Why are we all suddenly feeling sorry for Sheila Sherrod, the USDA employee in Georgia who was fired for extremely inflammatory racist statements?  This woman is CLEARLY complicit in racist behavior, simply unacceptable from a public servant.

A couple of days ago a video was released of Ms. Sherrod acting as a featured guest speaker at an NAACP event in March.  She described a situation in which she was charged with assisting a white farmer.  She goes on to say that she was standing and listening to this man talk at length about his issues, and doing his best to be “superior” to her.  She goes on to say that while he was bloviating about his supposed superiority, she was thinking about the fact that there were lots of black farmers that had lost their land, and here she was, forced to help a white one.  Then she goes on to detail how she refused to give him the full force of her abilities in helping him, and sent him to “one of his own,” a white lawyer trained in how to shove the white farmer through bankruptcy.

It was DISGUSTING to watch.

She did, later in the video, say something about how it occurred to her it wasn’t, but was, but wasn’t, about black or white.  Watch the video and see for yourself. She was trying to backtrack.

Apparently, when this video surfaced she was summarily dismissed, within hours, by Tom Vilsack (her boss), the White House and just about every other person in the political realm.  She was fired, and rightly so.  The funniest part?  They said it was because she was going to be on Glenn Beck.  (THAT, my friends, is HILARIOUS on so many levels.)

Yet, somehow, today, we’re all feeling sorry for her.  HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?

The white farmer that she was discussing in her speech to the NAACP came forward, as did his wife.  They both said that the story didn’t exactly happen the way she claimed, that she did indeed help them save their farm and actually sent them to a black lawyer first.

Hmmm ……. then why the lie?

Today the White House is saying that this woman deserves an apology.  Robert Gibbs apologized “on behalf of this administration” for the way in which it was handled.  He went on to say that the MEDIA had a portion of the blame to accept for not asking the right questions or having all the information.   He said that the GOVERNMENT had some blame to accept for not asking the right questions or having all the information.

He said the American people had some blame for wanting immediate results.

HUH?  ME? I’m to blame for this woman’s ridiculous behavior and the ensuing circus at the White House because of it?  Give me a break.

Further, why is no one discussing the discrepancies between the inflammatory and racist relating of the story by Ms. Sharrod, and the actual FACTS of the situation that have come to light?  This, to me, seems to be the bigger issue.

From what I can decipher BigGovernment.com, a conservative watchdog group, was trying to highlight that the NAACP was fostering racism within it’s ranks, not specifically singling out Ms. Sharrod for her behavior, by releasing the video.  And they have effectively accomplished that goal.

This woman, as with many good speakers, was trying to identify with her audience.  And in order to do that, she felt she needed to slant the message of the recounted story as one in which a WHITE farmer was subjugated, humiliated and had support and assistance withheld because of his race.

Whether or not Ms. Sherrod is now a recovered racist is of no concern to me.  What IS of concern to me is that she is willing to engage in the deception of alluding to racism, as a government employee, a servant of the people, to pander to an organization she clearly believes identifies with that sentiment.  And let’s not forget that our very own President’s wife was also a speaker at the NAACP just last week.

For our government to endorse the ridiculousness that has become the NAACP, it is alienating the good people of this country who are truly colorblind.  Somehow racism has come to mean the belief that ALL are equal is flawed because whites should be subjugated for the historical actions of someone else.

This is a very dangerous road that the NAACP & their supporters are taking us down.  They are deliberately trying to create a divisive and incendiary atmosphere where none is necessary.  Americans are becoming numb to being called “racist,” because they know how often it isn’t true and is abused for political gain.

Doesn’t that hurt those that are actually harmed by true discriminatory behavior?  And aren’t those the very people these ridiculous people purport to be “helping” with their antics?

The boy who cried wolf suffered dearly for his refusal to accept that negative attention was better than no attention.  And so will the NAACP.

MELISSA WHITTINGTON is a conservative political activist trapped in the body of a civil engineer in the desert of Phoenix, Arizona.  See more at http://www.RightlyConservative.com.

By Rev. MICHAEL BRESCIANI

“Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me,” is that childhood mantra that no longer seems to be true. Is it time to modify the old saying to “Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will drive me crazy?”

It seems that the price for not being labeled a racist is merely our silence. Should we find anything at all wrong with the shooting of an Arizona deputy sheriff or the murder of rancher Bob Krentz we will have to wear the label. If we just look the other way as Mexican criminals including members of the Barrio Azteca gang and others flow across our borders we can avoid the dreaded racist label. Let’s not forget to ignore the tons of life destroying drugs that are inundating the borders. Which is it: are we a nation of drug heads or racists, not much of a choice for anyone is it?

Complaining about the cost of welfare programs and education for a half million illegal aliens in Arizona can get you the label too, but perhaps even worse just using the words illegal alien could get you a new name in the eyes of the left leaners. Truthfully; those who cry racist are not trying to drive anyone crazy but they are trying to silence those with whom they disagree. It is a sort of final word, a character assassination that cuts off any further debate and argument. Labeling whole groups of people racist is a socially collective cheap shot, it is cowardly.

