Does the Democratic Party represent the interests of black Americans? Larry Elder gives 10 reasons why blacks might consider leaving the Democratic Party.
10. School Choice 9. Social Security 8. Race-Based Preferences for Diversity 7. War on Poverty (Welfare State) 6. Illegal Immigration 5. Hostility Towards Police 4. Job Killing Regulations 3. The Great Recession (Housing Crisis) 2. Playing the Race Card for Votes 1. Pro-Abortion
To call someone a racist is a serious charge. Conservatives are accused of racism by the left on a daily basis. Are the accusations fair? Or is something else going on? Derryck Green of Project 21 provides some provocative answers.
Dennis Prager covers a few issues, some of his thoughts on Michael Cohen, Rashida Tlaib calling Mark Meadows a racist, how the Left uses the “racist claim” to seemingly make a point, and the like. One of Rush Limbaugh’s points was that when Michael Cohen said this,
“I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, that there will never be a peaceful transition of power. And this is why I agreed to appear before you today”
… Rush knew someone else had written his statements. Yep. He is kowtowing to the Left, which he is from.
Larry Elder explains how we got Trump. The Left is confused… but its decades of abuse by them… but they are doubling down. And that is why Trump will rock in 2020. Here are some background to this “abuse”
In America, there’s a card more valuable than any card from Visa or American Express. What is it? How can you get one? Candace Owens, Communications Director for Turning Point USA, answers these questions.
Larry Elder plays a “cultural commentator’s” (Seren Sensei) views on Bruno Mars and wonders out-loud if crazy is the new norm [adapted] — although, in more words than my own thinking. Here is the CNN story: https://tinyurl.com/y8bchm6b
But there is NO WINNING against such thinking, as “Traditional Tradesman” notes regarding Seren Sensei:
As this ludicrous article by race-baiter Seren Sensei that criticizes director Sofia Coppola for not having black people in her recent film illustrates, white directors (or, really, any white artists) face an insoluble conundrum:
If you’re a white director, and you make a movie that has no black characters, you’re racist.
If you’re a white director, and you make a movie that has black characters who are being depicted negatively, you’re racist.
If you’re white director, and you make a movie that has black characters who are being depicted positively, you’re cultural appropriating blackness and are, therefore… wait for it… racist.
So how exactly do you win this game? You don’t. You can’t……
HOT AIR comments on the Bruno Mars flap, and this is just another example of the Left cannibalizing itself:
You’re surely familiar with the “cultural appropriation” outrage running around liberal social media sites these days, right? It’s when one particular demographic group (and their inevitable supporters who take up every progressive cause on the planet) lays claim to an entire genre of performing arts and then chooses to scold anyone who isn’t “authentic” enough and dares to be creative in that field. And as I’m sure you already know, by “authentic” they refer to the color of your skin.
Another episode of this annoying kvetching broke out this week. It wouldn’t have been worth a mention were it not for the target. Rather than going after yet another white artist, this time the forces of progressive fury fixed their sights on none other than Bruno Mars. Now, to be honest here, I wouldn’t even know the man’s name had he not played at the Super Bowl a while back, but I did hear him perform there and he’s got an impressive set of pipes. But, as it turns out, he’s singing the wrong kind of music.
…video of the racially charged attack… and excerpts…
Normally this would be the end of the story. After being appropriately shamed by his progressive betters, the artist would shuffle up to a microphone to deliver some sort of apology and then slink off stage, promising to try to do better. (Or at least that’s how it works if they are marketing their work to a largely liberal audience.)
But this time it played out differently. In short order, some of the people who you might have expected to be “offended” started defending Mars. This included R&B singer Charlie Wilson.
He’s absolutely right. And when we reach the point where you see me agreeing with Shaun King you need to go outside and look for four horsemen riding in the sky.
For his part, Bruno Mars stayed out of it. But the WaPo notes that he previously proclaimed his appreciation for the black roots of much of the music being performed today.
“When you say ‘black music,’ understand that you are talking about rock, jazz, R&B, reggae, funk, doo-wop, hip-hop, and Motown. Black people created it all. Being Puerto Rican, even salsa music stems back to the Motherland,” meaning Africa, Mars told Latina magazine last February. “So, in my world, black music means everything. It’s what gives America its swag.”
