The White House’s forthcoming state dinner with the Prime Minister of India is expected to be larger than those of President Barack Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. But another upcoming White House event will be smaller than in years past: The White House’s annual Hanukkah party.

The guest list is expected to be shrunk by more than half, according to the Jerusalem Post. “Though several Jewish leaders expressed understanding for the economic and other reasons behind the cut, they acknowledged that it would likely help feed feelings in some quarters of the American Jewish community that the White House is giving them the cold shoulder.”

The move comes on the heels of Obama’s cancellation of an appearance before the General Assembly of North American Jewish Federations last week.

Interesting. Obama had no problem having a big dinner to celebrate Ramadan. Nor flying all over the world to speak to Muslims. But, you Jewish folks? Well, looks like the economy is just too poor to celebrate your Holy time, which the Politico tells us as they try and read the White House’s mind

The White House’s decision is likely a response to tough economic times and a desire to keep the holiday festivities reasonable.

Reasonable? The Obama admin didn’t seem to have a problem celebrating China’s 60th anniversary, along with a Chinese flag flying next to the U.S. flag near the White House. As Pam Geller points out, the first paragraph, about the party with India’s P.M. being bigger than previous one, doesn’t quite jibe with the one about the Hanukkah party being reduced because of tough economic times.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Byam Elementary School apparently has a gift shop they arrange every year during the holiday season. But in the interest of political correctness, religion must of course be promptly removed — we wouldn’t want to anger the atheists, after all — and Christmas is the holiday that’s most in the crosshairs.

After meeting with members of the Byam Elementary School PTO, two mothers asking to put the holidays back into the school’s annual holiday gift shop say Byam isn’t budging.

Kathryn McMillan and Kathleen Cullen, who both have children at Byam, asked school officials to allow all holiday items at the gift shop following a ban on Santa, candy canes, stockings, and all Christmas, Hanukkah and other “religious items.”

But a meeting with some PTO parents on Thursday night grew heated as emotions got in the way.

Red and green tissue paper to wrap presents was also crossed off the list because it looked too “Christmasy,” McMillan said.

“One of the parents said, ‘If we allow Santa, what do we say if a child brings in a swastika? Do we allow that too?’ ” McMillan said. “All I could think of was, are you kidding? You’re comparing a Christmas ornament to a swastika? It seems as if reason is lost somewhere and I just hope we can find it again.”

Superintendent Donald Yeoman told The Sun on Tuesday that the rules for the gift shop are under the authority of Byam Principal Jane Gilmore. Ultimately, said Yeoman, the policy for the gift shop was set so no child would feel left out.

“It’s operated under those same rules for a number of years with success and without complaint,” Yeoman said.

Until now.

Gilmore did not return a reporter’s phone call yesterday.

McMillan and Cullen have asked that if the children can’t celebrate their traditions – whatever they may be – at the holiday gift shop, then maybe the school should move the gift shop to another time of year.

Not all Chelmsford schools have adopted the same policy as Byam. The South Row Elementary School, and the former Westlands Elementary that closed last year, had no restrictions on gift-giving.

“It makes sense that the school probably makes the most money by holding the gift shop over the holidays,” McMillan added. “So all we’re asking is that if you’re letting kids buy gifts for the holidays, let them donate stuff that celebrates those traditions and use it as a teachable moment so these kids can learn.”

McMillan and Cullen will appear before the School Committee on Tuesday, Nov. 24.

It seems like these parents are the only ones who possess any reason whatsoever. But, as always, there is the one parent who gets OFFENDED!! for their children’s sake, and must ban Christmas, Santa, Christianity, and anything that might even resemble it. But going so far as to link Santa Claus to Nazi swastikas is taking it further than I think I’ve seen before. I mean, really, let’s see… we have Santa Claus, a saint who has grown into a myth, a man who believes in kindness and giving. And then there’s Nazis, who were responsible for the torture, starvation, slavery, and murders of over six million people. How does one’s mind link Santa Claus and Nazis? When someone mentions Christmas or Santa, how screwed up do you have to be to automatically think that letting a kid celebrate that in school means that you’re opening the door to celebrating Nazis? I mean, that’s one hell of a leap there. On top of that, the rules seem more than a little outrageous. You can’t even have red or green wrapping paper because it just might remind someone of Christmas? Good Lord, this takes worshipping at the altar of political correctness to a whole new level.

