Did We Eviscerate the Native Americans? (Whittle, D’Souza, MachoSauce)

In this PJTV series, we look at whether America is a country of hostility or prosperity. The first episode covers the treatment of Native American’s. Should we be ashamed of the way our ancestors treated them?

(ZoNation) Dinsesh D’souza, Bill Whittle, AlfonZo Rachel, and Yaron Brook explore the American experience concerning the Native American. Hear more in this episode of Setting the Record Straight!

Bully-crats: 1) Bigoted Bullies 2) IRS ~ MachoSauce

AlfonZo Rachel explains why the Democrats are the party of bullies, and reminds viewers of the long history of racism by the Democrats. Hear more as Zo tells you the story of the Democratic Party’s long association with the KKK, on this ZoNation.

AlfonZo Rachel addresses the developing scandal at Obama’s IRS. Is it time to find sources of revenue other than income taxes? Find out.

Crosshairs Not Acceptable Anymore-Controlling Language the PC Way (CNN’s John King Apologizes)~Rush Limbaugh Added

(For fuller context, see EyeBlast)

Using CNN’s line of thought, Target stores have been inciting hatred since 1962! This reminds me of a few books on the PC lifestyle the Left loves to try and inflict on us all. A fun read on this topic was written by Michael Smerconish entitled Muzzled. In his opening sentences of his first paragraph he says this:

MUZZLED. In a word, it’s what we’ve become. Words and actions in this country have become MUZZLED by those among us in favor of political correctness who would sacrifice the rugged individualism that has been the hallmark of our nation. It’s a trend that has been building for a while but is now totally out of control.

And in the final sentences Smerconish writes a fictitious letter to his son. But with all this talk… is it not headed this way? I mean, if “crosshairs” can be scrubbed from TV, how long before the actual crosshairs? Which is why putting Constitutional judges on the Supreme Court is key. Here is that fictional ending:

You know your dad; I was never comfortable when they passed the mandatory handgun hand-in.

Maybe I should have seen it coming.

I mean, when Congress finally declared the NRA to be a hate group, the handwriting was on the wall.

But they really took the gun outlawing too far. I mean, when the citizen ban was expanded to police, that was just too much for me.

The Powers That Be mentions this and throws in the pic:

At Hot Air, Allahpundit wonders: How did America survive through all the years CNN aired this program

This weird 1984/Animal Farm/Fahrenheit 451/Brave New World way of thinking that infects the left is crazy! However, since the Democratic Party is leaning left these days, there is some history people should know about maybe why it is that the Left loves to control language in a Politically Correct fashion. Here is a decent 3-part YouTube presentation of the ideas behind this language control:

PART 2

PART 3

COEXIST?

A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against the Evils of Islam

The idea that many faiths can co-exist with Islam is laughable. The question remains: “Would you want a person to be more like Muhammad (following his example), or Jesus (following His example)?” It a simple concept. Muhammad married a six-year old and had sex with her when she was nine. He ordered the slitting of the throats of 700-to-900 people (men, women, and children) and in fact personally helped in this endeavor. He even ordered his followers to lie (Taqiyya). Jesus, when peter struck off the ear of the Roman soldier, healed it – saying: “those who live by the sword will die by it.” He invited children into the inner circle of Jewish Pharisees and used them as examples of faith, often you will see in paintings Jesus smiling with children around. You do not see this with the militaristic person of Muhammad. Also, Jesus loved truth, even proclaiming it will set you free.



This espouses a great quote from a world religion scholar that I love:

The nine founders among the eleven living religions in the world had characters which attracted many devoted followers during their own lifetime, and still larger numbers during the centuries of subsequent history. They were humble in certain respects, yet they were also confident of a great re¬ligious mission. Two of the nine, Mahavira and Buddha, were men so strongminded and self-reliant that, according to the records, they displayed no need of any divine help, though they both taught the inexorable cosmic law of Karma. They are not reported as having possessed any consciousness of a supreme personal deity. Yet they have been strangely deified by their followers. Indeed, they themselves have been wor¬shipped, even with multitudinous idols.

