We are taught about the inherent injustice and moral depravity of racism. We are taught that such practices are not to be tolerated anywhere on this planet if justice and freedom are to be preserved for all. We are taught that racism and slavery must be eliminated or strongly suppressed wherever encountered.

This all sounds good and can be accepted at face value until we examine the antics of the far left.

The problems now begin: The liberals, who have made the greatest political gains with the issues of racism, seem to be unable to see how they, themselves, put into practice and embrace this disgusting and immoral course of action.

What is racism and how do we recognize it?? The answer is quite complicated and politically stacked to grant some phony escape-free platform to attack others while, hypocritically, practicing overt racism with the full support of the media.  It seems that blacks cannot be racists because they have not power. This is a stunning achievement and a piece of wonderment. Jesse Jackson, Cynthia McKinney and Al Sharpton have no power? One would imagine that any forms of discrimination and advantage that are clearly based on race or other ethnic attributes would be defined as racism and condemned.  Not for the liberals.

Not even close to being so.

Here are some examples of racism and how they are played on the liberal stage:

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York comments on a judicial appointment for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of Judge Southwick. Here are his exact words:

Schumer: “When it comes to the area of race and racism, we have to bend over backwards,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N. Y. , a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I certainly don’t think he’s a racist,” Schumer added. “His words have to be seen in context. Like it or not when he’s nominated to the Fifth Circuit he’s carrying 200 and some odd years…on his back. That is the issue here.”

I don’t think Al Gore is a Communist although his father took money from Armand Hammer, whose father founded the Communist Party USA and Al himself grubbed for money from the Red Chinese in some Buddhist Temple and lied about it.  I don’t think Hillary is, necessarily, a Communist although her champion in college was Saul Alinsky, an avowed Communist.  The Clintons took in a lot of Communist monies as well. I do think Schumer is a racist or race-baiter.

I never say that “when around left-liberal Democrats that I sometimes detect a burly scent of Communism”, at least not all the time.

Here, Schumer’s motives have been correctly elucidated by an alert blogger[1]  named Allahpundit who demonstrates that the Senator from New York is actually  “...accusing him [the judge]  of the appearance of racism” and alerts the universe that he carries  “200 and some odd years” of such behavior.

The left only carry some 150 years of Communism around in their pockets for instant reference so there is a major difference.  The left liberal Democrats have shown us many examples of the appearance of being Communist stooges, as in the Viet Nam war and as exemplified by Democrat  Jim Wright, former Speaker of the House when he cooed and fawned over Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro.

We might be able to give the good senator a break here in terms of his waxy syntax if it were not for the fact that he cannot condemn, or even mention,  overt racism in his own party like Senator Byrd of WVA or Al Sharpton of NYC.

From Byrd: Year 2004:  “I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time…”[2]

And:

Byrd, when he was 28 years old, wrote to segregationist Senator Theodore Bilbo, of Mississippi, vowing never to serve in such a military:

“Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds[3]”

Senator Schumer, like other racist enablers, needs to ignore and wax silent on such comments because Senator Byrd is a desperately needed for his left liberal vote in the Senate.  He can be a racist [or not] if he votes for expensive social programs and tax increases  as a liberal Democrat.

There are more examples

Al Sharpton speaks:

White folks were in caves while we were building empires.... We taught philosophy, astrology, and mathematics before Socrates and those Greek homos.[4]

 

And: "What’s wrong with denouncing white interlopers?"[5]

We can then wonder what is wrong with denouncing black racists. But, that will not work with the current set of Democrats in office.

A former instructor at N.C. State University, Kamau Kambon said blacks must "..exterminate white people off the face of the planet."[6]

Imagine the explosion if some college instructor turned the colors around on this statement. The eruptions would exceed, we expect, the attack on Rush Limbaugh for talking about ‘phony’ soldiers.   Liberal racists are not phony.

