Racist Democrats

Religious & Political Extremism Motivated Violence | Concepts

Published by Papa Giorgio

In this installment of my series dealing with a local small papers regular article, I respond to the misdirection of energies to ideas surrounding religious and political extremism. A proper understanding of both history and one’s own political leaders can direct one’s energies to properly deal with the issues that animate so many.

I only have the patience and time to correct a couple of items in the above (as usual, you may click the graphic to ENLARGE it). This will again fit into the category of Mr. Huizum not knowing history well, and based on such bad historical referencing making broad claims that hurt healthy dialogue. This is a common practice in higher education, and Professor Mike S. Adams comments on what affect this has on young students:

  1. They motivate some students to dedicate their professional lives to finding solutions to non-existent problems.
  2. They cause many students to become angry over things that aren’t even true.

Letters to a Young Progressive: How to Avoid Wasting Your Life Protesting Things You Don’t Understand (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2013), 42-43.

“Life is too short to spend being angry about things that aren’t even true” (43). Similarly, one should put one’s energies towards the right area of focus. So for instance, when John states,

  • The Oklahoma bombing was perpetrated by a right-wing militia member, so politics was involved in that incident.

He has in his mind a picture of a religious right-winger. When in fact Timothy McVeigh was an atheist who renounced the Judeo-Christian God and said his “god” was science. So in reality, McVeigh’s motivations line up closer with John’s political (and some would say, religious… because “atheism” is a metaphysical viewpoint) views rather than the “religious-right.” And most of the violence has been committed by people who have left leaning political views.

(SEE BIOS OF SHOOTERS HERE, AND HERE; AS WELL AS THE MANY OCCUPY STORIES HERE; HERE, AS WELL AS THE VIOLENCE IN OPPOSITION TO BUSH AND PALIN.)

In other words, John Huizum’s focus is wrongly placed, and so his outrage in the past has not only been misplaced, but infective as well.

Another portion that I wish to point to along a similar vein is this statement:

  • The Crusades were motivated by Christians hating Muslims and vice versa, so a difference in religious beliefs caused those wars.

Again, some history will benefit the discussion. The following is from a recent post on Pope Francis canonizing some Christians who were killed in Muslim/Christian conflicts:

In case those here are not aware of this violent history intrinsic to Islam, here are some previous “clashes” that led to the West defending themselves:

The Third Crusade (1188-1192). This crusade was proclaimed by Pope Gregory VIII in the wake of Saladin’s capture of Jerusalem and destruction of the Crusader forces of Hattin in 1187. This venture failed to retake Jerusalem, but it did strengthen Outremer, the crusader state that stretched along the coast of the Levant.

The Politically incorrect guide to Islam (and the Crusades), by Robert Spencer, pp. 147-148.

The almost Political Correct myth is that the crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world are dealt with in part:

The conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood as the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution. A few examples: Early in the eighth century, sixty Christian pilgrims from Amorium were crucified; around the same time, the Muslim governor of Caesarea seized a group of pilgrims from Iconium and had them all executed as spies – except for a small number who converted to Islam; and Muslims demanded money from pilgrims, threatening to ransack the Church of the Resurrection if they didn’t pay. Later in the eighth century, a Muslim ruler banned displays of the cross in Jerusalem. He also increased the anti-religious tax (jizya) that Christians had to pay and forbade Christians to engage in religious instruction to others, even their own children.

Brutal subordinations and violence became the rules of the day for Christians in the Holy Land. In 772, the caliph al-Mansur ordered the hands of Christians and Jews in Jerusalem to be stamped with a distinctive symbol. Conversions to Christianity were dealt with particularly harshly. In 789, Muslims beheaded a monk who had converted from Islam and plundered the Bethlehem monastery of Saint Theodosius, killing many more monks. Other monasteries in the region suffered the same fate. Early in the ninth century, the persecutions grew so severe that large numbers of Christians fled to Constantinople and other Christians cities. More persecutions in 923 saw additional churches destroyed, and in 937, Muslims went on a Palm Sunday rampage in Jerusalem, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection.