Here comes the long division part of the analysis, so buckle up, campers. Bruno Mars, racially, “was born in Honolulu to a half-Puerto Rican and half-Ashkenazi Jewish and a Filipino mother.” So what do these easily aggrieved geniuses think he should be performing? Only Puerto Rican tunes played on Filipino instruments at luaus and bar mitzvahs? And as for Mars himself, he’s previously staked out rock, jazz, R&B, reggae, funk, doo-wop, hip-hop, and Motown as all being “black music.” (At least until the mob came for him, anyway.) So I take it this panel thinks that white people should only perform country music and Asians should be restricted to… what? K-pop?
An Imperfect Storm — my thoughts about the call heard around the world:
We found out the wife of Sgt. La David T. Johnson was friends with Rep. Frederica Wilson, so, my assumption then is they are a bit left leaning in their politics. In other words, since the Congresswoman is a family friend I can suppose that their political positions that Trump is a racist, white supremacist who is a woman assaulting misogynist is a closely held view;
for obvious [and right] so reasons, the newly widowed wife is very heart broken and wanting more answers for a serious loss. In other words, people react differently to tragedy. Some forge ahead to make a stable environment for their kids in the face of such a loss… Others allow the situation to overcome them. This is our humanity at work;
being a close friend of the family, the Congresswoman who calls Trump Racist, saying he needs to be impeached, and thinks the worse of him || she can easily sway an already emotion situation to be viewed one way;
within 10-minutes of the call the Congresswoman was on the horn with a main person to share the story (POLITICISE IT) at CNN… 10-minutes!, this seemed pre-planned;
I bet Trump — although sincere — and meaning to communicate his thoughts on this [and other matters] with good intentions, is known not to be the best communicator. In other words, he does not always express his thoughts well. AND, if you already thoroughly dislike someone, attributing the worst of humanity to that person, and are put in an extremely emotional situation with a politician egging you on, I bet you can easily hear and attribute the worst intentions to that situation.
ALL THIS I think contributed to the idea he may have been, or came across as, disrespectful. Here is a call by President Trump to a new widow who’s husband (another American hero) lost his life serving our country. This loving wife released her call to share how Trump respected her family. (TAKE NOTE that if you disdain Trump you could probably misinterpret Trump’s style in passing along heartfelt condolence.
Gold star widow Natasha De Alencar has released the audio of a phone conversation she had with Trump in April about the death of her husband who was killed in Afghanistan. The audio speaks for itself, as does the fact that Ms. De Alencar released it amidst the controversy that the ridiculous Rep. Wilson ginned up:
(More at POWERLINE) This is my bottom line in the whole situation… and I shared the below on a friend’s FB page (adapted a bit):
One thing I noticed in the video [above] that made me think of the differences between Ms. Johnson and Ms. De Alencar… If you already think Trump is a racist, misogynist bigot, you could take his call with every bad intention. That is our natural human bent. And the wife who is in this video above took what Trump meant his thoughts to be… with good intentions, with good will. When President Trump was told about the excellence of the older child by Ms. De Alencar, his acceptance to college on an academic scholarship, he acted surprised (interested, wanting to hear more, sharing in the mother’s pride, allowing her to lead the conversation) that it wasn’t due to his football excellence which she had just relayed to the President. He then asked if he was the standout kid compared to his siblings. The mother took this perfectly (attributing the best of intentions during this tough but honoring call) — even catching the humor in it and she joked back about there always being “one” — and then she shared the passions of each child. Awesome, what a great mom. Her children will be able to look back at THIS moment and remember or hear the best of their country and father.
If you already think Trump is a racist, out to make white supremacy mainstream, who is a serial crotch grabbing misogynist with a politician in the car with you manipulation an already tragic moment for a young woman without kids to be a rock for yet…. Yep, I bet you can read into Trump’s words the worst of intentions since you ALREADY attribute the worst of humanity to him.
Was Trump telling that mom, Ms. De Alencar, he was surprised a black kid would get an academic scholarship, calling the rest of her kids dumb? If you hated Trump as deeply as that younger, more inexperienced, recently widowed, pregnant mom, with a politician whispering in her ear (literally), calling CNN within minutes to politicize the event… Yep, that’s how you would take it. And her child will hear the worst of the nation and the father’s service will be lost in the political hoop jumping. Sad.
BLACK & RIGHT has a great post on the Congresswoman. The Congresswoman also throws around the “race card” like a Black-Jack dealer in the Old West under pressure to make back money for the whore-house owner:
…The Florida Democrat also accused Kelly of using a ‘racist’ epithet against her during a White House news conference on Thursday afternoon, where he compared her to an ’empty barrel.’
