The Results of Race Baiting

From Bob Owens over at Pajamas Media:

The assaults on a pair of Virginian-Pilot reporters in Norfolk, VA, two weeks ago at the hands of 30 black youths, reported for the first time Tuesday, are the latest in a series of attacks driven by a warped sense of racial vigilantism hiding behind calls of “Justice for Trayvon.” At least 15 mostly isolated whites have been beaten not just with fists, but with potentially deadly weapons including hammers and lengths of chain. Many of the victims have been hospitalized, some may never fully recover, and one lingers on the verge of death.

David Forster and Marjon Rostami are just the latest victims of brutal beatings tied to the Trayvon Martin shooting, and some Virginians are outraged that the newspaper did not report the attack for “politically correct reasons.” The attack was revealed not as news, but in an opinion piece…

While none of us – not a single person who has spoken or written about the Martin case – knows all the facts, the evidence we do have clearly goes against the narrative which was created about the case:  the accusation that Zimmerman stalked and killed Martin because Martin was black.  That is clearly false.  Whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of a crime remains to be seen – that will be decided by a trial.  But in spite of the easily ascertainable facts showing that whatever else happened, the shooting was not racially motivated, we still got a story of racial motivation.  How?  My theory from just a few days after the case came to national attention was “grandstanding lawyers”.

Shooting cases like this do not gain national attention unless someone makes an effort to bring it to national attention.  Furthermore, a shooting, in and of itself, won’t generate a lot of attention unless there is some angle that people on the make can take advantage of.  The racial angle is the swiftest means of bringing a case to national attention and then ensuring that con artists would be lining up to carry the ball and getting the whole event up to a white-hot heat.  As to why grandstanding lawyers would want to do that – the simplest explanation is that the attorneys for the Martin family are looking for a large payday – they can’t get it from Zimmerman as he doesn’t have anything while the event appeared to happen on public property so you can’t even sue a local home owner over it.  The only possible “deep pockets” are the local police – and so the story was put out that Zimmerman, a racist, killed a black kid for no reason and then was let go without an investigation by what must be racist police (remember – back when the story came out, the people pressing it were implying that Zimmerman wasn’t arrested, wasn’t questioned, did not have his weapon taken and was merely allowed to go home from the scene of the shooting…that is what was being bruited about but all of that was patently false…but it did paint a picture of cops doing wrong…and a police force might be willing to pay out half a million to make the case go away).

While the grandstanding lawyers might merely have been trying to maximize their contingency fees, what they’ve done is open Pandora’s box.  The usual-suspect race baiters (Sharpton, Jackson, the New Black Panther Party) were swift to jump on the case, but no one really pays much attention to them…but this is 2012 and Barack Obama is in deep, deep trouble in his re-election effort.  And so he came out with his “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon” statement while members of the Congressional Black Caucus, one after another, got up on the House floor and flat out lied about what happened (it is immaterial if they lied knowingly or not – the fact is that they stood on the House floor and uttered things which were completely at variance with the facts).  Lawyers to race baiters to elected officials…and now the “truth” as far as many millions of Americans are concerned is that Zimmerman was a racist vigilante who killed a black kid for no reason…and it appears that some black people are deciding that if Zimmerman can do it, so can they.

Race relations in the United States are probably more poisoned now then they have been since the time of Jim Crow.  No segregationist politician standing at the school house door ever did more damage to race relations than President Obama and the CBC did by lending their authority and legitimacy to a racial con job.  Fundamentally, there is no difference in the race story spun about Zimmerman and those spun in the past about Tawana Brawley and the Duke lacrosse team.  In both those cases a series of race baiting lies were spread in order that some people could gain money, power and fame they couldn’t otherwise earn…but those cases, while still detrimental to race relations, stopped with the hucksters.  The Martin case, though, threatens to explode in nation-wide violence (especially if Zimmerman is found not guilty) because President Obama and the CBC waded in an gave legitimacy to race baiting lies.

This is just a hideous event in our nation’s history – and to have it brought to us partially through the agency of our first black President just makes it more painful.  There it nothing we can do about it for the moment other than weather the storm…but the time is here when we must seek the means to dismantle the race industry…those persons, groups and entities who forever live off their ability to stir up hatred…

68 thoughts on “The Results of Race Baiting

  1. Cluster May 2, 2012 / 8:49 pm

    Just another reason why these race baiting liberals need to be defeated. Obama has opened another wound and has acted “stupidly” on nearly every racial situation he confronted. He said he would be audited, and a post racial president and instead we got someone who encouraged Hispanics to punish their enemies, and called his grandmother a typical white person.

    Obama is a small and petty man and the sooner he, and his loyal liberal minions, are out of office, the better for this country. I for once agreed with Michelle Obama the other day when she said that sometimes she wants to walk out of the white house and keep walking. I wish she would too.

    • freethinker May 3, 2012 / 10:36 am

      “Obama is a small and petty man and the sooner he, and his loyal liberal minions, are out of office, the better for this country. ” Cluster

      Some of the most vile and disgustingly hateful things have been said about President Obama and Mrs. Obama. Not once has he addressed this hatefulness, but has handled it with dignity and grace. One reporter may the mistake of saying Ann Romney had never worked a day in her life, and the right wing went crazy. Many of those hateful things about President were posted right here on this blog and no one on the right every had the courage or values to speak up and say such language was unacceptable. Where has the outrage been when either of the Obama’s have been slandered? Not here and not within the Republican Party. It has been perfectly acceptable to say degrading things about our President and First Lady. Why is that?
      President Obama is not a small and petty man. He has been a strong leader despite the continual petty and hateful right wing attack since the day he won the election. I know there were a lot of people who did not like George Bush, but the vitriolic and degradation against him and Mrs. Bush was NEVER to the extent it has been against President and Mrs. Obama. What an embarrassement to our nation to have citizens of this country to treat our President as this President has been treated. I am not saying that you do not have a right to speak out against policy you disagree with, but what has happened in this country for the past 3 1/2 years goes way beyond free speech. Not one word from anyone here when Ted Nugent made his vile and disgusting remarks about the President but total out rage when a reporter said Mrs. Romney never worked a day in her life. What a terrible thing to say about Mrs. Romney! How do you justify the outrage for Mrs. Romney but say nothing about Ted Nugent?

