(Marjorie Clifton at HuffPo) I am the product of 14 years of Catholic school and am a practicing Catholic, actively involved in the church all of my life. As a woman with a career in politics and women’s leadership, I have quietly worked within the church to make change and have cautiously offered my voice only when I felt it was essential. But, I can be quiet no longer.

You are welcome to speak out. It’s your Constitutional right. You are not free to push your beliefs on others by government law. That is against everything this country was founded on. Oh, and violates the portion of that same 1st Amendment regarding religion

Recently, the Catholic leadership came out in opposition to the mandate in our new healthcare law that all health insurance providers offer coverage for prescribed birth control, even for employees in some Catholic Institutions. But, let’s be clear about what the real issue is here. It is not about government controls, and it is not about infringement of our religious beliefs. It is about a church that has lost touch with reality. The leadership of the Catholic Church either is ignoring or is unaware of the disconnect between Catholic teaching and Catholic reality.

No, it is about government, and using the out of control force of government to make Catholic institutions, and other religious institutions, offer birth control. Also, sterilizations and the morning after pill. Ms. Clifton rationalizes this as “well, Catholics have sex, so, their health insurance provider should be not only forced to offer this products, but do so with a zero deductible.” So, the church is left with the choice of either offering the health insurance which violates their beliefs or dropping coverage.

Essentially, it boils down to people forcing their beliefs on other people. This is America. The religious institutions have the right, and the constitutional right, to offer insurance that adheres to their beliefs. The people who work for them have the freedom to go out and get their own insurance if they want free birth control and morning after pills. Liberals do not want anyone to have a choice. It’s their way or no way. They aren’t very tolerant of opposing viewpoints.

One has to wonder how the Obama admin. and liberals would react if the Muslim leaders came out against this decree.

Of course, these mandates are not direct: they require insurance carriers to offer the measures, but, then the religious institutions won’t have choice themselves. All are forced to offer birth control, sterilization, and abortion pills.

“Unless this rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences or drop health care coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so),” according to a letter from Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas.

He and other church prelates asked that the message be read from pulpits over the weekend.

“We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law,” Naumann’s letter stated.

An Obama appointee muzzled Army chaplains from reading the letter over the weekend, a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

Liberals constantly tell us about this mythical separation of church and state. Funny how all of a sudden the State is allowed to dictate to the church.

(Politico) The issue of race and American politics, never far beneath the surface during Barack Obama’s historic 2008 campaign, is making a loud, overt and surprisingly early appearance in the 2012 presidential race.

And no one knows — least of all Obama himself — what impact the race card, always a wild card, will have on the president’s reelection prospects.

I’ll suggest it backfires, particularly if Team Obama and their sycophants attack Romney’s Mormonism.

In the past several months, Newt Gingrich has drawn sharp criticism for labeling Obama the “food stamp president” and for suggesting poor kids in New York’s majority-minority school system burnish their work ethic by picking up mops. First lady Michelle Obama bridled at the perception that she’s an “angry black woman.” Obama’s Chicago-based campaign has pushed back against stories that he’s more or less given up on the white vote.

Except, Newt wasn’t just talking about Black people: the majority of food stamp recipients are Caucasian. Michelle Obama is the one who brought up the angry black woman thing in order to create racial division. And Team Obama was the one who said they had given up on the white vote.

But nothing has illustrated the potentially explosive political impact of race — an issue that Obama has downplayed throughout his career — like the firestorm around the image of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer wagging her finger at the first black president of the United States.

If there were any illusion that 2012 would be the post-racial election most Americans hoped for, it vanished with that single shake of a finger and 30 seconds of sniping lost to history in the turbine roar of Air Force One.

Got that? The duly elected Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, is an evil racist simply because she wagged her finger in the face of a disrespectful half-black President. By that definition, we could call Obama a sexist, since he was disrespectful to Brewer and walked away.

But, what else does Obama have to run on? He certainly can’t run on his record. He doesn’t like to talk about his signature legislation, the Stimulus and Obamacare. He can play with the economic numbers all he wants, but people are hurting, and things are not getting better. The housing industry is still a major mess. Real world prices are rising. Disposable income is very low. Consumer confidence is low. There are historic numbers of people who have given up on the job market. The recession supposedly ended in June, 2009, yet, here in 2012, nothing seems to have changed.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

From: Anna Haynes [annahaynes.nc@gmail.com]
Sent: Sat Dec 10 20:19:58 GMT+01:00 2011
To: morano@climatedepot.com
Subject: Mr. Morano, your climate science expertise?