And for what it’s worth, I think the suggestion of McMillan and Cullen seem perfectly sound to me. If they won’t let children celebrate their respective holidays at the gift shop — Christmas, Hanukkah — then why not just move the gift shop to a different time of year and avoid the whole issue? Instead, the school has seemingly gone out of their way to deliberately snub religion. It’s simple, though. The school wants to capitalize on the holiday season without having to actually deal with those pesky holidays, and they know that having the gift shop in the middle of, say, September just wouldn’t be as profitable. I don’t begrudge them wanting to make money, but it seems hypocritical to want to make money off of the holiday season — and also by taking advantage of the festive, giving holiday spirit of parents — while being completely unwilling to include the holidays they’re capitalizing on.

And while surely if enough parents complain enough, the school will change the rules, it’s disturbing enough that this would even happen. This was a country built on faith-based principles, after all — and now, we have more and more schools trying to keep faith out of the public eye in any way, shape, or form.

Jane Gilmore, the religion hating principal of Byam Elementary School.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

“If the city requires this, we can’t do it,” Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. “The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that’s really a problem.”

Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city’s long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.

The clash escalates the dispute over the same-sex marriage proposal between the council and the archdiocese, which has generally stayed out of city politics.

Catholic Charities, the church’s social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington’s homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

“All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow,” Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, wrote to the council this week.

The church’s influence seems limited. In separate interviews Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as “somewhat childish.” Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city’s relationship with the church than give in to its demands.

“They don’t represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure,” said Catania, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and the chairman of the Health Committee.

The standoff appears to be among the harshest between a government and a faith-based group over the rights of same-sex couples. Advocates for same-sex couples said they could not immediately think of other places where a same-sex marriage law had set off a break with a major faith-based provider of social services.

The council is expected to pass the same-sex marriage bill next month, but the measure continues to face strong opposition from a number of groups that are pushing for a referendum on the issue.

The archdiocese’s statement follows a vote Tuesday by the council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary to reject an amendment that would have allowed individuals, based on their religious beliefs, to decline to provide services for same-sex weddings.

How pathetic. D.C.’s stance is basically that the Catholic Church should abandon its principles if it wants to keep working with the city, because this is going to pass whether they like it or not, and they have to make this awful choice — but they, of course, are the bad guys. This is, of course, the liberal meme, because anyone who is against gay marriage is prejudiced and backward and wrong and might as well be the KKK. Check out this explanation from Feministing:

The closing of a major homeless shelter and budget cuts have worsened the situation in a city already struggling to serve its poor and homeless residents. As someone who organizes for access to abortion I have obvious problems with gaps in the services provided by Catholic Charities. But that does not discount the vital work they do for the 68,000 D.C. residents who rely on Catholic Charities for shelters, health care, and food programs.

The Archdiosese is making a clear statement: it considers keeping rights from same sex couples more important than the needs of this city’s most vulnerable. Their willingness to use the lives and health of 68,000 people in need as pawns in their fight for the right to discriminate is unconscionable. D.C. needs more social services, not less. I hope the Archdiosese can put aside the politics of hate for a moment to recognize what I would think they would consider a moral obligation to do vital life saving work.

With all due respect, this isn’t a choice the church can fairly make. They didn’t ask for this bill, and their input was completely ignored when it came to amendments in the bill. The passage of this bill puts Catholic Charities in the worst kind of situation. For the Catholic Church, this isn’t a political situation, which is what liberals want to make it into. For the Catholic Church, this is a religious issue, it’s a moral one. The church cannot just abandon its principles, and that’s what liberals are forcing the church to do. And if the church caves on this, it won’t stop here. Liberals will start putting the pressure on about abortion, and performing gay marriages, and who knows what else. Where will it stop? It’s disgusting that liberals are putting the blame on the church here, when they are the ones being forced between a rock and a hard place. The church is not the one using homeless people as pawns; the city is. And it is wrong for the government to be legislating religious beliefs, which is basically what has happened here. This is, at its core, a subtle attack on our rights to religious freedom. And apparently, there is no one who is going to stand up for religion in this case.