The Politically incorrect guide to Islam (and the Crusades), by Robert Spencer, pp. 122-123.

One person (my pastor at the time) said to paint a picture of the crusaders in a single year in history is like showing photo’s and video of Hitler hugging children and giving flowers to them and then showing photo’s and video of the Allies attacking the German army. It completely forgets what Hitler and Germany had done prior.

What did I mean by “intrinsic”? When I talk to a Muslim I make sure I compare Jesus to Muhammad, and the Trinitarian God to the Islamic unitarian god.

MUHAMMAD ordered his followers (and participated in) the cutting of throats of between 600-to-900 persons. Not all men, but women and children. He was a military tactician that lied and told others to use deception that ultimately led to the death of many people (taqiyya). We never see any depictions of Muhammad with children, we just know that he most likely acquired a gal at age 6 and consummated the “marriage” when she was nine. He was a pedophile in other words. While the Qu’ran states that a follower of this book should have no more than 4 wives, we know of course that he had many more. Many more.

JESUS, when Peter struck off the ear of the soldier, healed it. Christ said if his followers were of any other kingdom, they would fight to get him off the cross. Christ invited and used children as examples of how Jewish adults should view their faith… something culturally radical – inviting children into an inner-circle of a group of status oriented men as the Pharisees were and using them as examples to learn from. Jesus, and thusly us, can access true love because the Triune God has eternally loved (The Father loves the Son, etc. ~ unlike the unitarian God of Islam). Love between us then, my wife and I, the love in community/Body of Christ, has foundations in God. Even the most ardent Muslim still leaves his or her entrance into “heaven” as an arbitrary choice of “god.” The love of Christ and the relationship he offers is bar-none the center piece of our faith… something the Muslim does not have. Which is why the Church evolved because they have a point of reference in Christ to come back to. We would not want the Muslim to fall back to his point of reference but to look to Jesus as a referent.

The Quran, Haditha, and other sources make clear that Muhammad was a sinner, and had to repent FOR his sins… while the same sources say Jesus was sinless, confirming Biblical doctrine.

Which leads me to one of my favorite quotes:

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 religious mission. Two of the nine, Mahavira and Buddha, were men so strong-minded 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 worshipped, 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 practical policies under change of circumstances.

Jesus Christ alone is reported as having had a consistent God consciousness, a consistent character himself, and a consistent program for his religion. The most remarkable and valuable aspect of the personality of Jesus Christ is the comprehensiveness 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.

So the Crusades were motivated by Muslims hatred for civilization, and this political view entwined in Sharia is still stuck in the barbarism of the 600’s and is still at war with civilized society. I am not saying of course the Church is blameless, do not get me wrong. What I am saying is that people (fallen and infallible) responded at times wrongly in a correct situation that needed to be handled with military power… not ecumenism. Ecumenism was the root cause for Muslim’s to take over large swaths of land. Just war stopped this onslaught and many centuries later we are still reaping the net benefit of this larger good that kept a large portion of the world free enough to allow maximal liberty. Even if this liberty was slow and gradual, it sill allowed the laboratory for experiments in political and religious philosophy that led to our current situation.

Although there were some forms of democratic government in local areas in ancient and medieval history (such as ancient Athens), when the United States began as a representative democracy in 1776, it could be called the “American experiment,” because there were at that time no other functioning national democracies in the world. But after the founding of the United States, and especially in the twentieth century, the number of functioning national democracies grew remarkably. The World Forum on Democracy reports that in 1950 there were 22 democracies accounting for 31% of the world population and a further 21 states with restricted democratic practices, accounting for 11.9% of the globe’s population. Since the turn of the century, electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and constitute 58.2% of the world’s population.

Therefore, when people today complain to me that they don’t want to get involved in politics because they think that politicians are too corrupt (or arrogant, greedy, power-hungry, and other forms of being “unspiritual”), I want to remind them that although democracy is messy, it still works quite well, and all the alternative forms of government are far worse. We should be thankful for those who are willing to be involved in it, often at great personal sacrifice.

Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 108-109.

Otherwise, most of the world would still practice keeping Africans in slavery, like in Muslim countries.

