Tag Archives: MSNBC


194123_5_Originally posted at Clash Daily

Just when Americans thought it couldn’t get any more absurd, Marie Harf of the US State Department, the girl with the over-sized eyeglasses who plays tag-team with Jen Psaki, the redhead who often looks like a deer caught in the headlights, proved the sane and logical wrong.

Chatting with Chris Matthews, Marie enlightened the MSNBC host/Obama shill as to the “root causes” of boorish ISIS warriors beheading, burying alive, and burning their way toward Europe and the US via the Middle East.

Marie informed a rapt Chris that the Obama administration disagrees with the rational opinion that barbarians are best snuffed out. Intermittently adjusting her spectacles, Harf informed the cable news host that “We cannot win this war by killing [ISIS].”

Based on that statement, one can’t help but wonder whether Marie and her boss Barry lament the US winning the Second World War by A-bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So does this mean that godless evolutionists no longer believe in survival of the fittest?

Or maybe “Kill or be killed” no longer applies to situations where murderous wolves are planning to rip out the jugular of any human being who identifies with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or calls him/herself a “Person of the Cross”.

According to Harf, “We cannot kill our way out of this war,” because like the late Michael Brown, Ismaayil Brinsley, and even Trayvon Martin have proven, unjust “root causes” outside the control of the oppressed can lead certain individuals to act like barbarians.

The “Root causes” theory must be what drives Obama to silently approve of the pillaging and mayhem that follow the killing of a police officer or why, in the case of ISIS, liberals absolutely refuse to condemn their horrific mass murders.

Based on Marie Harf’s comments on Hardball, Obama and Co. must have attended a colloquium to discuss the ISIS problem and determined at an academic-like roundtable discussion that the primary root cause for the orgy of genocidal jihad occurring in Iraq and Syria is lack of opportunity and jobs.

So wait – ISIS saws off heads, burns and buries people alive, and Marie Harf of the US State Department suggests a change of heart would occur if radical Islamists, intent on ushering in the 12th imam, were enrolled in a jobs program?

That’s when Chris got a tingle up his leg – but not the kind he got from Obama – and rightly pointed out: “If I were ISIS, I wouldn’t be afraid right now… They can keep finding places where they can hold executions … And nothing we do right now seems to be directed at stopping this.”

Then Chris asked the lovely and always vivacious Marie, “Are we killing enough of them?”

Sounding very much like Neville Chamberlain, whose mantra was “We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will,” Marie replied, “We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs, whether […]”

In a brief moment of lucidity, Matthews shot back:

We’re not going to be able to stop that in our lifetime or fifty lifetimes. There’s always going to be poor people. There’s always going to be poor Muslims, and as long as there are poor Muslims, the trumpet’s blowing and they’ll join. We can’t stop that, can we?

Apparently, according to Marie, yes, yes we can!

Ms. Harf told Chris that, while the people of the cross’s blood spills into the sand and the sea, the Obama administration, which has weakened the American economy and decimated the US job market, has plans to “work with countries around the world to help improve their governance…[and]… help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people [.]”

So here we are, folks. European Jews are being threatened, spat upon, and beckoned by Bibi Netanyahu to run for their lives into the Ark called Israel while Christians are being decapitated in broad daylight while calling upon the name of Jesus. Meanwhile, a blonde bimbo Obama administration spokes-babe suggests that enrolling ISIS in a jobs program is the answer to genocidal jihad.

If that’s the case, maybe the president should first offer ISIS sanctuary in a Muslim-friendly nation called America. In fact, with the promise of immediate amnesty, he can round up ISIS and airlift them on US cargo planes. Obama can quell their fears by giving the devout refugees a toll-free number to report anyone subjecting them to religious bigotry or threatening the men in the black Ninja outfits with deportation.

Then the president can suggest hiring career-minded ISIS trainees for occupations such as butchersbakers, and gravediggers. Better yet, how about giving the ISIS imports a “shovel ready” job at the IRS tracking down uncooperative, opinionated conservatives and then granting the new hires permission to deal with the insubordinates in any way they see fit?

If those efforts fail to quench the new ISIS immigrants’ thirst for blood, to soothe the savage beasts there are always food stamps, free health care, and a seat of honor next to Al Sharpton at Obama’s next State of the Union address.