      • Cluster May 3, 2012 / 10:47 am

        Obama is a small and petty man and that stament can be backed up by many examples including his telling Hispanics to punish their enemies, by telling a police officer that he acted stupidly when the facts were not yet known, by demonizing successful Americans at every opportunity, by belittling Benjamin Netanyahu, by saying that trayvon could have been his son while ignoring all the facts of the case and the racial tension, by blaming Bush on everything, by throwing Rev Wright under the bus after calling him his mentor, by calling his grandmother a typical white person, by belittling Paul Ryan for having the courage to submit a responsible budget, by lining the pockets of union bosses with the 2009 stimulus and then having the gall to continue to express the need for infrastructure repair, etc, etc. should I go on?

      • Cluster May 3, 2012 / 10:50 am

        And re: Bush, there was actually a snuff film made about Bush by the left, and Bush was constantly referred to as Hitler, so I have to correct you when you say that the left didn’t attack Bush like the right attacks Obama. You just don’t like it when the bales are turned.

        Freethinker??? I think not.

      • Amazona May 3, 2012 / 11:37 am

        “thinker”? Obviously not.

        This is just Velma again, breathlessly defending All That Is Obama, blithely ignoring the lies she herself has posted about George W, Bush.

        Her schoolgirl crush on Barry is kind of cute, in a decidedly creepy way, but her determination to ignore facts no matter how often they are presented to her, and her dedication to a system she doesn’t even begin to understand, are really malignant.

        I’d say about 90%, if not more, of the comments here about Obama center on his policies, his politics, his ideology, and the damage he is doing to the country, in every way—-economically, socially, morally, psychologically, racially.

        And trolls like Velma don’t understand this, because they don’t DO policies, or politics, or ideology. All they do is personality, and scandal and lies and hysteria. To someone like Velma (and sadly, she represents a large portion of the voting Left) if you attack what a man does you attack HIM, because to them politics IS only about people, not about what they stand for or why they do what they do.

      • Amazona May 3, 2012 / 11:49 am

        Velma’s all over the place, politically. She signed a petition to make Elizabeth Warren(!!) the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by Congress to rein in Wall Street, but she also supports a bill to withhold pay from Congress till it passes a budget and spending bills, and supports a 12-step plan to reform Congress (which I find has a lot of value).

        That’s just it—Velma is an emotion-driven train wreck, sloping off after whatever appeals to her emotionally, without a thought as to its ideological underpinnings or long-range impact on the nation. Appeal to her emotions, either by praising the alleged virtues of someone (like Obama) or demonizing him with lies and slanders (as was done with Bush) and you have her hooked.

        And hooked for life, impervious to further input of data. The bumper sticker MY MIND IS MADE UP, DON’T CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS, has her picture on it.

      • tiredoflibbs May 3, 2012 / 12:56 pm

        Cluster, “free thinker” or velma as we know her, is far from the moniker she has chosen for herself. Her mindlessly regurgitated dumbed down talking points have been debunked so many times it is pathetic. She will just come back and regurgitate them more.

        One example is the meaning of “off budget” as in her talking point “Iraq war was off budget and not part of the deficit”.

        Free thinker? More like wishful thinker!!!

        Velma, you want vile – with the exception of a FEW non-liberals in their opinions, proggies far out-weigh non-proggies in their vileness.

        Try to actually become a free thinker instead of being a mindless drone.

  2. dennis May 3, 2012 / 12:51 am

    “Those persons, groups and entities who forever live off their ability to stir up hatred” pretty well describes this blog, if you ask me. Not that anyone profits from it, but one of its primary raisons d’être seems to be stirring up hatred toward liberals in general and President Obama in particular. The “It’s All About Me” thread illustrates this point all too well. It may include it, but it’s much broader than just race.

    Thankfully B4V has a very small sphere of influence in the larger culture. But unfortunately the general character of it is replicated by countless other forums large and small, each churning out its own toxic contribution to the massive plume of negativity, studiously finding the very worst in everything and everybody not aligned with thier own agenda. Sometimes it feels like Germany in the 1930s right now, marinating in the hatred before the coming storm. I surely hope not, but having been “friended” on Facebook by a guy from my distant childhood just a few days ago only to find he’s another nut job calling for the hanging of Obama, was more depressing than blowing a head gasket in my car. The car can be fixed; the guy, probably not.

    • bozo May 3, 2012 / 4:09 am

      THIS might explain Romney, and the potential “coming storm.”

      • Amazona May 3, 2012 / 10:00 am

        And of course only some Mormons supported Hitler back in the day. Some Mormons, some Democrat leaders, Progressives, the King of England—it’s quite an interesting list.

        To one as politically illiterate and bone-deep nasty as freakzo, I am sure that trying to link a religion to Hitler in an effort to smear a man of that religion nearly a century later seems like a cool thing to do, quite a ‘gotcha’.

        But if finding something of value in the early speeches of Hitler is supposed to be so damning, freakzo indicts the entire Left, particularly his beloved Progressives, who worshiped at the altar of fascism as defined by Mussolini and Hitler.