John, in the above and previous articles, has made clear he disdains political and religious extremism — explicitly and implicitly. Again, I will include a recent conversation from my Hawaiian vacation that speaks to John not applying his concerns to the proper areas — religious extremism:

….But every point of disagreement or complaint Walter had focused around racism. Which led me to my final point of the discussion with his. I asked him why he was so sensitive to the topic of race/racism. He responded that he had a family member who passed in a concentration camp during WWII, mentioning his Jewish roots. Awesome!

This led me to my favorite analogy, which I asked Walter to allow me time to build. He agreed, revealing ultimately his political inconsistencies:

Walter, I will use Bush in my analogy. Let us say for twenty years Bush attended a church that twice prominently displayed David Dukes likeness on the cover of their church’s magazine which reaches 20,000 homes, and a third time alongside Barry Mills (the founder of the Aryan Brotherhood). Even inviting David Duke to the pulpit to receive a “lifetime achievement award.” Even selling sermons by David Duke in the church’s book store. Authors of sermons sold in Bush’s church’s bookstore teach in accordance with Christian Identity’s view that Jews and blacks are offspring of Satan and Eve via a sexual encounter in the Garden of Eden. In the church’s bookstore, the entire time Bush attended, books like Mein Kampf, My Awakening (David Duke), and other blatantly racist books. Even members of the Aryan Brotherhood felt comfortable enough to sit in the pews at times… being that the pastor of the church was once a reverend for the group.

Now Walter, if Bush had gone to a church like that I would walk arm-n-arm with my Democratic comrades in making sure he would never be President. You would expect me to I am sure?

He confirmed my suspicion. I then shared my knowledge of Obama.

I purchased from Obama’s church’s bookstore online 3-books: A Black Theology of Liberation, Black Theology & Black Power, and Is God A White Racist?: A Preamble to Black Theology. In these books Walter, God is said to be against white people, and mirror in their hatred of whites to that of Jews in Mein Kampf, calling both devils.

“The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew” ~ Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf

“The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.62

“White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity. That is why whites are finding and will continue to find the black experience a disturbing reality” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.64

(see more)

Obama’s pastor not only was a minister in The Nation of Islam, an anti-Semitic/racist group, but the church’s book store sells sermons by Louise Farrakhan, who teaches that the white man was created on the Island of Cyprus by a mad scientist, Yakub. (Mr. Farrakhan also believes he was taken up on a UFO to meet God, and was told he was a little messiah, take note also that he was directly involved in the deaths of police officers as well.) Louise Farrakhan was featured twice on the church’s magazine which reach 20,000[plus] homes in the Chicago area. Even placing on the cover with Louise Farrakhan a third time the founder of the Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad. Elijah Muhammad likewise taught that the white man was created by Yakub 6,600 years ago. Walter, Louise Farrakhan teaches that the Jews in Israel do not belong there, and that the true Jews are the black people. Louise Farrakhan was invited into Obama’s church, to the pulpit and given a “lifetime achievement award.” In fact, the New Black Panthers and members of the Nation of Islam often times sat in the pews for sermons by Rev. Wright, whom Obama called a mentor.

Mouse Over To See

Another was a montage of faces – black leaders, past and present, with the title “The legacy lives on” – that included Wright, Farrakhan, Nation of Islam founder Elijah Muhammad, Rosa Parks and even O.J. Simpson attorney Johnny Cochran. (Weekly Standard; WND)

So I expect you, Walter, to join arm-and-arm with me on finding out why the media, and Democrats who are so concerned about racism let such a man into office, when, if the tables were turned, I wouldn’t want in office.

Do you know the next thing out of Walter’s mouth was?

✫ “Didn’t Bush speak in a church that forbid interracial marriage?”

I responded that no, it was a speech at Bob Jones University…

… and you are making my point Walter. If that bugs you soo much to mention it during the course of a conversation, why doesn’t Obama’s history more-so irk you? Not to mention the university overturned its silly rule, even Bob Jones said he couldn’t back up that policy with a single verse in the Bible (CNN). Obama’s CHURCH OF TWENTY YEARS has made no such concession.

