided to punish Germany severely, though there was fault to go around. But by now, Germans were no longer interested in being 2nd or 3rd class Europeans.
This ticked a lot of Germans off, so they wanted some payback against the other powers. And this was the big impulse to the Nazis, offering a powerful Germany that would no longer have weak leaders willing to put up with other nations oppressions.
#6
The Treaty of Versailles and French vindictiveness guaranteed World War II; the Great Depression coupled with the Weimar Republic's weakness guaranteed that an authoritarian government that could at least feed the public would takeover. Most people forget how close Germany came to being a Communist dictatorship in the 1920s and 30s -- the Nazis and their supporters were just better street fighters and pushed the Red factions out.
WMF > JOZEF STALIN INTENDED THE 1939 NAZI-SOVIET NON-AGRESSION PACT TO BE A TREATISE SUPPORTING THE REJECTION AND FORCED DESTRUCTION OF WESTERN DMEOCRATIC GOVTS. ADOLF HITLER INVITED STALIN TO SHARE IN RULING A [future]DEFEATED BRITAIN IN JOINT COLONY WID ITALY, JAPAN, + POSSIBLY EVEN CHINA. JAPAN'S ATTACK AGZ THE US AT PEARL HARBOR INDUCED STALIN TO SUDDENLY TURN AGZ HITLER + AXIS IN HOPES THAT GLOBAL CHAOS WOULD LEAD TO SOVIET COMMUNIST DOMINATION OF BOTH EUROPE + ASIA.
IOW, ARTIC > STALIN recognized that, as in WW1, America would not suffer from any serous War-induced national damage as would the Powers of Europe + now EAST ASIA. IT WAS IN SOVIET = STALIN'S INTERESTS TO ENSURE THAT THE USSR, + ONLY THE USSR [including SOVIET Socialism], SURVIVED ANY US-LED DEFEAT OF NAZI GERMANY + JAPAN, + RISE TO MILPOL OPPOSE POST-WAR AMERICAN GLOBAL POWER + POSITION.
* FREEREPUBLIC > WORLD SPLITS IN TWO AS EAST TIGHTENS WHILE WEST STAYS SUPER-LOOSE.
#8
OOOOPSIES, forgot to add ARTIC > STALIN + Boyz were truly shocked at the Scale + Power of the 1935-1941 German War machine as rebuilt by Adolf + Nazis, + so perceived that COMMUNISM = SOVIET SOCIALISM WOULD LIKELY NOT SURVIVE ANY MAJOR SOVIET WAR AGZ NAZI GERMANY UNLESS, IRONICALLY, STALIN COULD GET THE US TO SEVERELY MIL WEAKEN IFF NOT MIL DESTROY BELOVED COMRADE HITLER + NAZI GERMANY.
If there's no sin then you can do anything you want. That's the recipe for the kind of society I want my grandkids to grow up in, by Gum!
Posted by: Fred ||
07/27/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We find a final solution to the problem of organized religion.
Posted by: Martin ||
07/27/2010 3:01 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This is a lot higher up than just gutter level kookdom. Remember that Obama no longer talks about freedom of religion, instead calling it "the right to worship".
I rather think he resents that religious people respect God more than him. After all, he's the pretty one, and God's "light bearer". Which makes him just as good, or better.
#6
So the new Black Panthers can intimidate voters at the polls with immunity. The white supremists/klan can come from Michigan, get a parade permit and demonstrate. Try to say the Lord's Prayer or Pledge of Allegiance in school or a public function and there is trouble. Try to post the 10 Commandments on a public building and you are in for a bad legal time.
The Constitution never said Freedom from Religion; it said Freedom of Religion.
Quotes on aetheism:
I tried atheism for a while, but my faith just wasn't strong enough
I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave up - they have no holidays.
#7
If there were no God, there would be no atheists.
heheh I like that one.
Posted by: Martin ||
07/27/2010 10:48 Comments ||
Top||
#8
We have the right to worship Obama or whatever else it is the state will allow us to worship. There will be no freedom allowed. Not for religion, not for health care, not for opportunity. Heh. When I grew up, gov officials were servants of the people. Now they want us to be, not just servants, but slaves to the state.
Posted by: Martin ||
07/27/2010 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I'm pretty much an atheist, but this offends the fuck out of me. The leftists have their own religion and gods. Communism, Green with Che and Gore as their religion and popes.
End all government enforced ideologies then including the "Great Society" since it has been proven not to work and any belief that it can be made much better by throwing more of my money at it is faith.
Government should neither endorse, nor repress any religion or belief. Period.
#11
As some of you may remember, I am a thoroughgoing infidel, agnostic, and scoffer most of the time. Even so, the Huffer-po "Blue Moon" is a braying, pompous jackass of almost Berkeleyan dimensions. The screed cries out for inline snark:
However, the time has come to begin work to actively disrupt official organized religion of all stripes. Yes, I know there are many good christians.Following the logic: Yes, I know there are decent and literate people in your neighborhood, but I am going to firebomb it anyway because you live there. But when I hear of another moral pronouncement coming out of the Roman Catholic church, I am ready to splutter. Looks to me like you are already spluttering.
The church of pedophiles that brought you Cardnal (sic) Law and the current head, Ratzinger dares open its filthy mouth again? To preach about morality? Yes, they often do so in complete sentences with proper punctuation no less.
The Reverend Phelps dares picket servicemen's funerals? And tell us all that "Heath [is] in Hell?" And call Lady Gaga a "proud whore"? Take that up with Phelps and his 70 or so followers. We have.
A variety of crazy wackos calling themselves the "Tea party" peddle vicious racism masquerading as christian faith. So, genius, if this is a masquerade of Christian faith, why fault Christianity for it? Do you blame the Beatles for that lame idiot who tries to play guitar down at your favorite Starbuck's?
It is time to stop taking all this sitting down. It is time to begin working actively to bring about the end of organized religion. It is time for you to realize that strident language does not in and of itself motivate anyone to believe you. At the beginning of the 21st century, it is a wonder that a group of ignorant, bigoted and hateful men (yes, mostly men) can preach against scientific progress and try to take this country and the world a few centuries back. It is time to face the truth -- THERE IS NO GOD. The Lord Cthulhu begs to differ, and He will prove it if you will accept His invitation to lunch.
I don't begrudge the faith to those who believe -- but I am not out there trying to impose vegetarianism or red uniforms on anyone. Nor has he come to praise Caesar. The true agenda reveals itself.
So, please, keep your religion out of my face. Humanity may have needed to believe in rocks or celestial bodies when we barely could walk upright. Er, dipweed, rocks and celestial bodies are real. I am a scientist, trust me on this one. At the beginning of the 21st century, it is finally time to dispense with the crutch. Religion in general and chirstianity [sic] in particular are EVIL. "Christianity in particular" is itself a very general category. Perhaps our correspondent does not know that. Perhaps he thinks there are only about 12 churches in the world, 3 in his hometown, 2 in Rome, and the rest in the southern US.
#12
Of course, they exclude Islam in their quest to destroy religion, although that is where they should start first, in places like Iran and the Magic Kingdom. Their heads would be handed to them should they try their s**t there.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