Wilson said that after looking it up in the dictionary, she had concluded that ’empty barrel’ is a ‘racist term.’ ….
The Left takes a serious word and uses it and uses it till it looses any meaning! “Racist,” or “Nazi,” or “bigot,” simply now mean a person who disagrees with the Left. What a diminution of thought and grammar and the seriousness these words once relayed to each other when making points. Now these words are just static floating around in the ionosphere like TV shows from the 50’s. As an insightful post in the DAILY CALIFORNIAN notes, “…if everything is racist, nothing is racist.”
POWERLINE says that “America has no sympathy for those who, when losing an argument they started, reflexively accuse their adversary of racism.” To end they say, “The act has become tired.” The DAILY CALLER notes however that “…liberals have pounced on the idea that Gen. Kelly’s criticism is due to Wilson’s race and gender.” Dumb!
“As a vessel is known by the sound, whether it be cracked or not; so men are proved, by their speeches, whether they be wise or foolish” — Demosthenes (384-322 BC)
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.” — Plato (420’s-340’s BC)
I never heard so loud a voice issue from such an empty heart. It’s true what they say: “THE EMPTY VESSEL MAKES THE GREATEST SOUND.” Bardolph and Nym had ten times more courage than this roaring stage villain, whose nails any Joe could cut with a wooden dagger, but they are both hanged. So would this man if he had the nerve to steal anything bravely. I have to stay with the servants, who are with our camp’s luggage. We’re sitting ducks for the French, if they only knew it, for there is no one guarding it but boys. — William Shakespeare (AD 1564-1616)
The DCNF also found no informal use of the term that would suggest a racial connotation. Even Urban Dictionary, a crowdsourcing website for slang terms, did not list any definitions of “empty barrel” or “empty vessel,” as of Friday morning.
Famous writers have used the expression over the centuries. Playwright William Shakespeare used it in Act 4 of “Henry V.” “I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true ‘The empty vessel makes the greatest sound,’” wrote Shakespeare.
The famous author Jonathan Swift wrote, “I have always observed that your empty vessels sound loudest.”
Writers have even attributed the phrase to Plato, although there’s no evidence he actually said those words. “An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers,” Plato allegedly said.
Being called an “empty barrel” is by no means a flattering term, but it’s not a racial slur as Wilson claims.
I bet Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying Rep. Frederica Wilson is “all hat, no cattle,” will be magically pronounced racist. AND AGAIN, the Congresswoman politicized and used this poor woman’s husband as a “chip” on the political table. Shame on her!
….Hodgkinson was a Bernie Sanders supporter who hated Trump, as his comments on social media showed.
But in the face of all evidence that Hodgkinson was a Democrat animated to go on a shooting rampage by his own political frustrations, New York Times political reporter Glenn Thrush looked to Trump.
“Any debate about civility in politics begins with Trump,” he said Thursday on Twitter. “No one has degraded discourse more, while embracing the fringe.”
Whatever “fringe” Trump appealed to, none of them have picked up an assault rifle to gun down a congressman.
That was a Bernie Bro.
In an effort to even the score between the GOP and Democrats, The New York Times editorial board chocked the incident up to “vicious American politics” and repeated the false claim that “the link to political incitement was clear” between 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and the 2011 shooting of then-Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
The paper later removed that part from its editorial, admitting that there was “no such link.”
Hodgkinson’s Facebook page showed that he belonged to the groups “Terminate the Republican Party” and “The Road to Hell is Paved with Republicans.” One note on his Facebook said, “It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”
But a bemused editorial in the Washington Post asked, “Who knows what mixture of madness and circumstance causes someone to pick up a gun and go on a rampage?”
The Washington Post then helped spread responsibility for the tragedy among everyone, saying that it should “cause a gut check about what passes for political discourse in this country.”
Hodgkinson was a partisan Democrat. Before his shooting spree, he asked Reps. Ron DeSantis and Jeff Duncan as they left the field early whether it was Republicans or Democrats practicing.
But a willfully-clueless Scott Pelley of the CBS “Evening News” ended his Thursday night program decrying unspecified “leaders and political commentators who set an example” for having “led us into an abyss of violent rhetoric.”
When an outspoken Democratic voter opens fire on a group of Republicans practicing baseball, the media blame everyone. Or just Trump.
It’s the same thing they did during the 2016 campaign.
In May last year, anti-Trump protesters shut down a campaign rally in Albuquerque, N.M. Rioters lit the city ablaze, vandalized property, and threw rocks at cops.
