MSM Ignores Black On White Hate Crimes

This story premiered on the fantastic RED STATE website

White Reporters’ Beating by Norfolk Black Gang Ignored by Media, but Real Question is, What is Happening to America’s Cities?



The “major” news media still has not seen fit to tell the story of the two white reporters attacked by a black mob in Norfolk, Virginia. Bill O’Reilly is virtually alone among major media in reporting on this, and noting that the Norfolk area “Virginia-Pilot” did not see fit to cover the local story.

Denis Finley said it was merely a “simple assault” and his paper doesn’t cover such, despite the attack taking place on two of their own reporters, who were out of work from injuries for an entire week, which the police classified as “not grave injuries.”

In case you missed the story, two white reporters – Dave Forster and Marjon Rostrami – had been stopped at a red light when their car was attacked by a black teen who threw a rock at the car.

When Forster got out of his stopped car to confront the rock thrower (and presumably stop further damage to his stopped car) the nearby crowd of 100 surrounded him and several started beating him violently.

When the female reporter got out of the car to try to help him she too was attacked. She managed to get a call off to police – after four attempts – and the police came to disperse the crowd.

Several things are noteworthy about this incident. I will address this in the order of what I feel is most significant, and the first, has not been addressed even on the Bill O’Reilly show.

One of the “Die Hard” movies showed what would happen to a white who is on foot in a “bad neighborhood”. Our intrepid hero in that movie was forced to set out on foot in Harlem, a “bad” neighborhood – for whites. It was the major opening scene of the movie.

Did anyone complain that this depiction of what would happen to a white who is on foot in Harlem, provoke any complaints that it was exaggerated? If so I missed it.

It is a sad fact in America today that in many cities you don’t want to be white and on foot in “the bad neighborhoods.”

Is it because you are white and those who will attack you are black? Is it because the people there are poor and they perceive you are rich? Is it a territorial thing, ie. you should have known better than to come into the “wrong neighborhood”?

Is this a joke? Is there anyone in America besides The Virginia Pilot’s Denis Finley who says what happened to the reporter is not a hate crime, and who thinks there’s nothing noteworthy about this, nothing worth their reporting on?

In fact, if this is not noteworthy, if this is not worthy of a news story in the Norfolk newspaper or in any national media (except for The Blaze online and Bill O’Reilly on Fox TV) then it proves my first point.

Of course, there’s nothing unusual about this story because everybody knows if you are white and you get out of your car in an inner city, high crime, black neighborhood, you will do well to escape with your life, and you will very likely be beaten and robbed very shortly.

It is nice to see that the police, after a few weeks of news silence on this story, did finally arrest a 16 year old for this crime – and he is now an accused felon.

And, since the outcry generated from Bill O’Reilly’s Fox news report, the editor has at least attempted to make excuses. Finley wrote that he had (at last) discovered that “race has entered the equation.” You think?

And, the solicitous Finley also wrote that he’d not reported on the story earlier because his two suddenly bashful reporters did not want their names in the news. One wonders if he is usually this solicitous with other crime victims?

My further conclusions from this story, aside from the fact that everybody KNOWS it is dangerous to be white and on foot in an inner city in America, and everybody knows you aren’t supposed to say or write this, follows.

First, and most fundamental, is that it is only marginally LESS safe to be a black stranger, dressed upscale, and appearing to NOT BELONG to that neighborhood, and be on foot in a black neighborhood. Black on black crime, like the Rodney King riots of many years ago, is the under reported news in America’s inner cities.

The biggest victims of black criminals are blacks who live in their inner city territory. Not the rare white who happens to have made the mistake of being on foot, or stopped at a traffic light, in such a “territory.”

Second. Bill O’Reilly makes the point that Denis Finley denies: if this were a story in Norfolk, Virginia (or any other city in America) of a gang of whites attacking a nice, young couple who happened to have been stopped at a traffic light, we’d have been seeing 24/7 news coverage of this on al the network news channels, radio stations and newspapers in America, for the last few weeks.

Far LESS of a racial motivation has been shown in the Trayvon Martin case in Florida, but the intensity of the media coverage has been incredible.

