Michelle Malkin's blog has a compilation of videos of the Top Ten Moments in Union Thuggery here.
The anger, hatred, mob psychology, venom and hatred of women is palpable in these videos. The Democratic Party, the mainstream media and the Left in general are in the process of demonizing the Tea Party, but everything they say about it actually characterizes left-wing, union activists, including racism. Watch it for yourself and remember that not everything you hear on TV is actually true.
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Monday, September 5, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
What is Racism?
The use of the word "racism" is getting very confusing.
Let me tell you what I think racism means. It means the belief that members of one race are superior to the members of another race instead of judging each individual on his or her own specific merits. There can be black racism (against Jews, for example) and Asian racism (against blacks, for example) and white racism (against native people, for example). Racism is prejudice, which means literally to pre-judge, that is to look at the color of someone's skin and make assumptions about what he must be like in terms of his character. That is racism and it is evil.
Now, this definition does not fit into any of the sentences above. For months now, the Democratic-Media complex has been screaming and frothing about the Tea Party being racist. But the Tea Party contains various races working harmoniously together and is open to individuals who agree with its conservative political philosophy, just as the Democratic Party itself is.
So why do smug lefties turn up on TV and in print all the time perfectly confident that the Tea Party must be racist? They don't give evidence and they don't feel they need to do so. They just know.
How do they know?
Well, they are operating on the basis of a set of hidden assumptions that they believe and which I reject. But their standard operating procedure is to speak and act as if all educated/smart/cool etc. people accepted those assumptions. And some of the assumptions are Marxist. Here is how it works.
The assume (1) that the gap between rich and poor in terms of income is immoral and needs to be narrowed; this is what they mean by "social justice." They further assume (2) that the State is the entity that should redistribute the wealth by taxation and social welfare programs. They also assume (3) that since blacks in America, on average as a group, earn less than whites, they must be oppressed by whites and should have their incomes raised - or failing that, whites should have their incomes reduced by higher taxation.
Now, as I say, I reject all three assumptions. I don't think the gap between rich and poor is itself necessarily immoral. If wealth is acquired honestly by hard work, innovation and entrepreneurship, then there is nothing wrong with it. Rich people create jobs for others and invent/produce things others gladly use and they also pay taxes on top of it. What is wrong any of that? If Bill Gates is a bazillionaire, that does not hurt me. I'm glad personal computers were invented and I quite like using Windows, thank you very much. He can have enough money to fly to the moon for all I care.
Of course, when it comes to people who don't have the basics of food and shelter I think charity is an obligation. But I feel no obligation to ensure that the street person makes this or that percentage of the income of the wealthiest among us. These are two completely different things which get conflated by Marxists trying to confuse the rest of us. I object to Leftists pretending that it is wrong not to support the kind of irresponsible socialist policies that are currently pushing Europe to the brink of a financial crisis.
And the idea that if I take this non-socialist view of government and taxation, then I must do so because I think blacks are inferior is just absurd. I think they (the leftists) are the real racists because they apparently think that blacks - as a group - cannot and should not compete and work and try to get ahead because they are somehow inferior. The leftists think that the nanny state must look after black people because they - for some reason - need looking after.
Racism and political/economic philosophies are different things. I'm as sure that some conservative Americans are racists as I am sure that most are not. But that has nothing to do with the ideals for which the Tea Party stands. And I'm sure that many on the left are racist too.
As for the idea that one is a racist for criticizing Islam as Geert Wilders has done, that is just absurd and shows a lack of critical thinking. For example, I quoted Reuters in my last post:
What the person might have meant is something like this: "In the Netherlands, most Muslims are of a certain ethnic minority and Wilders is actually a white racist who hates colored people but does not come right out and say so for fear of being labeled a racist and instead uses "Islam" as code for "Moroccan" or whatever."
If that is the argument one wants to make, then go ahead and make it. But citing his anti-Islam remarks and denying his right to criticize Islam does not make those arguments. For that you would need some sort of evidence that he actually despises people of color. And there is no such evidence.
What Wilders is being persecuted for is criticizing Islam and the reason he has a 24 hour bodyguard is because he is under threat from radical Muslims for criticizing Islam. This is what is at stake: can one freely criticize political religions or not? Can totalitarians who want to squash all criticism of their political ideology shut down critics using spurious appeals to a mythical racism that is presumed, not proven and not visible?
What is racism? It used to be a form of prejudice to be named, shamed and rejected by decent people. Now it is a tool of the Marxist-inspired left used to attack conservatives. Somewhere along the line the leftists discovered that we conservatives actually loathe racism and therefore take accusations of being racists very seriously. It stings to be accused of something like that. So, from the leftist point of view, the good news is that it works as a tactic!
Charges of racism against anybody should be examined carefully to see whether the issue is actually racism or a disagreement on economics/politics or multiculturalism. To be a capitalist or to think that English Common Law or Western liberal democracy is superior to Shariah Law have nothing whatsoever to do with racism.
- If you are a member of the Tea Party and you stand for lower taxes, smaller government and a leaner social safety net based on means tests instead of universal social welfare programs then you are a racist.
- If you are not a Marxist redistributionist, you are a racist.
- If you criticize Islam as a totalitarian ideology disguised as a religion, you are a racist.
Let me tell you what I think racism means. It means the belief that members of one race are superior to the members of another race instead of judging each individual on his or her own specific merits. There can be black racism (against Jews, for example) and Asian racism (against blacks, for example) and white racism (against native people, for example). Racism is prejudice, which means literally to pre-judge, that is to look at the color of someone's skin and make assumptions about what he must be like in terms of his character. That is racism and it is evil.
Now, this definition does not fit into any of the sentences above. For months now, the Democratic-Media complex has been screaming and frothing about the Tea Party being racist. But the Tea Party contains various races working harmoniously together and is open to individuals who agree with its conservative political philosophy, just as the Democratic Party itself is.
So why do smug lefties turn up on TV and in print all the time perfectly confident that the Tea Party must be racist? They don't give evidence and they don't feel they need to do so. They just know.
How do they know?
Well, they are operating on the basis of a set of hidden assumptions that they believe and which I reject. But their standard operating procedure is to speak and act as if all educated/smart/cool etc. people accepted those assumptions. And some of the assumptions are Marxist. Here is how it works.