Nancy Pelosi’s ‘Baby Jesus’ Argument

indexOriginally posted at American Thinker blog

When she’s not out championing the right to kill the unborn, occasional devout Catholic Nancy Pelosi has become a spokesperson for unaccompanied babies and minors, and by extension, the rapists, killers, and robbers flooding unlawfully across the border from Mexico into the U.S.

Recently, in a guest appearance on MSNBC “Morning Joe,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) shared her spiritual love for the children by telling Joe Scarborough that when it comes to caring for all of the world’s children, no price is too high for America to pay.  Mrs. Pelosi shared her feeling that rather than view the thousands of waifs bringing disease, crime, and mayhem into our country, unaccompanied minors should be looked upon as “baby Jesus” who, as a refugee, fled Bethlehem to escape violence. Continue Reading →

‘Chris Christie ♥s Obama’

ht_barack_obama_chris_christie_ll_121031_wblogCongress approved more than $60 billion in Sandy relief funds, which is why six months after the superstorm trounced New Jersey, with $1.8 billion in federal grants on storm rebuilding and recovery it looks like the boardwalk in Atlantic City will finally be rebuilt.  The problem is that no amount of money is likely to remedy the current state of national affairs after socialist superstorm Barack, with the help of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, was given a second chance to continue laying waste to everything in his path for another term.

It wasn’t enough that three days prior to the 2012 election New Jersey Governor Chris Christie sabotaged the presidential race. Now six months later the Rutgers-educated RINO is showing up on MSNBC singing Obama’s praises.

Corpulent Christie uttered laudatory ‘I ♥ Obama’ kudos on the “Morning Joe” show, where he said “The president has kept every promise he’s made. I think he’s done a good job. He kept his word.”  What Christie forgot to include in his commendation was that the president’s promise-keeping, good-job skills apply exclusively to providing hurricane relief funds and not much else.

Listening to Chris Christie on MSNBC effusively gush over Barack Obama sounded like a family member who defends a drunken uncle to his aunt with the black eye because Uncle Harry slips him a few bucks here and there.  After all, “Uncle Harry has always been really nice to me.”

Nonetheless, for those who suffered through Hurricane Sandy, it was bad enough to have to undergo being without electricity for ten days and having to dispose of $500 worth of rotten food. But, three days before the election, to then have to endure watching the spectacle of Chris Christie hugging and nodding “Yes,” to everything Obama said made what was already agonizing absolutely excruciating.

Read the rest of the article at The Blacksphere

Homosexual Marriage Advocate Takes Things to a New Low

554971_498631090193866_804180497_nOriginally posted at American Thinker

A leading question is one posed in such a way that it extracts from the person being questioned the answer the interviewer desires. In the mid-1980s and early 1990s, there was an explosion of child sex abuse cases. Debbie Nathan, author of Satan’s Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witchhunt, believes that in some cases it was “quite possible [that] untrained or overzealous investigators… tease[d] false allegations from children.”

Small children, who are more susceptible to leading questions, sometimes think being interviewed is a game. So, rather than offering answers that reflect their true feelings, oftentimes children respond with replies they believe grownups want to hear.

An example of an adult teasing out a desired response from a child was displayed when the liberal host of MSNBC’s The Cycle, Krystal ‘Screw’ Ball, showed up on the “Political Playground” with her daughter Ella in tow.

Besides being a Democrat strategist, Krystal is known for an unsuccessful run for Congress in the state of Virginia in 2010 and for some photographs depicting her mouthing a large red sex toy that a man dressed up like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer had taped to his nose. An avid proponent of abortion, Krystal Ball also stirred controversy when she referred to pre-abortion trans-vaginal ultrasound as “mandatory state probing” and “state rape.”

Five-year-old Ella is the first of Ball’s children to survive the womb. Due to be born this summer is a second possible survivor rumored to be a son.

Ball has paraded Ella on “Political Playground” before. On those segments, Krystal goaded her daughter into praising Barack Obama and lamenting Mitt Romney for threatening to ax Big Bird.