Greetings Mr. Morano -

I’m just now editing your SourceWatch page, adding that you have no evident climate science expertise, because I recall searching (&asking) several years ago & finding & hearing nothing. If I’m mistaken, and you do have a climate science background, please do let me know what courses you’ve taken or papers you’ve published, so I can add this information to your SourceWatch page.

Sincerely,
Anna Haynes

–
Disclosure: I have no background in climate science that would equip me to second-guess the findings of the field. See: Gutting’s On experts and global warming ( http://goo.gl/v0rV5 ) and Peter Watts (“science is alchemy…” – http://goo.gl/qVSgL )

Hi Anna,

I remember you from Dot Earth comment section a few years back. We had some entertaining back and forth. You always signed you name noting you had a phd. You must be so proud.

My background is in political science, which is highly suited to analyzing man-made global warming claims. The ’science’ you bitterly cling to is, after all, political at its core.

My bio is published at Climate Depot for all to see under the about page.

Thanks and enjoy the the sub-prime science you seem to believe in a religious fashion. My bio at Source Watch is not at all that different from my bio at Climate Depot. I look forward to your updating my entry at Source Watch.

Thanks
Marc

Marc’s reply is a good one but he could have had a laugh by looking up the authorities on climate science that she gives. One is a soi disant “philosopher” who makes the ludicrous claim that what “authorities” say should always be accepted. And the second reference is to what could reasonably be described as a hate-filled Leftist rave! If those are her idea of climate authorities she is much to be pitied and is certainly undeserving of her Ph.D.

The second link she gives did not work when I first tried it so the full URL is here — JR

Posted by John J. 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 here

To hell with German theologians! She probably is Christian in name only anyway. Other German theologians such as Rudolf Bultmann reject the Bible as just “stories”. Her main preoccupations seem to be “whiteness” and feminism so faith would struggle to get a look-in there, I would think. The first result Google gives for her is a talk called “Am Ende der Weissheit?”, which translates as “Towards the end of whiteness”. Sounds charming. Being white is obviously very bad.

Sweden’s much-loved Pippi Longstocking children books have been branded racist by a leading German theologian. Dr Eske Wollrad, from Germany’s Federal Association of Evangelical Women, has called on parents to skip certain passages or else explain to their children that they contain outdated colonial stereotypes.

She hit out at the Pippi Longstocking trilogy, written by author Astrid Lindgren and first published in 1945, at an anti-discrimination state conference in Leipzig at the weekend.

Dr Wollrad told German newspaper The Local: ‘It is not that the figure of Pippi Longstocking is racist, but that all three in the trilogy of books have colonial racist stereotypes.’

In the books, Pippi is an eight-year-old with superhuman strength who does not want to grow up and hates pompous adults.

Her father, once a king of a South Seas island, was originally known as Negro King before publishers changed it to South Seas King.

Dr Wollrad is demanding the book’s publisher make additions in the books to guide readers when ‘racist’ content arises.

She said that in the third book, Pippi In The South Seas: ‘The black children throw themselves into the sand in front of the white children in the book. When reading the book to my nephew, who is black, I simply left that passage out.’

Source

And how come a woman is pronouncing on theology anyway? The Bible is pretty clear about that: 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 reads: “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”

But I guess that to her the words of the epistle are just that silly old story book again

Posted by John J. 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 here

During his dedication speech at the Martin Luther King Memorial, Barack Obama could not resist doing some politicking. With the day of remembrance and dedication to Dr. King now rooted in the history of this nation, it is important not to let current political agendas commandeer his memory or purpose.

Dr. King was not only a great leader for black Americans, but for civil rights for all Americans. King was a visionary. King foresaw the day when prejudice was so subdued and irrelevant in America, that a black man would rise through the ranks of opportunities to become President of the United States. What Dr. King could not foresee is that that very first Black President would use race to divide the nation and call on Americans to “snitch” on neighbors who opposed his socialist rooted agendas. (See: LEFT INSULTS BLACK AMERICANS – http://darwinsracists.com/book/?p=111.) It was King who stood in defiance against leaders of the Democrat Party that voted against equality for Blacks. It was Dr. King who cheered on Republican President Dwight Eisenhower for not only pushing through the Civil Rights Act of 1957 over Democrat opposition, but also for sending troops into Arkansas to desegregate schools that cleared the way for national school desegregation. As a life-long member of the Republican Party, Dr. King fought for the republic, its Constitution and its Bill of Rights that formed the very foundations of this great nation.