        Except Progressives were not just attracted to the early, more benign, statements of Hitler, but the whole package of radical Leftist dogma—and still are. The difference between Progressives of today and the National Socialist Party of 1930’s Germany is slight—there is still the anti-Semitism, the racism, the belief in a strong and powerful Central Committee which makes decisions for the masses, imposes those decisions, and enforces those decisions.

        Does LDS in 2012 advance the same political beliefs and agendas?

        Let’s do get into a nice deep discussion of ideology, finally, and compare the political ideology of Hitler to that of the Progressive Movement, Liberalism, socialism, and communism. Please please please please please !!!!!!! (I’ll even let you do some research on LDS beliefs, then and now, if it floats your boat.)

    • Cluster May 3, 2012 / 8:32 am


      I guess unlike you, I expect our elected representatives to govern the country responsibly and I tend not to get mired in personality, so hate is really not an option for me. Frustration, anger and utter disbelief, yes, but not really hatred. I look at the current national climate right now and can’t think of a worst time in my lifetime – high unemployment, more people on welfare and food stamps than ever before, a stagnant economy, high gas prices and an incoherent energy policy, and a president that takes every opportunity he can to blame other people and divide Americans. Obama himself is responsible for fomenting hatred so no need to look much further than the current divider in chief, and your friend’s attitude is probably a result of obama’s desire to demonize him. As a moderately successful, conservative, private businessman who pays taxes, I know Obama doesn’t like me very much, so what goes around comes around.

      Speaking of your “all compassionate” democratic party who cares oh so much for the poor – how is that working out for you? There are more people in poverty today than ever before. More people on welfare than ever before. This despite trillions of dollars being transferred to liberal democrat programs aimed at resolving the problem. So you tell me, are you still a believer?

    • Amazona May 3, 2012 / 10:22 am

      dennis, your hyper-emotionalism is rather annoying. OK, you are one of those who simply cannot see any difference at all between a dislike of Obama as a person and a dislike of Obama for his political agenda. Fine. As we are learning, you are only one of many who have the same cognitive failing.

      But this constant whining from the Left about “hatred” of Obama, while understandable, coming as it does from a whole group of people who make what should be political decisions based on hatred of one person or party and leg tingles generated by the other, is still nothing more than a projection of this emotion-based political choice-making onto the other side.

      What you and people like you simply cannot, or will not, understand is that to many many people, politics is not personality, or scandal, or emotion. It is, simply, the blueprint for how to govern the country.

      While you, and people like you, are wallowing in blind emotion, active and reactive, others are calmly and rationally analyzing the two basic political choices offered to us regarding how our country will be run. This is such an alien concept to you, and people like you, that there is simply no way to bridge the gap between your emotion-based instinctive allegiance to a poorly understood ideology because on the surface it sounds so nice and so fair and so just and the objective analysis of this system’s historical performance compared to that of the Right.

      It’s fine to buy a car because you like the color, or because you like the TV spokesperson. Great. Your money, your car. But it would be abjectly silly to then whine and moan and bitch about people who point out its abysmal safety record, its miserable performance, its high maintenance costs, and its low resale value and claim they are just trying to “stir up hatred” when they are merely referring to simple facts.

      It’s fine to choose to make decisions like car buying based on emotion, but it’s ridiculous to then sneer at those who do the research into all the cars on the market, and make THEIR choices based on historical proof of performance, reliability, etc.

      Perhaps, now that you know absolutely everything about the Bible, Old Testament and New, you ought to spend an equal amount of time and intellectual energy researching the political model chosen and represented by Barack Obama.

      Yes, he is becoming personally resented and disliked, but this is because of the damage to the economy of our country, due to a philosophy which now has power and authority thanks to people like you who voted out of emotion rather than thought, a philosophy which is undermining the very economic foundation of this nation.

      Yes, he is becoming personally resented and disliked, but this is because of the damage to the social and moral fabric of our country, thanks to his strategies of divide and conquer, his callous use of racial and social bias to split Americans into warring factions focused on each other and not on being Americans with a common goal.

      Most of what I see on this blog is analysis of what is happening. If you choose to see it through your hyper-emotional prism, fine. Some people have learned things by reading this blog. You have not. No surprise there.

      • freethinker May 3, 2012 / 11:10 am

        “Yes, he is becoming personally resented and disliked, but this is because of the damage to the social and moral fabric of our country, thanks to his strategies of divide and conquer, his callous use of racial and social bias to split Americans into warring factions focused on each other and not on being Americans with a common goal.” Amazona
        Please explain President Obama’s strategies to divide and conquer and callous use of racial and social bias to split Americans. What would you call the Republican’s goal from day one to make sure he was a one term president? The Republican Party’s goal to make sure nothing was accomplished during President Obama’s first term? Damage to the social and moral fabric of our country? Really??? What world of hate do you live in? The Republicans met on the day the President was sworn in to make plans on how to bring down his presidency without any consideration as to the impact on this country. It has always been party before country. It has been a disgusting display of hatred by the Republicans from the beginning of this presidents time in office to treat him with disrespect and indignation. I have never heard such hate speech from the Republican congress as during this Presidents term. Thank God the majority of Americans do not think like you or most of the posters here on BFV. By the way, what shape was this country in on the day he took office and did he cause those dire problems?

      • Cluster May 3, 2012 / 11:19 am

        Hey freethinker (not), do you remember that the democrats had filibuster proof majorities in both houses of congress for the first two years of obama’s presidency and they passed everything they wanted. Everything. Knowing the damage that those policies would do to the country (as evidenced by the current economy), republicans were simply strategizing on how to stop it all.