Where are the good Senator Schumer and his comments about these examples?? Schumer can hint and grope low for some obscure history of the Americas for examples that might support his oblique attack on Republicans in the veiled guise of morality but cannot seem to identify stark, blatant examples of racism by blacks against whites or by his fellow liberal Democrats on the floors of Congress . This is known as political reciprocity.  And, it is politically successful, as we obviously see.  It gets votes and must be politically correct.

In passing, we can wonder what this means:

“Chris Rock when he says, “I love black people, but I hate niggers,” even if they themselves are not allowed to make such an honest declaration.[7]”

One wonders what color these niggers might be if not black??

For the left, the sleaze of racism drags on and this will continue until demagogues like Schumer and Byrd lose votes when they exploit bigotry and demagoguery for political gain. That will take some time.

The Dr. Martin Luther King notion of a colorblind society is made impossible by the rabid left.

rycK

The Political Hoax and Other Follies Such as Global Warming

We need to examine, critically, the notion of hoaxes and their utility  in politics and science and structure some political response as to how they originated, but more importantly, how they influence certain political outcomes by the work of those perpetrators who construct such monstrosities. As always, politics is  based on persuasion—not fact as we shall see below:

From the past we can identify such famous hoaxes as The Ems Dispatch[1], The Protocols of the Elders of Zion[2], Margaret Mead’s crude racist political stunt Coming of Age in Samoa [3], the startling record finish of the Boston Marathon runner Rosie Ruiz Vivas[4], The Priory of Sion[5] , Global Warming and the recent article published in frontpagemag.com:  Who Hates Americans? We Do.

Manyof these hoaxes produced political or personal sensations, financial rewards,  started wars, legitimized Anti-Semitism or other pressures against certain groups, projected political views into certain cultures, produced a champion athlete who used  bus to aid her running skills, gave accounts of a secret society and  have convinced millions of the demise of the Earth.

 The recent flyer seen circulated in several universities entitled Who Hates Americans? We Do. [6] fits into the political hoax category. The question we always ponder on the hoax mechanism is this: who benefits from this falsification of circumstances or facts?? A review of previous hoaxes shows that millions of people were to believe, and still do,  the phony newspaper reports of Walter Duranty [7], the political propagandist and stooge for the Soviets and  a celebrated Pulitzer Prize winner for the New York Times. The fact that he published lies has little to do with his success in influencing the far left wing in America in their fervid support of Marxism. Similarly, the disgusting prejudice, bigotry and intolerance of certain social and religious values detested by Margaret Mead as she provided ‘proof’ that:

"She emphatically criticized the neurosis-inducing nuclear family, including the stress of Christian monogamy, and used her Samoan material to demonstrate an alternative to premarital chastity..."[8]

and her phony, political conclusions are still celebrated as a foundation in cultural studies. Mead is highly regarded as some wondrous pillar of authority in academic circles by those who seek to attack basic American culture. She will be surpassed in beauty and acclaim only by the discoverer of the gay gene, when that happens, and it will. This is both a political necessity and a political certainty.

Following all this we must include the Global Warming Hoax as a construct strictly conforming to the classic definition of the hoax and skirting the usual scientific precepts employed to examine such wild claims. Al Gore has assembled a group of people [read stooges in some cases] who attest to some impending climatic holocaust and has ignored, even suppressed any contradiction of his claims. People who even attempt to question his ‘findings’ and obvious propaganda are subjected to the most acute ridicule by the media, such as the New York Times. Those who would impede capitalism, which includes the PRC, India and most of the third world, are wildly enthusiastic about restraining growth in the US, hence the political basis for this hoax. Here the usual scientific rational criteria that are most necessary to support, compare and define scientific conclusions are summarily dismissed in an emotional political comportment characteristic of the hoax phenomenon. Al Gore and his politicos employ blatant pseudoscience, which is defined as  “…any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific or is made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method.[9]” We must note, with some concern, that so-called ‘scientists’ and ‘authorities’ support the Global Warming Hoax with ‘data’ that cannot stand the examination and tolerate free discussions  of  the scientific data and basis [10]:

[1] Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

 

[2] Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.

 

[3] Failure to make use of operational definitions. (i.e. a scientific description of the operational means in which a range of numeric measurements can be obtained).[24]

 

[4] Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony.