The assume (1) that the gap between rich and poor in terms of income is immoral and needs to be narrowed; this is what they mean by "social justice." They further assume (2) that the State is the entity that should redistribute the wealth by taxation and social welfare programs. They also assume (3) that since blacks in America, on average as a group, earn less than whites, they must be oppressed by whites and should have their incomes raised - or failing that, whites should have their incomes reduced by higher taxation.
Now, as I say, I reject all three assumptions. I don't think the gap between rich and poor is itself necessarily immoral. If wealth is acquired honestly by hard work, innovation and entrepreneurship, then there is nothing wrong with it. Rich people create jobs for others and invent/produce things others gladly use and they also pay taxes on top of it. What is wrong any of that? If Bill Gates is a bazillionaire, that does not hurt me. I'm glad personal computers were invented and I quite like using Windows, thank you very much. He can have enough money to fly to the moon for all I care.
Of course, when it comes to people who don't have the basics of food and shelter I think charity is an obligation. But I feel no obligation to ensure that the street person makes this or that percentage of the income of the wealthiest among us. These are two completely different things which get conflated by Marxists trying to confuse the rest of us. I object to Leftists pretending that it is wrong not to support the kind of irresponsible socialist policies that are currently pushing Europe to the brink of a financial crisis.
And the idea that if I take this non-socialist view of government and taxation, then I must do so because I think blacks are inferior is just absurd. I think they (the leftists) are the real racists because they apparently think that blacks - as a group - cannot and should not compete and work and try to get ahead because they are somehow inferior. The leftists think that the nanny state must look after black people because they - for some reason - need looking after.
Racism and political/economic philosophies are different things. I'm as sure that some conservative Americans are racists as I am sure that most are not. But that has nothing to do with the ideals for which the Tea Party stands. And I'm sure that many on the left are racist too.
As for the idea that one is a racist for criticizing Islam as Geert Wilders has done, that is just absurd and shows a lack of critical thinking. For example, I quoted Reuters in my last post:
Minorities groups said they would now take the case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, arguing the ruling meant the Netherlands had failed to protect ethnic minorities from discrimination.Whichever Muslim said that is not a very good Muslim because Islam claims not to be the religion of just one ethnic group but a universal religion for the entire world. There are Muslims found in many different ethinic groups around the world.
What the person might have meant is something like this: "In the Netherlands, most Muslims are of a certain ethnic minority and Wilders is actually a white racist who hates colored people but does not come right out and say so for fear of being labeled a racist and instead uses "Islam" as code for "Moroccan" or whatever."
If that is the argument one wants to make, then go ahead and make it. But citing his anti-Islam remarks and denying his right to criticize Islam does not make those arguments. For that you would need some sort of evidence that he actually despises people of color. And there is no such evidence.
What Wilders is being persecuted for is criticizing Islam and the reason he has a 24 hour bodyguard is because he is under threat from radical Muslims for criticizing Islam. This is what is at stake: can one freely criticize political religions or not? Can totalitarians who want to squash all criticism of their political ideology shut down critics using spurious appeals to a mythical racism that is presumed, not proven and not visible?
What is racism? It used to be a form of prejudice to be named, shamed and rejected by decent people. Now it is a tool of the Marxist-inspired left used to attack conservatives. Somewhere along the line the leftists discovered that we conservatives actually loathe racism and therefore take accusations of being racists very seriously. It stings to be accused of something like that. So, from the leftist point of view, the good news is that it works as a tactic!
Charges of racism against anybody should be examined carefully to see whether the issue is actually racism or a disagreement on economics/politics or multiculturalism. To be a capitalist or to think that English Common Law or Western liberal democracy is superior to Shariah Law have nothing whatsoever to do with racism.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
The Left Cries Wolf Again
You may have heard of the story of the little boy who cried "Wolf"? Well, the moral of that story is that irresponsible shouting about a non-existent danger is not only annoying, but harmful to the community. When a real wolf actually did appear, no one came to help.
The leftists in the Democratic Party are harming the body politic by irresponsibly playing the race card every time they turn around. Here is Jim Clyburn, a particularly egregious offender in this regard, as quoted in a recent article in McClatchy Newspapers:
Well, the truth is that to refrain from criticizing the president of the United States just because he is black is a betrayal of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream. His "I Have a Dream" speech, you will surely recall looked forward to a day when a man would be judged by the quality of his character rather than by the color of his skin. That day is today. Barack Obama is President of the United States, which was something almost unimaginable during Martin Luther King's lifetime.
Yet, Clyburn wants to use the color of Obama's skin as a political talisman warding off all normal criticism and attacks. He can't forget what color Obama's skin is because he is a race hustler who has built a career on guilt and political correctness and if King's dream were to be realized, then Clyburn's one-trick-pony career would be over. Clyburn is thus invested in keeping racism alive.
You can be absolutely sure that if Allen West or Herman Cain were president, Clyburn would blame absolutely none of their political problems on the color of their skin. This is not about the color of anybody's skin or the issue of racial prejudice; it is about left-wing politics.
Clyburn is a useful tool of the leftists who are manipulating Obama and the Congressional Black Congress even as Obama and Clyburn, in turn, seek to manipulate the left wing of the Democratic Party. Let's face it: the charge of racism is a powerful political weapon. The Left is extremely racist and dependent on the race gimmick to deflect criticism of their radical agenda, which is not supported by the majority of the American people.
Racism is an ugly thing. But if everybody who criticizes Obama is racist - or if Jim Clyburn and his cohorts are allowed to decide who is and who isn't - then political debate has been cleverly hijacked by those who are in danger of losing the argument.
If Mitt Romney becomes the next president, it is conceivable that some people might oppose him and criticize him because he is a Morman. It could happen. But would his supporters be able to stand up and dismiss all political criticism of Romney because some of it originated in prejudice against his religion? Of course not. Mormans don't get a free pass and neither do Muslims, women, Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews or anyone else.
Race is an emotional subject and susceptible to demagoguery and that is precisely why flinging charges of racism around irresponsibly is dangerous and harmful to the quality of political discourse. The danger is that people will get used to hearing the same old song every single time Obama comes under fire.
And eventually, when real racism rears its ugly head people will just shrug and ignore it because the Left cried "Wolf" one time too many.