Third. There is an underdone to this story, if you read between the lines, that the white couple were stupid to have driven their car in that neighborhood, deserved what happened to them. And that they were extra stupid to have got out of their car.

This “blame the victim” mentality of course, completely excuses the criminal. Of course it is true – if they hadn’t been in that neighborhood, and just drove off (including RUN THE RED LIGHT, ESCAPE!!!!), they would not have been hurt. But this “blame the victim” thing is pretty awful, in my view.

Fourth. The liberal media operates on a double standard. Of course they are not going to cover a story like this. Liberals HATE stories like this because they think it plays into the hands of conservatives who are all male racists (according to them).

A story like this would seem to justify their bad behavior so it should not be covered at all.

Fifth. There is a paternalistic mentality at work here on the part of the liberal media. They think you should not hold black criminals to the same standards as criminal whites. They will excuse behavior of blacks, which they would never excuse for whites, because they actually think blacks are stupid, inferior.

They are pathetically racist with this mentality.

Sixth. Many who read this may be shocked but, there is actually a mentality among the liberal-left that says the crimes of whites against blacks – starting with the crime of slavery – is the reason that blacks have a lesser standard of living in the United States, and that only reparations paid by whites to compensate for the several generations of “criminal conduct” against them, will balance this equation.

This is not the mentality of socialist “spread the wealth around” which we have seen and heard from Barack Obama and other leftists. This is reparations for “crimes” by whites against blacks.

Of course this is silly.

Why would a black who came here from Jamaica or from Nigeria three years ago, need “reparations” to pay for what happened to a black slave over 100 years ago?

Why would an Asian Indian or a Russian who drives a taxi in New York City since they arrived in America five years ago, be required to “pay” for the supposed crimes of whites over 100 years ago?

Why would the descendants of people whose “gave the last full measure of devotion” on the battlefield to end slavery, as commemorated in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, be required to pay reparations?

Why would the side that won a victory at Gettysburg for the idea that you do not have to pay for the crimes of your parents nor have a title or other “tradition” bestowed on you based upon the accident of your birth, now be told that they must pay “reparations” for the supposed sins of their great grandparents?

How did we get to this point in America where an attack like this is covered up instead of reported for what it is – an indication that there is a problem with the criminal justice system in America, especially in our cities, and that there are too many underage inner city troublemakers roaming about without jobs, without hope, but with plenty of bitterness and rage?

How did we get to the point in America that in most cities, everybody seems to think a crime like this is not a wake up call for us to take action but a sign that two white people were in the wrong place and at the wrong time?

Seventh. The argument was actually offered on camera by someone from the neighborhood to Bill O’Reilly’s producer, that the attack by a black mob on two whites was to get even for the death of black Trayvon Martin in Florida.

This is ridiculous on several levels. First, two wrongs don’t make a right. Second, the facts of the two cases are totally different and in Florida are in dispute but there is no disputing that the two white reporters did not attack the black gang. Third, and most important: there were loud and repeated demands that the white be arrested during 24/7 news coverage of the Trayvon Martin case. There has been a media blackout of the Norfolk, Virginia incident.

Eighth. Finally irony about the story. The girl is from Iran. If a group of whites had attacked her, would that have generated a media firestorm? Would we have seen an outpouring of “Muslim immigrant attacked by American mob” or “Female Iranian Immigrant assaulted by The Ugly Americans” for 24/7? Would we have seen repeated demands that the criminals who assaulted her should be found and arrested?

What happened to Dave Forster and Marjon Rostrami is wrong. Skin color should not enter into this topic except to note that it was clearly a motivation on the part of their attackers.

It is wrong, and we should be asking the question about American cities which Dr. Edward Banfield wrote about in The Unheavenly City (1970) – liberal solutions add to the decay, boost the frustration and bitterness, skyrocket the crime rate and solve nothing.

Banfield was not any kind of a “movement conservative” but if you accept the premise that sometimes, we ought to look at issues from a “right and wrong” perspective, then he offers a lot of reasons why liberalism in American cities doesn’t ever work, and why conservative ideas (such as the enterprise zones his book helped motivate/inspire) should be tried instead.