        However you evidently like high gas prices, high unemployment, and lots of poor people, so naturally you would want Obama to go unchallenged.

      • Cavalier Thepthith, Squire, DVM, DDS, DoJ, [Journ] May 3, 2012 / 11:53 am

        And more projection from the left, ho hum
        Nice rebuttal, “I know what I am but what are you?”
        So mature, so addressing what is said

      • Amazona May 3, 2012 / 2:07 pm


        During the election campaign, Barack Obama sought to appeal to the best instincts of the electorate, to a post-partisan sentiment that he said would reinvigorate our democracy. He ran on a platform of reconciliation—of getting beyond “old labels” of right and left, red and blue states, and forging compromises based on shared values.

        President Obama’s Inaugural was a hopeful day, with an estimated 1.8 million people on the National Mall celebrating the election of America’s first African-American president. The level of enthusiasm, the anticipation and the promise of something better could not have been more palpable.

        And yet, it has not been realized. Not at all.

        Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship. Moreover, his cynical approach to governance has encouraged his allies to pursue a similar strategy of racially divisive politics on his behalf.

        We have seen the divisive approach under Republican presidents as well—particularly the administrations of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. By dividing America, Mr. Obama has brought our government to the brink of a crisis of legitimacy, compromising our ability to address our most important policy issues.

        We say this with a heavy heart. Both of us share the president’s stated vision of what America can and should be. The struggle for equal rights has animated both of our lives. Both of us were forged politically during the crucible of the civil rights movement. Having worked in the South during the civil rights movement, and on behalf of the ground-breaking elections of African-American mayors such as David Dinkins, Harold Washington and Emanuel Cleaver, we were deeply moved by Mr. Obama’s election.

        The first hint that as president Mr. Obama would be willing to interject race into the political dialogue came last July, when he jumped to conclusions about the confrontation between Harvard Prof. Henry Louis “Skip” Gates and the Cambridge police.

        During a press conference, the president said that the “Cambridge police acted stupidly,” and he went on to link the arrest with the “long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”

        In truth, the Gates incident appears to have had nothing to do with race—a Cambridge review committee that investigated the incident ruled on June 30 that there was fault on both sides.

        Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) has said the president told him in a closed-door meeting that he would not move to secure the border with Mexico unless and until Congress reached a breakthrough on comprehensive immigration reform. That’s another indication Mr. Obama is willing to continue to play politics with hot-button issues.

        Add in the lawsuit against the Arizona immigration law and it’s clear the Obama administration is willing to run the risk of dividing the American people along racial and ethnic lines to mobilize its supporters—particularly Hispanic voters, whose backing it needs in the fall midterm elections and beyond.

        As the Washington Post reported last week, two top White House strategists, speaking on condition of anonymity, have indicated that “the White House plans to use the immigration debate to punish the GOP and aggressively seek the Latino vote in 2012.”

        On an issue that has gotten much less attention, but is potentially just as divisive, the Justice Department has pointedly refused to prosecute three members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation at the polls on Election Day 2008.

        It is the job of the Department of Justice to protect all American voters from voter discrimination and voter intimidation—whether committed by the far right, the far left, or the New Black Panthers. It is unacceptable for the Department of Justice to continue to stonewall on this issue.

        During the 2008 presidential campaign, Mr. Obama’s campaign emphasized repeatedly that his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was being unfairly stereotyped because of racially incendiary sound bites that allegedly did not reflect the totality of his views.In the Gates incident and others, Mr. Obama has resorted to similar forms of stereotyping.

        Even the former head of the Civil Rights Commission, Mary Frances Berry, acknowledged that the Obama administration has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention away from other issues, saying: “the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. . . . Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”

        The president had a unique opportunity to focus on overarching issues of importance to whites and blacks. He has failed to address the critical challenges. He has not used his bully pulpit to emphasize the importance of racial unity and the common interest of poor whites and blacks who need training, job opportunities, and the possibility of realizing the American Dream. He hasn’t done enough to address youth unemployment—which in the white community is 23.2% and in the black community is 39.9%.

        Mr. Obama has also cynically divided the country on class lines. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and corporations behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda.

        Finally, President Obama also exacerbated partisan division, and he has made it clear that he intends to demonize the Republicans and former President George W. Bush in the fall campaign. In April, the Democratic National Committee released a video in which the president directly addressed his divide-and-conquer campaign strategy, with an appeal to: “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

        President Obama’s divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership has failed to put forth an agenda that is more positive, unifying or inclusive. We are stronger when we debate issues and purpose, and we are all weaker when we divide by race and class. We will pay a price for this type of politics.

        Mr. Caddell served as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of “The Political Fix”

      • Amazona May 3, 2012 / 2:24 pm

        Oh,Velma, you silly silly hysterical thing you.

        “The Republicans met on the day the President was sworn in to make plans on how to bring down his presidency without any consideration as to the impact on this country.”

        No, you political ignoramus, it was with full and serious consideration of what an Obama presidency WOULD do to this country—-a consideration that has proved to be prophetic.

        While your hyper-emotional prism sees legitimate political opposition as nothing more than a personal vendetta to “bring down” the presidency of Obama, the reality is far more mature and rational, based upon an objective analysis of the respective histories of success and failure of the Constitutional political model and the collectivist, redistributionist, Leftist model represented by Obama.

        If your hysteria were to be applied to a different scenario, the only reason one would have to stop a drunk from getting behind the wheel of a car would not be to save an innocent life, but to “bring down” the man who would, predictably, cause great harm. (Is that how you see the prison sentence of your good friend for killing someone while driving drunk? Merely a vicious effort to “bring him down”?)