If this is the change you voted for, then I hope you’re happy.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

IF ABORTION FUNDS ARE BANNED, THESE SHOULD BE BANNED TO….

The ban on federal funds for abortions is based on a religious morality, not science and certainly not any concern for women’s health. Where’s the concern for a woman carrying a baby with no brain stem, or some other incurable condition? If we are to allow women’s reproductive rights to be dictated by religious Christian extremists, then why not also allow the following:

Ban funds for vasectomies: These are birth control, and Catholics believe that’s a sin.

Prohibit money for Viagra: This encourages fornication, another sin. Accept impotence as God’s will.

No funds for implanting pig valves in human hearts: Muslims and Jews believe pigs are unclean creatures.

No circumcisions: Some religions don’t believe in this procedure, either.

No medical treatment for anybody at federal expense, since Christian Scientists don’t believe in medical care, period.

But let’s not stop there. How about cutting out funding for anything a religious or other minority doesn’t believe in – not just healthcare?

Quakers don’t believe in war. No more money for fighting them. (except that defense is actually in the Constitution, unlike abortion on demand)

Hindus don’t believe in eating beef. No subsidies for the cattle industry.

The Amish don’t believe in mechanization. No money for government-run fleets of vehicles or Amtrak.

Church of Christ members believe dancing is sinful, along with music from instruments other than the human voice. Stop funding wickedness through the National Endowment for the Arts.

Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in celebrating holidays or birthdays. No more federal paid days off for Christmas, Thanksgiving, President’s Day, etc.

Deists believe the natural world is sacred. No more federal funds for destroying the earth – ban funds for logging, strip-mining, or anything that pollutes our holy earth.

Libertarians and neo-con Republicans believe public services should be privatized to save tax dollars. Stop funding firefighting, police protection, libraries and public schools.

Anarchists don’t believe in government. No more funding anything–not even salaries for Congress!

I started putting comments next to each one, then decided to leave Da Cwazy to stand on its own, except for one. Leave it to a DUmmie to completely miss the point and go truly overboard. And, of course, so many DUmmies commented with things like “great post!” and “yup, yup!” Though, I thought the one that said “BAN POSTS IN ALL CAPS, TOO!” was pretty awesome.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The ruling by the court in Strasbourg, which Italy said it would appeal, said crucifixes on school walls — a common sight that is part of every Italian’s life — could disturb children who were not Christians.

That is, Muslim colonists might not like that Italy has been a Christian country since Constantine converted to Christianity in the 4th century.

Even some commies are aghast:

Paola Binetti, a Catholic in the opposition Democratic Party, the successor of what was once the West’s largest communist party, said: “In Italy, the crucifix is a specific sign of our tradition.”

Education Minister Mariastella Gelmini concurs:

The history of Italy is marked by symbols and if we erase symbols we erase part of ourselves.

This of course is exactly why progressive Eurocrats want crucifixes banned. The objective is not just to suppress Christianity, which is hardly even defended anymore; it is to eradicate Western civilization. That’s why no effective measures are taken to save Europe from the ongoing Muslim demographic conquest — and why amnesty will soon open the door to massive Third World colonization of the USA.

On a tip from mega. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

During Sunday’s episode, David, who created, wrote and produced “Seinfeld,” visits a bathroom in his assistant’s home and splatters urine on a picture of Jesus. Instead of wiping it off, David leaves the restroom. Minutes later, David’s assistant enters the bathroom and concludes that Jesus is crying. She then summons her mother to the bathroom, where both women kneel in prayer.

If a crucifix submerged in urine can be high art, why can’t urinating on portraits of Jesus be high comedy?

In lieu of an apology, HBO sneered:

Anyone who follows Curb Your Enthusiasm knows that the show is full of parody and satire. Larry David makes fun of everyone, most especially himself. The humor is always playful and certainly never malicious.

Now who would think this was malicious? Vicious, blasphemous, wicked, obviously — but malicious?