Krystal recently hosted the adorable Ella again. This time, Mom proceeded to masterfully extract from the little girl the answer she needed to reinforce a pro-gay marriage stance. In response to Krystal’s successful endeavor, the question is this: Is Ms. Ball’s point that if a child says it, it must be true — or that grownups who don’t think like kindergarteners should be ashamed of themselves?

In a liberal’s mind that may be how they see things, but in the mind of a sane person it’s clear that children have vivid imaginations, a natural propensity to tell lies and exaggerate, and above all a tendency to parrot what they hear parents saying.

Nonetheless, just short of dangling a lollipop in front of Ella, Krystal Ball began the manipulative segment by asking the little girl, “What is marriage?” Ella, who later in the interview confidently expounded upon New York state marriage law, initially seemed unable to answer the question. Eventually, Mom coached Ella to say that marriage means people live together. At one point, little Ball clarified that people marry people, not cars or trees (at least not yet).

Krystal probed further with the ‘marry a person’ question, asking, “A person… what kind of person?” Ella, exhibiting traces of latent homophobic tendencies, with unabashed gender specificity, said, “Like a wife or a husband.” Krystal then asked, “What makes a person decide that they want to get married?” Ella replied uncertainly, “They get in love with each other?”

Sounding like an interviewer at a bogus daycare sexual abuse trial, Ms. Ball revealed her extreme values when she asked her daughter, “What if you were in love with a girl, could you marry a girl?” Much to her mother’s delight, Ella said that if she chose to marry a girl, and not a little boy named Eli, she could only do so in New York.

Fidgety Ella explained: “Yes, because girls can marry girls and boys can marry boys in New York.” Then, appearing to be a little awkward, the tyke explained that sometimes the extraordinary does happen in New York — a girl actually marries a boy.

Ball quickly reacted with, “And that’s good because you want people to marry who they’re in love with, right?” Ella, the girl who couldn’t explain marriage two minutes before, responded “Yeah!” Take that, you loveless homophobes! It’s all about love!

No it’s not! In an effort to cheaply bolster the same-sex marriage argument, it’s about exploiting a child’s suggestibility and eagerness to please, and doing so is as despicable as cajoling stories of sexual abuse from impressionable children that say exactly what overzealous investigators want to hear.

And the provocation didn’t stop there — lesbian marriage promoter Krystal Ball continued to corrupt little Ella by posing yet another leading question: “How come in other places a girl can’t marry a girl… that seems strange, right?”

No, ‘Screw’ Ball, that’s not strange. What’s strange is a political hack using her kindergarten-aged daughter to communicate the message that disagreeing with same-sex marriage is “strange.” What’s next — a pro-choice segment where a pregnant Krystal Ball explains to a terrified Ella that before she was born she could have killed her, but chose not to?

The “Political Playground” conversation ended with the pundit telling the child that “Some other places haven’t decided yet that you should be able to if you’re a girl marry another girl.” Ball then asked, “They should change that shouldn’t they?” to which the always agreeable Ella replied, “Yeah! That’s crazy.”

Driving home the point, Krazy Krystal must have needed to hear the youngster say it again, so she prompted Ella with another, “It’s crazy, because people should be able to marry who they love… Riiiight?”

Wrong! Plumbing the depths of a new liberal low, Krystal Ball exploiting her child to express her own view on homosexual marriage definitely takes the same-sex wedding cake. Then again, this shouldn’t be a surprise coming from a rabid liberal who would have flushed a pre-born Ella if it had benefited her somehow. Instead, Krystal chose to let Ella live so that one day, on a cable news show, Ball could wheedle ‘who you love’ talk out of a five-year-old before leading her to spout off about the crazy strangeness of anyone who opposes gay marriage.

Financially Capable Barack Obama Schools America

USMC-090303-M-8605-004-300x199Originally posted at Clash Daily

More evidence of liberal insanity: Since he took office in 2009, Barack Obama simply refuses to stop spending, disregards the nation’s credit limit, and in just four years, has raised the national debt by $6,140,111,383,879.54, bringing it to a staggering total of $16,766,988,432,792.62

Now, after piling on a debt of $53,377 per household, the person who accrued that debt has proclaimed tax month to be “National Financial Capability Month.” No offense to the president, but the only capability he has exhibited in the last four years is the capability to financially obliterate the nation’s entire economy. Obama giving financial advice is kind of like Obama giving basketball tips – regardless of what he thinks; it’s just not a part of his skill set.

