Archive for the ‘Victim Mentality’ Category
Recently, the Pentagon hired a rabid, anti-Christian fanatic to advice them on how to make the military more “tolerant.” His first recommendation has been to court-martial Christians who dare to share their faith with another service member.
“Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.”
Those words were recently written by Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), in a column he wrote for the Huffington Post. Weinstein will be a consultant to the Pentagon to develop new policies on religious tolerance, including a policy for court-martialing military chaplains who share the Christian Gospel during spiritual counseling of American troops.
[...] Many media outlets are silent on this disturbing new alliance between fanatical secularists and leaders in the Pentagon appointed by President Barack Obama and Secretary Chuck Hagel, under which the U.S. military would officially consult with someone with such foaming-at-the-mouth passionate hostility toward traditional Christians, including Evangelicals and devout Catholics. The military—America’s most heroic and noble institution—includes countless people of faith, and this represents a radical departure from the U.S. military’s warm embrace of people of faith in its ranks.
Yet the little coverage this story is getting is positive, such as thisWashington Post column that somehow manages not to carry any of these frightening quotes from Weinstein and instead actually endorses the Pentagon’s meeting with him. Sally Quinn’s Postcolumn also approvingly quotes MRFF Advisory Board member Larry Wilkerson as saying, “Sexual assault and proselytizing, according to Wilkerson, ‘are absolutely destructive of the bonds that keep soldiers together.’”
Did you get that? They say having someone share the Christian gospel with you is akin to being raped. Weinstein makes sure there are no doubts, being quoted by the Post as adding, “This is a national security threat. What is happening [aside from sexual assault] is spiritual rape. And what the Pentagon needs is to understand is that it is sedition and treason. It should be punished.”
Now, it appears that the military is preparing to court-martial anyone who tries to share the Good News:
The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense…Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis…”.
The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith.
This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains (or any service members, for that matter), to say anything about their faith that others say led them to think they were being encouraged to make faith part of their life. It’s difficult to imagine how a member of the clergy could give spiritual counseling without saying anything that might be perceived in that fashion.
Ironic that the very men and women who volunteered to defend liberty are now watching their most basic, unalienable rights being stripped away, all in the name of “tolerance.” Is this what they fought for?
In the twisted mind of the Left (the ideology of which the United Nations is the primary propagandist), telling a woman that she can’t murder her child is the same as genitally mutilating her.
Offering a person the counseling and therapy needed to address the deep wounds at the root of same-sex attraction is equal to torturing and beating them.
You can’t even reason with someone that detached from reality and logic. Black is white, up is down, wrong is right, love is hate, night is day…and nothing you say will convince them otherwise.
A recent United Nations report on torture and mistreatment in health care systems around the world singled out lack of access to abortion as a form of “torture,” classifying it as a human rights violation on par with female genital mutilation, forced sterilizations and state-sanctioned beatings.
The report also says governments should recognize the preferred sex of ‘transgender’ individuals without regard to biology, arguing that forcing such people to undergo sex-reassignment surgery in order to prove their case is equivalent to torture.
[...] The report calls for the “elimination of homophobia” in health care settings, calling on “all States to repeal any law allowing intrusive and irreversible treatments, including forced genital-normalizing surgery … ‘reparative therapies’ or ‘conversion therapies,’ when enforced or administered without the free and informed consent of the person concerned.”
[...] One of the main ‘protection gaps’ identified was a lack of easy access to abortion in some countries.
“The Committee against Torture has repeatedly expressed concerns about restrictions on access to abortion and about absolute bans on abortion as violating the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment,” Mendez wrote.
In the densely-worded 23-page report, Mendez devotes an entire section to “Reproductive Rights Violations.” While a list of violations towards the beginning of the section includes female genital mutilation, forced abortion, and forced sterilizations, much of the text that follows is focused on abortion access.
If anyone wants to argue that the same government currently forcing religious institutions to purchase the abortion pill through ObamaCare will not eventually use civil rights violations in order to attempt to force the Church to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies — good luck with that.