It appears that the racist label can be used in a very selective way. Recent black on Asian violence in the sanctuary city of San Francisco raised no cries of racism. The racist card is still a politically motivated tool of the left as it has been since the efforts of King, Parks and others translated into law.

The law, there’s another sticky point. President Obama is not unlike any other Commander in Chief we have ever had who tries to use levity and humor to spice up his public appearances and discourses. Oddly President Obama uses humor that is specifically directed toward certain people, groups or an entire state to razz or demean them.

Joking about what can happen to you if you are asked for ID in the State of Arizona is a mockery first to the laws in that state and secondly because SB 1070 only mirrors the Federal immigration laws that the fed is not enforcing it mocks the federal laws as well. Is it unfair to say we have a sitting President that is openly mocking the nation’s laws? Wait just a little minute; in a country of laws isn’t the President the singular embodiment of our system of laws? If that is no longer true perhaps it is more of what the promise of “change” has produced.

Perhaps the very cheapest of cheap shots are those leveled at a person or group in a setting where that person or group is not present. Long distance defamation is far more cruel and cowardly and it is anything but American. For example, The World Net Daily that spearheads the movement to take a look see at the real long form Obama birth certificate was not allowed to attend the President’s recent White House Correspondents’ Association dinner and that is where Mr. Obama chose to poke fun at the birthers. He said “Few things in life are harder to find and more important to keep than love. Well, love and a birth certificate.” Isn’t that what WND has been saying all along? Accurate parsing of Mr. Obama’s words actually tends to backfire against him in this ignoble attempt at humor.

Some Americans, thank God, are willing to risk being mislabeled a racist because they know that, of the millions who have slipped across the borders the chances of Al-Qaeda operatives being among them rises exponentially month by month. They are aware as the National Geographic channel revealed that the new semi-submersible boats that Columbian drug cartels are making have drawn interest from the Al-Qaeda. Why wouldn’t they use the hole in our southwestern border as well?

America’s borders are not unlike a bucket with a hole in it or more accurately a bucket without a bottom; and the rest of the world knows this all too well. Will those now carrying racist placards be willing to rally again carrying placards that say only “we’re sorry” after one our enemies are successful at something akin to 9/11 or worse?

It would be easy to label those who are crying racist as stupid but pragmatically it works better if we pinpoint the source of their ignorance. Identifying the roots of a thing doesn’t always neutralize it but rather it gives us a starting point with which to deal with it.

Labor unions and left wing money have clearly been identified as catalytic in the recent marches against Arizona’s new law. Add to that an entire generation of academic nonsense where classrooms were turned into opinion forums and you have a deadly mix. Throwing out some controversial subject or current event and then asking students how they “feel” about it is not education, it is little more than blogging without computers.

Since actions always speak louder than words why hasn’t anyone noticed our hypocrisy in our extremes or disparity in our attempts to secure our borders? On any given day at our airports and train terminals we must endure long lines, sniffing dogs, baggage and body searches, dangerous full body x-rays and profiling that can lead to detainment and intense interrogation. Contrast this to the broad open expanse of the southwest’s sprawling but largely unrestricted border where millions have traversed to a new life in a country that is not theirs. Don’t forget to capitalize the word hypocrisy when describing this contradictory scenario.

Racist: I think not. We needn’t accept this label because we expect safety and security and the enforcement of laws already established to provide both. Be it a President who pokes fun at a State he is sworn to protect or an entire generation of nascent socialists who can carry a placard but can’t understand our laws and the reasons for them, America is still sovereign to this day and her borders are worth protecting.

As an old preacher and a writer, let me tell you what I think of when I hear that left wing organizations have funded, inspired and provoked the socially inept of this generation to label everyday Americans as racists. The reference is clear, the inference you will have to determine for yourself. I won’t mince words; to me the political Pharisees are the left wing liberals and socialists of the hour.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. (Mt 23:15)

http://www.americanprophet.org has since 2005 featured the articles of Rev Michael Bresciani along with news and reviews that have earned this site the title of The Website for Insight Millions have read his timely reports and articles in online journals and print publications across the nation and the globe.

I recently encountered two old friends whom I’ve known for a very long time. They were standing in front of a house drinking and having conversation. I was driving by when one of them screamed out: “Preacher man!”

I pulled over and began conversations with them. One of the men spoke about my connections with the local police department interacting with the major crimes division as a crisis chaplain. I advised my old friends that I am not straddling the fence when it comes to the law. You are either guilty or not guilty. Choose what side you are going to be on—right or wrong.

As I expected, they began calling the police department “corrupt” and attempted to justify why they must carry firearms “to protect themselves” from “crooked” officers. I explained to them that police officers may not be perfect but their professions are safer than standing on the corner. One of the gentlemen in the crowd previously had a warrant; and when I stumbled upon the scene, two officers took him into custody.