It’s the liberal way to perceive yourself as diametrically opposed to what and who you actually are. Therefore, Barack Obama being a financially incapable liberal is precisely the reason why the man who has yet to submit a budget proposal for 2014 feels he’s qualified to teach young people “how to budget responsibly.”

What’s next, Bill and Hillary Clinton running a Marital Cohesiveness and Fidelity Seminar? How about first daughters Sasha and Malia, who took not one but two spring break vacations, sharing with the younger set how to spend a week at the Atlantis in the Bahamas and River Run in Sun Valley, Idaho on a limited budget? Sorry, but if Barack Obama is financially capable, then outgoing MSNBC host Ed Schultz is qualified to host a new “Eradicate Bias in the Media” show.

Then again, this is the president who is expert at exempting himself from what he insists others do. That is why a person who clearly has no understanding of sound financial principles can say with a straight face: “I call upon all Americans to observe this month with programs and activities to improve their understanding of financial principles and practices.”

Wait! When Obama says “all Americans” does “all” include himself and the $10 million dollar vacationer he’s married to, or does “all” just mean everybody except Mr. and Mrs. Obama?

Either way, the president must truly believe that he’s an authority on stretching a dollar, because in his “National Financial Capability Month” proclamation, he said that his “[a]dministration is dedicated to helping people make sound decisions in the marketplace.” That marketplace, by the way, is the same marketplace that he’s currently in the process of destroying. It could be that President Obama thinks that the soundest way to save money in the marketplace is to exchange the marketplace for something altogether different.

Well, at least Obama is voluntarily giving the middle class pointers on how to subsist with less money, especially after the 2% payroll tax increase the president promised the middle class they would not get was folded into the fiscal cliff deal in the form of increased social security withholding.

As for budgeting, the president’s record speaks for itself. In 2009 the self-perceived financially capable Obama’s budget goal was to cut the $1.2 trillion deficit in half. Three years later, the president “averaged a record $1.3 trillion deficit over the first term.” Mr. Obama promised a $600 billion cut in deficit spending and ended up with a $1.3 trillion shortfall. That, my friends, shouts financial incapability.

Remember the “stimulus?” Who else do you know could add $812 billion to the deficit in an effort to stimulate the job market, promise that those dollars would help unemployment drop below 6%, only to see it rise all the way up to 9% at one point? Then, when frustrated workers who’ve been unemployed for four years give up looking for work and the rate misleadingly drops to 7.7%, Obama calls it an improvement.

About budgetary concerns down the road, Barack Obama told the public that the 10-year cost of the Affordable Care Act would be $900 billion; the actual cost will be $2.7 trillion. In the president’s defense, when budgeting, a $1.7 trillion miscalculation here or there should not cause a person to lose credibility in the area of budgetary expertise.

When Barack Obama took office in 2009, he predicted that by the end of his first term the GDP would be 4.6%. Through the third quarter of 2012 the GDP was 1.7%; the second-quarter percent change guesstimate is 1.3%, which reflects a “downward revision” of 0.4%. Now that right there is a level of financial savvy that is nothing short of astounding.

For “National Financial Capability Month,” Barack Obama declared, “My Administration continues to encourage responsibility at all levels of our financial system by cracking down on deceptive practices and ensuring that consumers are informed of their rights.” Talk about a total lack of self-awareness. All this “cracking down” is coming from the irresponsible Obama administration, with its deceptive practices and continual infringement on everybody else’s rights.

Barack Obama has burdened our young people with an unfathomable debt he refuses to fix and now he’s offering them help for the mess he’s gotten them into? Obama said, “Together, we can prepare young people to tackle financial challenges – from learning how to budget responsibly to saving for college, starting a business, or opening a retirement account.”

President Obama will never admit it, but “National Financial Capability Month” is really just about tax month and training Americans to make do with a whole lot less than they’re used to.