But this would have been unthinkable five years ago.
It was just three months ago that the White House and media piled on a reverend for preaching the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality. The result was his invitation to speak at Obama’s inauguration being rescinded.
This would have been unthinkable five years ago.
With the election of Pope Francis, we have news anchors openly clamoring that the Church is out of step on same-sex marriage.
This would have been unthinkable five years ago.
Fifteen years ago, the same leftists and media assuring us today that same-sex marriage won’t be imposed on the Church were telling us that civil unions (which I’ve always supported) would never lead to gay marriage.
With all that in mind, am I really supposed to buy that, within five years (maybe five days), the left and the media won’t be incessantly asking this question: “If the Church cannot legally refuse to marry an interracial couple, how can it legally refuse same-sex couples?”
As long as there are still Christians who actually follow Christ and uphold his word, a vast amount of people around the world — never mind Islam — will never ever see gay marriage as anything other than a legal encroachment of God’s intent.
So those Christians must be silenced. The left exerted a great deal of energy to convince everyone that the gay lifestyle is an alternative form of normal. It then has exerted a great deal of energy convincing people that because the gay lifestyle is just another variation of normal, gay marriage must be normalized.
Meanwhile, those Christians are out there saying it is not normal and are refusing to accept it as normal because of silly God dared to say marriage is a union between a man and woman.
Any Christian who refuses to recognize that man wants to upend God’s order will have to be driven from the national conversation. They will be labeled bigots and ultimately criminals.
Already we have seen florists, bakers, and photographers suffer because they have refused to go along with the cultural shift toward gay marriage. There will be more.
Once the world decides that real marriage is something other than natural or Godly, those who would point it out must be silenced and, if not, punished. The state must be used to do this. Consequently, the libertarian pipe dream of getting government out of marriage can never ever be possible.
Within a year or two we will see Christian schools attacked for refusing to admit students whose parents are gay. We will see churches suffer the loss of their tax exempt status for refusing to hold gay weddings. We will see private businesses shut down because they refuse to treat as legitimate that which perverts God’s own established plan. In some places this is already happening.
Christians should, starting yesterday, work on a new front. While we should not stop the fight to preserve marriage, and we may be willing to compromise on civil unions, we must start fighting now for protections for religious objectors to gay marriage.
Churches, businesses, and individuals who refuse to accept gay marriage as a legitimate institution must be protected as best we can. Those protections will eventually crumble as the secular world increasingly fights the world of God, but we should institute those protections now and pray they last as long as possible.
Daniel Smyth writes at the Washington Times about a new scheme in New York to use anti-discrimination laws to force pro-lifers to either compromise their convictions or go out of business:
New York could soon shut down Catholic and other health care providers for not offering or referring for abortions. Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, with enough support in the New York state legislature, could sign a reproductive health act (RHA) this year. Among other actions, the act would declare that New York “shall not discriminate against the exercise of…[abortion] rights…in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.”
The New York State Catholic Conference argues this “no discrimination of abortion rights” provision could “permit state regulators…to require support for abortion from any agency or institution licensed or funded by the state.” As the state grants medical licenses, New York could deny licenses to — and thus shut down — such institutions as Catholic and other hospitals or clinics that refuse to support abortion. New York could also deny these institutions Medicaid payments and other funding, which some of these institutions need for financial stability.
Other provisions in New York’s RHA would establish abortion on demand in New York. For instance, the RHA would permit abortions until birth, allow public funding of abortion and repeal the requirement of parental notifications for minors’ abortions.
Sadly, this is only the latest example in a larger agenda to attack and marginalize people of faith:
Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close their doors in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., because their religious beliefs about marriage were deemed unacceptable by their jurisdictions.
A graduate student in Michigan was expelled from a counseling program because her religious beliefs about marriage were deemed unacceptable by school officials.
Christian pharmacists in Illinois were told to find other professions because their religious beliefs regarding when life begins were deemed unacceptable by the state.
Private business owners are facing enormous fines because their beliefs about when life begins have been deemed unacceptable by the federal government.