The leftists in the Democratic Party are harming the body politic by irresponsibly playing the race card every time they turn around. Here is Jim Clyburn, a particularly egregious offender in this regard, as quoted in a recent article in McClatchy Newspapers:
House Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn, the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, on Wednesday blamed most of President Barack Obama's political problems on racism.What he is basically saying is that no one is allowed to criticize the most powerful man in the world just because of the color of his skin. Barack Obama is not a poor, black student in an overwhelmingly white university and he is not even an ordinary black citizen in a mainly white country. He is at the very pinnacle of political success. Yet, no one is allowed to criticize him or his policies because to do so is racism.Clyburn, who's from South Carolina and is a close ally of the president, offered his views in response to a question about Obama's re-election prospects next year.
Well, the truth is that to refrain from criticizing the president of the United States just because he is black is a betrayal of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream. His "I Have a Dream" speech, you will surely recall looked forward to a day when a man would be judged by the quality of his character rather than by the color of his skin. That day is today. Barack Obama is President of the United States, which was something almost unimaginable during Martin Luther King's lifetime.
Yet, Clyburn wants to use the color of Obama's skin as a political talisman warding off all normal criticism and attacks. He can't forget what color Obama's skin is because he is a race hustler who has built a career on guilt and political correctness and if King's dream were to be realized, then Clyburn's one-trick-pony career would be over. Clyburn is thus invested in keeping racism alive.
You can be absolutely sure that if Allen West or Herman Cain were president, Clyburn would blame absolutely none of their political problems on the color of their skin. This is not about the color of anybody's skin or the issue of racial prejudice; it is about left-wing politics.
Clyburn is a useful tool of the leftists who are manipulating Obama and the Congressional Black Congress even as Obama and Clyburn, in turn, seek to manipulate the left wing of the Democratic Party. Let's face it: the charge of racism is a powerful political weapon. The Left is extremely racist and dependent on the race gimmick to deflect criticism of their radical agenda, which is not supported by the majority of the American people.
Racism is an ugly thing. But if everybody who criticizes Obama is racist - or if Jim Clyburn and his cohorts are allowed to decide who is and who isn't - then political debate has been cleverly hijacked by those who are in danger of losing the argument.
If Mitt Romney becomes the next president, it is conceivable that some people might oppose him and criticize him because he is a Morman. It could happen. But would his supporters be able to stand up and dismiss all political criticism of Romney because some of it originated in prejudice against his religion? Of course not. Mormans don't get a free pass and neither do Muslims, women, Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews or anyone else.
Race is an emotional subject and susceptible to demagoguery and that is precisely why flinging charges of racism around irresponsibly is dangerous and harmful to the quality of political discourse. The danger is that people will get used to hearing the same old song every single time Obama comes under fire.
And eventually, when real racism rears its ugly head people will just shrug and ignore it because the Left cried "Wolf" one time too many.
Friday, December 10, 2010
I'm Pretty Sure Rachel Maddow is a Racist
Shocking news from MSNBC. In an attempt to take on Fox directly in the ratings, it appears that MSNBC is competing with Fox in President Obama-bashing. First, we have Keith Olbermann making Rush Limbaugh look like a tongue-tied freshman who just can't find the words to get his point across as he rips Obama up one side and down the other.
Then we have Rachel Maddow attacking Obama like a crazed Fox commentator at a Tea Party rally!
Based on what I've learned from the mainstream media over the past year, I have to conclude that Rachel Maddow must be a racist. She is attacking the awesome wonderfulness that is Obama and he is a "black" president, right? She is a member of the white liberal media establishment, right? And no white person could be attacking a black president for any reason other than racism, right? I mean Maddow and Olbermann and everybody in the mainstream media told us a year ago that the only reason the Tea Party could be so anti-Obama is because of lingering, perhaps unconscious, racism. It couldn't be because they disagreed with their policies.
So when will Olbermann, Maddow and company openly confess their racism, resign in disgrace and renounce all criticism of the first black president? They were totally sincere when they detected Tea Party racism, weren't they?
Then we have Rachel Maddow attacking Obama like a crazed Fox commentator at a Tea Party rally!
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Based on what I've learned from the mainstream media over the past year, I have to conclude that Rachel Maddow must be a racist. She is attacking the awesome wonderfulness that is Obama and he is a "black" president, right? She is a member of the white liberal media establishment, right? And no white person could be attacking a black president for any reason other than racism, right? I mean Maddow and Olbermann and everybody in the mainstream media told us a year ago that the only reason the Tea Party could be so anti-Obama is because of lingering, perhaps unconscious, racism. It couldn't be because they disagreed with their policies.
So when will Olbermann, Maddow and company openly confess their racism, resign in disgrace and renounce all criticism of the first black president? They were totally sincere when they detected Tea Party racism, weren't they?
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Obama Disagrees with Jimmy Carter on Racism
When Barrack Obama says something right, he deserves credit. And in an interview this morning published by The Washington Times, he disagreed with recent high profile liberals that race is the motivating factor behind the opposition to his health care plan.
Later, Obama directly addressed the irresponsible remarks made by Jimmy Carter the other day:
Obama was even right on the money in asserting that the media is largely to blame for stoking the race issue:
However, he could have also admitted that the media would not have had nearly so much to report if the Democrats had not popped off about the issue and turned it into a partisan issue. Nevertheless, even if this is a good cop - bad cop routine designed to make the president look presidential while others play the race card to intimidate the critics, it is still good to see the president sounding like a man who is in touch with reality. It is good to see him speak truth.
"President Obama said Friday that angry criticisms about his health care
agenda are driven by an intense debate over the proper role of government - and
not by racism.
"Are there people out there who don't like me because of race? I'm sure
there are," Mr. Obama told CNN. "That's not the overriding issue here.""
Later, Obama directly addressed the irresponsible remarks made by Jimmy Carter the other day:
"Time and again, Mr. Obama was asked about whether the tenor of the health
care turned nasty because of undercurrents of racism. Former President Jimmy
Carter raised the point prominently this week when he said the vitriol was
racially motivated.Not so, Mr. Obama said.
"There's been a long-standing debate in this country that is usually
that much more fierce during times of transition, or when presidents are trying
to bring about big changes," Mr. Obama told CNN.
To NBC News, Mr. Obama put it this way: "It's an argument that's gone on
for the history of this republic, and that is, What's the right role of
government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look out for one another?
... This is not a new argument, and it always evokes passions.""