Better advice would be for young people to forget about “saving for college, starting a business, or opening a retirement account.” Instead, what young people need to do is realistically prepare themselves for a lifetime of hardship as they shoulder the financial burden that the financially incapable Barack Obama has heaped upon their shoulders.

Sharpton Calling for Civil Disobedience

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

In response to the Sanford Police Department’s failure to arrest the man accused in the shooting death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, a local chapter of the NAACP organized a march that planned to bus into Sanford, Florida a number of Skittle-eating, hoodie-wearing protestors from other states.

According to the Seminole County chapter president of the NAACP, Turner Clayton, the intent was for the “rallies …to show support from the community and show the special prosecutor that ‘we are interested in what happened, and we’re not going to stand by and let them do something that the people of Sanford will not accept.'”  Nothing wrong with that.

However, much to the chagrin of Mr. Turner, Al Sharpton will also attend the march.  Contrary to the polite and peaceful demonstration the NAACP had planned, if local law enforcement doesn’t obey the commands of the mob and immediately arrest George Zimmerman, Sharpton has upped the ante to include “civil disobedience.”

Full-time racial agitator, part-time preacher of the Gospel Al Sharpton calls his plan “mov[ing] it to the next level” and, trust me, he’s not talking about his hairdo.

Fiercely critical of the Sanford Police Department’s failure to arrest George Zimmerman, in addition to civil disobedience Sharpton has also threatened “economic sanctions,” which could only mean Al plans to buy his hair products elsewhere.

Mr. Clayton, after learning about Reverend Sharpton’s intent, issued the following statement:

We hope that the citizens of Sanford will govern themselves accordingly. We are not calling for any sanctions, against any business or anyone else. And, of course, what Rev. Sharpton does, that’s strictly the [National] Action Network.  We can’t condone that part of the conversation, if that’s what he said.”

With that kind of attitude, maybe Al Sharpton should protest Turner Clayton too!

Either way, the civil rights activist/MSNBC talk show host promised that at the march he would elaborate on how the National Action Network plans to “move it to the next level” if the shooter isn’t promptly arrested.

Defending against the accusation that he is once again shamelessly exploiting a tragedy, Sharpton added that it was Trayvon’s family, who call Zimmerman a “vigilante,” and their legal team who requested he make public the injustice of failing to arrest the neighborhood watch leader.

Sharpton, who was already fuming weeks ago, is presently up in arms over a recently released police video taken on the night of the shooting.  In it, Zimmerman’s hands are cuffed behind his back, but despite his claim of self-defense he looks uninjured in the grainy video.

Al Sharpton maintains that without blood evidence, broken bones and a sizable head gash, the video revelations only underscore the need for Zimmerman’s immediate arrest and trial.

Even if Zimmerman’s claims are true, it doesn’t matter, because according to the reverend, “Whether he had a swollen or broken nose, neither one means he had to take a 9mm and kill someone.”

In other words, being ambushed while walking to your car on a rainy night by a tall young man in a hoodie and allegedly having your nose broken and your head repeatedly smashed against the sidewalk does not justify defending yourself with any means available.

Now Sharpton is not only criticizing the way authorities have handled the case, but also the manner in which they’ve “released information.” Thus, Al Sharpton, the king of harmful precedents, is contending that by failing to arrest George Zimmerman the Sanford police are “setting a harmful precedent.”

At this juncture, Sharpton says that “It’s not about saying Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, this is about whether there was probable cause to arrest him.”  Which is largely true.  However, with Sharpton’s biased history one can’t help but wonder – if Trayvon had shot and killed George under the exact same circumstances, would Al have then deemed his arrest racially motivated?  Is the Pope Catholic?

Barack Obama ‘Acting Stupidly’

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Without saying anything, Barack Obama’s silence speaks louder than all his empty words. The President who likes to define himself as a champion of racial equality and promoter of civility has thus far stood by in silence as liberals attempt to lower the stature of Herman Cain by portraying him as a conservative version of Stepin Fetchit.

By failing to address the prejudicial remarks directed at Herman Cain, the President of the United States is revealing a side of himself that reeks of a form of discriminatory selectiveness that should further discredit his claim to be the purveyor of civility and racial justice.