Pastor Louie Giglio did not deliver the closing prayer at President Obama’s inauguration ceremony because his religious beliefs about marriage were deemed unacceptable by the administration.
[...] Compared with others around the world, people of faith in America enjoy extraordinary freedoms. Our lives are not in danger. We do not face imprisonment or torture for holding unpopular convictions.
Yet when people of faith are restricted from fully participating in society — owning businesses, entering the medical profession or providing much-needed charitable services — an intolerable trade-off has occurred. The government has exceeded its boundary, and the figurative wall between church and state must be strengthened.
[...] The tide has turned, and we have begun to see the emergence of a state-created orthodoxy. It deems support for traditional marriage unacceptable. It discredits those who believe that life begins at conception. It disfavors their faith — held for centuries by their predecessors — and creates a regulatory framework to prevent them from fully participating in the public square.
When the government says, “You can believe whatever you want, but you will be penalized if you exercise those beliefs,” we have entered dangerous territory. We cannot allow a religious litmus test to determine who may participate in American life. We must defend the Constitution not only in form, but also in effect.
This is EXACTLY what this Alinsky intimidation campaign was designed to do: frighten away donors and dry up the funds for any group that dares to defy the radical leftist gay agenda.
Dan Cathy has to do what he believes is right for his business, and he may think that his decision has proved that he’s not a “hater” or “bigot,” but in fact, this victory will embolden the bullies to use these tactics against other conservative business owners and organizations in the future.
Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy and the head of a national gay-rights group have made peace.
“I’ve gotten to know Dan; he’s gotten to know me,” Shane Windmeyer, executive director of Campus Pride, told ABC News on Monday. “He’s shared concerns about young people, about Chick-fil-A being used for certain purposes.”
[...] Chick-fil-A, he told ABC, had stopped donating to anti-gay groups, according to his review of the company’s 990 tax forms.
Chick-fil-A long has donated to socially conservative groups. In July, the anti-gay group Equality Matters examined tax forms and found that in 2010 the company had donated more than $1.9 million to “anti-gay causes.”
In September, the restaurant chain agreed to stop donating to anti-gay groups.
But Chick-fil-A said in a statement on Monday: “Over the past three years alone, Chick-fil-A has given more than $68 million in contributions to over 700 different educational and charitable organizations around the country, in addition to providing millions of dollars in food donations.
“While we evaluate individual donations on an annual basis, our giving is focused on three key areas: youth and education, leadership and family enrichment and serving the local communities in which we operate. Our intent is to not support political or social agendas. This has been the case for more than 60 years.”
They won’t be happy until it is literally a “hate crime” to criticize sexually immoral behavior. Christians, it’s long past time to wake up.
We expect the “tolerant-oppressives” on the Left to attempt to smear Christianity as de facto bigotry; it’s just another weapon in their never-ending crusade to destroy religion. But the media and our White House taking an active role in such a thing marks a new era for Christians and Christianity, and, I fear, not a good one.
We have now officially reached a point where the elite media and a sitting president not only believe Christianity is bigotry, but that this bigotry is worthy of ostracizing from public life those who believe in the teachings of the Bible.
[...] What we’re seeing with the left and the media…is that believing in the teachings of the Bible, and more importantly, espousing and professing those beliefs, is now treated as though it’s hate speech, bigotry, homophobia, or worse.
If Tea Partiers behaved like this, I guarantee Obama would have soundly condemned it and the footage would have been all over the news 24/7 for the next week.
Instead, the media has done a nearly complete blackout:
Last night, all the major television networks chose not to show footage of violent union members in Michigan tearing down a tent owned by Americans for Prosperity, or footage of a union member punching Fox News contributor Steven Crowder in the face repeatedly. This is no surprise; the mainstream media is unconcerned with reports of union violence, which they apparently feel is justified enough not to warrant coverage.
“The pro-union broadcast networks are deliberately censoring footage of thuggish union violence directed at conservatives,” said Media Research President Brent Bozell. “If a Tea Partier had physically assaulted a liberal journalist or ripped down a structure occupied by a liberal organization all on video, the footage would be broadcast on an endless loop. ABC, CBS, and NBC have a responsibility to the American people to expose what’s really happening in Michigan. Their double standard is absolutely outrageous.”