Obama was even right on the money in asserting that the media is largely to blame for stoking the race issue:
" Mr. Obama told CBS News that the media were partly to blame.
"The 24-hour news cycle and cable television and blogs and all this -
they focus on the most extreme elements on both sides," Mr. Obama said. "They
can't get enough of conflict. It's catnip to the media right now.""
However, he could have also admitted that the media would not have had nearly so much to report if the Democrats had not popped off about the issue and turned it into a partisan issue. Nevertheless, even if this is a good cop - bad cop routine designed to make the president look presidential while others play the race card to intimidate the critics, it is still good to see the president sounding like a man who is in touch with reality. It is good to see him speak truth.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Populism and Big Government
David Brooks has some common sense things to say in The New York Times about the hysterical, over-the-top, playing of the race card in recent days by Jimmy Carter, Maureen Dowd and many others. Their willingness to stir up racist conflict just to score cheap political points on an entirely unrelated issue - health care - point simultaneously to the weakness of their position and the lack of civil debate today in the public square. Brooks writes:
"And yet we live in a nation in which some people see every conflictMaybe the left should pause from their rabid partisanship for just a moment and take a deep breath so that they can reflect on two facts: first, that the fact that the United States last Fall became only the second country in modern history to elect a member of a racial minority to its highest office and, second, that by tarring so many of their fellow citizens with the brush of racism they are in effect raising the question of whether or not there is truth to the conservative charge that they hate their own country with a blindness born of ideology fanaticism.
through the prism of race. So over the past few days, many people, from Jimmy
Carter on down, have argued that the hostility to President Obama is driven by
racism. Some have argued that tea party slogans like “I Want My Country Back”
are code words for white supremacy. Others say incivility on Capitol Hill is
magnified by Obama’s dark skin.
Well, I don’t have a machine for peering into the souls of Obama’s critics,
so I can’t measure how much racism is in there. But my impression is that race
is largely beside the point. There are other, equally important strains in
American history that are far more germane to the current conflicts.
For example, for generations schoolchildren studied the long debate between
Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians. Hamiltonians stood for urbanism, industrialism
and federal power. Jeffersonians were suspicious of urban elites and financial
concentration and believed in small-town virtues and limited government.
Jefferson advocated “a wise and frugal government” that will keep people from
hurting each other, but will otherwise leave them free and “shall not take from
the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
Jefferson’s philosophy inspired Andrew Jackson, who led a movement of plain
people against the cosmopolitan elites. Jackson dismantled the Second Bank of
the United States because he feared the fusion of federal and financial
power.
This populist tendency continued through the centuries. Sometimes it took
right-wing forms, sometimes left-wing ones. Sometimes it was agrarian. Sometimes
it was more union-oriented. Often it was extreme, conspiratorial and
rude. The populist tendency has always used the same sort of rhetoric: for
the ordinary people and against the fat cats and the educated class; for the
small towns and against the financial centers.
And it has always had the same morality, which the historian Michael Kazin
has called producerism. The idea is that free labor is the essence of
Americanism. Hard-working ordinary people, who create wealth in material ways,
are the moral backbone of the country. In this free, capitalist nation, people
should be held responsible for their own output. Money should not be
redistributed to those who do not work, and it should not be sucked off by
condescending, manipulative elites.
Barack Obama leads a government of the highly educated. His movement
includes urban politicians, academics, Hollywood donors and information-age
professionals. In his first few months, he has fused federal power with Wall
Street, the auto industry, the health care industries and the energy
sector.
Given all of this, it was guaranteed that he would spark a populist
backlash, regardless of his skin color. And it was guaranteed that this backlash
would be ill mannered, conspiratorial and over the top — since these movements
always are, whether they were led by Huey Long, Father Coughlin or anybody
else."
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
12 Reasons why Abortion is the Most Important Moral Issue of the 21st Century
The Culture of Death says that human life is cheap and can be discarded when not wanted. The Gospel of Life says that human life is created in the image of God and must be cherished and protected in every possible way. Our culture faces a choice between life and death.
The right to life is the most fundamental and important of all human rights and no other human rights are possible without it. There can be no feeding of the hungry, no clothing of the poor, no visiting of the prisoners and no offering a cup of cold water to those who are murdered before birth. No one can be truly concerned for the poor, the weak, the helpless, the elderly, the frail, the handicapped, the minority, the economically disadvantaged or the victims of discrimination who is not pro-life. It makes no sense to be anti-war or anti-capital punishment while being indifferent to the murder of the weakest and most helpless among us. All social justice issues begin with the issue of abortion.
Some would have us believe that abortion is “just another issue” to be horse-traded in the cut and thrust of party politics. But the fact is that abortion on demand is a central issue one for those who are advancing the agenda of the Culture of Death. It is nothing less than legalized private killing and is the key to many other anti-humanistic behaviors, principles and policies. Abortion is far from being a single, stand-alone issue. It reveals a mindset that is deeply pathological and it reflects a society that is altogether too passive, resigned, tired and apathetic when it comes to resisting evil. Abortion sets a precedent for taking other forms of human life.
1. Euthanasia - the next issue to debate after abortion on the list of those promoting the Culture of Death is euthanasia. If pre-born human life is of no value and not worth protecting, then the elderly and the sick are at great risk. Euthanasia presupposes that human life is no different from animal life and that what is acceptable and humane for animals must be acceptable for humans. The principle of the sanctity of human life is at stake. We need to remember that some people have just as great (or greater) financial incentives to kill their parents as they do to kill their preborn children.
2. Infanticide – Many people believe infanticide is “no big deal” but Roman Catholics and Evangelical Christians, along with many others from all religions and no religious backgrounds, beg to differ. It is an issue of murder. No one can explain why it is all right to kill a baby one minute before birth, but not one minute after birth. Abortion on demand – which is the law in the US and Canada – is a certain prelude to infanticide. The Greco-Roman culture that early Christianity confronted (and converted) practiced infanticide by exposure. Christians would go out to the garbage heaps of Rome to save children. One could even argue that abortion is just a technologically advanced form of infanticide.
3. The Silent War Against Black People – More black babies are aborted than white ones – proportionately. Planned Parenthood often locates their abortion facilities near black inner city neighborhoods. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist who favored limiting births among the “inferior races” and Planned Parenthood carries on her racist program of eugenics today. People of African descent in North America know that many white people wish they would just go away; abortion is one of the methods used to implement that wish.