Contrast this with the obsequious treatment our liberal rulers have demanded we give Islam ever since 9/11. Despite the claim that David “makes fun of everyone,” you won’t see him peeing on a Koran.

On a tip from Wiggins. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Eric Boehlert of Media Matters is the worst kind of American. In fact, it’s hard to count him as an American at all except by accident of birth. It is plain that this Boehlert fellow is against many aspects of the American tradition, chief of which is freedom of political speech. Well, perhaps, he’s not entirely against that freedom. Instead he’s against that freedom for anyone that isn’t in wholesale agreement with him and his left-wing cronies.

One of his September postings on the extremist, anti-American website AlterNet.org stands as exhibit “A” in the proof of his anti-Americanism, his utter lack of historical knowledge, his uncivil attitude, and his desire to shut down those that disagree with him. It all goes to prove that Eric Boehlert seems to be little else than a fascist.

The left’s newest meme against anyone that disagrees with it is to say that all conservatives are “dangerous” to the country. It is said in leftist circles that anyone with a conservative viewpoint is only a hairsbreadth away from committing violence against the U.S.A., its government, and citizens. Because of this, the left claims, conservatives have somehow become dangerous.

Sadly, these assumptions are exactly the sort of charge that they used to rail against conservative minded Americans for thinking of them. But introspection is not the sort of mood the extreme left is in today. Today they are in a fearmongering, hate-filled mode because for the first time in a generation they have the taste of power in their mouths. They are the ones in a position to say what should or should not be done as a matter of policy. They’ve become “the man.”

Let us savor the irony of all this, shall we? The left used to bemoan that they were “victims” of conservative oppression. They used to agitate that “the man” was ready to put them in re-education camps, that “the suits” were forcing them to conform to the system, and that their freedom of speech was always on the verge of being eliminated by “the establishment.”

Yet, now they are the establishment. And what are they doing? They are attempting to shut down conservative talk radio, they want tea party goers to be kept from the streets, and, tellingly, they insist that any talk against the administration is “dangerous” talk. In short, the left is now guilty of precisely the sort of oppressive attitudes against conservatives that they claimed was so wrong for conservatives of the past to use to keep them down.

In real life we call this hypocrisy. As I said, though, philosophical introspection is not the left’s current mood. Neither is sanity, logic, or justice. Power is all that is on their minds and they will do anything to maintain it.

Boehlert’s AlterNet post makes the irresponsible and anti-American charge that conservatives are engaged in a “demented national jihad” of hatred, one of which “this country has not seen in modern times.” Absurdly, in allusion to the assassination of Kennedy, Boehlert goes on to claim that the “last time right-wing hatred ran wild like this a president was killed.”

Let’s deal with the absurd J.F.K. allusion first. If this situation hasn’t been seen “in modern times” how, then, can Boehlert begin the discussion with J.F.Kennedy’s assassination? Is Boehlert making the claim that J.F.K.’s death didn’t happen in “modern times”? Clearly this Boehlert fellow is not a history buff… nor a maven of the practice of logic.

That uninformed childishness aside, we get to the meat of his charge: that right-wing hatred was responsible for J.F.K.’s death. Of course, once again we run smack dab into that whole truth in history thing to devastate his outlandish point. You see no “right-wing hatred” was involved in the assassination of Kennedy. Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marxist, a man of the left. And even if you don’t believe in the lone gunman theory, other suspected perpetrators happen to be shadowy government agencies or Organized Crime Syndicates. None of these had anything to do with right-wing anything.

So, as this hyperbolic Boehlert does his best to cast the right as suspects of a national jihad of some sort, his main historical point is divorced from the very right he castigates.

Boehlert goes on to say that we are in an age of “increasingly violent rhetorical attacks on Obama.” To be sure, violence can’t be violence unless some violence has been committed. So, as a simple matter of fact, rhetoric cannot be violence. Only violence is violence. Rhetoric may advocate violence, but it is not, in and of itself, actual violence. Boehlert is plainly not smart enough to understand this truth. But even if we ignore his inability to understand the English language, his point is still off base because no one in the conservative movement has been advocating any violence against Obama, the left, or anything else for that matter.