        Not satisfied with redefining legitimate political opposition to a system sincerely believed to be harmful to the nation, you then go on to shrilly declaim that it was not a sincere effort to protect the nation but “….. a disgusting display of hatred…”

        I suggest that your own overheated tirades of wild-eyed accusations of malignant motives of others is the REAL “….. disgusting display of hatred…”

        Just because you are totally ignorant of actual political ideology, and base all of your “ideas” on personality and identity, does not mean that you have a clue. Your posts prove otherwise. So please stop carrying on with your shrill hysteria and try, just TRY, to understand that Obama represents a political model of governance that thinking people find harmful to the nation. If you can provide a calm, rational, example of this model increasing economic prosperity and personal liberty, why don’t you present it?

      • Amazona May 3, 2012 / 2:32 pm

        Velma squeals: By the way, what shape was this country in on the day he took office and did he cause those dire problems?

        Well, it was in better shape than it is now, as the recession was less established, fewer people were permanently out of work, and fewer had lost their homes, and new Dem regulations had not shut off credit to small business, stifling economic recovery. And while Barry himself didn’t single-handedly cause the problems the policies of his party and his political ideology did. For two years he had control of two of the three branches of government, and he still couldn’t make things better, for the simple reason that his formula is so fatally flawed that when implemented it only makes things worse.

        You have grandchildren. How do you feel about the fact that thanks to your heartthrob, every penny they will ever pay in taxes for their entire lives has already been spent by this administration?

    • neocon1 May 3, 2012 / 1:02 pm


      then the actual BEATINGS by SIEU thugs, fingers bitten off, old men smashed with signs, UNION gangsters and goons threatening the TEA party, the EPA crucifying, and IRS SWAT teams beating down political enemies doors……….Riiiiiight Pee Wee
      and what? we refer to the POS as a POS….ha ha ha ha ha ha…..

      • neocon1 May 3, 2012 / 1:15 pm

        Obama: ‘If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun’

        Obama; “get in their face”
        I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

        Obama to Latinos: “Punish” Your “Enemies”

        Hoffa on Tea Party: ‘Take These Son-of-a-Bitches Out’

        and of course like the tatoo’d, gold toothed, doper thief, thug NO_LIMIT_NIGGA son of Ubama who could forget another one of his “pastors” best friends ‘

  3. dennis May 3, 2012 / 1:06 pm

    I’ve long thought it best to avoid partisanship and stick to issues and principles, and did so all through the Bush years. I said many times and in multiple venues I didn’t think he was a bad man. I did however believe he was out of his depth in policy matters and being guided by advisors with purposes not in the best interests of America. I was accused here and elsewhere of BDS and”hatred”, even by Mark, who should have known better. I did not speak so disrespectfully of George Bush even in private as people do of Barack Obama in the open forum of this blog.

    Now we even have conservative scholars like Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute acknowledging America has a big problem. In an in-depth article co-authored with Thomas Mann: “Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party. The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.”

    He goes on at sorrowful length; they also address the excuse that “both sides do it.” Other lifelong Republicans acknowledge the problem as well. Former Sen. Chuck Hagel called his party “irresponsible” and captive to narrow ideological interests. Mike Lofgren, a longtime Republican congressional staffer wrote “The Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe.”

    Meanwhile you go on here, doing your little parts to continue the crash and burn of civility that can have no good outcome, while your intellectual and civil betters acknowledge exactly what is going on. Party on – when the house finally comes down, maybe then you’ll realize how destructive your roles actually were.

    Ornstein’s and Mann’s article from Washington Post is here:

    • neocon1 May 3, 2012 / 1:20 pm

      Mmmmmm mmmmmm mmmmmmm

      Get THIS….this was a tra von payback crime WHILE the racist howling mobs were STILL in Sanford.

      Sanford Blacks Beat White Man With Hammer – Not a Hate Crime
      — Perhaps George Zimmerman needed to carry a gun in his Sanford, Florida neighborhood. Two men from Sanford, beat an unnamed 50-year-old White man in the head with a hammer. The beating put the man on life support. Julius Bender and Yahaziel Israel have been charged, but Hate Crime charges are absent. The story has barely been mentioned in the press. In original reports, The Orlando Sentinel purposefully did not identify the men as Black, and the fact that were from Sanford seemed to interest no one.

      The “White” man was beaten in Midway, Florida, 6 miles from Sanford, Florida but both Bender and Israel are allegedly Sanford residents. Both men could be Barack Obama’s son. They are charged with attempted homicide, burglary with assault or battery, and armed burglary – but not a hate crime. Curiously I find no updates on the condition of the victim.

    • neocon1 May 3, 2012 / 1:24 pm

      dream on dennis stooge
      your party has become the communist party USA, the party of lynchings, murder, mayhem, thievery, racism, drugs, abortion and sodomy.
      makes you proud to be a knee padder for these cretins eh denny?

      hey wolf, how is that slot you took passing killer tillers collection basket in “church” coming?

    • Amazona May 3, 2012 / 1:55 pm

      “…at sorrowful length” Oh, so sad, so deeply sad, so sorrowful, how sad……..

      Well, I waded through the diatribe again, after reading it earlier, and I still found the overly wordy article sadly and sorrowfully lacking in any real substance.

      Oh, there is plenty of strident criticism of what some choose to identify as the totality of the “Republican Party” but it’s all about superficial Identity Politics.

      And dennis’s ongoing efforts to show us just how deeply he is invested in Identity Politics goes on. And on and on and on and on, ad nauseum.

      Here’s a chance to catch up, denny: There is an identity, the Republican Party, which has over the past few decades lost its ideological foundation and become confused and corrupted in some areas, to some degree. This has been discussed here so much, there is no way you can be ignorant of that fact.