4. The Silent War Against Girls - Abortion is legalized private killing and baby girls are more vulnerable than baby boys. For many social and financial reasons, parents often choose to abort a girl so they can try for a boy. In countries like China and India this practice is so wide-spread that it is now beginning to cause many social problems due to a shortage of women, but it is increasingly common in the West as well. No one can be a true Feminist who fails to oppose the killing of babies just because they are female.
5. The Silent War Against Handicapped People - About 90% of Down Syndrome babies are now killed before birth in the US. What is this but blatant, unjust discrimination against the handicapped? This is a very new phenomenon based on recently-developed pre-natal genetic testing. How can we as a society expect to nourish a respect for the handicapped among us if we allow this evil attitude to take root that killing one’s child just because he or she does not measure up to our standard of perfection is morally acceptable? The sympathy accorded parents who abort handicapped babies is appalling and parallels the sympathy accorded to Nazis who launched their euthanasia program against the handicapped in the 1930’s.
6. The Corruption of the Medical Profession – The introduction of legalized abortion into Western societies required that Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors for over two millennia had to be revised. Doctors renounced their oaths to “do no harm” and added killing to their job description. For centuries, doctors have been trusted precisely because they always refused to get involved in taking life, even when pressured by the state to become executioners, for example. As doctors become desensitized to killing, patient trust will decline and we all will be worse off as a result. This affects people who have no direct involvement in abortion, euthanasia or other culture of death practices.
7. The Corruption of the Law – Western law has gradually been reformed over centuries to prohibit the legalized private killing of individuals by other individuals in power over them. Once under Roman law the Patriarch of a household held the power of life and death over members of his household. This was abolished under Christianity. The same goes for the right of the White slaveholder to kill the slaves he owned. The same goes for the right of Lords under feudalism to kill those under their authority. At various times and in various ways, the Christian West abolished all right of private killing. But in the second half of the Twentieth century legalized private killing made a comeback as mothers gained the “right” to kill their children. Soon children will have the “right” to have their parents killed under euthanasia laws. The principle of the inviolable right to life as the foundational human life is being eroded.
8. Eugenics – Eugenics is a group of humans taking control of the future evolution of the human race to make is in their own image. For example, the eugenics movement of the early Twentieth century was widespread and powerful in all Western countries and one branch of it motivated Nazi campaigns of forced sterilization, killing of “useless eaters” and cruel medical experiments in the death camps. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a leader in this movement and sought to use sterilization, contraception and abortion to decrease the “breeding potential” of inferior races like African Americans. Eugenics is scientific racism combined with violence.
9. Cloning people for Spare Parts, i.e. So-called “Saviour Siblings” – This was recently legalized in the UK by the Labour Party. To bring human beings into the world just for the purpose of taking their organs out of them to transplant into another person is sick, evil and demonic. At this moment, the idea of aborting a fetus to harvest its organs or tissue to save a sibling is considered ethical by many people. Abortion is essential to people with this mindset. The novel Never Let Me Go, by Kazuo Ishiguro, is about children raised for no purpose other than to have their organs harvested at the cost of their lives. It is unbearably sad and morally repulsive both at the same time. This is the “Brave New World” into which the Culture of Death leads and abortion is an absolutely necessary step on the road to get there.
10. The Choice Women Need - and deserve is not just the “choice” to kill their babies or be on their own raising them. The pro-abortion forces are not really pro-choice. If they were they would have better responses than just abortion and welfare for women in crisis pregnancies. They would support women who choose to carry and place for adoption. They would support women who choose to carry and raise the child. They would understand that most women want to bear the children they conceive, but find the deck stacked against them and abortion the expected thing to do. We should not let men off the hook and let it be simply the woman’s problem. Women deserve better.
11. Abortion on Demand Only Benefits Predatory Males - who are not prepared to take their responsibility as fathers. If we really cared about women and children we would demand that men take responsibility for their actions and we would stop treating women like sex objects for males who pervert sex into something selfish and superficial. The culture of abortion is great for men who want to pressure women into having sex and it is great for men who want to exit the scene once the natural result of sexual intercourse occurs. But it is not great for women or for children or for society as a whole.
12. Demographic Suicide – Almost 60 nations of the world currently are not reproducing themselves and world population is set to age rapidly and start declining during the 21st century. When a wealthy nation refuses to have enough babies even to maintain the population and thereby chooses to die out, one has to wonder what kind of despair lies behind such a collective decision. We need 2.3 babies per 1000 women per year and most of the Western world is currently between 1.3 and 1.7. But the root causes of a decision to commit demographic suicide are very important. The hedonism, materialism and individualism of Western culture, which the West has exported around the world, are pathological symptoms of a deeper spiritual malaise. People who are schooled to think primarily of their rights and entitlements are simply unable to commit to self-sacrifice and the common good. Abortion feeds the culture of entitlement and selfishness and the end result of the Culture of Death is the decision to die as a culture.
There are other reasons, but these are twelve of the most compelling ones to make the eradication of abortion from civilized societies the highest priority for the 21st century.
The right to life is the most fundamental and important of all human rights and no other human rights are possible without it. There can be no feeding of the hungry, no clothing of the poor, no visiting of the prisoners and no offering a cup of cold water to those who are murdered before birth. No one can be truly concerned for the poor, the weak, the helpless, the elderly, the frail, the handicapped, the minority, the economically disadvantaged or the victims of discrimination who is not pro-life. It makes no sense to be anti-war or anti-capital punishment while being indifferent to the murder of the weakest and most helpless among us. All social justice issues begin with the issue of abortion.
Some would have us believe that abortion is “just another issue” to be horse-traded in the cut and thrust of party politics. But the fact is that abortion on demand is a central issue one for those who are advancing the agenda of the Culture of Death. It is nothing less than legalized private killing and is the key to many other anti-humanistic behaviors, principles and policies. Abortion is far from being a single, stand-alone issue. It reveals a mindset that is deeply pathological and it reflects a society that is altogether too passive, resigned, tired and apathetic when it comes to resisting evil. Abortion sets a precedent for taking other forms of human life.
1. Euthanasia - the next issue to debate after abortion on the list of those promoting the Culture of Death is euthanasia. If pre-born human life is of no value and not worth protecting, then the elderly and the sick are at great risk. Euthanasia presupposes that human life is no different from animal life and that what is acceptable and humane for animals must be acceptable for humans. The principle of the sanctity of human life is at stake. We need to remember that some people have just as great (or greater) financial incentives to kill their parents as they do to kill their preborn children.