They began to complain that there were no jobs and that “these white folks” didn’t want to give them any work. Mind you, both of these fellows are nearly 50 years of age and spent several years in prison. I had to shoot back and advise that I received most of my college education on a scholarship and Pell grant; that I had to work in the hot fields of North Carolina to buy things that I wanted even though my parents had the money. That I had to work as a janitor for ten years putting myself through school. I had to remind them that I quit being a drunk and a young juvenile delinquent, and am now married with three children, owning real estate and am productive in my field.

The mindset that currently floats around is that someone must give black people something as opposed to the employment seeker looking to be an asset and constructive in whatever shape or form within the community. Rather than teach their children to become police officers, they are teaching youngsters to abhor the profession and attempt to gain an economic advantage through misconduct.

In addition, these men told me that their guns are bigger than the police department and that if things “hit the fan” it will be a “lot of blood”. I sternly advised them that their modern way of thinking was unacceptable and that if I ever showed up with the SWAT team; just remember, “I will not hesitate to give testimony confirming the officers’ justification of force.”

Folks, the problem with crime is that the liberals are giving criminals too many excuses. My specialty is intervention at homicide scenes to administer psychological first-aid to the victim’s loved ones. At the same time I am able to assemble evidence that may lead to a primary suspect or suspects. In building relationships within the community, citizens have become comfortable informing the chaplain regarding people who may be responsible for committing major crimes. To my old “friends”, I am a snitch. But to the law-abiding citizenry, I am an asset.

What can be done about the existing shared intellectual currency in these depraved neighborhoods? Do we remove the free lawyers (public defenders) and increase the consequences of crime? Do we lock ‘em up and hide the key? I think the answer is Christ.

First, we have to prohibit the criminal by incarceration (arrest) from engaging in further offense. Then we can preach the Gospel and let Christ turn the caterpillar into a butterfly.

No amount of Habitat for Humanity, Housing Authority or laws will make the criminal legally productive. Some people have ceased committing crimes only to become idle. Taxpayers still have to pick up the tab. My opinion, the answer is to be found in Christ as it is Him who can make the former criminal productive. From a liability to an asset who’s more concerned about creating jobs rather than just having them. In other words, from socialism to capitalism. Fair trade—not robbery. Thereby benefiting both parties where the criminal can become a friend and not a foe.

TOMMY DAVIS , D.D.C.S.

Chief of Chaplains, NY Jurisdiction
http://tommydavis.wordpress.com/chaplains/
Certified Crisis Response Chaplain
http://www.homeland-crisis.org/

Although I didn’t vote for Barack Obama, I welcomed the election of a black man to America’s highest office. I assumed his election signaled that white America had finally atoned for the sin of slavery. I assumed that Martin Luther King’s dream of judging a man by the content of his character instead of the color of his skin had become a reality.

No more would I have to spend my life proving a negative, as in ‘I am not a racist.’ No more would I have to automatically lower my voice when issues of race entered the conversation. No more would I have to censor my thoughts and actions when dealing with people whose skin color differed from my own. Alas, I was wrong.

America’s elites seem intent on continuing to identify citizens by their skin color instead of their character or achievements. Case in point: This February has been designated by President Obama as National African American History Month, sending the clear message that black history is separate from the history of everyone else.

Hispanics also have an Hispanic Heritage Month (Sept. 15 to Oct. 15) in which they focus on specific cultural achievements, as distinct from American culture. Even American Indians have their own Native American Heritage Month.

With all this focus on celebrating multiculturalism, whites, especially white Christians have gotten a bum rap. For the last 40 years, white Americans have been blamed for all of the world’s ills. Possessing white skin is automatically associated with oppression, slavery, paternalism and colonialism. And everyone knows that’s bad stuff.

No one has dared point out the absolutely phenomenal achievements of White Americans. That would be considered racist, under the faulty assumption that any white achievement necessarily demeans or excludes black achievements. This premise, however, doesn’t apply when touting black progress, or Hispanic progress, or progress of any group not burdened with white skin.

Last week, the city of Farmington, New Mexico, unanimously voted not to participate in any event celebrating a proposed “white history month.” As a white American, this tells me that whites are still not allowed to celebrate their own achievements. The media backed, self anointed race hustlers have decreed that whites are still the oppressors and blacks are still the victims, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Whites must still atone for the sin of being white.

NBC is currently being lambasted for the sin of offering fried chicken on the menu of a special NBC Black History Month lunch spread. How dare they point out that blacks like fried chicken! I guess its a good thing they didn’t offer watermelon on the menu, as that might have triggered a national boycott.

No-one, however, is questioning the overt paternalism and outright racism evidenced by billionaire Bill Gates. His Millennium Scholarship Project specifically excludes whites from participating. That kind of racism is OK. After all, it perpetuates the myth that whites are the ones with all the power. Tell that to the increasing number of whites displaced under the racial spoils system that operates under the benignly named ‘affirmative action.’