“When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. King made no extra-Constitutional guarantees, nor did he seek a circuitous route around hard work and education as goals toward a step-up and not a hand-out. That Black Americans or any Americans should expect a free ride from the labors of their neighbors stood against King’s ethics, his faith and his vision of the American Dream. It stood against all he dedicated his life to and against his vision of individual freedom.

King said: “I have a dream that is deeply rooted in the American Dream.” King valued capitalism and free enterprise and could foresee the day when Blacks were not only part of America’s middle class, but were people of wealth and prosperity due to their own merits, education and hard work. That day has dawned in America, but due to the current economic policies of the Obama administration it is quickly slipping away for people of all colors. Barack Obama made it clear in one of his books that he does not identify with the fates of whites, Hispanics, Asians or other peoples of color.

“I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.” Barack Obama – from his book, Dreams From My Father

The catch for Obama is that his anti-capitalist policies equally impact and devastate the Black worker along with all other Americans. Unlike Obama, King sought justice through equal rights for all through civil law and opportunity and not through the enslavement and nihilism of Socialism. Obama’s “redistribution of wealth” socialist scheme holds all people reliant on and under the control of government. Martin Luther King would find Socialism an anathema to freedom: freedom of will, freedom of aspirations, freedom of self-reliance and freedom of expression whether conservative or liberal. King had a dream and it was not the socialist dream that so consumes Barack Obama. King would note that the poorest cities in the United States have continuously elected Democrats, many of which are Black, who have been the overseers that have plunged Black Americans into ever deepening poverty under Democrat rule. It is Obama and the Democrats’ recklessness that destines this nation into third world status if it is allowed to go unchallenged.

King would be against labor unions crossing the line from being an important organization in support of workers to a corrupt, bloated thuggery that breaks the financial backs of companies that provide jobs for all people — as those unions demand extravagant pensions for its members and labor bosses that most Americans could only dream about. King would be horrified at the heresy of some Democrat Black leaders who wanted the educationally disabling dialect of Ebonics or Black English integrated into course study for black children as a second language posing a clear danger to their futures as productive Americans. He would be horrified that Blacks would accuse educated Blacks of not “being black enough” or “not talking like a black” as if not doing so is a cultural or political impediment. He would admonish a president who told an opposing party that they could ”sit in the back of the bus,” and who, as a political maneuver, threatened vulnerable Seniors of all colors that he might withhold “their social security checks” unless he got his way. King would vehemently oppose a government that ignored threatened violence by Black Panther Party members at the polls. Martin Luther King moved mountains and minds through peaceful means. He, like Rosa Parks (a personal hero) stood up against the wrong thing in the right way.

As all visionaries who are pragmatist at heart, King knew that the government as master came with disheartening and demeaning controls over the lives of individuals. King saw the path to equality through self-determination, getting up and going to work every day, raising families as man and wife, respecting education and seeking God’s wisdom and guidance.

King’s greatest disappointment would be the first Black president’s denigration of people of faith as “clinging to their guns and religion.” King could not foresee a strategic move by a government under Obama to hijack Christianity by attempting to “transform” it into a community-organized, Marxist collectivism based on a substitute gospel of “social justice” of forced seizure of your neighbors’ goods and property. (See: CHRISTIAN PURGE: THE OBAMA FACTOR – PART ONE at http://darwinsracists.com/book/?p=155)

Today, a living reflection of King is his niece, Dr. Alveda King. Though portions of Alveda King’s history is in my book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, her full story is one of deep abiding Christian faith, higher education, an unfailing work ethic, love of country, a strong Constitutionalist and an advocate for people of all colors and backgrounds who are willing to do their share by contributing to the American Dream. It is the same dream her Uncle Martin had of an America where everyone is judged by their character and not the color of their skin. America elected its first Black President. That, America has lost confidence in Obama is not based on his skin color, but the failing of his character and his determined destruction of the American Dream that Martin Luther King lived and died for.

Is that a change of heart or the expression of a cowardly and terrified heart? It is most likely the latter. Let me explain.

Over the last 40 years or so, the ACLU has terrified many school boards, school administrators, and school children by threatening to drag them into court if they pray in public.