2. Infanticide – Many people believe infanticide is “no big deal” but Roman Catholics and Evangelical Christians, along with many others from all religions and no religious backgrounds, beg to differ. It is an issue of murder. No one can explain why it is all right to kill a baby one minute before birth, but not one minute after birth. Abortion on demand – which is the law in the US and Canada – is a certain prelude to infanticide. The Greco-Roman culture that early Christianity confronted (and converted) practiced infanticide by exposure. Christians would go out to the garbage heaps of Rome to save children. One could even argue that abortion is just a technologically advanced form of infanticide.
3. The Silent War Against Black People – More black babies are aborted than white ones – proportionately. Planned Parenthood often locates their abortion facilities near black inner city neighborhoods. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist who favored limiting births among the “inferior races” and Planned Parenthood carries on her racist program of eugenics today. People of African descent in North America know that many white people wish they would just go away; abortion is one of the methods used to implement that wish.
4. The Silent War Against Girls - Abortion is legalized private killing and baby girls are more vulnerable than baby boys. For many social and financial reasons, parents often choose to abort a girl so they can try for a boy. In countries like China and India this practice is so wide-spread that it is now beginning to cause many social problems due to a shortage of women, but it is increasingly common in the West as well. No one can be a true Feminist who fails to oppose the killing of babies just because they are female.
5. The Silent War Against Handicapped People - About 90% of Down Syndrome babies are now killed before birth in the US. What is this but blatant, unjust discrimination against the handicapped? This is a very new phenomenon based on recently-developed pre-natal genetic testing. How can we as a society expect to nourish a respect for the handicapped among us if we allow this evil attitude to take root that killing one’s child just because he or she does not measure up to our standard of perfection is morally acceptable? The sympathy accorded parents who abort handicapped babies is appalling and parallels the sympathy accorded to Nazis who launched their euthanasia program against the handicapped in the 1930’s.
6. The Corruption of the Medical Profession – The introduction of legalized abortion into Western societies required that Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors for over two millennia had to be revised. Doctors renounced their oaths to “do no harm” and added killing to their job description. For centuries, doctors have been trusted precisely because they always refused to get involved in taking life, even when pressured by the state to become executioners, for example. As doctors become desensitized to killing, patient trust will decline and we all will be worse off as a result. This affects people who have no direct involvement in abortion, euthanasia or other culture of death practices.
7. The Corruption of the Law – Western law has gradually been reformed over centuries to prohibit the legalized private killing of individuals by other individuals in power over them. Once under Roman law the Patriarch of a household held the power of life and death over members of his household. This was abolished under Christianity. The same goes for the right of the White slaveholder to kill the slaves he owned. The same goes for the right of Lords under feudalism to kill those under their authority. At various times and in various ways, the Christian West abolished all right of private killing. But in the second half of the Twentieth century legalized private killing made a comeback as mothers gained the “right” to kill their children. Soon children will have the “right” to have their parents killed under euthanasia laws. The principle of the inviolable right to life as the foundational human life is being eroded.
8. Eugenics – Eugenics is a group of humans taking control of the future evolution of the human race to make is in their own image. For example, the eugenics movement of the early Twentieth century was widespread and powerful in all Western countries and one branch of it motivated Nazi campaigns of forced sterilization, killing of “useless eaters” and cruel medical experiments in the death camps. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a leader in this movement and sought to use sterilization, contraception and abortion to decrease the “breeding potential” of inferior races like African Americans. Eugenics is scientific racism combined with violence.
9. Cloning people for Spare Parts, i.e. So-called “Saviour Siblings” – This was recently legalized in the UK by the Labour Party. To bring human beings into the world just for the purpose of taking their organs out of them to transplant into another person is sick, evil and demonic. At this moment, the idea of aborting a fetus to harvest its organs or tissue to save a sibling is considered ethical by many people. Abortion is essential to people with this mindset. The novel Never Let Me Go, by Kazuo Ishiguro, is about children raised for no purpose other than to have their organs harvested at the cost of their lives. It is unbearably sad and morally repulsive both at the same time. This is the “Brave New World” into which the Culture of Death leads and abortion is an absolutely necessary step on the road to get there.
10. The Choice Women Need - and deserve is not just the “choice” to kill their babies or be on their own raising them. The pro-abortion forces are not really pro-choice. If they were they would have better responses than just abortion and welfare for women in crisis pregnancies. They would support women who choose to carry and place for adoption. They would support women who choose to carry and raise the child. They would understand that most women want to bear the children they conceive, but find the deck stacked against them and abortion the expected thing to do. We should not let men off the hook and let it be simply the woman’s problem. Women deserve better.
11. Abortion on Demand Only Benefits Predatory Males - who are not prepared to take their responsibility as fathers. If we really cared about women and children we would demand that men take responsibility for their actions and we would stop treating women like sex objects for males who pervert sex into something selfish and superficial. The culture of abortion is great for men who want to pressure women into having sex and it is great for men who want to exit the scene once the natural result of sexual intercourse occurs. But it is not great for women or for children or for society as a whole.
12. Demographic Suicide – Almost 60 nations of the world currently are not reproducing themselves and world population is set to age rapidly and start declining during the 21st century. When a wealthy nation refuses to have enough babies even to maintain the population and thereby chooses to die out, one has to wonder what kind of despair lies behind such a collective decision. We need 2.3 babies per 1000 women per year and most of the Western world is currently between 1.3 and 1.7. But the root causes of a decision to commit demographic suicide are very important. The hedonism, materialism and individualism of Western culture, which the West has exported around the world, are pathological symptoms of a deeper spiritual malaise. People who are schooled to think primarily of their rights and entitlements are simply unable to commit to self-sacrifice and the common good. Abortion feeds the culture of entitlement and selfishness and the end result of the Culture of Death is the decision to die as a culture.