All of the nine founders of religion, with the exception of Jesus Christ, are reported in their respective sacred scriptures as having passed through a preliminary period of uncertainty, or of searching for religious light. Confucius, late in life, confessed his own sense of shortcomings and his desire for further improvement in knowledge and character. All the founders of the non-Christian religions evinced inconsistencies in their personal character; some of them altered their prac¬tical policies under change of circumstances.

Jesus Christ alone is reported as having had a consistent God consciousness, a consistent character himself, and a con¬sistent program for his religion. The most remarkable and valuable aspect of the personality of Jesus Christ is the com¬prehensiveness and universal availability of his character, as well as its own loftiness, consistency, and sinlessness.

Robert Hume, The World’s Living Religions (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959), 285-286.

All this understanding is summed up in this graphic that “spoofs” [tells the truth] about a good deal of Islam:

(Graphic Source)

Some Historical Connections To The Ground-Zero Mosque Issue

PJTV h/t:

Just One Minute has an excellent post in regards to the Ground-Zero Mosque, here is the end to his post:

We were attacked by Muslim extremists; this mosque would be a powerful symbol of victory for extremists, it may be financed by extremists, and it may be that, regardless of the motivations of the founder, it will be one day be run by extremists.

If the imam seriously wants reconciliation and bridge-building, he should relocate.  If he wants to give offense (as is his right), he should stay on his current course, and we will see how the debate unfolds.

Personally, I doubt he can raise the money.  Any investor will be calling attention to himself, his family, his business associates, and all past deals, all of which will go under a microscope.  If there is a hint of a whiff of a suggestion of a link to extremists, we will read about nothing else.  Who needs the publicity?

THE DEBATE SO FAR:  From the cacophony I hear my people from Jersey: “Yo, fool, reconcile yourself to this!”  Yeah, I got something for you to tolerate right here, buddy.”

My main man, Chris Christie, punted; I guess he doesn’t have the body to tap dance.

LET’S PUT ALL THE ‘PC’ EGGS IN ONE BASKET… Maybe they can complete the mosque quickly enough that it will be available to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during his NYC trial.

OUCH!

One should not miss my posts on this either:

Walid Shoebat Discusses Why Islam Is Not A Religion of Peace

How many radical Muslims are there in the world?

Writing at the Weekly Standard, Robert Satloff takes apart a new book by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, both of them professional pro-Islam propagandists, published by the Gallup organization, where Mogehed is executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. Satloff shows how, through fraudulent definition of the word “radical,” the authors make it appear that a multi-year study of Muslim opinion worldwide showed that only seven percent of Muslims are radical, when, in reality, by any fair reading of the authors’ own polling data, the correct number is 37 percent.

The authors define Muslim radicals as those who say the 9/11 attack was “completely justified,” which was seven percent of the sample. However, there were two other categories of respondents who said that the attack was at least partially justified, and they are labeled by the authors as “moderates.” The first of those groups comprises 6.5 percent of the sample, the second comprises 23.1 percent. Further, the respondents in that last category, making up 23.1 percent, also said that they hate America, want to impose Sharia law, support suicide bombing, and oppose equal rights for women. Yet Esposito and Mogahed call them “moderates.”

7 plus 6.5 plus 23.1 equals 36.6 percent of 1.2 billion Muslims, or 439 million radical Muslims in the world. Just a tiny unrepresentative minority.

The theme of the Esposito-Mogahed book is that most Muslims are just like us, a notion mocked by the title of Satloff’s article: “Just Like Us! Really?” This is most ironic, given that the Weekly Standard is a leading supporter of President Bush and his Islam democratization policy, which is founded on the assumption that Muslims are … just like us. The Standard thus happily takes apart leftists who say that Muslims are just like us, while it remains silent about and keeps supporting the president who says that Muslims are just like us.

Clearly, the right-liberal hand doesn’t know what the left-liberal hand is doing, or, more precisely, the right-liberal hand refuses to recognize that it is doing the same thing as the left-liberal hand, even as it condemns the left-liberal hand.