At this point Walter started to get out of the hot-tub finishing with “well, that’s just your opinion” (meaning my carefully laid out facts and years of study combined with an analogy was hogwash. Walter went his way, and even avoided me when he saw me in the international caffe — even though our conversation was calm, rational, and reasoned. I even asked him permission twice to make my analogies, being polite and respecting his age. Walter is a great example of how Democrats ignore following their own concerns to their logical conclusions, when applied to their own candidate. Sad.

Washington State Attorney General (Democrat of course) Says Jail-Time for not Accepting Government Gay Marriage (Updated with FB Convo & Video)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Of course these stories are becoming more plentiful, Via Libertarian Republican:

You will go to jail for not accepting government gay marriage, says WA State Democrat AG. From the SeattleTimes, State sues florist over refusing service for gay wedding:

The state attorney general has filed a lawsuit in Benton County Superior Court against a Richland florist who refused to provide flowers for the wedding of longtime gay customers, citing her religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The state’s suit against Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, came just days after the Attorney General’s Office wrote to ask that Stutzman reconsider her position and agree to comply with the state’s anti-discrimination laws.

“Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation,” Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement. “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.”

In LR’s newest post, they make a point by saying: “Jewish Florist in Seattle forced to sell Flower arrangement to Neo-Nazis for Hitler Birthday Celebration.”

Obama Awards Racist Highest Honor

A civil rights icon who gave the benediction at President Obama’s inauguration said that he believed ‘all white people were going to hell’.

The Reverend Joseph Lowery, 91, was speaking at a rally in Georgia.

According to an account in the Monroe County Reporter: ‘Lowery said that when he was a young militant, he used to say all white folks were going to hell.

‘Then he mellowed and just said most of them were. Now, he said, he is back to where he was.’

…read more…

The point is, if one is a hate crime? Why isn’t the other considered such? In other words, President Obama shouldn’t have awarded the top civilian medal to a racist… unless Obama is a racist?

Interesting FB questions/comments and input on this story:

One friend writes:

If this florist is not a “Religious institution or business” it should allow its services without discrimination toward its buyers or customers, as well as employees who may be homosexual. I dont think this is Gay Marriage Tyranny, we all have opinions and we all have facts, hopefully, to build our opinions off of, but being a public service, or public business, they cannot discriminate on race, color, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, against hippies, or police officers, or punk rockers, or business men, or whatever.

Only in the event that they cause the business harm, can the business owner, or manager refuse service. Its kind of the same thing with Adoption agencies. These are public businesses, not so much religious institutions. It is the owners rights to close down or move its business if it doesn’t want to comply with the laws, but it is not necessarily their right to refuse service because they don’t believe its right or wrong. Remember the Chik Fila thing. They can believe what they want, but it doesn’t stop them from serving people food, regardless of their beliefs.

I know the attacks on the Institutions are coming and I hope you know Sean that I agree with you on the Christian Stance in all things. We can come up with non-faithful reasons to argue our points as well but #1 is that God is first among all things. If God is really first to this florist, then she should understand that selling flowers to someone is not condoning their behavior or their sexual orientation, its simply providing a service in which someone is paying for something. If she didn’t know they were Gay, she would have sold them flowers irregardless and this wouldn’t be a sin.

The only other option for this florist is to Close down shop. IF she really feels so strongly about it being a sin and that providing flowers for this couple would make God mad or upset with her, and the owner really loves God, then putting Him first means closing up shop. In her mind of course.

What do you think Sean?

Another friend:

What ever happened to “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”?

The first friend responds:

It doesn’t give the owners the right to Really refuse ANYONE. For example they can’t refuse you service because your wearing a blue shirt, or a hat. It can’t be some arbitrary reason. Maybe if your being offensive, or wearing something offensive, overly having a Public Display of Affection.