If you keep boosting taxes in American cities and driving off business and the middle class you end up with an ever increasing number of gangs roaming about, looking for some hapless person to stop at a red light where they can throw a rock or do worse.

Liberals have had virtual monopoly control of most of America’s cities for several generations and the ugly truth is, their ideas don’t work, but make it worse, to the point it is now very dangerous in the cities they control. It isn’t hard to see why there is so much “flight” to the suburbs from the cities of America.

The question isn’t what happened in Norfolk on May 1 to two white reporters. Nor is it, what motivated a gang of troublemakers, nor even why is it liberal media covers up stories like this?

Rather, the question is, what is happening to America’s cities, and what can we do to reverse the trend that makes it dangerous to stop at a red light in the wrong neighborhood in so many cities in America? *

This concludes my third month (12 weeks) writing here at RED STATE 5x a week (on weekdays) where I have offered 130,171 words in 58 articles, averaging 2,224 words each.

*

HanoverHenry of RED STATE is Pat Henry on Facebook, and he is on the lookout for new friends there

Allen West Bashes B. Hussein Obama

Rep. Allen West is the real McCoy. Watch him and see what conservatism is about. He points out how our "Community Organizer" did not say a word about the Fogel Family being slaughtered in Israel. No, our Politically Correct TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) is too busy running around with the Anti-Semite, Al Sharpton. Also, poor B. Hussein Obama has to deal with that Food Nazi who he is married too.

Also, please click on Chuck On The Right Side HERE to see a new Post today.

Political Correctness Has Gone Too Far

Political Correctness has helped to crumble our society. Some pervert like Wanda Sykes can tell how she wants Rush Limbaugh to die. The Racist Liberals and the so-called President, Obama laughed it up. Yet when a 16 year old white guy says that an odd looking statute “looks Gay”, well Wanda Sykes is there to scold the kid and make fun of his mustache? Double Standard? Liberals have no civility. Liberals have a proclivity for Violence.

Left-wing Black Activist Acknowledges Race Attacks on Tea Party Are Bogus But Effective! Of course the Media Ignores the truth as the MSM is promoting this slave-owner Regime.

Political Correctness is a movement of speech purification which is meant to remove any objectionable content that unfairly differentiates between the speaker and different subgroups. It is also supposed to change behavior by promoting these subgroups. So the Marxist Liberals us it to attack anyone who speaks out against a Gay Person or so-called Minority. Of course the Marxist Liberals use it to "legally" attack Conservatives.

Mark Levin on The Democratic Party, The Party of Slavery

We installed this youtube Video above until we can get repairs on the Video below.



The Great One, Mark Levin tears up the DEMONcrats. He will challenge anyone (Barry Soetoro included) to a debate. The liberals make the majority of Racist comments and their actions are extremely Racist. From Barry Soetoro to Barbara Boxer to Harry Reid to Bill Mahr and on and on.

Added this portion below on 11/25/2010

Condoleezza Rice was a Democrat until 1982 when she changed her political affiliation to Republican in part because she disagreed with the foreign policy of Democratic President Jimmy Carter (this guy is still running his mouth), and because of the influence of her father, who was Republican. As she told the 2000 Republican National Convention, "My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did."

Marxists & Black Liberation Theology Thuggery

When will the slow thinking Americans who lean left wake up? Lachlan Markay has a very insightful article below on the Left attacking Conservatives and Tea Party Members. The Left shouts "Racist" and the fringe Media gives them some running room with the lies. The Left can re-write history all they want. We know they started the KKK, wanted to keep Slaves and still try and keep the poor under their thumb. Even currently we have the Left spouting all the Racist verbiage. Lowlife Sherrods, Biden, Reid, Maxine Waters , Barbara Boxer, Sheila Jackson Jess Lee and on and on!


Left-wing Black Activist Acknowledges Race Attacks on Tea Party Are Bogus But 'Effective,' Media Ignore

By Lachlan Markay
What will it take for the media to acknowledge that the Tea Party is not a racist movement, and that liberals have smeared it as such in a naked politicization of race relations? How about a lefty activist admitting just that.

UPenn professor Mary Frances Berry, a leader of the "far-left black political scene," as NB Executive Editor Matt Sheffield wrote, penned this astonishing email to Politico, published on July 20:

Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.