A few years ago, they terrified many coaches and sporting event coordinators by warning them that if they dare pray in public, the ACLU would bring about the full weight of their false interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

For many years, they have sent their emissaries across the land, “Gestapo-like,” checking out every small city council, lest they open their meeting with prayer. But now they are coming out of their closets and are supporting Muslim students praying in public schools.

If you think that this defies every aspect of human logic, you would be right.

Fear is a powerful factor – fear devastates logical thinking, fear decimates consistency and their support for Islamic prayer in public schools in San Diego is a clear indication of that fear. They know all too well what will happen to them if they exercise their clever maneuvers on Muslims. They will not see the love and forgiveness they have received from Christians. Rather, they will see the end of the sword.

Surprise, surprise when Kevin Keenan, the spokesperson for the ACLU in San Diego, explained his enthusiastic support for Muslims praying in public schools, he said: “Performing these prayers is widely recognized as one of the five essential pillars of Islam.”

Really? Have they not heard, do they not know that Christians and Jews are also exhorted to pray?

Have they not heard, do they not know that for Christians, prayer is a life-line to their Savior, the God of the universe?

Have they not heard, do they not know that the prophet Daniel was thrown into the den of lions because he would not stop praying to the God of Heaven?

Have they not heard, do they not know that for Christians prayer is the foremost expression of their desire to commit themselves, their schools, their sporting events, and their public meetings to the Lord God Almighty?

Can one hope that appealing to the ACLU to be fair and just and not single out Christians, who are loving and forgiving, will make a difference? Meanwhile, they cower when it comes to Muslims, who may talk with the sword.

Can one appeal to them to see the light before it is too late for them as “infidels”—the first in line to face the sword under the Sharia?

Can one appeal to them to exercise even the most basic of human logic, let alone review history and truth? One can hope.

SOURCE

Posted by John J. 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 here

I am very pleased however to present a third argument that it is the Left who are anti-science. Brilliant young American philosopher Nathan Cofnas has given me permission to present a small excerpt from his forthcoming book Reptiles with a conscience. See below:

Just as some conservatives, mainly religious conservatives, are opposed to science that they perceive as threatening to their religious beliefs, many liberals are opposed to science that they perceive as threatening to their liberal beliefs.

For example, when president of Harvard Larry Summers suggested and provided evidence that innate, biologically rooted differences in aptitude between the sexes explain some of female underrepresentation in quantitative fields, two motions to censure him were introduced by two professors of humanities—anthropologist J. Lorand Matory and sociologist Theda Skocpol—and the ultimately successful movement to fire him was led almost entirely by other professors of humanities, most with no training in psychometrics.

In April 2005 I had an e-mail correspondence with a well-known critic [Nancy Hopkins from MIT] of Larry Summers’ comments on women’s underrepresentation in quantitative fields. Summers said that, because men have a larger variance in math ability, among those qualified to teach mathematics at top universities, which he suggested requires ability corresponding to a math IQ of 160, about 20 percent are women.

I pointed out to this critic that Summers provided data in support of his hypothesis, whereas I had not seen her provide data in any of her public rebuttals of him. She began her response to me with the statement that she is “interested only in the truth!”

She then explained that real potential in mathematics is not measured by the tests on which Summers’ data were based. She wrote: “The top math students in North America are not measured by the SAT score and its tail as Summers suggested, but rather by a much more competitive test that measures the true math genius whiz kids. This test is called the Putnam competition.…

This year, 1 of the 5 Putnam Fellows is a girl. In addition, this year, 4 of the top 15 students in the competition… were women.”

As politely as I could, I pointed out that one out of five is 20 percent, and four out of fifteen is about 27 percent, which is consistent with Summers’ assertion that males are overrepresented at the high end of ability at a ratio of 1:5.

Her response was to tell me that I “cannot listen to the facts that are put before [me]” and that “Old folks like…[me] should retire gracefully into the sunset.”

Her response was very curious to me (not just because I was a seventeen-year-old high school student at the time, which presumably she didn’t know). Why, if Summers said that woman are underrepresented at the high end of ability at a ratio of 1:5, would this critic counter with evidence that confirms exactly that?

She is not stupid. She is a scientist at a top university, and entirely capable of realizing that her own data support the very hypothesis she opposes. If she has no commitment to accepting the implication of evidence, why cite evidence? And why assert interest in truth so emphatically? If she has the intellectual capacity to realize that her own argument is invalid, why would she expect that argument to convince anyone else?