Who can forget the President’s response to the supposed prejudice leveled against Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates? Without the benefit of all the information surrounding the incident, Barack Obama rushed before the cameras to publicly condemn Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer Joseph Crowley and insinuated that, due to the color of his skin, Gates was the target of racial profiling and victimized by ‘stupidity’ on the part of law enforcement.

Recently the President spoke at the dedication of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial.  It was there that he described Dr. King as “a black preacher with no official rank or title who somehow gave voice to our deepest dreams and our most lasting ideals, a man who stirred our conscience and thereby helped make our union more perfect.”

Yet, while Herman Cain, a man who fits a similar description, is whacked by MSNBC analyst Karen Finney with a verbal billy club and drenched with a fire hose of mean-spirited rhetoric that described him as merely a “Black man who knows his place” – Barack Obama has remained silent.

Where is the President’s usual predictable indignation?  Why no public correction or call for mutual respect?

At the Martin Luther King Memorial dedication, in an attempt to portray himself as a great black leader, Obama didn’t hesitate to put a self-referential spin on the narrative of Dr. King’s life, saying: “Even after rising to prominence, even after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr. King was vilified by many, denounced as a rabble rouser and an agitator, a communist and a radical.”

Barack Obama had the temerity to place himself on the same level as Martin Luther King Jr. and yet, soon after, he stood by while left-wing pundits with zero content of character made racially humiliating comments about Herman Cain that were based solely on the color of his skin.

Thus far, Obama hasn’t said a word.  He has neither corrected, condemned, nor cited mentor Saul Alinsky, whom he quoted at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial dedication when he said, “We can’t be discouraged by what is. We’ve got to keep pushing for what ought to be.”

Maybe the President also believes that if a black American such as Herman Cain is a conservative,  he should know his place and that, especially in politics, they are nothing more than a stereotype, a caricature.

When not diminishing the memory of Dr. King by pretending to be much like him, Barack spends some of his off time making the rounds collecting campaign contributions in Hollywood.  In the meantime, liberal comedian David Letterman is on a mission to replace GW Bush with Herman Cain as the newest late-night-created Republican stammering idiot.

If any of the Letterman “Top Ten Signs Herman Cain’s Campaign is in Trouble” were applied to Barack Obama, the left would be picketing the Ed Sullivan Theatre and demanding an Imus-style resignation.  If the butt of Dave’s jokes had been named Henry (as in Professor Henry Gates), Obama would never have stood for Letterman implying that Henry was “less fun-crazy and more crazy-crazy.”

It doesn’t end there either.  In the name of fairness and economic equity the President, who insulted Tea Party activists by referring to them as racists and by using the vulgar sexual slang term “tea baggers” to describe American citizens, has yet to condemn the behavior taking place within the ‘Occupy’ movement.

So far, Obama has not disassociated himself from a protest infiltrated by prostitution, public masturbation, filth, violence, and people fighting over money, blankets and food, nor has he called for civility from a nationwide movement presently populated by ingrates that scream police brutality after defecating on the bumpers of squad cars.

Which brings us back to Obama’s disingenuous attempt to convince people that he possesses a measure of righteousness that sets him apart from mere mortals.

When it benefited him politically and he wanted to paint the right as impolite, he hosted a civility conference in Tucson Arizona, quoted Scripture, and called for a measure of tolerance he demands for himself but is unwilling to extend to anyone else.

If Hollywood liberals promise to put cash in Obama’s 2012 campaign coffers, he casually overlooks demeaning comments directed toward Herman Cain by asinine comedians because what would otherwise be viewed as racially-tinged humor may instead help advance his cause.

If a group of deadbeat derelicts squat in public parks and proceed to behave like savages, if the signs they carry support “sharing the wealth” and condemn the wealthy, and in time for the next election hold the promise of swaying the general public toward liberal policies, then by saying nothing the President, America’s self-proclaimed purveyor of non-discrimination and equal rights, is condoning rape, racism, and barefaced anti-Semitism.

By exhibiting selective indignation and failing to address the negative racial remarks directed at potential presidential opponents, supporting the nationwide disgrace that is the ‘Occupy’ movement, and choosing to associate with liberal comedians who make Herman Cain the butt of racial jokes, President Barack Obama is proving he doesn’t understand the responsibilities of his role, or understand his place as a leader.