Dick Armey could not have said it better.

The strategy is, of course, reprehensible, but members of the Tea Party movement have long suspected that accusations of racism were nothing more than elements of a political ploy motivated by a fear that the movement's influence could spell disaster for Democrats in November and beyond.

Rather than discuss the issues, these smear artists allege racism since it immediately puts political opponents on the defensive, preventing them from pushing lines of argument to which most Americans are sympathetic.

That Berry specifically mentioned joblessness as an issue that can be dodged by crying racism demonstrates just how desperate liberals are to avoid discussing the still-sagging economy. It's a losing issue for Democrats, and their supporters know it. By dubbing the critics of Democratic economic policy racists, they can avoid discussion of the failures of their own policies.

Coverage of this outrageous statement from the mainstream media: practically zero. Hannity has mentioned it a couple times, and Politico, of course, has acknowledged it.

But almost every other major news outlet - ABC, NBC, MSNBC, HLN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, USA Today, NPR, PBS, Newsweek, Time - has completely ignored the statement, according to a Nexis search. The Wall Street Journal's John Fund mentioned it on CBS's Face the Nation and on CNN Newsroom, but neither outlet covered the topic on its own, or followed up on Fund's statements. Mary Matalin mentioned it on the Situation Room, but once again, it took a conservative guest for the statement to even be acknowledged, and no one followed up.

And of course, the same media outlets ignoring this story have frequently trumpeted accusations of racism directed at the Tea Party as fact. The most notorious example - the alleged racial slurs shouted at Members of Congress before the health care vote - has even recently been treated as fact, despite the complete absence of evidence supporting the accusation.

Maybe Berry's statement will help convince these journalists that they are aiding and abetting not only political character assassination against an organic, Jeffersonian movement, but that they are in fact aiding the degradation of American race relations, as R. Dozier Gray, spokesman for the black conservative group Project 21 notes:


This willful and purposeful use of the race card for nothing more than political gain is toxic to race relations, and Mary Frances Berry must know that. But she evidently does not care. Based on her comment, political posturing takes primacy over whatever real issues regarding race that she might pretend are her calling cards. I have seen this all before. I find it shameful.

—Lachlan Markay is an associate with Dialog New Media

Phoenix, Now Kidnapping Capital of The USA

Phoenix has become the Kidnapping Capital of America, thanks to Mexican Drug Gangs. Would the Left Wing Liberals be so willing to throw bottles at the Police if one of their Family was kidnapped by an Illegal Alien?

Don't Be Intimidated By the Race Hustling Democrats

If Barack Obama really is a post-racial president, then why are so many liberals crying racism at those who criticize the president?
Why can't a White Person be able to voice their objection to a Marxist ideology being shoved down their throats without being called a Racist?
Why doesn't Obama or sotomayor ever suggest they are not Racist. They simply use Alinsky tactics and point out other racists.

The Marxist Roots of Black Liberation Theology

We wanted to re-visit this very informative article from the past. Mr. Bradley writes a terrific article on Obama's roots of Marxism. Since the 1970's there is no reason for people like B. Hussein Obama to blame "Whitey" for all his hatred.
Mr. Bradley does not live in "Victimhood". Yet we see many Rappers, Celebs and Athletes who abuse women and drugs. all the while becoming filthy rich by blaming "Whitey".
Also, look at the standard of living for Rev. Wright, Prof. Gates and other Obama Racist friends.

Written by Anthony B. Bradley Ph.D.

What is Black Liberation Theology anyway? Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright catapulted black liberation theology onto a national stage, when America discovered Trinity United Church of Christ. Understanding the background of the movement might give better clarity into Wright's recent vitriolic preaching. A clear definition of black theology was first given formulation in 1969 by the National Committee of Black Church Men in the midst of the civil-rights movement:

Black theology is a theology of black liberation. It seeks to plumb the black condition in the light of God's revelation in Jesus Christ, so that the black community can see that the gospel is commensurate with the achievements of black humanity. Black theology is a theology of 'blackness.' It is the affirmation of black humanity that emancipates black people from White racism, thus providing authentic freedom for both white and black people. It affirms the humanity of white people in that it says 'No' to the encroachment of white oppression.