As Eric Odom of the American Liberty Alliance reported, he’s been at Tea Party meetings throughout the country these last few months and has heard not one call for violence. In fact, he says that President Obama’s name has hardly even come up at these meetings.

But, let’s not have truth go getting in the way of Eric Boehlert’s hate.

Lastly, it must be pointed out that Boehlert’s obvious fear is over the Summer’s townhall meetings — and fear is mostly what he is selling to his left-wing audience. Boehlert worries about “violence” and overheated rhetoric coming from the right in this age of Obama. Naturally he focuses on showman Glenn Beck (and correspondingly ignores the foul Keith Olbermann and the half-witted Ed Schultz, both coming from the far right and filled with ignorant hatemongering of their own). But if violence is what makes Boehlert fear for his country, it is amazing that he seemed to have completely missed the singular fact that all the violence that came out of this Townhall Summer was perpetrated by the left. Union thugs and left-wing lunatics, the sort that frequent Boehlert ’s website, are the only ones that caused any violence this summer.

Further, we can point to another fact that gives the lie to Boehlert’s hatemongering: no one was arrested at any of the many tea party protests this year. In fact, the only arrests made at any protest this Summer was when anarchists, and violence prone leftists protested at the G20 meeting in Pennsylvania. There weren’t even any Tea Party goers arrested at the gigantic protest in Washington D.C. on September 12th. Not only that, but the conservatives at that protest even left the National Mall cleaner than it was when they got there!

In the end, this clownish Boehlert is really either mentally disabled, or a liar. And, since he spelled everything right in his AlterNet post, I am forced to conclude that he is the later.

Unfortunately, Eric Boehlert is part and parcel to the hyperbolic, fearmongering and hatred coming from the far left in America today. But, it isn’t just partisan blindness that leads people like Boehlert down this rocky road to self-loathing and fascist sentiment. They know what they are doing. No, the truth is, people like Boehlert hope to whip up their mindnumbed followers into a level of hatred that will overcome any sense of logic or goodwill they might have left for their fellow Americans.

It’s a tried and true application of the sort of fascist control mechanisms that have been seen is movements like Boehlert’s throughout history. In the end, we should all recognize Boehlert and his ilk for what they are and assess his words accordingly.

And now, to show that it is Boehlert’s side that is all caught up in so much hatemongering, here is a little video to show you what I mean…

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Canada will boycott Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at the United Nations on Wednesday, saying his outbursts about the Holocaust and Israel are “shameful.”

Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon will be at the world body to attend the opening of the UN General Assembly’s annual debate, but officials signal he and other members of the Canadian delegation will vacate the Canadian seats when the Islamic republic’s President approaches the podium.

Walking out of the chamber is seen as a strong diplomatic show of disgust at the UN — and since the chamber is generally packed on the first day of the annual summit, Canada’s empty seats will not go unnoticed.

One of the first speakers of the day will be U.S. President Barack Obama, who is making his debut address before the assembly.

“President Ahmadinejad’s repeated denial of the Holocaust and his anti-Israel comments run counter to the values of the UN General Assembly, and they’re shameful,” said one Canadian official.

“He uses his public appearances to provoke the international community, and that is why Canada’s seats will be empty.”

Yeah, go Canada! Perhaps DHS should stop testing their new super duper patrol boat on Canadian shores.

So, what of the U.S. delegation? Anyone expect them to walk out? Me neither. That would make Obama’s conditionless talks, at least from his side, with Iran rather difficult.

Via Michelle Malkin

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The heading Doug Giles put on his account below was: “No, It Wasn’t My Idea for Hannah Giles to Dress Like a Hooker and Infiltrate ACORN”

It’s been quite interesting watching and reading the statements coming from ACORN and various “news” organizations about the “facts” of the Giles/O’Keefe ACORN caper. Here’s a little sample of what they have been saying about the two evil citizen journalists, Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe, the ones who picked on poor, poor, poor, old ACORN.

