Racist Democrats

Larry Elder interviews Tavis Smiley and Cornel West about issues dealing with politics, race, and the black community

Published by Papa Giorgio

I was interested in Cornel West’s description of himself as a socialist Christian. Two quotes/articles that may shed some light on this will be helpful:

A seminary level treatment of the “ownership” topic from the Bible:

And a great article about whether or not Jesus was a socialist:

From a FaceBook discussion:

Acts is a specific instance in time, and place. Richards explains

✦ “What Acts is describing is an unusual moment in the life of the early church, when the church was still very small. Remember this is the beginning of the church in Jerusalem.”

In addition, we know that other early churches had different arrangements. Take, for example, the Thessalonians. Peter taught that people who will not work do not deserve any wealth whatsoever, not even wealth in the form of food.

✦ “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.” (1 Thes. 3.10-12)

(Proverbs 10:4 says, “Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth.” Proverbs 14:23 says, “All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty.”)

Let me understand you correctly James. You are saying the Church (universal — all Christians) should privately practice this “helping the poor.” You are not advocating Christian redistribution, but that one should give from his ability, right? Are you agreeing with me that all Scripture teaches that government has no jurisdiction to redistribution of wealth, and Jesus neither compelled people to give accept out of one’s free will. We may agree more than you think?

One last note from a great article on this topic:

✦ “But did not the early Church of Jerusalem in Acts 4:32-36 sell all their goods and “distributed to each as anyone had need”? Yes, they did do this. But we must note again that their participation in this community was voluntary (Acts 5:4). This same communal Church of Jerusalem, incidentally, was unable to withstand the worldwide famine that occurred during the Roman Emperor Claudius’ reign. In fact, Christians in other cities, amidst the same famine, had to provide a “stimulus package” to the communal Jerusalem church (Acts 11:27-30). This is not to assert that communal living was the absolute cause of the Jerusalem Church’s fiscal shortfall. It is merely to say that their socialist structure was found to be insufficient in times of natural disaster.” (christiancapitalism.net/​was-jesus-a-socialist-2/​)

For more clear thinking like this from Larry Elder… I invite you to visit: larryelder.com/​

One may be interested to see also why I left a church of 12-years over similar issues; and my chapter from my book on this. Also this knock-out quote I love! Take note even in this day that Chicago was sort-of an epicenter to liberalism and Christianity:

… As Dr. Carl F. H. Henry pointed out: “The Chicago evangelicals, while seeking to overcome the polarization of concern in terms of personal evangelism or social ethics, also transcended the neo­Protestant nullification of the Great Commission.” “The Chicago Declaration did not leap from a vision of social utopia to legislation specifics, but concentrated first on biblical priorities for social change.” “The Chicago evangelicals did not ignore transcendent aspects of God’s Kingdom, nor did they turn the recognition of these elements into a rationalization of a theology of revolutionary violence or of pacifistic neutrality in the face of blatant militarist aggression.” (Cf. Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, “Evangelical Social Concern” Christianity Today, March 1, 1974.) The evangelical social concern is transcendental not merely horizontal.

We must make it clear that the true revolutionaries are different from the frauds who “deal only with surface phenomena. They seek to remove a deep-seated tumor from society by applying a plaster to the surface. The world’s deepest need today is not something that merely dulls the pain, but something that goes deep in order to change the basic unity of society, man himself. Only when men individually have experienced a change and reorientation, can society be redirected in the way it should go. This we cannot accomplish by either violence or legislation” (cf. Reid: op. cit.). Social actions, without a vertical and transcendental relation with God only create horizontal anxieties and perplexities!

Furthermore, the social activists are in fact ignorant of the social issues, they are not experts in the social sciences. They simply demand an immediate change or destruction of the social structures, but provide no blueprint of the new society whatsoever! They can be likened to the fool, as a Chinese story tells, who tried to help the plant grow faster by pulling it higher. Of course such “action” only caused the plant to wither and die. This is exactly what the social radicals are doing now! And the W.C.C. is supporting such a tragic course!