Outrageous, but not unexpected. In typical Alinsky fashion, the Left is trying to pin the blame on the victims.
The Obama White House refuses to condemn the violence which has already been caught on tape, which is showing ironic restraint considering the fact that he felt free to jump in and swiftly condemn a white police officer for doing his duty in the Henry Louis Gates, Jr. affair, or to exploit the Trayvon Martin shooting for his own advantage, without all the facts.
White House spokesman Jay Carney declined to condemn the increasing violence and threats by union members in Michigan, merely telling reporters Tuesday that “the president believes in debate that’s civil.”
When asked by a reporter about a claim by Michigan state Democrat that “there will be blood” should Republicans pass a union-choice law in Michigan, Carney professed ignorance and then downplayed the comment.
“I haven’t see those comments, and I’m not sure they mean what someone interprets them to mean,” he said.
The union violence, which included at least one televised assault on a journalist, followed an Obama rally in Michigan Dec. 10, when he declared that right-to-work laws are a political effort to slash wages.
Obama’s Dec. 10 speech did not call for civil debate, or non-violence.
Of course the media is ignoring leftist violence, because it doesn’t fit their narrative that the left is “tolerant” and it’s those “right wing extremist” Tea Partiers you supposedly have to worry about.
The Tragedy Of America’s Welfare State: Head Of A Household Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60K A Year
Any of you Christian Socialists want to explain to me how this is supposedly moral and Biblical?
Tonight’s stunning financial piece de resistance comes from Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current. In what is sure to inspire some serious ire among all those who once believed Ronald Reagan that it was the USSR that was the “Evil Empire”, Emmerich analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that “a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year.” And that excludes benefits from Supplemental Security Income disability checks. America is now a country which punishes those middle-class people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system. Not surprisingly, it is not only the richest and most audacious thieves that prosper – it is also the penny scammers at the very bottom of the economic ladder that rip off the middle class each and every day, courtesy of the world’s most generous entitlement system. Perhaps if Reagan were alive today, he would wish to modify the object of his once legendary remark.
You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.
My chart tells the story. It is pretty much self-explanatory.
Stunning? Just do it yourself.Almost all welfare programs have Web sites where you can call up “benefits calculators.” Just plug in your income and family size and, presto, your benefits are automatically calculated.
The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimu wage) has more disposable income than a amily making $60,000 a year.
And if that wasn’t enough, here is one that will blow your mind:If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.
Is it any wonder why some people have decided it’s easier to just stop looking for work altogether?
Exactly two years ago, some of the more politically biased progressive media outlets (who are quite adept at creating and taking down their own strawmen arguments, if not quite as adept at using an abacus, let alone a calculator) took offense at our article “In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year.” In it we merely explained what has become the painful reality in America: for increasingly more it is now more lucrative – in the form of actual disposable income – to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, “the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.”
We realize that this is a painful topic in a country in which the issue of welfare benefits, and cutting (or not) the spending side of the fiscal cliff, have become the two most sensitive social topics. Alas, none of that changes the matrix of incentives for most Americans who find themselves in a comparable situation: either being on the left side of minimum US wage, and relying on benefits, or move to the right side at far greater personal investment of work, and energy, and… have the same disposable income at the end of the day.
The Cloward-Piven strategy goes into overdrive.
Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your new country can do for you.
“Welcome to USA.gov,” a website maintained by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), bills itself as the “primary gateway for new immigrants to find basic information on how to settle in the United States” — featuring a prominent section for new immigrants about how to access government benefits.
“Depending on your immigration status, length of time in the United States, and income, you may be eligible for some federal benefit programs,” the Web page reads.
“Government assistance programs can be critically important to the well-being of some immigrants and their families. Frequently, however, there is a lack of information about how to access such benefits. Benefit programs can be complicated and you may be given misleading information about how they operate.”