 

[5] Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.

 

[6] Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess boundary conditions (well articulated limitations) under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.

 

[7] Lack of effective controls in experimental design.

Here, items [1], [2], [6] and [7]  are seen to properly characterize the Global Warming Hoax as pseudoscience. We can correctly ask:

Where is the source for the ideal mean temperature of the Earth and how is it measured? What is the standard error in such measurements?

 

How do you measure the mean temp? Select certain cities and average the readings?

 

Why do satellites no show a significant increase in temperature in the upper atmosphere?

 

What are the effects of sun spot activity on the heat radiated upon the Earth?

 

How do you identify and confirm cyclic phenomena in weather patters and relate them to temperature trends?

Their data set is essentially all political and insufficient to demonstrate their claims. They substitute emotion in place of scant and insufficient experimental results and demand chauvinistic belief in their wild claims and ardently suppress criticism of their implausible conclusions. Do they really use tree rings to ‘correct’ temperature readings from the last century? This is classic hoax mechanism disguised as science that employs pseudoscience in its most elegant form.  We can expect such from politicians.

Never the less, millions believe this phony political circus.

When the FrontPagemag article[11] was featured on a Townhall blog [12] by this blogger the result was a firm disbelief in the political attributes of this hoax and resulted in dismissal of the authenticity by some and a refutation by others[13]. My guess was that this flyer was proffered by the far left. The response to the wording of the flyer by Lord Upright, however,  is classic leftist rhetoric and amplifies the nature and basis of this piece and tends to support my tentative view. His mechanical response highlights the standard leftist views on the pejorative words and themes in the flyer and gives us some proof that it is a political tool and probably leftist in origin. The fact that it may be, or is, a hoax is subordinate to the political objectives here, and parallels the phony support for Global Warming and its attendant Nobel War Prize. It is not known who wrote or circulated this paper, but it had the hallmarks of a political hoax and the comments and fluff and foam associated with placing this on the Internet had predictable results. It worked. The liberals were properly outraged as expected.

The Who Hates Americans? We Do piece is classic example of propaganda and the political players have responded to it as predicted. Puppets and sausage machines work in this fashion. It was designed to be divisive, offer a signal clarion call to those from the far left or far right for a vigorous and noisy response and many performed in the expected political  left-liberal  or far-right fashion. The public is apparently too ignorant of politics to venture beyond their fears and prejudices to critically examine the FrontPage article, the War on Terrorism , Global Warming, that Hillary Clinton is “The Smartest Women in the World,[14]”  the success of capitalism or much else.

What else is new in politics?? Nothing: Same old same old.  Walter Duranty, Uncle Joe Stalin, FDR and Margaret Meade would have been proud. Al Gore is ecstatic.

Propaganda works: Read the New York Times for proof.

rycK

Hillary and her Manifold Crimes: Subsidizes the Far Left Blogs and Listens in on Conversations.

Lies, sleaze and criminal actions continue to be the defining attributes of the Clintons and this is the latest pair of  instances in  a long history of criminal activity. Such is the sleazy legacy of those who would pollute the once-noble Party of Democrats.  We can reflect on Whitewater, Castle Grande, her Saul Alinsky Marxist Follies and her ignorance of the philandering of her worthless husband who spent several weeks in Moscow in 1969 while our troops were dying in Viet Nam and wonder with shock and awe.

So, on goes the sleaze:

Here, we find that Hillary admits to some them what  seems to mean she started and funded a blog:

We  learn, from the maw of the Monster “… she helped "start" and "support" Media Matters.”  Supposedly a  non profit 501(c)(3)  corporation. ^[1] Isn’t that swell? And so fair and balanced we expect.  She shrieks and  confesses:”  I Started Media Matters [5] .” ^[2]

At a convention of left-wing bloggers last summer, Hillary Clinton announced, “We are . . . putting together a network in the blogosphere.” [3]

Her remarks became public only three weeks ago, on Oct. 2, when an anonymous person posted a shaky, hand-held videotape of her speech on YouTube. In it, Hillary bragged that she had helped create “institutions” which had produced a left-wing “network in the blogosphere” capable of “matching” the alleged “advantage of the other side.” [4]

Isn’t  this illegal? But, does it matter for a Clinton? No.