We must challenge them [secular social activists] to discern the difference between the true repentance and “social repentance.” The Bible says: “For the godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret; but worldly grief produces death” (II Cor. 7:10). This was the bitter experiences of many former Russian Marxists, who, after their conversion to Christ came to understand that they had only a sort of “social repentance”—a sense of guilt before the peasant and the proletariat, but not before God. They admitted that “A Russian (Marxist) intellectual as an individual is often a mild and loving creature, but his creed (Marxism) constrains him to hate” (cf. Nicolas Zernov: The Russian Religious Renaissance). “As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one…. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:10,23). A complete change of a society must come from man himself, for basically man is at enmity with God. All humanistic social, economic and political systems are but “cut flowers,” as Dr. Trueblood put it, even the best are only dim reflections of the Glory of the Kingdom of God. As Benjamin Franklin in his famous address to the Constitutional Convention, said, “Without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.” Without reconciliation with God, there is no reconciliation with man. Social action is not evangelism; political liberation is not salvation. While we shall by all means have deep concern on social issues; nevertheless, social activism shall never be a substitution for the Gospel.

Lit-sen Chang, The True Gospel vs. Social Activism (booklet. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co: 1976), 9.

Racist Democrats Try and Paint Perry as Racist

Published by Papa Giorgio

From BIG GOVERNMENT, and they do have audio of it:

…Aside from the confirmation that Shabazz did meet Obama in Selma, I’ll just highlight this bit of the conversation:

Question: What is it that he said either in Selma, Alabama or that you’ve seen him say recently that particularly pleased you?

Malik Shabazz: Well, when he was in Selma, when he spoke at the black church there and he was able to again draw out of the tenets of black liberation theology. Because he was teaching about the story of [inaudible – Jesus?] and Moses and Pharaoh and the children of Israel and the Pharaoh as it is written in the Torah or the Old Testament. And he was drawing the comparison to the struggle for justice through slavery here in America and comparing us to the children of Israel. And so I knew that he had a…a based in some sound theology that is rooted in our community. And at that point I knew that he…he understood what was going on.

Shabazz goes on to say “God is with this man.”

If you’re interested in hearing the speech Obama gave inside the AME Church in Selma, the one Shabazz is commenting on, it was broadcast by C-SPAN and can be viewed here.

Observers have speculated on Obama’s connection to black liberation theology since Reverend Wright came on the scene, but Shabazz is one more voice confirming that Obama does have an affinity for that viewpoint or, at the very least, understands it well enough to give a convincing sermon based on its tenets–one understood by its audience as such.

</p

Here is more from WND — and know that I know that the above and below pictures are from a Selma March… but you don’t think that if George W. Bush spoke on the same stage as a David Duke or Barry Mills and was standing feet from him that the media would be going ape-shit!?

…The NBPP is a controversial black extremist party whose leaders are notorious for their racist statements and for leading anti-white activism.

Shabazz himself has given scores of speeches condemning “white men” and Jews.

The NBPP’s official platform states “white man has kept us deaf, dumb and blind,” refers to the “white racist government of America,” demands black people be exempt from military service and uses the word Jew repeatedly in quotation marks.

Shabazz has led racially divisive protests and conferences, such as the 1998 Million Youth March in which a few thousand Harlem youths reportedly were called upon to scuffle with police officers and speakers demanded the extermination of whites in South Africa.

The NBPP chairman was quoted at a May 2007 protest against the 400-year celebration of the settlement of Jamestown, Va., stating, “When the white man came here, you should have left him to die.”

He claimed Jews engaged in an “African holocaust,” and he has promoted the anti-Semitic urban legend that 4,000 Israelis fled the World Trade Center just prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

When Shabazz was denied entry to Canada in 2008 while trying to speak at a black-activist event, he blamed Jewish groups and claimed Canada “is run from Israel.”

Canadian officials justified the action stating he has an “anti-Semitic” and “anti-police” record, but some reports pointed to what was termed a minor criminal history for the decision to deny him entry.

He similarly blamed Jews for then-New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani’s initial decision, later rescinded, against granting a permit for the Million Youth March.