The DHS page offers links to government websites that explain how to access benefits including food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, Medicare, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the “official website with information on all available federal benefit programs,” with a nonworking link to Benefits.gov.
WelcometoUSA.gov also boasts to immigrants that “[f]ree public education for children is one reason many immigrants come to the United States.”
Their goal is to get so many people dependent on government that the system collapses from unsustainable demands. Then they can build a communist utopia from the ashes.
Amazingly, lawmakers in the liberal bastion of Massachusetts are balking at this idea:
Massachusetts lawmakers are fuming over a new government website that promotes welfare and EBT benefits to immigrants. All of this comes on the heels of Monday’s announcement from Governor Deval Patrick that illegal immigrants will now qualify for in state tuition in Massachusetts.
Children who grow up without fathers in the home are more likely to grow up in poverty, have difficulty in school, get in trouble with the law, engage in risky behaviors like drugs and premarital sex, and end up in prison or on welfare.
People from intact nuclear families are far less likely to look to government as their sugar daddy. The Democrats know this, which is why Johnson’s “Great Society” created perverse incentives for women to have children out of wedlock and for men to abandon their families. They were creating a permanent welfare class that puts the government in the place of a parent as provider.
The chance that a 22-year-old white face in that crowd was born out of wedlock is 1 in 5. For a black 22-year-old, the chances are 67%. Overall, the probability that any 22-year-old in that crowd was born illegitimate is 28%. These are the CDC’s numbers for 1990. The number of illegitimate births has been steadily exploding since the ’60s, so the odds decline for people older than 22 and skyrocket for people younger. [...]
As a society, we are in deep, treacherous, and uncharted waters. For the first time, we’re approaching a majority population that differs at the deepest personal level from every human generation before it. The impact of an absent male in a child’s life has been a cause of much hand-wringing in the academic world and much bloodshed on our streets. However, no one seems to appreciate the influence of a fatherless childhood on the political behavior of children as they mature.
[..] The millennial generation grew up in a world of women as children alienated from their fathers. One in three Millennials rejects religious faith altogether. The idea of a relationship with a God who loves and cares for them apparently is as implausible to them as a similar relationship with their fathers.
Among the political realities of 2012, is there any more important than understanding the impact of fatherlessness on the nation’s political life? How does a message of economic and religious freedom reach a person profoundly alienated from both at birth? What would a young voter, deprived of a father and devoid of faith in God, seek from government? What kind of a president would he or she identify with?
In recent years, America elected two presidents whose fathers were notoriously MIA. Did these men attract voters at a much deeper level than anyone has realized? Conversely, does the revulsion shown to both presidents from a large part of the nation reflect an equal but opposite response? Does the left instinctively understand how to exploit the fatherless, while the right remains clueless?
These kids are damaged long before they’re delivered to a deranged educational system. The NEA-dominated system is at best a day care that enables fatherlessness while providing an institutional model of both compulsion and dependence. At worst, it is a nursery of the state, where vulnerable children are exposed to relentless brainwashing that reinforces their insecurities and cripples their abilities. The system’s victims are being delivered in growing numbers, vulnerable and ready to be programmed to resent independence and freedom.
The important thing to remember is that this is BY DESIGN. Leftists DELIBERATELY undermine the family and provide perverse incentives for illegitimacy and single parenthood through our welfare system because they WANT people to look to the Nanny State as their provider and ultimate authority in their lives…from generation to generation. Obama exacerbated this by rolling back the Clinton-era welfare reforms.
Welfare reform, removing perverse incentives, policies that support nuclear families and community outreach through groups like CURE are CRUCIAL to weaning people off of government and back into healthy, interdependent families that can care for their own.
The 1977 “Community Reinvestment Act” laid the groundwork for racial bias in lending. Banks were forced to fulfill racial quotas - even if that meant relaxing lending standards – or face fines and shake-down campaigns from the likes of ACORN activists.
Now Obama is expanding racial bias to nearly every industry:
If your organization has a policy or practice that doesn’t benefit minorities equally, watch out: The Obama administration could sue you for racial discrimination under a dubious legal theory that many argue is unconstitutional.