      Because of this death spiral, a new American Conservative Movement has sprung up, a true spontaneous grass-roots rebellion against the erosion of conservative principles within the Republican Party.

      In 2010, there were over 9000 attendees at CPAC—that is, the CONSERVATIVE Political Action Conference —and over four days I heard exactly two people identify themselves as Republican.

      Don’t even try to pretend you are unaware of the conflicts between the establishment party and the new Constitutional movement. Unlike the Democratic Party, which allowed itself to be subsumed by the radical Left without a whimper, millions of Republicans are fighting to save their party by demanding that it reform, and get back to its founding principles and Constitutional values.

      You want to talk identity, you just keep on whining about THE REPUBLICAN PARTY as you are focused on individuals, on personalities, on conflicts, on scandals, on events, on all the superficial fluff the superficial find so compelling.

      You want to talk ideology, then do so.

      But your posts are such emotional muddles of religious extremism, anti-Republican angst masquerading as political commentary, and general temper tantrums devoid of actual political content, they have no real value in actual discussions of the best way to govern the nation that is, also, Constitutional.

      Here is something that might balance out your tirade:

    • Mark Edward Noonan May 3, 2012 / 8:37 pm


      The only people being scornful of facts in the Martin case are liberals – and while that is nothing unusual, the key here is that the President of the United States of America and members of the Congressional Black Causus endorsed the lies being told by liberals in regards to the Martin case. The President, my friend, deliberately fanned the flames of racial hatred…as did the members of the CBC. And the only supposition we can make about it is that they sought to use the case as a means of firing up the African American electorate for November. Nothing quite so disgusting has ever happened in American politics. And you presume to lecture the right about good political manners?

      • dennis May 3, 2012 / 8:53 pm

        Mark, you really don’t know what are lies or truth in this matter any more than I do. Disgust, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. And I would note your facile use of the word “hatred” over the past few years indicates a very elastic definition on your part.

      • neocon1 May 3, 2012 / 9:04 pm


        Mark, you really don’t know what are lies or truth in this matter any more than I do

        the truth is jelly smeared all over the bread 1/2 inch thick.
        Only you or Helen Keller would not recognize it.

      • Mark Edward Noonan May 4, 2012 / 1:05 am


        At the time Obama made his statement and at the time the members of the CBC got up on the House floor to make their statements THEY DID NOT KNOW THE FACTS. Putting the best face on it, they were utter fools to speak as they did…at worst, they were, as I’ve said, deliberately fanning the flames of racial hatred for their narrow, political interests.

        What we know, now, though clearly indicates that whatever else Zimmerman might have done, he did not in any way, shape or form target Martin because he was black. Don’t try and fob this off with “no one knows”… the President and the members of the CBC sure as heck acted like they knew…and what they said was false; lies, slanders…deliberate mis-statements of fact.

      • dennis May 4, 2012 / 12:11 pm

        “Putting the best face on it, they were utter fools to speak as they did…at worst, they were, as I’ve said, deliberately fanning the flames of racial hatred for their narrow, political interests…. what they said was false; lies, slanders…deliberate mis-statements of fact.”

        That’s your opinion, Mark, but you’re not in a position to know what was in ther hearts and minds. How do you know they weren’t motivated by plain, ordinary anguish at the pointless death of a young kid, and his parents’ loss and grief? You don’t. I’m often accused of judging here, simply for referencing what the Bible says. You, on the other hand, presume to tell us all what’s in the minds and hearts of other people you don’t even know and have never laid eyes on.

        And honestly, can you say that you’ve never posted falsehoods, slanders, deliberate misstatements of fact, not to mention deliberately fanning flames of hatred for your own narrow political interests on this blog?

        “I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” Matthew 5:22.

      • JACO May 4, 2012 / 12:14 pm

        Posting using a false email address. Deleted. //Moderator

      • Cluster May 4, 2012 / 12:18 pm

        How do you know they weren’t motivated by plain, ordinary anguish at the pointless death of a young kid, and his parents’ loss and grief? – dennis

        Well because kids are unfortunately killed nearly everyday, and yet this is the only time I can remember Maxine Waters, Conyers, etc, speaking about their “anguish” on the Congressional floor – unless of course you can prove that there have been other occasions. Specifically when a white kid has been killed.

        Or a native American, which of course would deeply effect Elizabeth Warren

      • Cluster May 4, 2012 / 12:20 pm

        But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” Matthew 5:22.

        Question Dennis – when Obama claims that Ryan and the GOP want people to starve, how does that fit into your deeply held religious beliefs?

      • Mark Edward Noonan May 5, 2012 / 12:36 pm


        I have made mistakes over the years – first to admit it: but I am not the President of the United States nor am I a senior member of our Congressional leadership. For people in those positions a greater responsibility exists – never to make a definitive statement unless all the facts are known. Members of the CBC didn’t say they thought this or that about the case, they definitively stated their ardent belief that Martin was murdered in cold blood for no other reason than the fact of his black skin. They couldn’t possibly have known if that were the case when they made those statements and yet they went right ahead and made them – at this date, as further facts have emerged, it is clear that Zimmerman did not target Martin because he was black…Zimmerman may have done wrong; he may even be guilty of murder (that will be for a jury to decide), but there is no racial component to the case, as far as we can determine.

        Given this – the fact that they made their inflammatory statements before they knew the facts of the case – we can only presume that they had a reason for so doing. What was the reason? I say that it was a deliberate attempt to fire up race-hatred among African Americans as a tool to get them to the polls on November 6th. Obama and the Congressional Democrats know they are doomed unless they can somehow recreate the turnout model of 2008…Hope and Change won’t do it, so they went and found what they believe is another method.