In the 1960s, black churches began to focus their attention beyond helping blacks cope with national racial discrimination particularly in urban areas.

The notion of "blackness" is not merely a reference to skin color, but rather is a symbol of oppression that can be applied to all persons of color who have a history of oppression (except whites, of course). So in this sense, as Wright notes, "Jesus was a poor black man" because he lived in oppression at the hands of "rich white people." The overall emphasis of Black Liberation Theology is the black struggle for liberation from various forms of "white racism" and oppression.

James Cone, the chief architect of Black Liberation Theology in his book A Black Theology of Liberation (1970), develops black theology as a system. In this new formulation, Christian theology is a theology of liberation -- "a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ," writes Cone. Black consciousness and the black experience of oppression orient black liberation theology -- i.e., one of victimization from white oppression.

One of the tasks of black theology, says Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of oppressed blacks. For Cone, no theology is Christian theology unless it arises from oppressed communities and interprets Jesus' work as that of liberation. Christian theology is understood in terms of systemic and structural relationships between two main groups: victims (the oppressed) and victimizers (oppressors). In Cone's context, writing in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the great event of Christ's liberation was freeing African Americans from the centuries-old tyranny of white racism and white oppression.

American white theology, which Cone never clearly defines, is charged with having failed to help blacks in the struggle for liberation. Black theology exists because "white religionists" failed to relate the gospel of Jesus to the pain of being black in a white racist society.

For black theologians, white Americans do not have the ability to recognize the humanity in persons of color, blacks need their own theology to affirm their identity in terms of a reality that is anti-black -- “blackness” stands for all victims of white oppression. "White theology," when formed in isolation from the black experience, becomes a theology of white oppressors, serving as divine sanction from criminal acts committed against blacks. Cone argues that even those white theologians who try to connect theology to black suffering rarely utter a word that is relevant to the black experience in America. White theology is not Christian theology at all. There is but one guiding principle of black theology: an unqualified commitment to the black community as that community seeks to define its existence in the light of God's liberating work in the world.

As such, black theology is a survival theology because it helps blacks navigate white dominance in American culture. In Cone's view, whites consider blacks animals, outside of the realm of humanity, and attempted to destroy black identity through racial assimilation and integration programs--as if blacks have no legitimate existence apart from whiteness. Black theology is the theological expression of a people deprived of social and political power. God is not the God of white religion but the God of black existence. In Cone's understanding, truth is not objective but subjective -- a personal experience of the Ultimate in the midst of degradation.

The echoes of Cone's theology bleed through the now infamous, anti-Hilary excerpt by Rev. Wright. Clinton is among the oppressing class ("rich white people") and is incapable of understanding oppression ("ain't never been called a n-gg-r") but Jesus knows what it was like because he was "a poor black man" oppressed by "rich white people." While Black Liberation Theology is not main stream in most black churches, many pastors in Wright's generation are burdened by Cone's categories which laid the foundation for many to embrace Marxism and a distorted self-image of the perpetual "victim."

Black Liberation Theology as Marxist Victimology
Black Liberation Theology actually encourages a victim mentality among blacks. John McWhorters' book Losing the Race, will be helpful here. Victimology, says McWhorter, is the adoption of victimhood as the core of one's identity -- for example, like one who suffers through living in "a country and who lived in a culture controlled by rich white people." It is a subconscious, culturally inherited affirmation that life for blacks in America has been in the past and will be in the future a life of being victimized by the oppression of whites. In today's terms, it is the conviction that, 40 years after the Civil Rights Act, conditions for blacks have not substantially changed. As Wright intimates, for example, scores of black men regularly get passed over by cab drivers.

Reducing black identity to "victimhood" distorts the reality of true progress. For example, was Obama a victim of widespread racial oppression at the hand of "rich white people" before graduating from Columbia University, Harvard Law School magna cum laude, or after he acquired his estimated net worth of $1.3 million? How did "rich white people" keep Obama from succeeding? If Obama is the model of an oppressed black man, I want to be oppressed next! With my graduate school debt my net worth is literally negative $52,659.