President Obama intends to close “persistent gaps” between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation rates.
His remedy — short of new affirmative-action legislation — is to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on “disparate impact” complaints — a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences, opposed 2 to 1 by Americans.
Under this broad interpretation of civil-rights law, virtually any organization can be held liable for race bias if it maintains a policy that negatively impacts one racial group more than another — even if it has no racist motive and applies the policy evenly across all groups.
Obama has a long history of punishing producers in his quest for minority justice.
State Sen. Barack Obama and his radical mentor and friend Fr. Michael Pfleger led a protest against the payday loan industry demanding the State of Illinois to regulate loan businesses back in January 2000. (NBC 5 Week of January 3, 2000)
In his next term Obama is going back to his roots as a community organizer.
The Cloward-Piven strategy to overwhelm the system with impossible demands is doing exactly what it was designed to do: eventually collapse the system to pave the way for a communist revolution.
Federal welfare spending has grown by 32 percent over the past four years, fattened by President Obama’s stimulus spending and swelled by a growing number of Americans whose recession-depleted incomes now qualify them for public assistance, according to numbers released Thursday.
Federal spending on more than 80 low-income assistance programs reached $746 billion in 2011, and state spending on those programs brought the total to $1.03 trillion, according to figures from the Congressional Research Service and the Senate Budget Committee.
That makes welfare the single biggest chunk of federal spending — topping Social Security and basic defense spending.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee who requested the Congressional Research Service report, said the numbers underscore a fundamental shift in welfare, which he said has moved from being a Band-Aid and toward a more permanent crutch.
And that’s exactly how Obama and the Democrats want it: creating a permanent dependency class who are eager to vote for more benefits at the expense of others.
Obama’s full 2007 speech:
View at the Daily Caller
This is one of many revealing stories that the media chose to hide from the voters in 2008, helping Obama disguise his true ideology and agenda behind a veneer of moderation and unity.
In his own words, Obama reveals himself as the racially resentful, divisive and deceptive person we have all discovered him to be.
In a video obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama tells an audience of black ministers, including the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that the U.S. government shortchanged Hurricane Katrina victims because of racism.
“The people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!” Obama shouts in the video, which was shot in June of 2007 at Hampton University in Virginia. By contrast, survivors of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew received generous amounts of aid, Obama explains. The reason? Unlike residents of majority-black New Orleans, the federal government considers those victims “part of the American family.”
The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.
Sarah Palin remarked on her Facebook page:
Many of you have seen the 2007 speech in which then-Senator Obama suggested that because of racism the federal government didn’t waive the Stafford Act to assist New Orleans after Katrina. What you may not know is that 10 days before Senator Obama gave this speech, the federal government did in fact waive the Stafford Act for New Orleans. And to add insult to injury, Barack Obama was one of 14 senators who actually voted against the bill that included the provision to give supplemental emergency assistance to New Orleans. In other words, he was being dishonest and divisive, which is behavior we’ve sadly seen far too often from him in the last four years.
Beltway pundits are trying to excuse the 36-minute speech before a black audience in Virginia as just political pandering. But Obama goes out of his way to give “a special shout-out” to his “white America”-hating pastor seated in the crowd, exalting the execrable Rev. Jeremiah Wright as his “friend and a great leader.”
It’s clear from Obama’s angry rhetoric throughout that he actually believes the racist swill he heard while sitting in Wright’s church all those years. Just as he actually believes in redistribution.
From his own pulpit, Obama told blacks the U.S. government cheats them in favor of whites. He thundered that “our people” and “our neighborhoods” should be getting federal money, jobs and housing. Imagine a white politician speaking to a white audience about “our people”? He’d literally be run out of office, if not the country.
It’s also clear from his speech, which the media never revealed in full to the public, that Obama doesn’t really work for all Americans, least of all the middle class he claims to champion. He’s secretly working to promote the race-based spoils system for what he describes as his own people in the inner city, while breeding envy and resentment toward suburban whites.