Check it out, the truth according to nutty ACORN (and what really happened):

1. Giles’ and O’Keefe’s timeframe for filming. Bertha Lewis and others have stated that Hannah and James spent many months visiting scores of ACORN centers to get these few videos. One wizard said Hannah and James had been doing this since 2005, which would have made Hannah, oh, let’s see, about 14 or 15. Hello! I’m a cool dad—but not that cool.

I guess Bertha could be right about the time Giles and O’Keefe invested in the ACORN sting op if she counts her days in dog years. If that’s how she rolls then she’s spot-on with the “many months” statement. By the way, if that’s true, this November I’ll be 329 years old. Happy birthday to me! I think I’ll get another gun! I’m diggin’ on the S&W .500 magnum. She’s purty.

The truth of the matter, from a timeline standpoint, is that they hatched their plan in May of ’09, fine-tuned it from May 20th – July 23rd, and then launched July 24th, fully accomplishing their mission by the end of August. And that’s a fact to all those for whom facts still matter.

2. Giles’ and O’Keefe’s mission failed in many locations. Bertha and her buddies say with vigor and Reverend Wright unction that Giles and O’Keefe tried this trick in hundreds of locations without success. Marc Lamont Hill was on O’Reilly’s show this past week parroting the same smack. I heard one lunatic say they visited thousands of centers nationwide (there are under 200. Oops). Hey, guys: Why stop at hundreds and thousands? Why not say gazillions or quadrillions of ACORN centers?! Go Dr. Evil with the numbers. The truth of the matter happens to be that Hannah and James visited just a few locations—I won’t say how many—and struck gold, or sewage, everywhere they went.

3. Giles and O’Keefe had FOX News bankroll this escapade. I believe that, according to the ACORN spinmeisters, they had the amount of drachmas FOX had given Hannah and James in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The oh-so-sexy reality regarding this little nugget is that it cost these two acorn-crackers $1,300 of their own money. It’s amazing what one can do with a little cash, grandma’s chinchilla coat, a miniskirt and a whole lot of vision, eh? The only cash they received from FOX was for their hotel stay and their airfare while they did Beck’s and Hannity’s shows. That’s the truth. Oh, and as far as me giving her any pesos, for this epoch her papasito gave her nada. Not a penny. No FOX funds. No crazy Christian dad dollars.

4. Giles’ radical, ultra-conservative Christian dad put her up to it. I believe that’s how someone on one of those unwatched news shows has been bending it. Well, I can tell you as her dad that I did not. As much as me no likey the nefarious underpinnings and corrupt acts of ACORN, having my kid dress like a hooker and infiltrate such a place is not in my repertoire. That was Hannah’s baby from start to finish. I simply told her to be careful because we all know how dangerous sweet community organizers can be. Oh, FYI . . . if confessing I’m a sinner, believing orthodox Christian doctrine, saluting our flag and that for which it stands, loving the Constitution, hating terrorists, being fond of guns, hunting, country and rock music while adoring freedom makes me a crazy ultra-conservative Christian lunatic then I guess I am one of those. I will put that name right next to the other name Obama’s former green czar called such a person back in March (I believe he called us “a**holes”).

5. Giles and O’Keefe doctored the tapes. This is silly. James is a talented post-production editor, but he didn’t put the words in the ACORN workers’ mouths. He’s sharp . . . but not that sharp. Anyway, if he did you and I both would know it because it would have looked and sounded like one of those old Bruce Lee flicks. Unfortunately for Bertha, Andrew Breitbart has the vids and the transcripts in their entirety on his new site biggovernment.com for anyone to behold. Grab some popcorn and watch ‘em. It’s a teachable moment. Oh, speaking of the tapes: You might wanna go back to the San Bernadino one and listen to the list of politicians the ACORN lady rattled off as elected officials who would possibly be ready and willing to assist with the House for Hookers program.

Well, my children, that’s the inside poop on how it happened. That’s reality. I, personally, am stunned by what my kid and her cohort did in ratting out tawdry corruption on the highest (or lowest) level. As far as I am concerned, Giles and O’Keefe are American heroes par excellence. They accomplished something in a few short weeks, on a wing and a prayer, that other agencies and people have been trying to expose for many, many moons.