I respond:

Economics 101

Link through picture as well, to the section EVERYONE should read… click “Victicrats Should Take Economics 101”

I am very busy this last week-and-a-half leading up to my cruise… so I will quickley say that yes, if homosexuality were immutable, like skin color [ethnicity], I would say you would have a point. But if a person wants to not serve someone who doesn’t have shoes on, who skins animals, or prefers to catch instead of pitch… they have the prerogative to do so. Let the free market work, see the section “Victicrats Should Take Economics 101” http://tinyurl.com/ck4vcck

My wife’s family member gives her input:

I am a professional vocalist and I sing for numerous weddings. I would not sing for a same sex ceremony. I have refused to sing for weddings that I did not support – even though they were a man and woman. Does this mean that now I could be sued for refusing to take the job if offered by a gay couple? A marriage is more than just a ceremony to me. It truly is a Faith issue for me. I find it hard to believe that if I (or a florist) choose to refrain from extending my talents and abilities for hire to someone that I do not support in their marital decision than I lose MY rights. This is CRAZY and out of CONTROL. I am sure there are plenty of gay florists out there – They would probably appreciate the business.

I chime in:

Great point, would a person lose his or her right to not provide a service to a couple who didn’t get per-marital counseling from a pastor? Are they disenfranchised? Or can they simply take their business elsewhere? They should simply take their business elsewhere. That is what the free-market is for.

For the record, I would have provided the flowers, seeing that it would have been a great opportunity to befriend and witness to a lost world.

Ann Coulter on `Code Words`

Published by Papa Giorgio

CODE WORDS

When Republicans say something a team of scientists could study without finding racism, liberals say the Republicans are using code words.

Not only photos of Paris Hilton and Scott Brown’s pickup truck, but standard Republican positions on small government, low taxes and tough­on-crime policies are supposed to be proof of racism. That’s convenient. Since there is nothing objectively racist about these policy stances, liberals explain that they are “dog whistles” “slick racism,” “subtle racism” or “code words” that secretly convey: “I hate black people.”

This is as opposed to liberals who actually make racist statements all the time—but they have good hearts, so it doesn’t count.

We had Biden calling Obama “the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean.” Former CBS newsman Dan Rather said the argument against Obama would be that “he’s very articulate… but he couldn’t sell watermelons if you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.” Senator Harry Reid praised Obama for not having a “Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

But because they are liberals, their use of actually racist phrases be­comes code for “I love black people!”

As French philosopher Jean-Francois Revel said of the left, while most regimes are judged on their records, only communism is judged only by its promises. Similarly, modern liberals are judged on their motives; conser­vatives are judged on what liberals claim we really meant.

The Tea Party was held responsible for every single person who showed up at their rallies, including random nuts or liberal infiltrators as if it proved something about the whole movement. Meanwhile, the explosion of sexual assaults, drug overdoses and property damage at Occupy Wall Street events were never thought to impugn the admirable motives of that group. (The first month of Occupy Wall Street protests included more than a dozen sexual assaults; at least half a dozen deaths by overdose, suicide or murder; and millions of dollars in property damage.)

Hordes of young liberal nitwits sport T-shirts featuring Che Guevara, a vile racist who described blacks as “indolent,” spending their “meager wage on frivolity or drink” who lack an “affinity with washing.” This isn’t a big secret: He wrote it in his book The Motorcycle Diaries. No one calls them racist.

When it comes to black conservatives, liberals drop the subtlety and tell us that blacks are stupid, unqualified and oversexed. It’s as if all the fake fawning over black nonentities creates a burning desire in liberals to call some black person an idiot—and all that rage gets dumped on black con­servatives.

Democratic Senator Harry Reid called Clarence Thomas “an embar­rassment to the Supreme Court,” adding, “I think that his opinions are poorly written.” Name one, Harry.

White liberal Washington Post reporter Mary McGrory dismissed Thomas as “Scalia’s puppet.” The New York Times’s Bill Keller called Justice Thomas an affirmative action appointment.

Bill Clinton slyly demeaned Colin Powell by citing him as a product of “affirmative action,” slipping it in during a televised town hall meeting in his 1997 “national conversation” on race. “Do you favor the United States Army abolishing the affirmative action program that produced Colin Powell?” he asked. “Yes or no?”