If Obama were truly a ‘post-racial’ president, I would be allowed to comment on the fact that blacks dominate the NBA. I wouldn’t give a thought to mentioning the overwhelming percentage of blacks working for the postal service.  I could, without fear, comment on the fact that most blacks dance a heck of a lot better than whites.

But no, for a white to dare mention cultural differences between blacks and whites is verboten. But when minorities set aside a whole month to celebrate these very differences, it is somehow acceptable. What’s wrong with this picture? And how much longer will whites have to atone for the sins of their ancestors? Inquiring minds want to know.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com.  She lives in South Carolina.

Shades of the Suds Summit Again

By NANCY MORGAN

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been caught in a firestorm that appears likely to undermine his political viability. His sin? He was actually caught telling the truth. Gasp.

Harry’s problem stems from the fact that certain truths are no longer allowed to be uttered in the public square. As former Harvard president Lawrence Summers found out in 2005 when he dared to point out that men and women had differing proclivities for math and science.

That factual comment was enough to get him fired. After being forced to issue multiple public mea culpas for offending the sensitivities of feminist elites by challenging their fallacious dogma of male-female sameness, Summers was forced to fork over a cool $50 million to feminist studies groups as penance. That’ll teach him.

Harry Reid’s sin is worse. He dared to not only notice, but comment upon, ‘the Negro dialect.’ You know, the dialect skilled politicos mimic when addressing black churches. The dialect currently in use by young black men struggling to show that they haven’t joined Uncle Sam’s plantation. The dialect that is clearly associated with a certain skin color.

Harry made the very astute observation in the run-up to the 2008 election that then presidential candidate Barack Obama had a chance of winning because he was both “light-skinned” and didn’t speak with a “Negro dialect.” By daring to point out what every American knows is true, Reid finds himself on the hot seat.

Talking heads and pontificating pundits are all atwitter. How dare he acknowledge the obvious! The networks are calling back all those racial experts we thought had been retired since a black man was elected president. How terribly delicious.

It seems everyone has an opinion on Harry’s opinion. The opinion no-one is voicing however, is the acceptance of the underlying premise that acknowledging cultural differences automatically makes one ‘racist.’

The leftist celebration of multiculturalism mandates that to be considered evolved, one must not only pay homage to, but actively celebrate cultural differences. But the rules stipulate that what might be perceived as negative traits must be ignored. It gets kinda confusing.

The message here is that blatant lies are preferred to uncomfortable facts. Better to bamboozle voters with phony health care figures and vows of transparency than dare to voice an uncomfortable truth.

And a truth it is. Human nature dictates that people tend to gravitate towards and feel comfortable with people that are similar to themselves, whether they live in tribes in Africa or the suburbs of Los Angeles.

And Reid knows, as do most Americans, that if Obama’s skin was black as coal and he spoke ebonics, the Democratic primary may have turned out differently. This is a fact that directly challenges liberal orthodoxy. To acknowledge it would expose the fallacy of the leftists’ new, improved version of reality. And that’s a big no-no. So poor Harry will have to be burned at the stake in order to keep alive the false illusion that all races and cultures are exactly the same.

The silver lining is, it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina.

By ROBERT STARK

There has been a lot of debate about whether criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism crosses the line towards anti-Semitism. The ADL, which is known as the premier organization to combat anti-semitism has declared that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. They have set their own guidelines to determine what level of criticism of Israel is acceptable.

The ADL’s national director Abe Foxman stated, “First, let me say anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. There should be no debate about that. After all, what is anti-Zionism but the denial of Jewish nationalism? Nothing made it clearer than when it came out in the UN’s “Zionism is racism” resolution. It is pure, simple, unadulterated anti-Semitism. What it says is what is okay, what is permissible, what is laudatory, what is universally accepted for all peoples in the world – self-expression, self-determination, independence, sovereignty – is not permitted to Jews. That is what it says. It doesn’t say Irish nationalism is racist or Congolese nationalism or French or Palestinian nationalism. It says Jewish nationalism is racist. That is pure and simple anti-Semitism.”

While it is valid to say that those who deny Israel’s right to exist are anti-Semites, the ADL goes as far as to say those who deny its Jewish identity or call out the situation in the West Bank as Apartheid are anti-Semitic. Foxman’s point is that opposing Jewish nationalism is anti-Semitic because it denies the Jewish people the right to self determination.

Foxman says that the UN’s declaration that Zionism is racism is anti-Semitic; however the UN in general is opposed to nationalism. Since much of the world has a negative view towards Israel and the US, the UN will reflect that. While I am no supporter of the UN because I believe in national sovereignty and am opposed to international bodies dictating the policies of nation states, the ADL is hypocritical since it opposes European Nationalism as racism, and strongly criticizes any US politician who takes a strong stance on immigration, complains about demographic change, or talks about America having a Christian heritage, despite the fact that the ADL supports Israel defining itself as a Jewish State.