But the New York Times said two months prior to the riot that it’s Trump who “gives license to violence” for saying he’d like to “punch” a protester. The liberal Mother Jones said the same month that Trump is “basically encouraging violence now,” and a headline at the website Vox declared that “the problem with violence at Trump rallies starts with Trump himself.”
Why isn’t any of the violence coming from the people who support the guy who’s supposedly fueling it?….
The Blaze notes that “when Behar claimed that Limbaugh refers to President Barack Obama as the ‘magic negro,’ Norton still pushed back. The phrase made its way to Limbaugh’s radio show in the form of satirical song written by political satirist Paul Shanklin.
The song came after Los Angeles Times critic David Ehrenstein first linked Obama to the magic negro, a ‘figure of postmodern folk culture’ who serves to ease racial tensions.” There seems to be a lot of piling on Rush Limbaugh for a parody song, Barack the Magic Negro, based off of a black writers L.A. Times article (he is pictured below, hint – he is not the Asian guy).
I figure these people do not allow satire unless by John Stewart or SNL? Parody songs have been on Rush’s show for years, while I typically do not listen to him (Dennis Prager is on at the same time), I have caught a few songs here-and-there. The only reason I wish to deal with this now is I keep seeing it pop-up as a dig against Rush as a racist (implied either implicitly or explicitly) when the author of the idea — a black man — is not mentioned at all. It seems odd to me. So here is part of that L.A. Times article, followed by some Wikipedia info:
AS EVERY CARBON-BASED life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters — musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House.
But it’s clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the “Magic Negro.”
The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. “He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist,” reads the description on Wikipedia.
He’s there to assuage white “guilt” (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest….
In this article, Ehrenstein references a Wiki article on the subject. I wonder where the outrage is for others mentioned at this site? Or does the term mean something different:
….African-American filmmaker Spike Lee popularized the term, deriding the archetype of the “super-duper magical negro” in 2001 while discussing films with students at Washington State University and at Yale University.
The magical negro is a subset of the more generic numinous negro, a term coined by Richard Brookhiser in National Review. The latter term refers to saintly, respected or heroic black protagonists or mentors….
Another L.A. Times article, Redefining “black”, mentions that maybe Barack Obama is not black enough. (NewsBusters wrote on this.) In this article the relationship between immigrants from Africa and the Americanized black culture is highlighted. They talk of the following issues: “Among African Americans, discussions about his racial identity typically vacillate between the ideologically charged options of ‘black’ versus ‘not black enough’ or between ‘black’ and ‘black, but not like us’.”
When special categories are created, law ceases being equal
This was discussed on the Colbert Report, in which the guest was very serious about this, to which Colbert had a field day with…
Of course there are other great skits worth mentioning based on this as well:
Mixed Race Flow Chart
Obama’s “Blackness” Scale
All these parodies tap into this “in-house-discussion” (in the Black Community), as well as the historical “Magic Negro” concept that has its essence in a hero aspect of the black man.
~ context, context, context ~
CONTEXT IS KING
I suggest to the more serious reader one of my favorite authors and intellectuals, Thomas Sowell and his book, Black Rednecks and White Liberals. (Thomas Sowell happens to be a “Magic Negro” to me, a hero to emulate my intellectual life after.) A great read in understanding this topic in a scholarly way. If you do not want to purchase the book, order it at Barnes and Noble (if it isn’t in stock) and read the first chapter, “Black Rednecks and White Liberals,” in the store and do not purchase it (you are allowed to view books before purchasing them). Another great book is White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era, by Shelby Steele.
To conclude, here is political correctness and the “offended generation” at its best, and then warping it to use against whom they dislike (Sarah Silverstein — whom I dislike but think free speech is key to our country as well as comedy):
More about the Political Correctness chill on comedy from REASON:
Can We Take a Joke, a feature-length documentary about stand-up comedy, “outrage culture,” and censorship is now available for digital download on iTunes, Google Play, and on-demand through most major cable providers. The film was directed by former Reason TV producer Ted Balaker and co-produced and co-written by yours truly.
The reviews already have begun to roll in, with the LA Times saying that “Can We Take a Joke? poses a valid question at a juncture when freedom of speech is a hot topic,” and The Hollywood Reporter writes that the film delivers “sobering commentary” and “strongly makes the case that we’ve all got to get over ourselves.”
The movie features several stand-up comedians who’ve had unpleasant encounters with the online outrage mob, including Adam Carolla, Lisa Lampanelli, Jim Norton, and Gilbert Gottfried, who famously lost his job as the voice of the AFLAC duck after he sparked outrage on social media after making Twitter jokes about the 2011 Japanese tsunami.