SOURCE

One defence of ACORN that Doug Giles has not mentioned above is the inadvertently honest one given by NPR — that the actions of the ACORN staffers are attributable to their “low income” background. I say “inadvertently honest” not because it is accurate but because it reveals what the Left really think about the poor whom they claim to champion. And it is an opinion that has got me steaming to some extent. I think it is a disgraceful slur on poor people to say that the behaviour of the ACORN staffers is typical of the poor.

I myself come from a poor family, an Australian one. I remember my mother borrowing money out of my moneybox when I was a kid so that will give you an idea of the family finances. And to this day I am most at home among working class Australians. I speak their distinctive language and, given that background, I find that they have far more realism, far more heart and a much better sense of humour than the intelligentsia. But I guess that the NPR crew didn’t really mean “low income” literally. In full, they said that “ACORN’s workers are coming from the same low-income neighborhoods the organization serves”, so I suspect that “low income” was code for “black”. So it was racism, not class prejudice, that moved them. They are bigots either way, however.

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me (John Ray) here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

I’m sure New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and former President Jimmy Carter derive a great deal of self-satisfaction slandering other people with false charges of racism, but the damage they’re doing to race relations is worse than any bona fide racist could dream of doing.

I ask you: Who is more likely racist, the person who sees race every time she turns around or the person who aspires toward colorblindness? Could those always pointing the accusatory finger be projecting their own discomfort with race?

Listen to how Maureen begins her snarky Sept. 12 column, in which she posited that Rep. Joe Wilson’s “you lie” outburst was driven by racism. She writes: “Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled ‘You lie!’ at a president who didn’t. But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!”

I don’t know whether “middle-aged white guys” and “their own men’s club” flow more from some bitter feminist strain Dowd seems to possess or her liberal obsession with the superficial aspects of people’s differences in pigment, but it is nonetheless bizarre. Why is it that Dowd sees race in the politicians sitting beside Joe Wilson? And why is she compelled to make “white guys” a pejorative? In her world, to be white and male is to be guilty. Well, I reject the charge, thank you, and would appreciate a little due process before condemnation by such self-proclaimed open-minded liberals as Dowd.

One of the main sins of racism is its devaluation of the individual worth of a member of a racial group based on membership in that group. How ironic that in her thinking and writings Dowd commits the very sin she decries: condemning “middle-aged white guys” by virtue of their skin color and age.

More HERE

*********************

Pelosi: Leftist projection again

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is worried that the heated debate over ObamaCare is getting too heated. “Anyone voicing hateful or violent rhetoric, she told reporters, must take responsibility for the results,” the Associated Press reports:

“I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made,” Pelosi said. Some of the people hearing the message “are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume,” she said. “Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe,” she added. “But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”

Pelosi raises an excellent point. Two weeks ago we noted an example: A prominent California politician had referred to opponents of ObamaCare as “un-American” and accused them of “carrying swastikas.” Subsequently, in Thousand Oaks, Calif., an unbalanced-American bit off the finger of an elderly protester, Bill Rice. The politician? Nancy Pelosi.

SOURCE

********************

And Jimmah accuses OTHERS of racism!

Jimmy Carter’s lecture on “racism” earlier this week sent an intrepid reader back to the Time magazine archives for this story from April 1976, when Carter was running a presidential campaign that, shockingly, turned out to be successful:

The furor began when Carter was asked in Indianapolis to explain his recent statement that there was “nothing wrong with ethnic purity being maintained” in neighborhoods. Carter replied that he wholeheartedly supports open-housing laws that make it a crime to refuse to sell or rent a house or apartment on the grounds of race, color or creed. But he opposes Government programs “to inject black families into a white neighborhood just to create some sort of integration.” Said he: “I have nothing against a community that is made up of people who are Polish, or who are Czechoslovakians, or who are French Canadians or who are blacks trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods. This is a natural inclination.”

“Ethnic purity”? Avast! Talk about the pot calling–uh, wait, scratch that. Let’s just say that Jimmy Carter’s continuing presence on the national scene is a helpful reminder of how much progress America has made in just the past few decades.

SOURCE

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me (John Ray) here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post