        Now, that is what I say – give me a series of facts and logical argument which says otherwise. If you can’t, then you’ll either have to agree with me, or be revealed as someone who agrees that race hatred should be inflamed if it helps liberal Democrats win at election time.

      • Mark Edward Noonan May 5, 2012 / 12:37 pm


        Find me any statement ever made by a Republican member of Congress similar to the statements made by members of the CBC over the Martin case. Lets suppose your liberal view of the mythical “southern strategy” is correct – fine; prove to me from statements made on the House floor that it was so.

      • JACO May 5, 2012 / 5:01 pm

        Posting using a false email address. Deleted. //Moderator

      • Mark Edward Noonan May 6, 2012 / 12:25 am


        I didn’t say “describe the ‘southern strategy'”; I said, “prove that Congressional GOPers on the House floor made statements indicating that there was such a thing”. You’re trying to change the subject, something liberals always do when losing an argument. Don’t try and distract me away from the issue at hand – answer the blasted question or be silent.

      • JACO May 6, 2012 / 3:34 am

        Posting using a false email address. Deleted. //Moderator

      • JACO May 8, 2012 / 3:05 am

        Posting using a false email address. // Moderator

  4. Cluster May 3, 2012 / 6:06 pm


    Thank you for the article, proving once again that anyone can find someone else that shares their ideology. Really well done. But the half truths, and outright distortions in the article do diminish any point the author wanted to make, if in fact there was a point, and the article wasn’t just some juvenile rant.

    I want to go back to my earlier question. Knowing that you lecture us all the time on not being true Christians because of our lack of support for an all growing and all knowing federal government that redistributes wealth, what are your thoughts on those liberal programs now considering that the ranks of the poor has grown?

    Any thoughts?

    • dennis May 3, 2012 / 8:56 pm

      “Knowing that you lecture us all the time on not being true Christians because of our lack of support for an all growing and all knowing federal government that redistributes wealth…”
      The absurdity of that statement mitigates against any meaningful answer. It falls into roughly the same category as “when did you stop beating your wife?” You and Amazona continue to make things up out of whole cloth and attribute them to others, which calls both your credibility and reading comprehension into question.
      First off, your Christianity is between yourselves and God, and I’ve never implied otherwise. I’ve been accused many times on this blog of false piety, sanctimony, being a wolf in sheep’s clothing etc, but I don’t think you can dig up a single quote by me where I say or imply any one of you is not a true Christian. That’s a place I won’t go.
      I’ve never supported an all growing or all knowing government. I’ve always opposed the Patriot Act, unwarranted wiretapping, laws governing sexual or private behavior and intrusive government policies in general.

      • neocon1 May 3, 2012 / 9:00 pm

        , being a wolf in sheep’s clothing etc,

        we see through your masquerade……Grrrrrrrr

      • neocon1 May 3, 2012 / 9:08 pm

        Nearly three weeks elapsed between the shooting and the first national media coverage. The organizers would use this time to set up legal, research, and media teams. These teams would establish effective control over Martin’s parents, organize his extended family members and friends, interview and recruit witnesses, try to conceal or sanitize Martin’s online and school records, prepare media allies for the launch, and plan the content and timing of the campaign.

        Mary Cutcher, whose original statement to police supported Zimmerman’s version of the event, is a possible candidate for the “recruited witness” role, having delivered a steady stream of interviews in support of the narrative after the media launch.

        Also worth noting is that Martin’s parents quit their jobs shortly after the launch to start new careers as full-time political activists.

        can you say CHA CHING and 15 minutes of fame?

        Read more:

      • neocon1 May 3, 2012 / 9:11 pm

        Young Americans are not buying the black race hustle
        Fellowship of Minds ^ | May 3, 2012 | Dr. Eowyn

        Despite the constant, incessant, pervasive portrayal by the media, schools, and cultural and political elites, that blacks are the eternal victims and white people are unregenerate racist oppressors, there is evidence that the indoctrination and brainwashing have failed.

        More and more Americans, including young Americans, are just not buying the victimology fairy-tale — not any more.

        I NEVER did…….

      • neocon1 May 3, 2012 / 9:14 pm

        Outrage as Black Reporter says ‘Thank God for Slavery’

        A black American author has sparked anger and controversy among black nationalists “by repudiating his African roots and thanking God his ancestor was enslaved.”

        “Keith Richburg has been shunned and insulted for daring to reject the Afro-centric idealism which is an article of faith in black America. In Out Of America, published in February,1997, (hardcover, 288 pages; ‘Basic Books,’ ISBN: 0465001874), after he spent three years reporting from Africa for the Washington Post, Mr Richburg hurls down a challenge to black American leaders to stop deceiving themselves and the 35 million (black) descendants of slaves, that Africa is Eden on earth.

      • Cluster May 3, 2012 / 9:24 pm

        I am talking in terms of the welfare state when I say an all knowing federal government, so don’t deflect that. From your earlier posts it’s clear to me that you are in full support of an entitlement based society administered by a large federal bureaucracy and you have questioned others understanding of Faith when delivering those lectures. That’s a fact Dennis.

  5. dennis May 4, 2012 / 2:26 pm

    “When Obama claims that Ryan and the GOP want people to starve, how does that fit into your deeply held religious beliefs?”

    Please point me to exactly where Obama said Ryan and the GOP want people to starve. And while you’re at it tell me, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

    Cluster, the only things that are “clear” to you are your opinions and highly subjective interpretations of things. You’ve demonstrated repeatedly that you’re rarely even clear on what was said in prior posts on the same thread. You present the above statement as fact, when it’s a fabrication fundamentally misconstruing what Obama actually said. I’m fully convinced if the right didn’t use these misrepresentations constantly their influence would be greatly diminished. Any party whose viability relies so heavily on fabrications and misconstructions of reality is unfit to govern the American people, in my opinion.