[...] The “bold experimentation” Obama has planned for a second term could involve stealth reparations, whereby the president pushes government transfer programs and disparate-impact lawsuits and even changes to what he believes is a still-racist Constitution (or changes to the Supreme Court that change how the Constitution is interpreted) that favor minority groups to the extreme detriment of the majority of Americans.
In his 2006 autobiography, Obama actually outlined such a strategy of stealth. He said he would push government programs with “universal appeals,” such as universal health care, “even if such strategies disproportionately help minorities” who are uninsured.
Teacher Kicks Student Out of Class for Wearing Mitt Romney T-Shirt
View on YouTube
Conservatives expect to be bullied, mocked and intimidated by liberal college professors who hate their politics, but now it’s happening at the high school level.
A Philadelphia high school teacher is under investigation after she reportedly ordered a student to take off a t-shirt supporting Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and compared the shirt to a Ku Klux Klan sheet.
The teacher reportedly told the 16-year-old student that the high school was a “Democratic school” and then threatened to use a marker to cross out Romney’s name.
[...] Richard Pawlucy told radio host Larry Mendte that the incident happened on a day when students were allowed to “dress down.”
He recounted what his daughter’s Geometry teacher told the girl.
“Are you seriously wearing a Romney shirt — and then she told her to get out,” Pawlucy told the radio station. “My daughter took it as a joke. But the teacher left the room and called other teachers and students into her classroom.”
She said the teacher pointed at his daughter and said, “Look at this girl — wearing a Romney shirt.”
“My daughter refused to leave the classroom or acknowledge this bullying,” he said.
That’s when the teacher compared the Romney shirt to a KKK garb and told her, “This is a Democratic school.”
“I never knew a school had a party affiliation,” he said.
When his daughter went back to class she hid in the bathroom until the teacher left. He said other students were taunting her.
“Her classmates were telling her –‘how can you do this to our teacher?’” he recounted. “Why don’t you like Obama? We all like Obama – why don’t you like Obama?”
I find it very telling that the other students would ask the victim, “how can you do this to our teacher?”
The teacher is black, and her behavior - ridiculously equating a Romney campaign T-shirt with the KKK – reveals that she wrongly assumes that all Republicans are racist. Her students have apparently been taught that conservative students are to blame for “offending” her if they dare to differ with her politically or exercise their 1st amendment rights.
Obviously the T-shirt has nothing to do with race. Only a person obsessed with the color of a candidate’s skin could misread it in such a way. Even though it’s the teacher who choose to inject the issue of race into a situation that had absolutely nothing to do with race, her students fail to recognize her racism, and instead blame the student.
Obviously this teacher has been pumping these kids’ minds full of racist liberal garbage for years before she finally got brazen enough to openly attack one of her conservative students. Thanks to her, they probably think the entire 2012 election is about race, when in fact it is about jobs, the economy, and the president’s disastrous policies.
How much you wanna bet that if a white Republican teacher had pulled a stunt like this on a black student wearing an Obama T-shirt, he/she would immediately be branded a “racist,” fired immediately, and it would be headline news all over the country? Amazing how blind people can be when the tables are turned.
Can you imagine what would happen if a Republican told men to vote with their crotch? Well, apparently the Obama campaign thinks it’s OK to talk to women that way:
In this classless White House, between desecrating the American flag with Obama’s ego, campaign t-shirts with the F-bomb on them, and the President’s willingness to fundraise in Vegas the same day we learned our Libyan ambassador had been assassinated — this sort of tackiness is becoming the norm, not the exception.
Is “patronizing” one of the weapons in this manufactured War on Women?
Moe Lane at Red State points out that this same administration that hypocritically claims to be the defender of “lady parts” has helped radical Muslims take over the Middle East – fanatics who routinely disfigure girls and women through genital mutilation.
I intend to vote with my most important “lady part,” my BRAIN! And it will NOT be for for this disgusting, sexist administration that continually reduces women to brainless lemmings whose only voting consideration is the supposedly the “right” to kill their children, depend on government and demand that others pay for their birth control!