Not only does this crooked lawyer [ no trials  or law review articles]  illegally subsidize political antics prohibited by  law and an affront to IRS rules, she now barrows a bit from her criticism of  the conservatives, such as the current War on Terrorism, by listening in on people’s phone conversations. This is the antic of a psychopath.

Then, we have this from Jeff Gerth’s  new book ^[5]:

In the book “Her Way,” former New York Times investigative reporter and Times investigative reporter Don Van Natta Jr. wrote that during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign,

 “Hillary’s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. [6]

 

“She received memos about the status of various press inquiries, she vetted senior campaign aides; and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack.” [7]

 

"In a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress, we’re beginning to match what I had said for years was the advantage of the other side.” [8]

 
This is completely sick but praiseworthy and consummate  in liberal terms. And this person wants to be in our government?? Where do these people slither forth from??

What is the statute of limitations on this kind of crime??

Will she get off this on like she did with the subpoenaed Rose Law firm billing records she apparently hid in the White House.

Hillary and Bill have a lot of criminals on the payroll and may survive this new  pair of outrages. The liberal Democrats will vote her way and any liberal who makes it into the White House will certainly pardon her and her criminal groupies.  They can suck money in the best traditions of Grunt and Grab from Communists and Islamo-Fascisti and professional criminals and escape punishment.

I think we are a bit too tolerant in our society when it comes to criminal activity. The liberals apparently think the worst they can get in punishment is the Sandy Berger Sentence,  or nothing. BTW, where is his mandated lie detector test and results??

Sleaze and Corruption in the Clinton Camp as always.

rycK

__

A ‘Hoax,’ Leftist Slogans, Nov 31 and Other Follies.

It seems we have some kind of ‘proof’ that the flyer [1]was a hoax. Of course, there is no indication from frontpagemag.com as to this effect. If it was a hoax then it was politically effective.

We can always check a few items against the standard leftist slogans and wonder:

From the flyer:

Your typical American is:

                                    Ø A racist. A sexist. A homophobe.

                                    Ø An Islamo-phobe.

                                    Ø Is willing to invade other countries for oil and pleasure.

                                    Ø Is easily manipulated by Rush Limbaugh and Jews

All this is a perfect fit and conforms to  the far left’s agenda and propaganda base. We can all recall the Jesse MacBeth rants and lies that were so popular with moveon.org and other propaganda rags like the New York Times. Some of us remember Jane Fonda and others from the 60s who made similar comments.

 Politics is not generally based on absolute truth and, as such, tends toward persuasion in its methods and intent. Here, the comments on the flyer are exactly what we would expect from the leftists, word or word, so it matters not where it came from if the screed merely parrots the party line.

I find no reason to think that it is not either authentic or, if it is a ploy, then it becomes a gold standard model of the usual and hackneyed leftist rants. A brick is a brick when it comes to building a road.

Either way, it highlights the bigotry and sleaze and racism employed by the left in all cases. Michael Moore or  Sean Penn, if sober,  would have been proud to pen this.

Where is the evidence it is a hoax besides some calendar error?? A lot of liberals are too stoned to know what day it is. We need more than this.

jmnsho, ryck

Liberals Sponsor a Hate America Day where they can praise Islamo-Fascists and Marxists

Here is a self-descriptive flyer reprinted on the David Horowitz site[1]. This kind of anti-American hate is supported by the Democrats as we note Dennis and Kucinich  and Ron Paul, persons who wanted to be president or whatever.  

This is the kind of tactics that left-liberals need to inspire the criminals, terrorists, muggers, dope peddlers and other contributors to left-liberalism. As usual, the Communists are present as is Sean Penn.

____________________________________________________________

Who Hates Americans? We Do.

                                    Your typical American is:

  &