There are other reasons, but these are twelve of the most compelling ones to make the eradication of abortion from civilized societies the highest priority for the 21st century.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The UN's Racist "Anti-Racism" Conference Blows Up
As I predicted, the UN conference (Durban II) currently going on in Switzerland has become a farce. Canada, Australia, the US, Italy, and five other countries boycotted the conference because it was being set up as a way of isolating Israel and focussing on Israel's so-called "racism" (meaning that they dare to want a homeland like everyone else). Nothing is to be said about Muslim slavers in Africa or anti-Semitism around the world or the plight of Christians who have no freedom of religion in Islamic states. No, it was just a focus on the "crimes" of Israel. So basically the UN creates a mechanism and provides a forum for anti-Semites like the presdent of Iran to attack Israel with impunity under the guise of battling global racism. George Orwell, himself, could not have made this up.
On the first day, Iran's Holocaust denier in chief, the only head of state to attend the conference, made a speech attacking Israel. It was, fittingly, the 120th anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler. It was only surprising that they omitted to sing the Horst Wessel song before and after the speech.
But the most amazing thing happened. When he got into his holocaust denial spiel, the delegates from the rest of the European Union got up and walked out. That is right - they walked out. And they didn't even ask permission from anyone. They just did it. How long has it been since the Europeans actually let the Muslim world know that they disapprove of their anti-Semitic nonsense? It was a miracle. It certainly was a dramatic and effective way for the world to be made aware of the hateful, disgusting, anti-Jewish views of the head of a thugish and repressive regime.
But it was a sad day for the UN and has created good reason for all people of good will everywhere to question its legitimacy and efficacy. The US has been criticized for witholding funding from the UN. In the wake of this debacle, they should simply declare that they will not fund the UN at all in future until it reforms itself and ceases to be a platform for racist dictators who wish to use it to further their genocidal policies. The world needs a UN, but it would be better off without the current one. Rather than trying to clean up the world, it is time for the UN to clean itself up.
On the first day, Iran's Holocaust denier in chief, the only head of state to attend the conference, made a speech attacking Israel. It was, fittingly, the 120th anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler. It was only surprising that they omitted to sing the Horst Wessel song before and after the speech.
But the most amazing thing happened. When he got into his holocaust denial spiel, the delegates from the rest of the European Union got up and walked out. That is right - they walked out. And they didn't even ask permission from anyone. They just did it. How long has it been since the Europeans actually let the Muslim world know that they disapprove of their anti-Semitic nonsense? It was a miracle. It certainly was a dramatic and effective way for the world to be made aware of the hateful, disgusting, anti-Jewish views of the head of a thugish and repressive regime.
But it was a sad day for the UN and has created good reason for all people of good will everywhere to question its legitimacy and efficacy. The US has been criticized for witholding funding from the UN. In the wake of this debacle, they should simply declare that they will not fund the UN at all in future until it reforms itself and ceases to be a platform for racist dictators who wish to use it to further their genocidal policies. The world needs a UN, but it would be better off without the current one. Rather than trying to clean up the world, it is time for the UN to clean itself up.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Congratulations to President Obama!
Now there is a headline you won't see very often on this blog. However, Barack Obama has made a decision that required a spine and even involved standing up to the knee-jerk Left on the issue of anti-Semitism despite the fact that it means that the first African-American US president must boycott a UN conference on racism.
On Friday, the US announced that it would follow Canada's lead and boycott the UN Conference Against Racism to be held in Switzerland. This is the follow-up to the debacle in Durban, South Africa in 2001, during which Israel was singled out for attack by Muslim countries and only Western European slavery (which ended over a century ago) was heavily criticized and Muslim slavery, which has a much longer history in Africa (and, incredibly, is still going on today in places like the Sudan), was not so much as mentioned!
The conference became a forum for anti-Jewish forces to equate Zionism with racism. The destruction of the state of Israel is the stated goal of Iran and Syria and they were able to rally support for a systematic attack on Israel throughout much of the conference. The US delegation actually walked out halfway through the conference. The Bush administration had planned all along to boycott this conference (Durban II) but Obama ordered his officials to enter into negotiation with the conference organizers on the agenda and draft documents, hoping to make it possible for the US to participate. But last week the administration came to the conclusion that it was hopeless and pulled the plug on participation. This decision exposes the racism of the purported "anti-racists" for all to see, since they can not longer blame the US decision not to participate on the "right-wing" Bush administration. Kudos to Obama for not allowing his administration to get caught up in the anti-Jewish movement that files in true Orwellian fashion under the banner of "anti-racism."
Here is a story from the Toronto Star with the background: http://www.thestar.com/article/595050
On Friday, the US announced that it would follow Canada's lead and boycott the UN Conference Against Racism to be held in Switzerland. This is the follow-up to the debacle in Durban, South Africa in 2001, during which Israel was singled out for attack by Muslim countries and only Western European slavery (which ended over a century ago) was heavily criticized and Muslim slavery, which has a much longer history in Africa (and, incredibly, is still going on today in places like the Sudan), was not so much as mentioned!
The conference became a forum for anti-Jewish forces to equate Zionism with racism. The destruction of the state of Israel is the stated goal of Iran and Syria and they were able to rally support for a systematic attack on Israel throughout much of the conference. The US delegation actually walked out halfway through the conference. The Bush administration had planned all along to boycott this conference (Durban II) but Obama ordered his officials to enter into negotiation with the conference organizers on the agenda and draft documents, hoping to make it possible for the US to participate. But last week the administration came to the conclusion that it was hopeless and pulled the plug on participation. This decision exposes the racism of the purported "anti-racists" for all to see, since they can not longer blame the US decision not to participate on the "right-wing" Bush administration. Kudos to Obama for not allowing his administration to get caught up in the anti-Jewish movement that files in true Orwellian fashion under the banner of "anti-racism."
Here is a story from the Toronto Star with the background: http://www.thestar.com/article/595050
Monday, January 26, 2009
Pelosi's Unreflective Anti-Humanism
Here we see the leader of the Democrats in the House, Nancy Pelosi, that "great Catholic theologian" defending greater funding for contraception in the current stimulus package being considered by the Democrats: (thanks to First Things blog for posting this)
http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2009/01/26/pelosi-contraception-can-help-economy/
Well, how many things are wrong with her view?
1. People create economic activity and improve the economy; they are not a drag on the economy. Population decrease is now the biggest economic danger accross the Western world.
2. Her "Nanny State" paternalistic attitude shows through clearly here. She assumes that the State needs to support people. And here I thought we supported the State through our taxes!