‘Breaking’ Herman Cain

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Democrats continue to maintain that by electing Barack Obama, they alone were the pioneering influence in addressing the dark stain on our nation’s history called racism.  The day after the 2008 election, African American writer Shelby Steele penned an article entitled “Obama’s post-racial promise.”

Steele argued that one reason Barack Obama won the election was that the idea of electing America’s first black president “tapped into a deep longing in American life — the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism.”  In other words, for whites tired of being accused of racism, electing Obama provided a viable avenue of escape.

Despite the historic milestone that was reached when Barack Obama was elected, the left felt it necessary after the fact to stand guard in the “Who’s a Racist” watchtower, declaring their party the self-appointed Racism Police.  Ironically, what is more evident than ever before is that the left’s relentless defense of blacks has revealed the dark underbelly of the very intolerance they pretend to decry.

Shelby Steele argued that the election of Barack Obama assuaged a measure of white guilt; but the truth is that Democrats putting a black man in the Oval Office had little to do with skin color and everything to do with leftist political ideology. The very people who heralded the nation’s rising above a historical stigma are now instigating a deeper, wider division by redefining racism as political disagreement with Obama.

In fact, with the next presidential election hovering on the horizon, what is being proven is that while the motivation for electing Barack Obama in 2008 may have been an attempt to triumph over racism, with Herman Cain now rising in the polls, the hollow nature of racial acceptance by the left is being exposed for the ruse it is.

Presently, the bad news for African-Americans is that the only thing worse than being a white Obama detractor is being a right-leaning black. Cain’s candidacy confirms that if in 2008 Barack were a black conservative running against a white liberal, rather than being portrayed as a harbinger of “post-racial idealism” Obama would have been labeled an Uncle Tom.

What liberals fail to recognize is that, in much the same way they voted for Obama to supposedly embrace post-racism, assigning the title of racist to anyone who disagrees with liberal policies uncovers something ugly within themselves.

Democrats try to imply that black conservatives supporting Mr. Cain do so only because they identify with a deep and abiding self-loathing. The way Herman Cain is being characterized, it’s apparent the left still expects blacks to think less of themselves — an assumption that, if even suggested by someone on the right, would be immediately declared definitive proof of Republican racism.

Recently, MSNBC’s liberal race-baiter, Ed Schultz, suggested that Cain just tells racist whites what they want to hear and maligned him for mentioning potential running mates like Jim DeMint (R-SC), whose words the left have pseudo-linguistically-analyzed, finding hidden racist undertones where none exist.

In a perfect example of ideology determining the presence of prejudice, the supposedly color-blind liberal Schultz claimed that DeMint used “racist language in his opposition to ObamaCare.”  In post-racial America, the South Carolina congressman is accused of  “dark racial discourse” because he said, “If we are able to stop Obama on this [health care law], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

Director of Afrikaner studies at Lehigh University, Dr. James Pearson, concurred with Schultz.  Pearson interpreted the words “it will break him” as an “old southern racist term…used to destroy, mentally and physically, slaves.”

Clearly, the post-racial left is obsessed with transforming American politics into a perpetual test. Every word spoken by critics is summarily subjected to a filter where a benign word like “break” now implies approval of oppressive slavery. What Ed Schultz and liberals like him fail to recognize is that applying the “racist” rubric to every conservative utterance is, in essence, an attempt to “break” black candidate Herman Cain.

Yet its liberals who insinuate that Herman Cain is a man so self-hating that he gives “folks a pass” on racism. Those who make such peculiar accusations reveal themselves to be the true racists that Shelby Steele suggested had chosen to vote for Obama based on an unspoken promise to not hold the perception of racism against them.  Yet racism is what shapes liberal opinion of a man whose conservative politics weaken their concepts of authentic blackness and whose race is secretly held against him by those on the left regardless of race.

By saying “It’s almost as if this guy is trying to warm up to them and tell them what they want to hear,” Schultz calls into question the black presidential candidate’s veracity, honesty, and commitment to foundational principles.