I think that I now can answer these questions. Truth is a value to almost everyone. But most people have many other values to which they are more committed than they are to truth—like in this case, commitment to the belief that the male and female populations have the same distribution of all cognitive abilities and proclivities.

When truth conflicts with more important values, people do not outright deny truth or its importance; they pay as much homage to truth as possible without compromising their more important values. One way of doing this is to pretend to use the method of discovering truth—namely, appealing to empirical evidence or logical argument—to arrive at their predetermined conclusion.

Posted by John J. 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 here

Former US vice-president Al Gore will renew his 30-year campaign to convince skeptics of the link between climate change and extreme weather events this week in a 24-hour global multi-media event.

24 Hours of Reality will broadcast a presentation by Al Gore every hour for 24 hours across 24 different time zones from Wednesday to Thursday, with the aim of convincing climate change deniers and driving action against global warming among households, schools and businesses.

Perhaps he should tell his peeps that they should immediately live the carbon neutral lifestyle, and do things like give up their cars, bike to work, only buy locally, grow their own produce, set the thermostat up to 80 during the summer, give up their smartphones and computers, refuse to take fossil fueled flights, and so on…..what’s that? Then they wouldn’t need to listen to him anymore, and he wouldn’t be able to talk them into purchasing carbon offsets, things that make Gore money? Who knew?

The campaign also asks people to hand over control of their social networking accounts on Facebook and Twitter to it for 24 hours to deliver Gore’s message.

Don’t worry, I’m sure you can trust all the people involved to not mine your Facebook and Twitter accounts for information.

As for you darned skeptics

“There will be 200 new slides arguing the connection between more extreme weather and climate change,” Trewin Restorick, chief executive of the event’s UK partner Global Action Plan, told Reuters on Monday.

“There will be a full-on assault on climate skeptics, exploring where they get their funding from.”

If the idea is to convert skeptics, “assaulting” them, demeaning them, trying to make them out to be bad people is probably not the wisest of ideas. But, then, the idea for this 24 hour gig is not to change people’s minds, but to show that Gore is still relevant, and to get his cult like followers to lobby governments to enact legislation that affects That Other Guy (and could put more money in Gore’s pockets).

The climate alarmists have spend the last 20 years pushing “awareness”, but never practice what they preach. And Gore is one of the worst “carbon pollution” offenders out there.

Here’s one of the stupid promo videos they released in advance for his little project

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

The main thing that the article below is weak on is pointing out that many things considered Rightist today (such as patriotism) were strongly Leftist in the prewar era — and in fact continued to be so until some time after the war. JFK’s famous quotation from Pericles (“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country) was probably the last gasp of genuine patriotism on the American Left.

And Leftists of all sorts were great advocates of eugenics in Hitler’s day. And even Karl Marx was a great antisemite. Hitler was in fact a fairly mainstream leftist by the standards of his time. He just applied German thoroughness to Leftist ideas

The author below does make one slight mention of it but one of the most damning things about the American Left of the prewar era is that they were in fact a major source of Hitler’s ideas. I set out the details of that at some length here.

The article below is unreferenced but my monograph on the subject should supply all the references anyone needs –JR

By Bill Flax

“The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator.” John T. Flynn

Numerous commentators have raised alarming comparisons between America’s recent economic foibles and Argentina’s fall “from breadbasket to basket case.” The U.S. pursues a similar path with her economy increasingly ensnared under the growing nexus of government control. Resources are redistributed for vote-buying welfare schemes, patronage style earmarks, and graft by unelected bureaucrats, quid pro quo with unions, issue groups and legions of lobbyists.

In Argentina, everyone acknowledges that fascism, state capitalism, corporatism – whatever – reflects very leftwing ideology. Eva Peron remains a liberal icon. President Obama’s Fabian policies (Keynesian economics) promise similar ends. His proposed infrastructure bank is just the latest gyration of corporatism. Why then are fascists consistently portrayed as conservatives?

In the Thirties, intellectuals smitten by progressivism considered limited, constitutional governance anachronistic. The Great Depression had apparently proven capitalism defunct. The remaining choice had narrowed between communism and fascism. Hitler was about an inch to the right of Stalin. Western intellectuals infatuated with Marxism thus associated fascism with the Right.

Later, Marxists from the Frankfurt School popularized this prevailing sentiment. Theodor Adorno in The Authoritarian Personality devised the “F” scale to demean conservatives as latent fascists. The label “fascist” has subsequently meant anyone liberals seek to ostracize or discredit.