The overall result, says McWhorter, is that "the remnants of discrimination hold an obsessive indignant fascination that allows only passing acknowledgement of any signs of progress." Jeremiah Wright, infused with victimology, wielded self-righteous indignation in the service of exposing the inadequacies Hilary Clinton's world of "rich white people." The perpetual creation of a racial identity born out of self-loathing and anxiety often spends more time inventing reasons to cry racism than working toward changing social mores, and often inhibits movement toward reconciliation and positive mobility.

McWhorter articulates three main objections to victimology: First, victimology condones weakness in failure. Victimology tacitly stamps approval on failure, lack of effort, and criminality. Behaviors and patterns that are self-destructive are often approved of as cultural or presented as unpreventable consequences from previous systemic patterns. Black Liberation theologians are clear on this point: "People are poor because they are victims of others," says Dr. Dwight Hopkins, a Black Liberation theologian teaching at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Second, victimology hampers progress because, from the outset, it focuses attention on obstacles. For example, in Black liberation Theology, the focus is on the impediment of black freedom in light of the Goliath of white racism.

Third, victimology keeps racism alive because many whites are constantly painted as racist with no evidence provided. Racism charges create a context for backlash and resentment fueling new attitudes among whites not previously held or articulated, and creates "separatism" -- a suspension of moral judgment in the name of racial solidarity. Does Jeremiah Wright foster separatism or racial unity and reconciliation?

For Black Liberation theologians, Sunday is uniquely tied to redefining their sense of being human within a context of marginalization. "Black people who have been humiliated and oppressed by the structures of White society six days of the week gather together each Sunday morning in order to experience another definition of their humanity," says James Cone in his book Speaking the Truth (1999).

Many black theologians believe that both racism and socio-economic oppression continue to augment the fragmentation between whites and blacks. Historically speaking, it makes sense that black theologians would struggle with conceptualizing social justice and the problem of evil as it relates to the history of colonialism and slavery in the Americas.

Is Black Liberation Theology helping? Wright's liberation theology has stirred up resentment, backlash, Obama defections, separatism, white guilt, caricature, and offense. Preaching to a congregation of middle-class blacks about their victim identity invites a distorted view of reality, fosters nihilism, and divides rather than unites.

Black Liberation Is Marxist Liberation
One of the pillars of Obama's home church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is "economic parity." On the website, Trinity claims that God is not pleased with "America's economic mal-distribution." Among all of controversial comments by Jeremiah Wright, the idea of massive wealth redistribution is the most alarming. The code language "economic parity" and references to "mal-distribution" is nothing more than channeling the twisted economic views of Karl Marx. Black Liberation theologians have explicitly stated a preference for Marxism as an ethical framework for the black church because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (whites) versus victim class (blacks).

Black Liberation theologians James Cone and Cornel West have worked diligently to embed Marxist thought into the black church since the 1970s. For Cone, Marxism best addressed remedies to the condition of blacks as victims of white oppression. In For My People, Cone explains that "the Christian faith does not possess in its nature the means for analyzing the structure of capitalism. Marxism as a tool of social analysis can disclose the gap between appearance and reality, and thereby help Christians to see how things really are."

In God of the Oppressed, Cone said that Marx's chief contribution is "his disclosure of the ideological character of bourgeois thought, indicating the connections between the 'ruling material force of society' and the 'ruling intellectual' force." Marx's thought is useful and attractive to Cone because it allows black theologians to critique racism in America on the basis of power and revolution.

For Cone, integrating Marx into black theology helps theologians see just how much social perceptions determine theological questions and conclusions. Moreover, these questions and answers are "largely a reflection of the material condition of a given society."

In 1979, Cornel West offered a critical integration of Marxism and black theology in his essay, "Black Theology and Marxist Thought" because of the shared human experience of oppressed peoples as victims. West sees a strong correlation between black theology and Marxist thought because "both focus on the plight of the exploited, oppressed and degraded peoples of the world, their relative powerlessness and possible empowerment." This common focus prompts West to call for "a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers" -- a dialogue that centers on the possibility of "mutually arrived-at political action."