Is that how Democrats view all black men, or just Herman Cain? The left seems convinced that Cain panders to “white Republicans, who don’t like black folks,” which ends up being evidence of insidious racism that implies blacks are somehow unlikeable.  Moreover, it suggests Herman Cain can’t think for himself and hasn’t the ability or character to possess core convictions of his own.

Listening to Ed Schultz, one would think the confident, articulate Herman Cain is a race-baiting manipulator who uses empty words in his quest for power and uses as stepping-stones the overburdened shoulders of his own people.  Sound familiar?

The MSNBC drone also believes Cain does a “disservice to his race” by denying that “racism in this country today holds anybody back in a big way.” What Ed Schultz, who most certainly voted for Obama, fails to acknowledge is that if Obama had been uneducated, he would never have been elected president, proving correct Cain’s premise that education, not skin pigmentation, holds black Americans in bondage to poverty and low achievement.

The left continues to portray Democrats as something they are not, and do so by attempting to point out non-existent racial hostility on the part of political adversaries. Yet despite the effort, something the left didn’t anticipate was that the candidacy of Herman Cain, not the election of Barack Obama, would end up exposing the party where America’s true racists reside.

Liberals prove Shelby Steele’s premise to be true — their support of Barack Obama holds little weight or evidence of racial reform on their part.  It’s all about power and ideology.  If that weren’t so and lasting change had really taken place, being at odds with Obama wouldn’t be considered racism, nor would smearing potential black presidential candidate Herman Cain be so widely accepted by the left.

The malignant malice of Chris Matthews

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

MSNBC political pundit Chris Matthews was so smitten with the President’s speechifying that stirring electrical currents physically manifested in his body. The separation-of-church-and-state commentator admitted he “cried over an Obama speech” and “compared him to Jesus.”

Completely infatuated, Matthews openly gushed when Barack spoke: “I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.”

Apparently, Chris’s tingle didn’t cease with his legs; based on the MSNBC anchor’s pre-Glenn Beck rally comments, the current traveled straight to his race-baiting brain.

The night prior to the Glenn Beck-hosted gathering, Chris Matthews felt it was his patriotic duty to spew malice and spin the “Restoring Honor” Lincoln Memorial event into what he defined as a “nightmare.”

Americans gathering to peacefully pray, exercise freedom of speech and laud the greatness of our nation are being depicted by Chris Matthews as “Little right-wing boys and little right-wing girls joining hands and singing praise for Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.” Matthews’ tingly hero worship explains the MSNBC commentator projecting juvenile idolatry on hundreds of thousands of peacefully assembled Americans who were doing anything but worshiping Beck and Palin.

Reporting on the event, an acerbic media stunned by the large, God-centered turnout repeatedly played the race card and underscored the fact that few minorities were spotted in the crowd.  In the run-up to the rally, hypocritical news organizations even lowered themselves to negatively grilling “Restoring Honor” speakers like Martin Luther King’s niece Alveda King, the unspoken implication being that Black Americans are traitors if choosing to speak anywhere besides the Al Sharpton “We-Alone-Own-MLK rally.”

The left cultivates division and then complains about a racial divide.  Liberals stir up strife and then claim that minorities avoid gatherings like the “Restoring Honor” event, which was attended by hundreds of thousands of people who, regardless of race, treasure the values Martin Luther King espoused.

Chris Matthews’ lies and innuendos demonstrate that the anchor believes the left has cornered the market on understanding the gravity of the injustices Black Americans suffered during a shameful period in our nation’s history. Pundits like Matthews forget that just two short years ago, a largely Caucasian nation ecstatically elected America’s first African-American president.

Of late, the majority is coming to the stark realization Obama’s policies are bad for America, not his race.  As a result, a colorblind electorate that catapulted Barack into the Oval Office is now being accused of racism because of efforts to restore lost honor and foster national harmony.

Presently, the left is frantically rooting around in a political dumpster for their last grasp of discordant power. Race baiters are emerging from the farthest recesses of a refuse heap with a crumpled, stained race card firmly in hand. Racial strife is the last great hope of the likes of political pundits whose true “nightmare” is the exercise of Constitutional freedoms giving rise to the dream of which Martin Luther King spoke and the realization that that “dream” is hindered only by those like Chris Matthews, who fear its unifying power.

%d bloggers like this: