Originally posted at LiveAction News
Barack Obama is the most abortion-friendly president to ever park his slippers in the private living quarters of the White House. No other president has supported not only abortion, but in addition to refusing to sign a bill that would mandate medical care for babies born alive in botched abortions, has called unwanted pregnancies a “punishment,” seems enamored with Planned Parenthood, and supports the brutal act of late-term partial-birth abortion.
When 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, the black youth who was shot to death in Sanford, Florida, by George Zimmerman in self-defense, Obama, as a father, identified with the boy and publicly said that Trayvon could have been his son.
It’s curious that the president viewed this young black man as someone who could have been his child, because as black babies are systematically slaughtered in abortion mills all over America, the president apparently doesn’t have the ability to see that any one of those innocent, helpless unborn infants could also have been his child.
Recently the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s Office of Vital Statistics released a report entitled Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes. What the data revealed was that in 2012, the year that Barack Obama was reelected, there were more black babies aborted in New York City than were born.
That bears repeating: There were more black babies aborted in New York City than were born.
In NYC in 2012, the total number of unborn infants that made it safely out of the wombs of women aged 15-49 was 123,231. This calculates out to be a rate of 14.8 babies who lived per 1,000 women. According to the summary, this “was the lowest rate since 1979.”
In 2010 that number “reported by known race/ethnicity” was 80,274, which means the difference between 2010 and 2012 is that in the Big Apple, 42,957 additional human beings were denied the right to life, or a little more than two and a half 16,000-seat sports arenas’ worth of children who would never see the light of day.
In 2012 among non-Hispanic black women living in New York City, there were 6,570 more abortions than there were live children being born.
So out of 56,086 black children conceived, 31,328 were aborted and 24,758 were allowed to live. Even more horrifying was the statistic that there were 73,815 total abortions of babies of all races and ethnicities, which means that the 31,328 aborted black babies made up 42.4% of all the abortions.
That number is especially troubling because in a city of approximately eight million people, in 2010 non-Hispanic blacks made up only 25.5% of the total population.
What is the rationale behind President Obama supporting the unfettered slaughter of unborn children belonging to a black constituency that has been unwavering in their support of his presidency? Is that the thanks future generations of black Americans get from our nation’s first black president?
Originally posted at American Thinker
In order to advance his agenda, Barack Obama has become the sultan of sob stories. For every unpopular policy he endeavors to impose, the president has busloads of individuals to fit every occasion.
Take for instance the president’s enthusiastic desire to curtail Second Amendment rights. To address that issue, he has mentioned and put on display shooting survivor and former Arizona congresswoman Gabby “deserves a vote” Giffords many times.
Mr. Obama has spoken at prayer memorials, exploited the grieving families of the Sandy Hook victims, and given seats of honor at the State of the Union speech to slain Chicago teen Hadiya Pendleton’s parents, Cleo and Nat. The president has read letters from terrified albeit amazingly articulate schoolchildren convinced that without drastic gun control measures they’ll be gunned down in school, and even went so far as to assume symbolic parenthood of shooting victim Trayvon Martin.
For immigration reform, we now know all about DREAM actors, those fresh-faced illegal immigrants that any American would be proud to see marry their son or daughter. In addition, we’ve heard stories about innocent Latinos just trying to buy ice cream cones for their children being harassed for their “papers” by mean xenophobes in Arizona.
On the subject of government-funded contraception, after she gave a lengthy breakdown of her yearly birth control expenses and shared harrowing stories of polycystic ovary syndrome, America was subjected to President Obama’s publicity stunt/conference call to comfort the maligned Sandra Fluke.
On healthcare reform, Barack Obama would be wise to make short work of the “life-or-death stuff” by hosting a Jerry Lewis-style telethon. Then, in hopes of convincing America to submit to further government control out of pure guilt, Obama can sponsor a procession of heartrending tales ranging from multiple sclerosis to brain tumors.
Barack Obama abusing stories of hardship has reduced the leader of the free world into a kind of carnival barker whose masterful art of psychological manipulation involves showcasing the maladies of suffering people as if they were sideshow freaks.
Now, as the government shutdown drags on, the White House is falling back on that old standby: marshaling groups of people adversely affected by it.
Posted on the White House blog, acting Director of Digital Strategy for the Obama administration, Nathaniel Lubin, asked the following question: “How has the government shutdown affected you? Share your story.”
But veterans in wheelchairs attempting to access the WWII Memorial only to find gates reinforced with chicken wire need not bother to register a complaint.
For everyone else, although the White House website is closed for business “Due to Congress’s failure to pass legislation to fund the government,” the White House blog will remain open in order to trawl for sob stories to be used as an emotional billy club to beat the Republican leadership into political submission.
By searching far and wide, it’s likely Democrats will be able to dig up stories of bawling children, desperate mothers, and demoralized federal workers cracking open their kid’s piggy banks to feed the family. If that doesn’t work, there’s always people infected by rotaviruses because the CDC has furloughed researchers, as well as all manner of horrific examples of how a government shutdown has affected those that Barack Obama – the one who orchestrated it – is purposely attempting to make miserable.
And so, as the government shutdown drags on, and especially if John Boehner and Co. continue to listen to the wishes of the American people, expect to see catastrophic calamities as a backdrop for every statement Barack Obama makes in his typical efforts to blame a situation he caused on the Republicans.
We learned last January that Mrs. Clinton believes that if a person is murdered, after the fact it doesn’t matter how or why. And while that proclamation was perfectly acceptable to the Obama Administration when it came to the deaths of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods, and Glen Doherty, we’ve come to find out that if the decedent is black, that philosophy does not apply.
Hillary Clinton has expressed more sorrow over Trayvon Martin – a troubled teen whose death a jury unanimously decided occurred because Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman was defending himself – than she did over the deaths of four Americans that took place on her watch.
At the 51st annual convention of the Delta Sigma Theta, the largest African-American sorority, Mrs. Clinton expressed sentiments that were more appropriate for the Benghazi Four than they were for ‘Justice 4 Trayvon.’
Clinton shared with the sorority sisters that when she heard that the George Zimmerman verdict was not guilty, she reacted with great “heartache.” In a 30-minute speech pandering to 14,000 African-American women, the former Secretary of State said something that should have been directed toward the families of those who died in Benghazi: “My prayers are with the Martin family and with every family who loves someone who is lost to violence.”
Clinton continued: “No mother, no father, should ever have to fear for their child walking down a street in the United States of America.” Nor should anyone’s child lose their life as a result of the negligence of a Secretary of State and an incompetent government that abandoned four men in their hour of need while in service to their country.
Let’s put it this way: Hillary and Obama were in charge of keeping those men and other Americans safe, but like a drunken chauffeur given the responsibility of getting a family home safe after attending a wedding, those who trusted the limo driver ended up dead.
Now, much to Clinton’s dismay, an unbiased citizen jury considered the evidence and decided that George Zimmerman was not guilty. As a result Hillary, who, like Barack Obama, apparently doesn’t respect a judicial system rooted in what the president called a “fundamentally flawed” Constitution, now claims she suffered “deep painful heartache” when hearing the verdict.
The question for the woman who continues down the path toward 2016 unfazed by the four bodies lying in her wake is: Where was the “deep painful heartache” when you were speculating about why terrorist militants attacked the Libyan consulate and killed four Americans? And why, after acknowledging it was a terrorist attack and admitting that we needed to find out “what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing,” which is “still unknown,” have you moved on to bigger and better things?
On Benghazi, Hillary, who’s “looking backwards” on Trayvon, said the following:
But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.
If she should run for president, it’s important that America remember that Hillary Clinton did say that regardless of whether it was “because of a protest” in Benghazi or because a guy like Trayvon was “out for a walk” on a dark rainy night, after a person is dead, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
And if what Mrs. Clinton says is true, that in regard to Benghazi “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again,” why then would she publicly decry a trial in Sanford, Florida that did what she said needed to be done in Benghazi, but still hasn’t been done?
Originally posted at American Thinker blog Whenever Barack Obama “expands on [his] thoughts a little bit,” America is in for an eye-opener, which is exactly what happened when he recently crashed a press briefing to comment on the George Zimmerman trial.
Exposing his true colors, the president extended condolences to the Martin family and completely ignored the Zimmerman family, which has also endured considerable pain during what Obama admitted was a “tragic situation.”
Much like Michelle personalizing the fatal shooting of Hadiya Pendleton in Chicago, Barack Obama took the opportunity to make Trayvon Martin’s death about – you guessed it – Barack Obama. Exhibiting the height of narcissistic self-absorption, the president, having previously suggested that he could be Trayvon’s father, on this occasion declared that he could be Trayvon Martin himself.
Barack Obama takes responsibility for nothing. So rather than censure a rap culture or a political party that has cultivated a caustic mindset in black youth, again the president sought out scapegoats for the irate response he and other race-baiters are subtly encouraging in the black community. Working hard to make sure bad memories linger, Obama blamed “a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away” for the agitated race-focused response to the not-guilty verdict.
Obama felt obliged to mention African-American men being followed in department stores, hearing “locks click on the doors of cars” when on the street, and getting wary reactions from women who “clutch their purses nervously” when riding in an elevator with a male person of color. Mr. Obama must be unaware that being alone in an elevator with a strange man, black or white, makes most women, black or white, feel uncomfortable.
The president claimed that before he was a Senator, he was racially profiled based on the color of his skin. Seeing as how Barry Soetoro’s race is unchanged, maybe it was the cloud of choom smoke surrounding him that singled him out.
Nonetheless, sounding almost like he was proposing leveling the playing field by way of some sort of legal affirmative action, the president said that “there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws — everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws.”
Elucidating that point, the president acknowledged that African-American boys like Trayvon Martin are “disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence,” which he insinuated “is born out of a very violent past in this country.”
Before Obama implied that there was “no context” for Trayvon’s death, he did admit that the African-American community understands that “somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than…by somebody else.”
However, this was right before assuming that if a white teen was afraid of being homosexually raped by a “creepy ass cracka” and demonstrated that fear by straddling and pummeling the presumed rapist about the head, the scenario would have resulted in hugs and a beer summit.
And while everything Obama said up to that point was disturbing, what followed was downright terrifying, because whenever the president poses the question “Where do we take this?” the answer never seems to be beneficial to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
Two potential fixes: federal government intrusion in the form of Eric ‘Fast and Furious’ Holder “reviewing what happened down there,” (meaning Florida of course, not Mexico), and Obama bouncing ideas off his staff (which means Valerie Jarrett).
For starters, one suggestion is federal/DOJ intrusion into local- and state-level law enforcement procedures. Touting one plan, Obama boasted: “When I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation,” which collected “data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped,” and trained police departments “how to think about potential racial bias.”
From there, he segued into condemning stand-your-ground laws and asked if America is “sending a message …that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from a situation.” In other words, the president supports Holder’s “duty to retreat” posture which, had the Union taken that advice during the Civil War, would mean that Barack Obama might not be in a position today to be addressing such topics.
Obama mentioned his own naïveté about the “prospects [for] some grand, new federal program,” his own “convening power,” the gathering together of (liberal-minded) “business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities [like Eva “Brainstormer” Longoria] and athletes,” to contribute better ways to help “young African-American men feel that… they’ve got pathways and avenues to” become president… er…”succeed.”
America’s first African-American president then put his own historical presidency aside when he asked, “Is there more that we can do to give [young black men] the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?”
After America has spent 40 years allowing feminism to emasculate all boys, regardless of color, maybe the President should propose caring about and investing in every American boy.
Following the heaping on of guilt, condemnation, and racial polarization, the president admitted that with a racially-sensitive eye, he observes Malia and Sasha s’ relationships with white friends and has concluded that “they’re better than we are — they’re better than we were — on these issues.”
And this from a man who asked America a self-righteous question that he should’ve been asking himself: “[a]m I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character?”
Before wrapping up his performance with his signature tactic of instantly excusing himself from the situation he’s just exploited by pretending his derisiveness was a “teachable moment,” the man with lots of ‘soul’ soullessly encouraged “soul-searching.” However, this time, before vanishing again, the always-manipulative, always above-it-all Obama suggested encouraging the “better angels of our nature, as opposed to” what he does when he uses these “episodes to heighten divisions.”
Originally posted at American Thinker blog In response to the second degree murder acquittal of George Zimmerman, pro-Trayvon Martin supporters are expressing their displeasure with the verdict by storming shopping malls and pilfering drive-in markets.The point of the “tear up the city” rallies currently taking place across America is to loudly proclaim that an innocent teenager died because he had a run-in with a trigger-happy racist itching to kill a black boy.
In honor of Trayvon, bands of whipped-up teens are “running in and out of traffic, knocking people over on the sidewalks and snatching their belongings.” And so, rather than underscore Trayvon’s supposed virtuousness, roving marauders angered over the acquittal are substantiating the validity of Zimmerman’s claim that Trayvon broke his nose, threatened his life, and smashed his head on the sidewalk.
Sadly, as criticism is being directed toward the State of Florida, the duty to quell the anger of those wreaking havoc has taken a back seat to placating the race-baiters and convincing Americans that self-defense is never a viable option.
Meanwhile, in retaliation, innocent people are being preyed upon. Hollywood stars who employ armed personal bodyguards vow to boycott Florida because of stand-your-ground laws, the New Black Panthers placed a $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman’s head, and Jesse Jackson is inciting further animosity by calling the state of Florida an “apartheid state.” Civil rights leaders such as rape-hoax perpetrator Al Sharpton and Barack “Trayvon Martin could have been me” Obama seem more concerned with perpetuating a narrative of lingering racial bias than respecting established law.
Adding to the rancor, Eric Holder’, the man ultimately responsible for the distribution of “Fast and Furious” weaponry to Mexican drug cartels and the shooting death of two U.S. Border patrol agents, is self-righteously stirring up more fury by expressing the anti-self-defense opinion that if your life is in danger, you have a “duty to retreat.”
Someone should pull Mr. Holder aside and inform him that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was in the process of retreating when he was brutally sodomized and murdered.
Nevertheless, the explanation could be that self-defense is joining self-reliance as one more concept anathema in Obama’s America, because according to the chief law enforcement official of the United States, if your life is threatened, lace up your running shoes because retreat is the only acceptable option, and if Holder gets his way, the only legal option as well.
And that makes sense, because retreat from individual responsibility and self-reliance has already been pretty well established. The next logical step in the dismantling of American society as we know it would be to convince those being attacked to retreat from preserving property, life, and above all liberty. In other words, to retreat from everything that being an American used to mean.
Still, racial injustice rallies remain irrational. The truth is that tacitly encouraging lawlessness further damages the theory that Trayvon was an innocent victim. The vigilante “Justice 4 Trayvon” group unintentionally gives George Zimmerman’s story more credibility. Yet the Trayvon sympathizers who possess the authority to make a difference have chosen to allow rowdy protesters to act in a manner contrary to what they insist was Trayvon’s demeanor on the night he was shot.
Indeed, protesters behaving in a manner similar to what the neighborhood watch captain claims he encountered on the night his nose was broken and his head cut up proves that, regardless of what Eric Holder says, Americans, now more than ever, have a “duty to [refuse to] retreat.”
Billionaire rapper Jay Z and his wife Beyoncé lent their star presence to a rally in New York City headed up by Al Sharpton featuring Trayvon’s mother Sybrina Fulton, who was joined by her son Jahvaris Fulton.
Nationwide rallies were held demanding justice for Trayvon Martin, the teen who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a Neighborhood Watch volunteer who tragically crossed paths with Trayvon and who has since been acquitted of second-degree murder.
Over 100 rallies and vigils took place across the nation organized by the Reverend Al Sharpton, who is calling for the US Department of Justice to pursue civil rights charges against Zimmerman, even though he was acquitted in the state of Florida.
In the Big Apple, a diverse sea of New Yorkers showed up to stand for Trayvon by holding placards.
One protester’s sign quoted Barack Obama, who said, “I am Trayvon.” Another reached their own verdict with a sign saying “Guilty for stalking and murder.” There were fashion statements like “I love my hoodie,” patriotic expressions like “Justice for all Americans,” and Stevie Wonder fans encouraging Beyoncé to “Boycott Florida.”
Tearing up, Trayvon’s mother, who’s been thrust into the limelight, was met with shouts of “We love you.” Sybrina wept as she told the crowd, “Trayvon was no burglar [he stole jewelry], Trayvon is not here to speak for himself [obviously]. Trayvon was a child and sometimes I think that gets lost in the system.” The last of which makes no sense at all.
At One Police Plaza, Jay Z, Mrs. Z, and Al Sharpton stood beside Sybrina Fulton. The quartet that included Shawn Corey Carter was a tad ironic, especially because Jay “Gangsta’ Sh*t” Z, whose lyrics extol the glories of the type of thug life Trayvon allegedly aspired to, could be considered partially responsible for the teen losing his life.
Although evidence showed that Trayvon broke Zimmerman’s nose, straddled him and was bashing his head against a sidewalk, Sybrina maintained, “George Zimmerman started the fight and George Zimmerman ended the fight.”
It was either that, or a few more bangs against the concrete and Mrs. Zimmerman would have been speaking at a memorial for her son.
Fulton said, “My son died without knowing who killed him. He died without knowing who his murdered [sic] was.” Yes he did – it was the “creepy ass cracka” who Trayvon treated to some “ground and pound” and threatened with the words, “You’re gonna die tonight.”
Former Governor Eliot Spitzer, that bastion of honesty and integrity, came out to support Martin and added his black socks to the discussion when he said that the Zimmerman/Martin ordeal is a “civil rights issue.” “Regardless of how you view the legality of the verdict in isolation, justice here was denied,” Spitzer opined, and “An innocent young man was shot and killed and that is a tragedy.”
Seeing as how Beyoncé chose not to lead another moment of silence for Trayvon, Spitzer (aka “Client #9”), saying that Trayvon was an “innocent young man” added gravitas to the event.
As for Beyoncé, it goes without saying that the performer was accompanied by a horde of armed bodyguards.
Nonetheless, when Queen Bey walked by protesters they shouted for her to follow Little Stevie Wonder’s lead of “No concerts in Florida!
Television Judge Greg Mathis was there criticizing stand-your-ground-laws, and said that legislation must be supported to overturn existing regulations in 30 states, including Florida. Mathis insisted,
“This backward state allows you to shoot first and ask no questions.”
Apparently this judge thinks verdicts should be questioned and an unbiased citizen jury reaching a verdict should be criticized for following the law.
George Zimmerman, stand-your-ground, and the trial verdict were not alone. NYPD was also dragged into the fray. First they were accused of racial profiling, and then the stop-and-frisk policy was called into question. Steven Shryack, 62, held a sign: “They never stop and frisk old white guys like me.”
Grandfather to a child of mixed race, Shryack asked “What kind of future does he face? I have the luxury of being white in this world. I have an unfair advantage.” Steve should have spoken to Beyoncé about unfair advantage, because she’s a woman of mixed race whose future was severely impacted by being endowed with African-American, Louisiana Creole, and Native American blood.
Another protester from the East Village who, trust me, probably also plans to vote for Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer, said the Zimmerman verdict was “a horrible injustice.” And although Bill Clinton wasn’t in attendance, the East Villager did make a veiled reference to the former president when he said “There’s racism going on in our country and everybody tries to blow it off.”
Sharpton, age 58, who rides around in a limo with his 35-year-old “girlfriend,” told the crowd “We are going to fight for what is right. They used to say segregation is better than slavery, but they never sat in the back of the bus” – and neither did he.
With Jay Z and Beyoncé adding credence to his words, the Reverend Al managed to sum up the spirit of the whole day.
Originally posted at American Thinker
As far as the Trayvon Martin situation goes, acquittal or no acquittal, the whole event and subsequent trial is a tragedy. And Skittles and iced tea or not, 17-year-old Trayvon should never have been lurking about in a hoodie between buildings on a dark rainy night in a townhouse complex. Now, regardless of how or why this boy died, a child is dead and will never have an opportunity to grow out of the typical youthful foolishness which ultimately cost him his life.
And for every hoodie-wearing thug out there who’s now blaming George Zimmerman for Trayvon’s death, know this: the behavior of those who give good, upstanding young black men a bad name are ultimately much more responsible for Trayvon’s death than one legally-armed American citizen defending himself against an out-of-control teenage boy slamming his “crazy ass cracka” head against a concrete walk.
Instead of blaming racism for profiling a black kid strangely meandering around in the dark on a drizzly night, how about placing the blame at the feet of all the black youth, like Trayvon, whose behavior on other occasions causes suspicion to be focused in the general direction of the larger population of perfectly innocent black teenage youth?
For example, has Michelle Obama discussed who killed 15-year-old Chicago schoolgirl Hadiya Pendleton in a drive-by shooting? Of course not, because the killers were two black youths: 18-year-old Michael Ward and 20-year-old Kenneth Williams, neither of whom look anything like George Zimmerman.
FBI records show that in 2005 alone, African Americans accounted for 49% of all homicide victims in the U.S. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics cited data showing that 93% of murdered blacks had the crime perpetrated on them by other blacks. That means if Trayvon had continued on in the direction in which he seemed to be headed, based on the rate that young black males die at the hands of other black males, Trayvon’s chances for survival were, at best, a crap shoot.
Then, the day after George Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder, the President of the United States chose to stir the race-baiting pot again by intimating that America should honor Trayvon by passing gun control:
I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities.
Barack Obama isn’t one to hide his disrespect for federalism or conceal his contempt for the legal system or the U.S. Constitution. The statement Obama made reveals that his motivation was to once again gain personal political expediency from someone else’s heartbreak.
Think about it: the president sheds tears over murdered children, but it’s always attached to advancing a specific political agenda. That’s precisely why, in some circles, as America’s most radical pro-abortion advocate, Barack Obama has zero credibility when discussing lives lost to gun violence.
As far as Obama is concerned, Trayvon Martin deserves kudos for delivering a big bang for his anti-Second Amendment buck. Nonetheless, if the Trayvon controversy should miraculously cool down, in due time someone else will come along and provide still more political capital for the president.
Rest assured, if need be, Mr. Obama will move on quickly from Trayvon, just as he moved from Tucson to Sandy Hook to any number of other tragedies he’s used as political causes.
Unfortunately, based on what went on in Sanford, Florida, certain African Americans fall into the same category as the president they blindly support.
Black Americans hung up on fomenting racial unrest or buying into the victim mentality lack credibility too, because although they cry racism over the tragic loss of Trayvon Martin, who they call one of their ‘babies,’ they have shed few tears over the extermination of actual babies taking place for the last 40 years in abortion clinics all over America.
While focused on Trayvon Martin, socially liberal black Americans continue to ignore the genocide that kills thousands of black baby boys (and girls) every day, many of whom, if given the chance to live, much like Trayvon Martin might have grown up to look like the son Barack Obama never had.
Does it matter that blacks constitute only 13% of the population but account for 36% of all the abortions that take place every year? Where are the tears, protest signs, and New Black Panther demonstrations for the deaths of innocent children who didn’t break anyone’s nose or smash anyone’s skull against a sidewalk?
For perspective, 13% of the U.S. population contributed 22,000,000 of the 60,000,000 children aborted since 1973. Each and every day in the U.S., approximately 1,876 black children are aborted. And yet pro-life people are supposed to believe that the angst over Trayvon’s untimely end is based on the black community’s respect for the sanctity of life?
In her fight to save the unborn, Erma Clardy Craven, the late Minnesota social worker and author of Abortion, Poverty and Black Genocide, once shared that, “17,000 aborted babies were found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory in Los, Angeles, California; some 12-15,000 were observed to be black.” Does the president care about them? Apparently not.
While Obama is asking America to “honor Trayvon” by doing what Obama wants, we forget that none of the 15,000 black babies found rotting in that dumpster in LA got the chance to wear a hoodie, shop for Skittles and fruit-flavored iced tea, or skulk around in the dark in a Sanford, Florida residential complex.
Suffice it to say, if only liberal blacks would spend just one day shouting as loudly about the systematic slaughter being perpetrated upon millions of their babies, the angry “Justice 4 Trayvon” stance would likely be better understood by those who disagree with their choice of poster child for racial injustice.
Originally posted at American Thinker
The president has more than proven that he is not a uniter. He is a committed divider. Jesus said, “If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.” Hence, try as we might, it’s getting harder to ignore what appears to be a burning desire on Obama’s part to destroy the great and glorious house called America.
With an eye toward stepping in and reorganizing everything from our social and economic structure to the U.S. Constitution, it appears that Obama’s plan to gain control involves stirring up discord and agitating every area of society to the point of near-collapse.
Barack Obama has managed to undermine the nation’s unanimity through the deliberate fostering of racial, political, religious, and class-based conflict. In other words, the President of the United States is actively endeavoring to community-organize America to death.
Chicago-style troublemaker Barack Obama acquired his skill set while nestled close to the pedagogical breast of Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky. It was there that the president was schooled in the fine art of community organizing, and excelled as a top student.
Alinsky taught that in order to ‘disorganize the old and organize the new’ one must “stir up dissatisfaction and discontent” and “agitate to the point of conflict.” Unfortunately, Alinsky’s instructions are alarmingly similar to the president’s leadership style.
Undoubtedly, Obama understands the Alinsky principle that teaches that in order “To organize a community you must understand that … the word ‘community’ means community of interests, not physical community.” That’s why the president subtly stirs dissension in diverse places. His method is to “Pick…freeze…personalize… and polarize” a wide variety of groups, individuals, and philosophies.
Therefore, in his unending quest to “fundamentally transform” America, Barack Obama has stealthily managed to expose many a raw nerve. Still, rather than make a blatant attempt to further divide Americans, the president cunningly pokes his finger into past grievances in hopes of creating festering sores he seems committed to exacerbating.
Proficient community organizer that he is, Obama inflames old hurts with veiled suggestions that incite hostility among factions, and then uses silence to offer tacit approval of the hate speech spouted by his allies. Those tried-and-true Alinsky polarizing tactics alienate those who disagree with Obama’s agenda by portraying whole swathes of Americans as menaces to a national unity he purports to desire, but continues to undermine.
Yet even while employing doublespeak, blithe disregard for the facts, subterfuge, and occasional impulsivity, the president has been able to project the image to some of unifier as he carefully manipulates the tools of divisiveness to the benefit of his long-term agenda.
Obama darkly suggests that the Catholic Church is the arch enemy of women; Americans who just want immigration laws to be enforced and the border secured are dream-destroying xenophobes; excluding Democrat donors, rich people are portrayed as selfish parasites; pro-traditional marriage advocates are homophobes; gun owners are a threat to the safety of every American child, and the antagonistic beat goes on.
Now, in what appears to be the next phase, macro acrimony is being perpetrated on an increasingly micro level.
Based on his public response, it’s apparent that Barack Obama, just as he did with Henry Gates, Jr. and Officer Crowley, must have felt that George Zimmerman, an Hispanic man originally assumed to be white, “acted stupidly” when defending himself against Trayvon Martin, a black teenager whom Zimmerman claims was trying to kill him.
America already knows that Obama believes that “if [he] had a son he’d look like Trayvon Martin.” That fatherly declaration may have been a foreshadowing of the president’s attempt to purposely foment racial unrest by dispatching the Department of Justice’s Community Relations Service to descend on Florida to “work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”
And if that’s not bad enough, the Obama Administration’s “Insider Threat Program” is now promoting suspicion among federal co-workers by asking colleagues to spy on and report one another based on criteria that can only be described as wholly subjective.
Organized divisiveness masked as an attempt to keep America safe, the program asks federal employees and contractors to pay “particular attention to the lifestyles, attitudes and behaviors – like financial troubles, odd working hours or unexplained travel.” The stated hope is that co-workers can predict whether “suspicious action” might indicate that the guy they’ve worked side-by-side with for the last 20 years has plans to do “harm to the United States.”
As a result, federal workers have officially been added to a list of potential threats that already includes pro-life advocates, ex-military, Christians of all denominations, Tea Party activists, Conservatives, and just about any group on the planet that is perceived to pose problems for Barack Obama’s progressive vision for an Alinsky-inspired “world not as it is,” but as he thinks “it should be.”
At the rate the Obama-instigated dissension is progressing, before long, American neighborhoods will devolve into combat zones and children will turn in parents for being enemies of the state. In the meantime, instead of asking the president about his favorite food, some journalist, kid or otherwise, should inquire of him how his constant fostering of disunity helps drive home the point that the state of our union is in need of stronger alliances?
Nevertheless, the Bible emphatically states that “A troublemaker plants seeds of strife.” From the first day he was elected, the president has consistently sown seeds of strife, and, as a result, it has become clear that Barack Obama is indeed implementing Alinsky’s strategy on a national level. Apparently the president hopes that if he stirs up enough dissension, America’s great and glorious house will be unable to stand. Then, it will be on to the coup de grâce, when Barack Obama finally gets to implement the type of control he so fervidly desires.
Originally posted at Clash Daily
When liberals mock conservatives, the criticism is neither based in logic nor truth. That’s why instead of debating the issues in an intelligent manner, the left chooses instead to disparage political foes. One of their favorite tactics is to portray conservatives as mentally deficient morons.
Sarah Palin is a primary target of that sort of liberal derision, for both what she says and the folksy way in which she says it. George W. Bush was also victimized by the ‘he’s dumb as a stump’ drumbeat of ridicule that issued forth from the left.
Not for nothing, but liberals worship a man who pronounced “corpsman” as “corpse man,” and as a political party are sincerely convinced that just on the basis of being liberal, they and the “corpse men” they support possess the most brilliant of minds.
That is why, if an individual who furthers the liberal cause is found to be challenged in the intellect department, rather than apply the same criticism, liberals will do anything to explain away, oh let’s say, a black female’s inability to cobble together a coherent point.
Incoherency is what brings us around to Rachel Jeantel, star witness for the prosecution in the George Zimmerman trial. Perhaps Ms. Jeantel has the potential to express herself in a clear, respectful, and articulate way, but is caught up in a low-expectation culture that has shaped her into who she is.
Still, based on her abysmal diction, contemptuous demeanor, and basic disrespect for authority, it’s hard to believe that Rachel Jeantel possesses the cerebral capacity that liberals are now trying to establish on her behalf.
Then again, it could be that Rachel “made a lot more sense than you think,” just as Time magazine intimated in an article entitled “Rachel Jeantel Explained, Linguistically.” Time actually seemed to argue that people who don’t understand Rachel are the challenged ones, not Ms. Jeantel.
Television and media critic Eric Deggans of the Tampa Bay Times described Rachael’s inability to express herself as merely a problem with “code switching,” which Mr. Deggans describes thusly:
For linguists, code-switching describes the simple act of switching between two languages in a conversation. But in today’s increasingly multicultural, multi-ethnic society, the term’s deeper meaning involves shifting between different cultures as you move through life’s conversations — choosing your communication style based on the people you’re dealing with.
Mr. Deggans even went so far as to define Rachel Jeantel’s now infamous “creepy-ass cracka” comment as nothing more than a cultural problem exacerbated by Jeantel’s inability to adequately code-switch.
Of late, the Jeantel apologist maintains that the impression Rachel made during the trial was based more on the observer’s lack of cultural sensitivity than Rachel’s intellectual “shortcomings.”
Yet when Sarah Palin, who the left still considers to be “the queen of stupid”, said the following about Barack Obama: “Obama’s Shuck and Jive ends with Benghazi Lies,” Deggans accused Palin of using coded words to mask her prejudice. Thus, it’s unlikely Deggans would have described a favorite Sarah Palin expression, “wee-weed up,” as an inability for the former Alaska governor to code-switch.
Currently Rachel Jeantel is working the media circuit, toting along a lawyer and, from the looks of things, a stylist and probably a publicist. She’s spending her days acting as the official sage of gangsta thug culture, schooling liberals such as the completely engrossed Piers Morgan on things like the difference between the N-word ending with an “a” versus the N-word ending with an “-er,” the latter of which is the racist version while the former just means “a guy”.
On Piers Morgan Live, Jeantel provided a riveting explanation that clarified how “a” and “-er” make all the difference between a honky cracker and a security/law enforcement “creepy-ass cracka.”
For a little context, Piers Morgan is the man who laughed at the vile Bill Maher making sport of mocking Sarah Palin’s and Michelle Bachmann’s intelligence. Yet Piers seemed to actually take Rachel Jeantel seriously when she enlightened her detractors by pointing out an “under-bite that made it difficult for her to speak clearly.” Rachel Jeantel, a black woman with a dental malady, encapsulates everything necessary to merit an army of sappy liberal apologists to rally to her defense.
Proving her stunning lack of understanding when it comes to homophobia, Jeantel even went so far as to publicly assert that Martin was “creeped out” by Zimmerman following him after she suggested that George may have been a “rapist.” Morgan was riveted when Rachel posed the politically incorrect, difficult-to-decipher question, “For every boy or every man who’s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creeped out?”
The left is so wary of the potential negative impact that might result from disagreeing with a black female representing institutional racism in the US that her poorly thought-out suggestion that Trayvon Martin pummeled George Zimmerman because he thought he was a homosexual rapist was largely ignored by the gay rights lobby in the media.
In a “CNN Opinion” article entitled “Love Her or Hate Her, Rachel Jeantel is a Star,” Jason Johnson explained people’s negative perception of Rachel Jeantel as follows: “Part of it is because she is a dark-skinned, plus-sized girl from a low-income neighborhood who doesn’t speak the King’s English. With that profile, some viewers automatically see her as non-credible and uneducated[.]”
So, does that mean that if Sarah Palin had only been born a “dark-skinned, plus-sized girl from a low-income neighborhood who [didn’t] speak the King’s English” the left-wing media, regardless of her political persuasion, would have embraced her and seen her so-called gibberish as some sort of wisdom that lesser people fail to understand?
If that’s the case, there’s hope for Sarah Palin! Maybe Rachel Jeantel can help Palin brush up on her phraseology. Then, Sarah’s folksy style of speaking wouldn’t sound so stupid to liberals, and the former governor of Alaska will be viewed by the left as being almost as smart as Rachel Jeantel.
As Republicans and Democrats, like the Capulets and the Montagues, battle for political power while innocent people die, poignant words come to mind from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, spoken by Mercutio as he lay dying: “A plague a’ both your houses!”
After the Boston Marathon bombing, the general consensus was that politicizing tragedy is crassly inappropriate. The night before David Axelrod revealed that the president thought the carnage was a result of Tax Day, many felt the more suitable reaction would be to heed the politicized platitude Obama extended when he said “on days like this there are no Republicans or Democrats — we are Americans, united in concern for our fellow citizens.”
Yet, without minimizing the misery being experienced by more than 150 people and their families, it’s hard to deny that Boston has everything to do with politics. It is long past the time that America should have already admitted that we now live in a country where our leaders are more concerned with not offending anyone than they are about the people they’ve vowed to protect.
Boston is about politics, because we have a Department of Homeland Security that is headed up by a woman who reassured America that the border is more secure than ever, knowing full well that it is not.
Instead of monitoring the nation’s safety, Janet ‘Big Sis’ Napolitano squanders resources on pricey hollow-point bullets, chases down “dangerous hairdryers,” and writes accusatory reports neutralizing the threat of true adversaries while demonizing ex-military personnel, raising suspicions about all right-leaning conservatives, and insinuating that many Christians are white supremacists.
What happened in the Hub is political because the president’s supposedly heartfelt speech after the Newtown shootings contained a paragraph concerning federal resources, caring for victims, and counseling the families that was copied verbatim and pasted into the scripted comments he delivered following the marathon bombing.