When Bush made Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, there was an explosion of racist cartoons portraying Rice as Aunt

Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from Gone with the Wind, a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist clichés. Joseph Cirincione, with the Carnegie En­dowment for International Peace, said Rice “doesn’t bring much experi­ence or knowledge of the world to this position.” (Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose experience for the job consisted of being married to an impeached, disbarred former president.) Democratic consultant Bob Beckel—who ran Walter Mondale’s campaign so competently that Mondale lost forty-nine states—said of Rice, “I don’t think she’s up to the job.”

When Michael Steele ran for governor in Maryland, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dug up a copy of his credit report—something done to no other Republican candidate. He was depicted in blackface and with huge red lips by liberal blogger Steve Gilliard. Oreo cookies were rolled down the aisle at Steele during a gubernatorial debate.

And of course, both Clarence Thomas and presidential candidate Her­man Cain were slandered with racist stereotypes out of a George Wallace campaign flier.

But a Republican drives a red pickup truck and that’s “racist.”

Liberals step on black conservatives early and often because they can’t have black children thinking, “Hmmm, the Republicans have some good ideas, maybe I’m a Republican.”

The basic set-up is:

Step 1: Spend thirty years telling blacks that Republicans are racist and viciously attacking all black Republicans.

Step 2: Laugh maliciously at Republicans for not having more blacks in their party.

Republican positions are not code words for racism. Rather, liberals use “racism” as a code word for Republican positions. The basic difference be­tween the parties is that Republicans support small government, low taxes, and tough-on-crime policies, while Democrats prefer behemoth national government with endless Washington bureaucracies bossing us around, taxes through the roof and releasing criminals.

Republicans also oppose abortion and gay marriage, but those are touchy issues for Democrats since black people don’t like them either. So those aren’t “code words.”

In lieu of arguing with Republicans, Democrats simply brand all words describing their positions as a secret racist code, visible only to liberals. (To be fair, they should know.)

Bill Moyers distributed tapes of Martin Luther King’s adulterous affairs to the press. But this sensitive soul claims Republicans hated LBJ’s Great

Society program because they hated black people. Yes—Republicans were only pretending to care about bankrupting the country. That was a pretext, but deep down they didn’t care one way or another about a gargantuan, useless government spending program, requiring heavily staffed Washington bureaucracies. What reason, other than racism, could Republicans have for objecting to that?

How has the War on Poverty improved black people’s lives again? Try comparing how black people were doing before and after the Great Society before answering that.

Democrats claim “states’ rights” is racist code, but they are the only ones who ever used the phrase as a front for racism. Democrats love enormous, metastasizing national government for everything under the sun — but, strangely, they wanted “states’ rights” for their Jim Crow policies. Republicans want a tiny federal government with the states running everything else. The only times in the last century that Republicans have supported a broad federal remedy was when the Democrats were denying black people their civil rights in the South.

As has been overwhelmingly demonstrated over the past few decades, when Republicans talked about things like “states’ rights,” “law and order” and “welfare reform,” what they meant was: states’ rights, law and order and welfare reform. And as soon as their policies were implemented—most aggressively during the post-OJ verdict paradise—blacks suddenly had better lives and started being murdered a lot less. There are your Republican racists.

Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 250-253.

A Conversation with Your Typical Liberal Believer and Watcher of MSNBC

Published by Papa Giorgio
Facebook Post

A liberal professor interviewed in Indoctrinate U explains that protecting and teaching from one ideological viewpoint insulates students who are liberal to properly defend and coherently explain their views. This excerpt is taken from two parts, Part 1 (http://tinyurl.com/cdt94vp), and Part 2 (http://tinyurl.com/cvlhlba).

I posted the above video on my FaceBook site, with the following information and the long portion before and after this small excerpt. This video garnered a response from a very left leaning person. Let’s dive in:

J.B. Started:

…now, find anyone who actually thinks conservatives can survive being expose to FACTS

I Respond (SeanG):

What facts do you think conservatives should be exposed to J.B.?