The NBPP’s deceased chairman, Khallid Abdul Muhammad, a former Nation of Islam leader who was once considered Louis Farrakhan’s most trusted adviser, gave speeches referring to the “white man” as the “devil” and claiming that “there is a little bit of Hitler in all white people.”

In a 1993 speech condemned by the U.S. Congress and Senate, Muhammad, lionized on the NBPP site, referred to Jews as “bloodsuckers,” labeled the pope a “no-good cracker” and advocated the murder of white South Africans who would not leave the nation subsequent to a 24-hour warning……

MORE… 

  • “Barack Obama marched with New Black Panthers at a rally in 2007” Andrew Breitbart at BIG GOVERNMENT

…Tomorrow, J. Christian Adams, the Department of Justice whistleblower in the New Black Panther Party case, will release his new book, Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department (Regnery).

The book exposes Obama administration corruption far beyond the Panther dismissal, and reveals how the institutional Left has turned the power of the DOJ into an ideological weapon.

Adams’s book also describes, in detail, the Selma march at which then-Senator Obama was joined by a group of Panthers who had come to support his candidacy.

Among those appearing with Obama was Shabazz, the Panther leader who was one of the defendants in the voter intimidation case that Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed. Also present was the Panthers’ “Minister of War,” Najee Muhammed, who had called for murdering Dekalb County, Georgia, police officers with AK-47’s and then mocking their widows in this video (7:20 – 8:29).

This was the same visit to Selma where Obama credited the 1965 marchers with empowering his black father and white mother to marry… Obama was born in 1961. He was off by 4 years. But, it made a good speech

Read More at GATEWAY PUNDIT

 

Mark Levin and Michael Medved Deal with Media Painting Rick Perry as a Racist (Updated with Jon Stewart Bit)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This from What’s Up With That?

So I drove around just a bit in Guthrie, until I spotted somebody I could ask. It was like a ghost town, but I finally found someone (actually they found me because parked and waited and he rode by on a bike) and I flagged the guy down and asked where I might find some gas. He thought a moment and said “There’s no gas here, nearest is either Ralls or Crosbyton”. I asked where those towns were and he said: “on 82 (pointing west) out past the niggerheads, and then past Dickens”. I said “What? Niggerhead? Is that a town? and he looked at me like I was from another planet (I didn’t tell him I was from California) and he said “no that’s the hills, you’ll see em, and then ya go through Dickens, and Crosbyton, and then Ralls. One of ‘em should have gas.”

I did find gas in Crosbyton, after driving west on 82 through the hills the man described which you can see here in Google maps.

The term “niggerheads” was puzzling and odd, but I figured it was just some local colloquialism, and I didn’t give it another thought…until today.

So after being bombarded with all the news stories about how offensive this term is, and noting that some of the same people doing reporting lambasting Perry over the name of a ranch called “niggerhead” have absolutely no trouble at all calling people like me and the readers of WUWT “deniers” (Think Progress, Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, among others) which is also an ugly and offensive term due to the connection to “holocaust deniers”.

So, I thought I’d see what I could find on it. I figured if it was some sort of local colloquial term when I heard it in Texas last spring, I’d find it in older books and maps.

So in my first Google search, amongst all the news stories about Perry, I found my first clue as to why I heard the term,  in Wikipedia:

The term was once widely used for all sorts of things, including products such as soap and chewing tobacco, but most often for geographic features such as hills and rocks.[citation needed] In the U.S., more than hundred “Niggerheads” and other place names now considered racially offensive were changed in 1962 by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, but many local names remained unchanged.[1]

So that explained why the fellow I asked directions from used the term for the hills I’d drive through. The NYT article I cited above also mentions this.

I can understand how it is offensive, and I can certainly see removing it. But I think removing it is going to be a much bigger job than the bloodhounds in the mainstream media thinks. Just look at all the references to the word in science and engineering and geography:

You should read all the places and things named this… very interesting!

================================================

This is Obama`s Army

Published by Papa Giorgio

Likewise, Gateway Pundit posts:

Locked out AFL-CIO union members in North Dakota are using racist slurs and hanging stuffed monkeys from a noose outside the American Crystal Sugar plant in North Dakota.
Chron.com reported:

Police say union supporters have directed racial slurs and racist symbols at replacement workers and security personnel outside an American Crystal Sugar plant in North Dakota.