They have taken many other hypocritical positions. The best example is on the issue of genocide. The ADL’s Abe Foxman said that “the Holocaust is something different. It is a singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on the life of God’s chosen children and thus, on God Himself. It is an event that is the antithesis of Creation as recorded in the Bible; and like it’s direct opposite, which is relived weekly with the Sabbath and yearly with Torah, it must be remembered from generation to generation”

He basically admits that he thinks one group of people’s lives have more value and therefore was a greater tragedy than other genocides. However the ADL was opposed to the US Congress’s amendment to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide saying, “we continue to firmly believe that a Congressional resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between Turks and Armenians and may put at risk the Turkish Jewish community and the important multilateral relationship between Turkey, Israel and the United States.”

In response to an op-ed advocating a one state solution to solve the Israeli Palestinian conflict, the ADL took issue with the proposal stating, “the so-called “one-state solution” he postulates is no solution at all. It is an outright denial of the legitimacy of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.” However the ADL has called Pat Buchanan a racist for expressing similar concerns about America that the ADL has for Israel in his book “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America”, where he stated, “should America lose her ethnic-cultural core and become a nation of nations, America will not survive.” The ADL should take note that Israel’s immigration policy makes Buchanan’s look liberal in comparison.

Overall they have a very different vision for Israel than they have for the rest of the Western World. According to the ADL Israel must remain as an ethno-state and take harsh measures to defend it’s national security, yet in America the ADL lobbies against Christmas displays in public, amnesty for illegal immigrants, thought crime legislation, and sponsors diversity programs for schools, law enforcement, and corporations.

While the ADL may not be explicitly supremacist, they are by their own definition because they deny self determination to others. Due to the ADL and its counterpart’s great influence over policy in Government, Media, and Education, they are able to influence the public discourse in this nation and enforce their double standards. While they present themselves as a civil rights organization they clearly do not believe in equal rights for all people.

ROBERT STARK is an artist and host of a political talk show called 15 Minutes of Freedom on www.myfbn.com. He is a strong defender of the Constitution and National Sovereignty and rejects Partisan Politics and Political Correctness.  His articles can also be found at the L.A. Examiner.

By ROBERT STARK

The ADL is accusing the New York Times‘ Maureen Dowd of anti-semitism over a recent op-ed titled “Virtuous Bankers? Really!?!”   The article is about corruption on Wall Street specifically involving Goldman Sachs. In a letter to the Editor in the NYT, ADL National Chair Robert G. Sugarman stated, “While one can agree or disagree with Maureen Dowd’s portrayal of Goldman Sachs and other bankers (column, Nov. 11), her statement that “the bankers who took government money and then gave out obscene bonuses are the same self-interested sorts Jesus threw out of the temple” potentially raises one of the classic themes of anti-Semitism linking Jews and abhorrent money-lending practices. However unintentional, Ms. Dowd’s invoking the New Testament story to illustrate our current financial mess conjures up old prejudices against Jews.”

Writing in The New Jersey Jewish News Menachem Rosensaft and Jason H. Dolinsky also suggested that Dowd’s article was anti-Semitic, saying, “We have heard these terms far too often to let them pass. Anti-Semitic tracts and Web sites are replete with references to “blood-sucking Jews.” And Ms. Dowd is too intelligent not to have realized that the depiction of Jews as greedy money-lenders has resulted in persecution and pogroms over the course of the past two millennia. Ms. Dowd has given new life to such ancient anti-Semitic incitements. We dread the prospect of swastikas smeared outside Goldman Sachs offices, or of learning that some street hood, inspired by Ms. Dowd’s column, broke an observant Jew’s leg shouting “let Goldman Sachs buy you a new leg. At a time when a virulent Judaeophobia is on the rise, especially in Europe and throughout much of the Muslim world, politicians, journalists and columnists have a responsibility to refrain from using inflammatory anti-Semitic code words. Our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech does not bestow on any of us a license to incite to bigotry or violence.”

Dowd was refering to an interview given by Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein where he said, “He understands that a lot of people are “mad and bent out of shape” at blood-sucking banks. He added “I know I could slit my wrists and people would cheer.” Dowd is right when she states that “Blankfein’s trickle-down catechism isn’t working. Now we have two economies. We have recovering banks while we have 10-plus percent unemployment and 17.5 percent underemployment. The gross thing about the Wall Street of the last decade is how much its success was not shared with society.”

Dowd discuses Matt Taibbi who was also called an anti-Semite for his critique of Goldman Sachs in Rolling Stones Magazine. Taibbi was accused of anti-Semitism in his critic of Goldman Sach’s greed and financial exploitation for saying, “the first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” Taibbi never said anything anti-Jewish in his article but due to the fact that Goldman Sachs is associated by many as being a Jewish institution his criticism of the firms financial parasitism brought about that accusation from many.

Dowd wrote another article a while back in the NYT titled “Blue Eyed Greed”, in which she agreed with Brazil’s president Lula that the financial crisis “was caused by the irrational behavior of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing.” Dowd added “it is true, of course, that the upper-crust, underwhelming Anglo-Saxon leaders who allowed America’s financial markets to morph into louche casinos, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, were very, very white men with blue eyes.”