“When people are outraged, they’re also patting themselves on the back,” says Gottfried. “Like, ‘Hey, I’m a good person. I was outraged.'”
Everyone, of course, has the legal right to be offended and the right to demand the firing of comedians for telling jokes. The First Amendment only protects against the government censorship of ideas, not corporate or mob censorship. But the film argues that the very idea of “free speech” requires more than simply government protection of the press.
“The First Amendment, although it’s necessary, it’s not sufficient. It has to rest on a social foundation of First Amendment values,” says Jonathan Rauch, scholar at the Brookings Institute and author the book Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought. “Once you get into the business of saying you are going to prohibit things you find offensive or wrongheaded, that’s where the most sensitive person in society gets to determine what all the rest of us can hear.”…
A must watch exchange that included Juan Williams and Laura Ingraham via NEWSBUSTERS:
During the panel discussion on the January 8 episode of Fox News Sunday, Juan Williams claimed that last week’s torture of a mentally handicapped white man by four black adults “stirs up racial tensions already hot from the campaign rhetoric of Donald Trump,” and that “white nationalists” would see this as an excuse to “legitimize acts of white racism.”
After the panel spent a couple of minutes dealing with a viewer’s question about a perceived overemphasis on the “politics” of this crime instead of the fact that it was “a racial hate crime,” Laura Ingraham circled back to criticize Williams’s comment as “completely off base.”
First, we’ll see Chris Wallace’s introduction of the panel segment, followed by some video from the horrific crime originally broadcast live on Facebook, and then by Williams’s comments:
A Muslim man charged with setting fire to a Marietta mosque may be in the country illegally, law enforcement officials confirmed Thursday.
Tamsir Mendy, 26, a native of Gambia, has been charged with first-degree arson and is being held without bail at the Cobb County detention center, said Scott Tucker, Marietta assistant fire chief.
Federal authorities have placed an “ICE detainer” on Mendy — meaning he will be handed over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for possible deportation after his case is adjudicated, said Cobb sheriff’s department spokeswoman Nancy Bodiford.
While Mendy sat in jail Thursday, his wife’s cousin, Momodou Njie, was proclaiming his innocence.
“[Mendy] is not a criminal. It makes no sense for a Muslim to set fire to a mosque where he goes to pray everyday,” Njie told the AJC. “I think the authorities are looking for a quick answer and there he was. I still think this was a hate crime.”
Njie also insisted that Mendy was in the country legally.
Of course Muslim’s do not think a fellow Muslim could do this… maybe it was the Mossad? This reminds me of the black churches being burnt in the South, and the media and Democrats bemoaning “right-wingers” as the cause. It turned out to be a black Democrat — then what?! Silence from the media. Here is some history on it followed by a more recent story:
….The CDR claims there have been 90 arsons against black churches in nine Southern states since 1990, and that the number has risen each year, reaching 35 in 1996 as of June 18. Each and every culprit “arrested and/or detained,” it stresses, has been white.
But when I contacted law enforcement officials in several states on the CDR list, a very different picture emerged. The CDR, it turns out, regularly ignored fires set by blacks and those that occurred in the early part of the decade, and labeled fires as arsons that were not — all in an apparent effort to make black church torchings appear to be escalating.
South Carolina. This state has by far the most arsons on the CDR list (27). But seven of those fires were either found not to be arsons or have not had their causes determined, according to Chief Robert Stewart of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division in Columbia. (In a note, the CDR’s report admits that two of the 27 fires were probably not arsons, but insists they are still suspicious. It makes no mention of the other five.) Moreover, far from all the arsonists having been white, eight of 18 arrested in South Carolina were black. While it’s not clear that all these arrests were made in time to make the CDR’s report, two were arrested more than a year ago.
Georgia. Of the five fires the CDR lists as black church arsons, only two can be confirmed as such, says John Bankhead, public affairs officer at the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. And one of those occurred at a church where “the congregation has about 1,000 members, of whom about a dozen are black.” What’s more, Mr. Bankhead’s records include one black church arson from 1995 that the CDR’s report omitted. The arsonist was black.