In his book Prophesy Deliverance, West believes that by working together, Marxists and black theologians can spearhead much-needed social change for those who are victims of oppression. He appreciates Marxism for its "notions of class struggle, social contradictions, historical specificity, and dialectical developments in history" that explain the role of power and wealth in bourgeois capitalist societies. A common perspective among Marxist thinkers is that bourgeois capitalism creates and perpetuates ruling-class domination -- which, for black theologians in America, means the domination and victimization of blacks by whites. America has been over run by "White racism within mainstream establishment churches and religious agencies," writes West.

Perhaps it is the Marxism imbedded in Obama's attendance at Trinity Church that should raise red flags. "Economic parity" and "distribution" language implies things like government-coerced wealth redistribution, perpetual minimum wage increases, government subsidized health care for all, and the like. One of the priorities listed on Obama's campaign website reads, "Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers."

Black Liberation Theology, originally intended to help the black community, may have actually hurt many blacks by promoting racial tension, victimology, and Marxism which ultimately leads to more oppression. As the failed "War on Poverty" has exposed, the best way to keep the blacks perpetually enslaved to government as "daddy" is to preach victimology, Marxism, and to seduce blacks into thinking that upward mobility is someone else's responsibility in a free society.

Anthony B. Bradley is a research fellow at the Acton Institute, and assistant professor of theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. His Ph.D. dissertation is titled, "Victimology in Black Liberation Theology."

The White Rodney King

Hon. James David Manning, PhD continues speaking about the Patrick Henry style revolution. He also speaks about white people rioting and the alleged Larry Sinclair & Obama affair.

If this Video is down it is because The Honorable James David Manning is becoming a Public Enemy. I guess "The Truth will set you Free" only applies to Marxists, Commies & Liberals. For real Patriots like The Honorable James David Manning, it means censorship.

Michelle's Boot Camps For Radicals

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY |from Thursday, September 04, 2008

Election '08:Democrats' reintroduction of militant Michelle Obama in Denver was supposed to show her softer side. But it only highlighted a radical part of her resume: Public Allies.

Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of PublicAllies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service."

Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of "social change."

The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn't seem all that radical. It promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year "community leadership" positions with nonprofit or government agencies. They'll also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats.

In exchange, they'll get a monthly stipend of up to $1,800, plus paid health and child care. They also get a post-service education award of $4,725 that can be used to pay off past student loans or fund future education.

But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation — the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul "The Red" Alinsky.
"Our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to . . . engage in protest activities," PublicAllies boasts in a document found with its tax filings. It has already deployed an army of 2,200 community organizers like Obama to agitate for "justice" and "equality" in his hometown of Chicago and other U.S. cities, including Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Washington. "I get to practice being an activist," and get paid for it, gushed Cincinnati recruit Amy Vincent.

Public Allies promotes "diversity and inclusion," a program paper says. More than 70% of its recruits are "people of color." When they're not protesting, they're staffing AIDS clinics, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare.
Public Allies brags that more than 80% of graduates have continued working in nonprofit or government jobs. It's training the "next generation of nonprofit leaders" — future "social entrepreneurs."

The Obamas discourage work in the private sector. "Don't go into corporate America," Michelle has exhorted youth. "Work for the community. Be social workers." Shun the "money culture," Barack added. "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation."

"If you commit to serving your community," he pledged in his Denver acceptance speech, "we will make sure you can afford a college education." So, go through government to go to college, and then go back into government.

Many of today's youth find the pitch attractive. "I may spend the rest of my life trying to create social movement," said Brian Coovert of the Cincinnati chapter. "There is always going to be work to do. Until we have a perfect country, I'll have a job."

Not all the recruits appreciate the PC indoctrination. "It was too touchy-feely," said Nelly Nieblas, 29, of the 2005 Los Angeles class. "It's a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias."

One of those -isms is "heterosexism," which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of "capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege."

The government now funds about half of PublicAllies' expenses through Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military, he said.

The gall of it: The Obamas want to create a boot camp for radicals who hate the military — and stick American taxpayers with the bill.

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

After reading the following historical facts, read the part about Switzerland, twice.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens!

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens.'
Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS
IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!
If you are too, then please forward.

Just think how powerful our government is getting!
They think these other countries just didn't do it right.
Learn from history!