3. Who gave the State the right to interfere with families and the decisions of parents to have as many children as God gives them? She assumes without argument that it is the duty of the State to try to reduce family size by pushing contraception. Huh? Since when is that the duty of the State? The family precedes the State historically and ontologically and determines the limits of the State, not the other way around - unless we already have embrace totalitarianism and some of us just didn't get the memo.
4. As a Catholic, why is she aggressively pushing an anti-Catholic moral position? Should she not resign from the Catholic Church if she does not want to be a Catholic? She might think being a Christian is just a matter of what happens on Sunday, but Jesus thinks it is a 7 day per week committment.
5. Here we have a blatant attempt by the Democrats to impose liberal (im)morality on the nation under the cover of an economic program. The Democrats were elected to improve the economy, not to drag down the morals of the nation.
So let's sum up. She plays on being a Catholic politican when it comes to courting the Catholic vote, but she opposes the Church on contraception. She is completely wrong about the economic benefits of increased population. She promotes a totalitarian concept of the State as above the family with the right to try and manipulate parents into having the "right" family size as determined by her. And she assumes that the State must support people, instead of seeing the people as supporting her and the rest of the State apparatus. Oh, and she refuses to apologize for her anti-people position.
It is difficult to imagine how much more error anyone could pack into a 30 second spot.
Update 1:
Matthew Archibald gets to the root of Pelosi's reasoning in this excellent post, which also contains text of the key spot in the interview. He writes:
"But here's the thing. Most people are not a drain on the economy. In fact, middle class and wealthy people put far more dollars into the federal government than they receive. So when Nancy Pelosi is talking about people who sap the Treasury she's talking about poor people.
And rich people can afford their own contraception. Poor people ostensibly can't. So what Nancy Pelosi is really saying here is the federal government must give out contraception in order to prevent poor people from reproducing because they're a drain on the economy. Margaret Sanger would be so proud."
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2009/01/pelosi-birth-control-boosts-economy.html
So the great leader of the "compassionate" Left in America reveals her real agenda - to get rid of poor people by helping them kill their children. Its a good thing the cold-hearted Republicans got the boot and were replaced by these Mother Theresa types.
Oh, and speaking of Margaret Sanger, there is also the racial aspect to this issue. About half of all African-American pregnancies now end in abortion and Planned Parenthood deliberately sets up its abortuaries in minority, inner-city neighbourhoods. It is difficult to know if racisim is the origin of the policy or not, (they might just be targeting the poor whatever color they are), but there is no doubt about the end result. Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats are quite comfortable with systematically eliminating the African-American population of the US (and at this rate it won't take as long as one might think) and they are smart enough to do so while simultaneously maintaining their image as humanitarians concerned about the poor. Quite a feat.
Update 2:
See the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney's excellent article on Pelosi's interview at Catholic Online. He writes:
"It is now becoming clear that the Democratic leadership intends to use the economic crisis to push forward a radical anti-family social agenda."
http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2009/01/26/pelosi-contraception-can-help-economy/
Well, how many things are wrong with her view?
1. People create economic activity and improve the economy; they are not a drag on the economy. Population decrease is now the biggest economic danger accross the Western world.
2. Her "Nanny State" paternalistic attitude shows through clearly here. She assumes that the State needs to support people. And here I thought we supported the State through our taxes!
3. Who gave the State the right to interfere with families and the decisions of parents to have as many children as God gives them? She assumes without argument that it is the duty of the State to try to reduce family size by pushing contraception. Huh? Since when is that the duty of the State? The family precedes the State historically and ontologically and determines the limits of the State, not the other way around - unless we already have embrace totalitarianism and some of us just didn't get the memo.
4. As a Catholic, why is she aggressively pushing an anti-Catholic moral position? Should she not resign from the Catholic Church if she does not want to be a Catholic? She might think being a Christian is just a matter of what happens on Sunday, but Jesus thinks it is a 7 day per week committment.
5. Here we have a blatant attempt by the Democrats to impose liberal (im)morality on the nation under the cover of an economic program. The Democrats were elected to improve the economy, not to drag down the morals of the nation.
So let's sum up. She plays on being a Catholic politican when it comes to courting the Catholic vote, but she opposes the Church on contraception. She is completely wrong about the economic benefits of increased population. She promotes a totalitarian concept of the State as above the family with the right to try and manipulate parents into having the "right" family size as determined by her. And she assumes that the State must support people, instead of seeing the people as supporting her and the rest of the State apparatus. Oh, and she refuses to apologize for her anti-people position.
It is difficult to imagine how much more error anyone could pack into a 30 second spot.
Update 1:
Matthew Archibald gets to the root of Pelosi's reasoning in this excellent post, which also contains text of the key spot in the interview. He writes:
"But here's the thing. Most people are not a drain on the economy. In fact, middle class and wealthy people put far more dollars into the federal government than they receive. So when Nancy Pelosi is talking about people who sap the Treasury she's talking about poor people.
And rich people can afford their own contraception. Poor people ostensibly can't. So what Nancy Pelosi is really saying here is the federal government must give out contraception in order to prevent poor people from reproducing because they're a drain on the economy. Margaret Sanger would be so proud."
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2009/01/pelosi-birth-control-boosts-economy.html
So the great leader of the "compassionate" Left in America reveals her real agenda - to get rid of poor people by helping them kill their children. Its a good thing the cold-hearted Republicans got the boot and were replaced by these Mother Theresa types.
Oh, and speaking of Margaret Sanger, there is also the racial aspect to this issue. About half of all African-American pregnancies now end in abortion and Planned Parenthood deliberately sets up its abortuaries in minority, inner-city neighbourhoods. It is difficult to know if racisim is the origin of the policy or not, (they might just be targeting the poor whatever color they are), but there is no doubt about the end result. Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats are quite comfortable with systematically eliminating the African-American population of the US (and at this rate it won't take as long as one might think) and they are smart enough to do so while simultaneously maintaining their image as humanitarians concerned about the poor. Quite a feat.
Update 2:
See the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney's excellent article on Pelosi's interview at Catholic Online. He writes:
"It is now becoming clear that the Democratic leadership intends to use the economic crisis to push forward a radical anti-family social agenda."
"Speaker Pelosi shows a clear lack of compassion and understanding of social justice by laying the groundwork for racist and eugenic social policies. Clearly the focus of the distribution of these contraceptives would center on minority communities which tend to be poorer and more economically challenged."
Read it all at: http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=31819&wf=rsscol
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