Alabama. The CDR lists 10 church fires, all between 1994 and 1996. But State Fire Marshal John Robison says that only one of these was a confirmed arson (the perpetrator being a white fireman). One fire was determined to have been an accident, another is too recent to be classified, and four are being treated as possible arsons but are as yet undetermined. That leaves three more incidents on the CDR’s list of “Southern States Black Church Burnings” for Alabama. All were in Sumter County in February 1994. The Sumter County Sheriff’s Department confirmed that none were fires but rather vandalism. The CDR’s claim they were arson, I was told, was “a bald-faced lie.” Surprisingly, the CDR omitted one bona fide 1994 black church arson in which the culprits were white [see below]. It also left out two 1994 arsons committed by blacks. (One of them was the pastor of the church.) Moreover, the group left out 10 black church arsons that took place before 1994, again creating the illusion that the burning of black churches is a recent phenomenon.
Mississippi. Of nine Mississippi fires in the CDR’s report, only three are confirmed arsons, says James Ingram, commissioner of public safety. And while the CDR reports no black church fires before 1993, Mr. Ingram’s list includes five between 1990 and 1992. One was committed by a black man; in another, black church members were suspected. Two of the Mississippi fires the CDR lists occurred this June 17; Mr. Ingram says they were clearly “copycat” crimes, spurred by the recent publicity.
Even the claim that black churches have been singled out for arson is questionable [again, see next story referenced]. In 1995, according to USA Today, there were 45 arsons against white churches and 27 against black ones in the surveyed states. Since whites outnumber blacks by four to one in these states, that seems on the surface to suggest a strong racist element.
But as USA Today pointed out, “a higher percentage of black churches are in economically depressed areas, traditionally a factor in arson.” Further, black churches tend to be smaller and therefore must be more numerous. Among the black churches USA Today surveyed, 67 percent had 100 or fewer members. Southern black churches often are in dark, lonely areas, are quite old and are made of wood. In other words, they’re an arsonist’s dream. Catholic churches, on the other hand, are virtually always made of brick or stone, and almost all are predominantly white.
So other than saying that some black churches over the years have fallen prey to racists, we can’t easily infer motives. “We have not uncovered in 38 cases a single piece of information to substantiate racially motivated fires,” said Alabama’s Mr. Robison. Further, the arsons have “been happening for at least seven years,” he said. “There have been no dramatic increases, except for this year because of the media hype.” Other states’ officials have told him the same….
There is another story that included three you white males burning down churches in Alabama that is a bit more recent. However, in the general media’s missive they forgot to mention one thing, these men were equal opportunity attackers for the most part. Here is NPR on the story:
…The three students – Benjamin Moseley, Russell Debusk and Matthew Cloyd – initially said that they had burned the first five churches as a prank. They said they panicked and set the other four churches on fire to throw detectives off their trail. Many here still’don’t understand it.
Many of the churches targeted by the fires were predominantly black, but white congregations were struck, too. Over the past year, a small group of people from the western Alabama churches have forged an unusual partnership. They meet at least once a month in Aliceville, Ala., at a fast-food restaurant. Galilee Pastor Little routinely joins them. He says that in this area of Alabama, it’s unusual for an older white gentleman and a younger black man to be friends, “calling each other and communicating with each other and respecting each other’s ideas and visions.”
Before the churches burned, Little says he rarely saw blacks and whites working together in western Alabama. He says the fires and reconstruction have brought the black and white communities closer together.
That last sentence, to get a bit theological here, is a great example of God working out a greater good from an evil. Another factor in church fires revolves around paganism. For instance, Rick Ross (I love his site) documents one such arson spree:
As many as 50 church fires in the Midwest and South over the past five years may have been solved all at once with the arrest of a man fascinated with the satanic.
Paramedics became suspicious of Jay Scott Ballinger, 36, because he waited two days before seeking treatment for severe burns he claimed to have suffered in a bonfire.
A Ball State University police officer, acting on a hunch, questioned him. Finally, last weekend, Ballinger admitted to federal authorities that he burned 30 to 50 churches in 11 states between 1994 and 1998.
So far, agents have connected Ballinger to close to 20 arsons, and he has been charged in seven of them, all involving rural churches in Indiana.
Agents said they aren’t certain of a motive, but Ballinger’s interest in the occult is clear. Police said a few years ago, he persuaded 50 teen-agers to sign contracts in blood pledging their souls to the devil.
Ballinger’s stripper girlfriend and another man have admitted taking part in burning an Indiana church where they painted an upside-down cross on the steps as part of a satanic ritual….
The point here is that the narrative often heard in the press is merely presented with the lens of class-warfare — a Howard Zinn/Progressive view of history and motives. However, upon further review, the facts do not fit with the Liberal Progressive metanarrative [worldview].