The ADL and the establishment media were silent over Dowd’s assertions about Anglos being responsible for the financial crisis; however, now the ADL is accusing her of anti-Semitism for an article that does not mention anything about Jews.

Journalist Philip Weiss’s correspondent, Geof Gray commented about this on Weiss’s blog stating, “and it is true, of course, that the upper crust, underwhelming Anglo-Saxon leaders who allowed America’s financial markets to morph into louche casinos, George W Bush and Dick Cheney, were very very white men with blue eyes.” Isn’t this a tad disingenuous? Didn’t Summers, and Rubin and Greenspan have something to do with the debacle? Isn’t Maurice “Hank” Greenberg’s AIG implicated as is Goldman Sachs, among others? Just upper crust Anglo Saxons? Isn’t this an antique notion, true perhaps in the 1920’s? Have we reached the point out of the fear of being accused to being antisemitic that we pretend that Jews aren’t there?” Weiss concurred, “Gray has my total agreement here. Journalists are misleading their readers about the character of the power structure out of apprehensions of the rise of anti-Semitism. This kind of journalism is not helpful, and may actually be feeding the resentment that fosters anti-Semitism.”

The Bernie Maddof scandal attracted a lot of attention from both the Jewish community and so called anti-Semites. Madoff became a pariah within the Jewish community for ripping off many Jewish organizations and prominent Jewish individuals such as Steven Spielberg and Elie Wiesel. However groups like the ADL are covering up for the crimes of financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs, that were responsible for the financial crisis and ripped of the taxpayers through bailouts, which they spent on lavish bonuses for their executives. Goldman Sachs was President Obama’s second top source of campaign contributions and donates heavily to many prominent politicians.

Goldman Sachs should be treated like a criminal entity much like ENRON was. However, ENRON fit into the liberal establishment’s stereotype of “Evil White Gentile Republicans, while Goldman Sachs has a stereotype as being Jewish.” It is no more anti-Semitic to criticize Goldman Sachs than it is anti-WASP to criticize ENRON. However there is a notion put out by the likes of the ADL that any organization that is associated as being Jewish should be immune from criticism. The ADL also uses this tactic to silence any harsh criticism of Israel or the Israeli Lobby.

The ADL receives a large portion of its funding from Wall Street and therefore has a vested interest in what is good for financial interest rather than what is good for America as well as American Jews who are not part of the moneyed elite. The ADL has received large donations from Michael Milken’s junk bond fortune and Wall Street crook Marc Rich, who many believed used to ADL to lobby for his pardon from President Clinton. Mod associate of Meyer Lansky Moe Dalitz was simultaneously the CEO of “Sterling Bank” and National Commissioner of the ADL. Even the ADL’s current National Chair Glen Lewy was an investment banker involved with Wolfensohn & Co, Deutsche Bank, and a member of the CFR.

In his article “Why Jewish Bankers Love Anti-Semites” Anti-Zionist Jewish author Henry Makow says, “Jewish bankers love anti-Semites because they transform a legitimate political and economic grievance into a racial one that easily can be dismissed as “hatred.” Anti-Semites are like dogs who drive the Jewish sheep into the bankers’ pen. In spite of this, some Jews are questioning the instrumental role Jews play in the creation of the New World Order. Jewish bankers love anti-Semites because they transform opposition to the NWO into discredited racism. They ensure that Jews serve the NWO agenda and non-Jews remain divided.”

Neither Dowd’s nor Taibbi’s article’s about Goldman Sachs mentions anything negative against Jews. The ADL is only enforcing that stereotype by screaming anti-semitism over strong criticism of Wall Street. It is true that individuals of Jewish decent are over represented in Finance. Everyone should be judged as an individual, however the ADL puts collective blame on all Jews when they claim to speak on their behalf, and cover up for criminals because they happen to be Jews, or support the ADL agenda.

ROBERT STARK is an artist and host of a political talk show called 15 Minutes of Freedom on www.myfbn.com. He is a strong defender of the Constitution and National Sovereignty and rejects Partisan Politics and Political Correctness.  His articles can also be found at the L.A. Examiner.

I’m a proud White-Irish-American and I’d like to celebrate my unique culture and heritage. Though I personally had no part in it, my white European ancestors were the ones who founded the greatest country the world has ever known. For all of you progressives out there, I’m referring to America.

Yup. My white ancestors founded and conquered it. Just like countries, states and tribes have been doing since time immemorial.

My white European ancestors then established a framework (hint: the Constitution) that allowed immigrants from all over the world a place where they could be free of tyrannical dictators and oppressive government. Its called America -and it stands for freedom. My ancestors fought and died for it and then offered it to the world.

Since man is not perfect, (except for Obama) there were a few hitches along the way. But hey, I’m willing to forgive the ignorant few that followed the cultural dictates of the past – the ones who posted signs saying ‘No Irish Need Apply.’ That bigotry was a product of the times and America finally did the right thing by abolishing it.