J.B.

that id [is] such a loaded question … i guess we could start with the fact that the tea party and the KKK have the same ideology…

SeanG:

Lets stick with that first sentence J.B., “i guess we could start with the fact that the tea party and the KKK have the same ideology.” It is interesting that you would choose that option as your first example. It was chosen by a previous liberal “mind” that I spoke with. And I responded thusly (remember?):

https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/some-people-cannot-give-an-inch-conversation-about-racism-and-the-parties-talking-to-a-partisan-wall/

I just wish to comment here that John (J.B.) waxes long about FACTS, even capitalizing them. But you will notice how I present them and he refers to the concept of them.

J.B.

I chose it for ONE reason ….because it is a FACT you cannot stand .. and try to hide from with ramblings at length about dead people rather than addressing the FACT … the TEA PARTY is a racist organization…and is making the GOP into a racist party ….until you can accept the FACTS of today … you may as well keep living in your little ,nicely protected hole of propaganda form the [the] right

SeanG

How can the “Tea Party” be racist when we know… sorry,…. when we KNOW Obama has racist leanings and surrounds himself — most of his life [literally] — with racist persons and radicals? Wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, your concern be with racist Democrats like the ones that were keynote speakers at the 2012 DNC?

Another note. I have given a real world example, Julián Castro, whom — as I already pointed out to John is a card carrying member of LaRaza Unida,. In fact, his mother founded her cities chapter… it is [if there were an analogy to it, be] like the KKK, just a Mexican version of it.

I continue:

J.B.? shouldn’t you be worried about the highest levels of the Democratic Party choosing a keynote that is a card carrying member of La Raza Unida (his mother being the founder of the chapter in her city — if there were an analogy it would be the religious arm of the KKK) to speak at a presidential event? How is this comparable to the Tea Party?

How can a President of these United States have gone to a church that had a preacher from the Nation of Islam on its church magazine (with 20,000[+] subscriber homes) 3-times and awarded him an IN CHURCH award and honorary day? The same guy that says and teaches the White man was created by a mad scientist over 6,000 years ago on the Island of Cyprus. And was personally connected with the death of police officers (http://www.facebook.com/notes/sean-giordano/the-mosque-and-charlie-rangel/10151150128828193)?

Are there Tea Party comparisons you can think of? Like if “Dubya” went to a church for twenty years where Christian Identity was taught, where a David Duke figure was on its church magazine 3-times (and it went to 20,000 homes, including all members, like “Dubya’s” house), and this David Duke figure — that taught that the Jews and Black came from the sexual intercourse of the serpent (Satan) and Eve, was awarded IN CHURCH where “Dubya” went? I can’t think of an analogy, can you?

After asking others if they can give an analogy, a real world example of something similar in the Republican Party, or Tea Party, no one did. So I try my hand at helping John, after commenting on him drinking the MSNBC jungle juice:

J.B. has obviously drinking from the Kool-Aid at MSNBC’S fount:

Example 1:

I got one! The first motion picture to be shown at the White House by a sitting President that was produced by the KKK! Ha…. oh… er, wait… that was a Democrat President. My bad.

Example 2:

Oh! Maybe a group founded to scare people into voting for one political Party by lynching, threats, and violence, killing white and black persons from the other Party! There you go!

…no…no… wait… those were Democrats as well. Sorry:

… not only that, but the NRA was founded to protect these black Americans from the KKK (Sorry MSNBC: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/sorry-libs-nra-was-there-to-help-blacks-defend-themselves-from-kkk-democrats-not-the-other-way-around/)

Damn. I am trying to help, but am making things worse.

Example 3:

Welfare doesn’t help:

✪ “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” ~ Lyndon B. Johnson

How though? Hmmmm… The left subsidizes failure and broken families, and argues that this is good, which causes more to vote for handouts:

Example 4:

Maybe is we help make family planning decisions. Nope, another racist venture by Democrats:

✪ “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” ~ Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

J.B. Responds with an evidence laced screed that would make any geometry teacher happy/ Not. Take note that in order to prove that the Tea Party is racist, he merely includes more organizations without a drop of evidence. The naming of organizations versus a leading Democrat being in a racist group and laying out Obama’s 20-years attendance in another discussion are not facts to John:

J.B.