Fascism is an amorphous ideology mobilizing an entire nation (Mussolini, Franco and Peron) or race (Hitler) for a common purpose. Leaders of industry, science, education, the arts and politics combine to shepherd society in an all encompassing quest. Hitler’s premise was a pure Aryan Germany capable of dominating Europe.

While he feinted right, Hitler and Stalin were natural bedfellows. Hitler mimicked Lenin’s path to totalitarian tyranny, parlaying crises into power. Nazis despised Marxists not over ideology, but because they had betrayed Germany in World War I and Nazis found it unconscionable that German communists yielded fealty to Slavs in Moscow.

The National Socialist German Workers Party staged elaborate marches with uniformed workers calling one another “comrade” while toting tools the way soldiers shoulder rifles. The bright red Nazi flag symbolized socialism in a “classless, casteless” Germany (white represents Aryanism). Fascist central planning was not egalitarian, but it divvied up economic rewards very similarly to communism: party membership and partnering with the state.

Where communists generally focused on class, Nazis fixated on race. Communists view life through the prism of a perpetual workers’ revolution. National Socialists used race as a metaphor to justify their nation’s engagement in an existential struggle.

More HERE

Posted by John J. 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 here

Once again St. Sabina, the “Catholic” Church on Chicago’s South Side, makes the news for race-baiting and down talking our U.S. Constitution. This time it is Chicago’s new Police Superintendent, Garry McCarthy, who appeared at the church and indulged his inner Father Pfleger with a rant on how the US is filled with racists and how the U.S. Constitution was written to kill minorities.

After the race-baiting “Father” Michael Pfleger left the stage, Chicago’s new top cop took his turn at stirring the race hatred instilled deep in the parishioners by years of Pfleger’s demagoguery. Superintendent McCarthy didn’t disappoint the crowd eager for more race-baiting, for sure.

“So here’s what I want to tell you…,” McCathy said warming to his theme. “Slavery. Segregation. Black codes. Jim Crow. What, what did they all have in common? Anybody getting’ scared? Government sponsored racism.”

Then he really got into the weeds…

Now I want you to connect one more dot on that chain of the African American history in this country, and tell me if I’m crazy. Federal gun laws that facilitate the flow of illegal firearms, into our urban centers across this country, that are killing our black and brown children.

The NRA does not like me, and I’m okay with that. We’ve got to get the gun debate back to center, and it’s got to come with the recognition of who’s paying the price for the gun manufacturers being rich and living in gated communities.

This cretin hit all the prosaic, left-wing, demagoguing talking points, didn’t he? What is he, running for Democrat nomination for president here? In fact, it most certainly seems that McCarthy is angling for politics instead of law enforcement with this pandering nonsense, doesn’t it?

So, the Constitution is made to kill blacks and browns and gun manufacturers are nothing but eeeevil rich people. Yep, all the left’s favorite tropes.

What is it with big cities that attract so many anti-American liars like this McCarthy to them?

Ah, but Garry “Joseph” McCarthy had another talking point for more slanderous wallowing. You guessed it, he went after Sarah Palin.

Superintendent “Joseph” McCarthy said he had been watching an episode of Sarah Palin’s Alaska and her caribou hunting episode made him furious, or something.

She was caribou hunting and talking about the right to bear arms. Why wasn’t she at the crime scene with me?

Um… maybe because she isn’t a Chicago cop, you idiot?

But let me make a supposition, here. I will guarantee that “Joe” McCarthy has never in his demagoguing life seen an episode of Sarah Palin’s Alaska. You got it. I am calling this man a liar. And a panderer.

Finally, it looks like we might be expecting Garry “Joseph” McCarthy to be a law-breaking top cop. If he is so against the Second Amendment, my guess is that he’ll be violating the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions that run against his un-American point of view and he’ll find ways not to enforce the Court’s decisions.

With the City of Chicago already running into major trouble with roving bands of black gangs attacking and robbing people in broad daylight in wiliding incidents (and it’s only a matter of time before they start killing people) we have a top cop more interested in appearing at racist churches making race-baiting speeches than doing his job. Emanuel better watch out because what we obviously have here is just another arrogant jack-booted thug that thinks he should be allowed to make up his own laws instead of enforcing the laws actually on the books.

Rahm Emanuel better quickly rein in this man who seems to be running for some political position instead of doing his job as the city’s highest police official.