Of course, there are still those who choose to dwell in the past. Just last week a Nigerian rights group sent a letter to African chiefs demanding they apologize for the role they played in the slave trade. “We cannot continue to blame the white men, as Africans particularly the traditional rulers, are not blameless.”

Personally, I believe trying to address historical grievances is counter-productive. Progressives have repeatedly stressed the importance of ‘moving-on,’ and I think they have a good point.

With the coming of Obama and the progessive agenda, all groups, countries, and cultures are deemed equal. Now its totally OK to celebrate my own group-identity. Especially since taking pride in belonging to the broader, American culture is looked upon with such disfavor.

Since I’m not willing to identify myself solely by my sexual orientation, or my gender, or my politics – or as a victim, or as one of the disenfranchised, that leaves only one group with whom I totally identify: The politically incorrect group of Americans who demand to be judged strictly on merit.

Unfortunately, that’s a no-no in today’s political and cultural environment. I guess I’ll have to be content with just celebrating the color of my skin, like everyone else does.

I’m proud to be white. There, I’ve said it. But I’m getting confused…. A Tennessee state trooper who sent an e-mail proclaiming white pride, has just been suspended for 15 days without pay and will have to attend diversity training. Does this mean white people can’t celebrate their own culture?

Not very long ago, before the Nazis came along, white pride was, well, pride in being white. People like myself whose ancestors were white Europeans used to take pride in the accomplishments of fellow whites. That pride was acceptable and celebrated. The tremendous influence and contributions made by white Europeans has, alas, been lumped into the discredited category of ‘colonization,’ which we all know is bad. Acknowledgment of white European accomplishments and culture is now deemed racist, which is worse.

The fact that many of the countries that were once colonized by Britain are now worse off than when Britain was calling the shots is an inconvenient historical fact. After all, white people of European descent represent a, gasp, superior culture, and that’s not allowed to be discussed or studied. Which is why courses on Western Civilization have been removed from college curriculums in favor of gay studies, Black studies, Chicano studies, women studies, etc.

Never having had the time to study diversity and multiculturalism, however, I remain somewhat confused. Hate crime laws require me to take note of the color of a persons’ skin in order not to offend them, while political correctness demands I ignore a person’s race and their culture when forming an opinion of them. This does not compute.

Maybe I should join that Tennessee trooper in diversity training so I’ll know for sure what I am allowed to think, feel and say. After all, I don’t want my white skin and American opinions to offend anyone.

Or better yet, why don’t we all just take Martin Luther King’s advice and judge people based on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin? That way we could do away with all those groups that focus on skin color, like the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Hispanic ‘La Raza,’ and start celebrating what we all have in common. Our very own unique American culture, in which we all can and should take tremendous pride, regardless of what color we are.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com.  She lives in South Carolina.

Image by DALE

By NANCY MORGAN

In a much publicized rant that sent chills up the legs of millions of liberals, oops, progressives, Janeane Garofalo emphatically exercised her opinion of the millions of ‘tea-party’ protestors: “This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism, straight up. Its is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks.”

Anyone who has read Thomas Sowell’s Black Rednecks and White Liberals, knows that Garofalo’s statement is either demonstrably false, or just plain racist.

Sowell, a fellow at The Hoover Institution and a prolific author (who happens to be black himself) actually documents the origins and evolution of the redneck culture. He makes the excellent, and unchallenged point that the inner-city culture celebrated by many blacks today is, in fact, derived directly from the redneck culture – which had its origins in England.

People migrating to America’s south from the largely fringe areas of England, the Scottish Highlands and Ireland brought with them certain cultural values: Proneness to violence, aversion to work, neglect of education, sexual promiscuity, improvidence, drunkenness, lack of entrepreneurship, lively music and dance, style of religious oratory, touchy pride, boastful self-dramatization and vanity. These traits describe what came to be known as the redneck culture, and the people who exhibited these traits were labeled rednecks or crackers.

During the civil war era, 90% of blacks in America lived in the south. They adopted many of the traits associated with this ‘redneck culture,’ which they then spread across America as they migrated after the civil war.  As Dr. Sowell so persuasively argues, these cultural differences were the actual basis of what we today label racism. Originally, what we now consider racism was an objection to cultural differences, not skin color.

Fast forward to the 1960’s. Along came the liberals. Social do-gooders who ushered in the welfare state and altered the criminal justice system to conform to their own version of social justice. This allowed many of these counter-productive cultural traits to flourish. Among both blacks and whites.

Many of the traits that are associated with the redneck culture have since died out in England, and many parts of the south. But many of the black Americans who chose to follow the media anointed spokespersons for blacks, Revs. Sharpton and Jackson, have kept the redneck culture alive in many parts of America’s inner-cities and ghettos. They mistakenly believe they are celebrating their own African-American culture.

Anyone who dares object to these negative cultural traits is routinely accused of racism. Which is apparently a worse offense than allowing and fostering generations of blacks to adopt racism against all whites. (As author David Horowitz outlines so well in his book, Hating Whitey.)