Sean… since we are in th[e] 21st century and you seem stuck in the late 19th and early 20th century …..not much point in talking to you about FACTS….. the tea party, FOX and , apparently you, can’t stand simple facts like the extreme racism and anti-Americanism of the CURRENT right wing GOP and tea party ,… soo….. back to lurking I go ….you did prove my point however.. the topic was .. should the RIGHT as well as the left be open to looking at other points of view and you have shown your answer is no ….not points or view and not facts…. have a nice fantasy life with your ‘sources’ you will never, ever know what is going on in the real world ..and I do not have the time or energy to try to change that for yo0u . Sorry about your inability to think …and , oh

While not the topic he led off with and the one I tried to pin him down on (defend your first example would be a logical request), he mentions the following, “he objects to the FACT that right wing extremists such as himself cannot stand the idea that they ALSO need to be exposed to other people’s opinions,…”

Conservatives are exposed to the other side, on campuses, force fed by their teachers, tv, even ESPN sports casters push the Left-Wing screed. Me, I have every religious holy text, cult writings, occult texts, books by Democrats, by Libertarians, and the like. My large home library is filled with books that challenge my religious and political worldview. I doubt highly that John has said to himself that he is going to set aside his belief structure and honestly search for answers to the tough questions.

J.B. continues:

btw…. I am now going to try to be done with this thread .. and with any attempt to expose Sean to anything that might shake his fantasy world.

I respond:

J.B. said:

✪ “… you seem stuck in the late 19th and early 20th century …”

While I can literally mention from the time of Andrew Jackson (Democrat) putting on the Supreme Court Democrats who passed Dred Scott, to the segregationists/separatists, to the infamous “Black Codes,” to the founding of the KKK, to all but one of the Dixi-Crats staying Democrat.

BUT John, I mentioned YOUR President and the DNC Keynote Speaker. If I remember correctly, that all happened in the 21st century. Here are some other recent comments as well:

♛ Bill Clinton ~ “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,”;
♛ Joe Biden ~ “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy…. I mean, that’s a storybook, man!”;
♛ Dan Rather ~ “but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.”;
♛ Harry Reid ~ “He doesn’t have a negro dialect.”

I proved — with facts, quotes, history, that left-wing extremists are the racist ones, as well as prejudiced:

Webster’s says this:

♚ a. belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

So we see that Webster’s main definition are based on a belief in a genetic superiority of one ethnicity (falsely called race) over another. A more in-depth definition comes from “Safire’s Political Dictionary,” and reads (in-part):

♚ racism Originally, an assumption that an individual’s abilities and potential were determined by his biological race, and that some races were inherently superior to others; now, a political-diplomatic accusation of harboring or practicing such theories. “This word [racism],” wrote Harvard Professor J. Anton De Haas in November 1938, “has come into use the last six months, both in Europe and this country… Since so much has been said about conflicting isms, it is only natural that a form was chosen which suggested some kind of undesirable character.” In fact, racism came into use two years earlier, in his 1936 book The Coming American Fascism, Lawrence Dennis wrote, “If … it be assumed that one of our values should be a type of racism which excludes certain races from citizenship, then the plan of execution should provide for the annihilation, deportation, or sterilization of the excluded races.” Racism, a shortening of racialism, was at first directed against Jews. In the nineteenth century, anti-Semites who foresaw a secular age in which religion might not be such a popular rallying force against Jews put forward the idea of Jewishness being less a religion than a race. Adolf Hitler, with his “master race” ideology, turned theory into savage practice….

(Taken from my letter to my youngest son’s high school: http://www.scribd.com/doc/115644033/A-Note-From-a-Concerned-Parent-Racism-Invoked-in-the-Classroom)

You can say all you want that “x” are racists. But I have shown (big difference) that not only is “b” racist (a belief in a genetic superiority), but prejudiced as well.

J.B. tactfully responds and decides to give me a fact that is not grounded in personal opinion:

Poor Sean, still does not understand…..and by choice never will….wonder is block willl help keep his ramblings down

This is where the conversation essentially ended, the above did cause one observer of it to note, “As the great military leader General I. Zations once said, ‘You cannot play music on a Stereo type’.”