Rules for Radicalized Conservatives

In response to Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, I came up with twelve rules I think we should all adhere to in order to actively fight the liberal-socialist scum who are attempting to take control of every aspect of our lives:

Rules for Cons #1: Be informed and use irrefutable facts. Understand that liberals employ false logic (anti-American arguments are the only good arguments, while pro-American arguments are always bad arguments). Therefore, it is not worth your time or energy to “debate” a liberal. If you decide to engage one, be armed with well-documented facts that will destroy their fallacies. Liberals are hypocrites and liars. They are also poor losers. Expect ridicule and insane viewpoints from them.

Rules for Cons #2: Dismiss Political Correctness for the Marxist cultural doctrine that it is. It was designed by radicals to weaken and then destroy Western Civilization. If someone calls you a racist, recognize they are losing the debate. When they play the race card, toss it away and don’t play their game. All they will do when they are losing is change the rules.

Rules for Cons #3: Recognize and treat liberals for what they are: Anti-American. No matter what a liberal claims, unless he understands

Rules for Cons #4: Expose and refute liberal media bias and disinformation.The Media is not a dispassionate Fourth Estate whose purpose is to counter political excesses and overreaching in our government (if it ever was). It is now solely a propaganda machine for the Fifth Column. A nation cannot be free without a free, unbiased media. We are not free.

Rules for Cons #5: Disobey and legally fight unconstitutional laws. Because Congress has for decades been derelict in its duty to steward our tax monies efficiently and wisely, we must now band together and NOT pay federal taxes. As long as Congress ceases to represent We the People, we must not provide them with OUR money. Imprisonment and fines may be levied. But we must not let our government treat us as cash cows to milk for their own purposes.

Rules for Cons #6: ALWAYS stand up for and uphold the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. WE have the true power in this nation, as documented in our Constitution. READ it and study it. Educate yourself on all available documents written by our Founders and Framers. Be proud of who you are and just how remarkable our Constitution really is!

Rules for Cons #7: Respect and remember the sacrifices made by our countrymen and women. NEVER forget the price they paid in blood and limb, and in lost dreams and potential. They chose to fight for this country, and in too many cases, ceased to exist so that our country could continue. They enabled you to enjoy the freedoms you have, and now, you must do the same for our future generations.

Rules for Cons #8: Preserve the spirit and principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution at all costs; and never forget our religious roots. Teach your children about American Exceptionalism. Establish educational programs and foundations to drown out the stream of liberal indoctrination that is demoralizing and perverting our youth, and turning them into dependent, weak-willed parasites on society. Instill in our youth a solid sense of self-reliance, self-determination, faith, respect, and courage. And, never allow our nation’s sovereignty to be diminished or to be subject to control by corrupt agencies, such as the United Nations.

Rules for Cons #9: Be willing to fight against governmental tyranny, as our forefathers instructed. Know that GOD, not our government, made us free. If our government attempts to take away our rights, it is no longer legitimate. It’s your choice to live free or to be enslaved.

Rules for Cons #10: Exemplify moral values in your everyday lives. Loyalty is a crucial American character trait. Despite powerful temptations, be ever faithful to your family, your country, and to our Creator. Only Jesus was perfect. If you do fail to uphold your values, do right by the aggrieved and make restitution. Resign immediately from any post of leadership until such time as others believe you are truly contrite and have proven it.

Rules for Cons #11: Organize and support your fellow Conservative; especially when it is inconvenient to do so. Never leave a patriot behind. Be “an American.” Also, encourage, support, and fight for others in need, or anyone who is being oppressed. Liberty is a universal right. Always be courageous in the face of evil arrogance. Act and do what is right. Indecision and ambivalence leads to moral equivalence, and that allows evil to flourish.

Rules for Cons #12: Recognize, name, and then fight the enemies of this land. We are in the midst of a culture war. It is not a genteel discussion that follows Robert’s Rules. It is a gutter fight. Expect to get bruised. Be willing to parry, thrust, and coupe de grace. Investigate, analyze, and expose the enemy. Make no mistake: Progressives have been at war with Americans for decades. Either fight, or they will succeed in turning this country from a representative republic into a despotic oligarchy where the individual has no rights.