So Janeane, for the sake of the social justice you so ardently advocate, I expect you should publicly apologize to all blacks for calling them rednecks. You were not just dissing conservatives, you were dissing millions of black Americans, many of whom were among the tea-party protestors. As this video clearly shows.

Three very public mea culpas should be sufficient. As atonement, we suggest you attend Hillsdale College for a full semester. Being one of the only two colleges in America that accept no federal funds, you will be exposed to courses on American History, the glories of Western Civilization and the value of capitalism. And a refreshing lack of liberal orthodoxy.

We won’t hold our breaths. Most conservatives remain grounded in facts and reality. The same  reality the left continually redefines to suit their own purposes. We know that as long as one is a vocal supporter of leftist ideology, no explanations, facts, or mea culpas are required. Almost makes me want to be a liberal.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com. She migrated to South Carolina years ago and is a fan of the refreshing and superior cultural traits exhibited by the majority of southerners and, unfortunately, not outlined in above article due to space constraints.

Henry Ford

By Dr. TOMMY DAVIS

I had a fellow state to me that Republicans are for big business and don’t care about the black community. He went on to spew forth how they (the government) should tax the rich and provide tax breaks to the people at the bottom. He seemed to blame the deficient economy and the state of the black community on capitalism and the Republicans. Thus, he voted Democrat.

When street thugs rob at gunpoint to pilfer possessions from another person it is another example of misguided hoodlums who feel that they cannot —and will not— compete for a share in our economy. They believe that they must deprive others of their material goods in order to gain an economic advantage. Armed robbers must continue to commit crimes because their income will only resume through swindle. Lacking the intellectual capital and patience to participate in the free market, they cheat and steal from those who possess wealth.

Time after time the media reports this kind of action and it is justified by shifting the blame to a legacy of slavery, racism, fiscal predicament, or capitalism.

Political speeches about taxing the rich and redistributing their wealth are no different than a robbery that hasn’t yet turned bad. When liberal socialists go after companies who make an honest living and attempt to redistribute their wealth (communism) they are stealing. If big business fails, there are no employees to provide with a tax break because they will lack employment.

As a Republican I understand that businesses manufacture a product that consumers purchase. Therefore, a fair exchange takes place. When those consumers turn around and accuse business owners of making too much money, this is nothing short of envy and wanting to “buy” the cake, eat it, and then want your money back. Also, such folks elect government officials who will penalize companies for being successful by taxing them severely; this is nothing short of criminal —- professional stick-ups that results in loss of capital that translates into unemployment and higher prices.

Entrepreneurs did not become wealthy by swindling citizens out of money. Companies satisfied the consumer by providing a product or service. When Henry Ford mass produced the automobile, the Ford Model T, he provided a manufactured good that pleased the world. We bought it. The Fords got rich. In the process, the company created a middle class who put in the work. In 1913 Henry Ford paid his employees at a rate of $5.00 per day which was the highest wage in manufacturing at that time! Profits were good until competition, coupled with collective bargaining agreements, entered the picture. Vehicles were priced too high and were less efficient than the competition.

Pathetically, now the government (under Democratic control) wants to borrow money from me (the taxpayer) to “invest” into companies “too big to fail.” Rather than provide me with a dividend (at least a discount), they want to sell me the product I help build. That’s like borrowing my car to burglarize my home only to turn and sell me my stuff back.

It doesn’t matter if Obama is president. The community (especially the black community) will still suffer because the problems are self inflicted. Those black folks who voted for Obama just because he’s black are racists and no different from the Southern Democrats who initiated the poll tax to keep white candidates in office and poor blacks from voting despite the possible economic advantage.

He will not “change” the 50 percent school drop-out rate among African-Americans, or the 70 percent illegitimacy rate regarding two parent households in black communities; and he will not transform the high murder rate (over 50 percent) committed by black males in this country.

If blacks do not save, there will be check cashing centers in predominantly black neighborhoods with a five dollar fee rather than commercial banks. There will be corner stores and clothing outlets rather than grocery stores and malls. If the police are too busy, Wal-Mart will never open a store within the city limits.

The same candidates who say that they will create jobs are promoting the very policies that cause businesses to lay off employees and slow production. The same candidates who are soft on crime are the same ones who “prevent” businesses from opening in certain communities.

Governments do not create jobs. Citizens generate employment by starting businesses constructing products that benefit society. They hire the labor to bring this innovation to pass. The government’s job is to supervise fair enterprise—-not socialize. The proper role of supervision is to create an atmosphere for growth. This involves cutting taxes to free up reinvestment capital for business owners; improving public safely, and prohibiting business regulatory fees implemented to raise money.

Time will tell how many government robberies will bring about the fatal wound to our financial prudence. In other words: time will tell which straw will finally break the camel’s back.

TOMMY DAVIS , D.D.C.S.

Chief of Chaplains, NY Jurisdiction
http://tommydavis.wordpress.com/chaplains/
Certified Crisis Response Chaplain
http://www.homeland-crisis.org/