    I commend you for making a distinction between judging whether someone is a true Christian and questioning their understanding of faith – however what I do most often here, when it comes to matters of faith, is reference biblical passages to explain why I hold the opinions I do. This has ocasionally been done in response to Amazona’s insistence on political explanations for my opinions.

    Since Mark has often linked his political convictions with his Christian beliefs, however, I’ve occasionally pointed out discrepancies between conservative doctrine (or his assertions about other matters) and what the Bible teaches, hoping for some explanation to help reconcile the difference.

    An example of this would be contrasting the teachings of Christ with the teachings of Ayn Rand, whom Paul Ryan has explicitly held up as a formative inspiration for his beliefs and values. I find Ayn Rand’s philosophy enthroning self-interest to be contradictory with Judeo-Christian values, and don’t feel they should be guiding our economic policies or inspiring our federal budget. I haven’t seen any satisfactory reconciliation of these value systems.

    Finally I would note as an aside that although I don’t believe Ryan wants anybody to starve, his budget implies a callous disregard of “the least of these brothers of mine”, spoken of by Jesus. The Catholic bishops agree with me on this one.

    • Cluster May 4, 2012 / 4:20 pm

      Ryan displays a “callous disregard”?? Do you even know what the Ryan budget calls for? Let me clue you in – in regards to food stamps, Ryan proposes to scale back to pre recession levels of spending by the year 2016. Only in Washington is a slow down in the rate of growth considered to be draconian. So now do you think that is a callous disregard??

      I think yours, and the Bishops interpretation of the Bible is a joke.

  6. tiredoflibbs May 4, 2012 / 2:44 pm

    Denny: “Please point me to exactly where Obama said Ryan and the GOP want people to starve. And while you’re at it tell me, have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

    Obama: “Two million mothers and young children would be cut from a program that gives them access to healthy food.”

    Too easy denny, your WILLFULL ignorance is plainly telling. ObAMATEUR makes up lies like this against his opponents, but I do not hear you scolding him for “bearing false witness against the brotherhood of man” as you put it against many here. I guess you believe the hype that “obama had to descend from on high to take this office” or that he is “some sort of god” because that is the way you treat him.


    • dennis May 4, 2012 / 3:21 pm

      Tired, please see my last paragraph above.

      I haven’t said anything about Obama here in a long time, besides noting others’ attitudes toward him. It’s weird to see hatred of him so intense that the fact I haven’t condemned him on this blog constitutes some kind of worship in your eyes.

      • JACO May 4, 2012 / 5:18 pm

        Posting using a false email address. Deleted. //Moderator

      • Cluster May 4, 2012 / 5:23 pm

        So when Obama says that we have gotten lazy and a little soft – he didn’t actually mean it? Interesting. What else doesn’t he mean?

      • tiredoflibbs May 5, 2012 / 7:19 am

        Poor taco fails to realize that obAMATEUR was divisive long before he became Senator much less pResident.

        But what will mindless drones do with their readily supplied dumbed down talking points.

      • Amazona May 5, 2012 / 12:08 pm

        Obama said what he said. No one had to tell me what he said: I heard what he said.

        So he kind of walked it back, a little, in a later comment. Big deal. He said what he said. If he hadn’t said it, he wouldn’t have had to walk it back.

      • Amazona May 5, 2012 / 12:10 pm

        Oh, denny, get over yourself and your projection of “hatred” onto what is simply objective disapproval of what the man SAYS and what the man DOES.

        The more you write, the more you explain your emotional basis for pretty much everything. Fine. Be an emotion-driven drama queen. Just don’t try to project that onto us.

      • tiredoflibbs May 5, 2012 / 12:56 pm

        denny: “I haven’t said anything about Obama here in a long time, besides noting others’ attitudes toward him. ”

        That’s right you have not, when you should have!! Can you not comprehend my point in in response to several of your hypocritical posts?

        You want to hold us non-proggies to your view of Christianity, but when it comes to the obAMATEUR you give him a pass in what he says and does.

        You also have a twisted sense of hatred. Criticism is not hatred. But to you proggies, it is.

      • JACO May 5, 2012 / 5:05 pm

        Posting using a false email address. Deleted. //Moderator

      • JACO May 10, 2012 / 2:36 am

        Posted using a fake email address, //Moderator

  7. dennis May 4, 2012 / 10:55 pm

    From Washington Post: “Perry and Romney have ripped Obama’s remarks completely out of context, similar to Romney’s ridiculous Four-Pinocchio claim that Obama ‘apologized’ for America overseas. In both cases, the candidates are trying to feed into a subterranean narrative that Obama is not quite American, or not proud to be an American.”

    Same thing happens here every day. Context is sliced and diced, or discarded altogether, to try and support their character assassination and ad hominem attacks. It’s why I blew off “American Thinker” years ago. No doubt the title makes Cluster feel astute when he reads it – he continues to link it here as if it were a credible source.

    Here’s a link everyone might find interesting:

  8. tiredoflibbs May 5, 2012 / 7:16 am

    Will somebody get some cheese to go with all that proggy whine!!!

    I have never seen such WILLFUL ignorance these mindless proggy drones demonstrate time and again.

    They whine about “attacks” and “lies” against their annointed one – the obAMATEUR. And yet, they willfull ignore the actual lies and attacks this one individual does since he HAS NO POSITIVE RECORD TO RUN ON!!!

    And yes, denny the RINOs for Obama is an interesting and transparent website – more transparent than the obAMATEUR’s administration promised he would have.


Comments are closed.