Traill County Sheriff Mike Crocker says there have been racial statements made to security people outside of the company’s Hillsboro facility. He says he recently saw a monkey-like figure hanging from a noose attached to a large inflatable rat outside the plant. He says it was removed the next day.

The Grand Forks Herald reported Tuesday (http://bit.ly/oQfZWj) that many of the replacement workers are from Southern states, and some are minorities.

Union representative Mark Froemke calls the behavior “totally unacceptable” and says the union will not tolerate racism.

Nancy`s Crazy Class War Conspiracies: The Rich Wont Pay Taxes Because They Want To Be Immortal, GOP Hates Kids & Keeps Wages Low to Force People To Pay Bank Fees

Published by Papa Giorgio

Did you catch her list? Here is Prager on this:

By: Dennis Prager

The highest-ranking Democrat in America, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, described the Senate bill making English the national language of the American people as “racist.” And the New York Times editorial page labeled the bill “xenophobic.”

Welcome to the thoughtless world of contemporary liberalism. Beginning in the 1960s, liberalism, once the home of many deep thinkers, began to substitute feeling for thought and descended into superficiality.

One-word put-downs of opponents’ ideas and motives were substituted for thoughtful rebuttal. Though liberals regard themselves as intellectual — their views, after all, are those of nearly all university professors — liberal thought has almost died. Instead of feeling the need to thoughtfully consider an idea, most liberal minds today work on automatic. One-word reactions to most issues are the liberal norm.

This is easy to demonstrate.

Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:The "Sweep Under the Rug" Argument

  • Racist
  • Sexist
  • Homophobic
  • Islamophobic
  • Imperialist
  • Bigoted
  • Intolerant

And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:

  • Peace
  • Fairness
  • Tolerance
  • The poor
  • The disenfranchised
  • The environment

These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways.

First, they attack the motives of non-liberals and thereby morally dismiss the non-liberal person.

Second, these words make it easy to be a liberal — essentially all one needs to do is to memorize this brief list and apply the right term to any idea or policy. That is one reason young people are more likely to be liberal — they have not had the time or inclination to think issues through, but they know they oppose racism, imperialism and bigotry, and that they are for peace, tolerance and the environment.

Third, they make the liberal feel good about himself — by opposing conservative ideas and policies, he is automatically opposing racism, bigotry, imperialism, etc.

Examples could fill a book.

Harry Reid, as noted above, supplied a classic one. Instead of grappling with the enormously significant question of how to maintain American identity and values with tens of millions of non-Americans coming into America, the Democratic leader and others on the Left simply label attempts to keep English as a unifying language as “racist.”

Another classic example of liberal non-thought was the reaction to former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers’ mere question about whether the female and male brains were wired differently. Again, instead of grappling with the issue, Harvard and other liberals merely dismissed Summers as “sexist.”

A third example is the use of the term “racist” to end debate about race-based affirmative action or even to describe a Capitol police officer who stops a black congresswoman who has no ID badge.

“Phobic” is the current one-word favorite among liberal dismissals of ideological opponents. It combines instant moral dismissal with instant psychological analysis. If you do not support society redefining marriage to include members of the same sex you are “homophobic” — and further thought is unnecessary. If you articulate a concern about the moral state of Islam today, you are “Islamophobic” — and again further thought is unnecessary. And if you seek to retain English as America’s unifying language, you are not only racist, you are, as the New York Times editorial describes you, “xenophobic” and “Latinophobic,” the latest phobia uncovered by the Left.

There is a steep price paid for the liberal one-wording of complex ideas — the decline of liberal thought. But with more and more Americans graduating college and therefore taught the liberal list of one-word reactions instead of critical thinking, many liberals do not see any pressing need to think through issues. They therefore do not believe they have paid any price at all.

But American society is paying a steep price. Every car that has a bumper sticker declaring “War is not the answer” powerfully testifies to the intellectual decline of the well educated and to the devolution of “liberal thought” into an oxymoron.