Tag Archives: Al Sharpton

DOJ Unit Participating in Trayvon Protests

Posted on by
Reply

Think the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder is impartial? Keith Koffler writes in his WhiteHousedossier blog that the Department of Justice is abetting Trayvon Martin protestors:

A largely unknown group of Justice Department officials has inserted itself into the local Florida protest movement surrounding the killing of Trayvon Martin, assisting the protestors and attending their meetings and rallies.

While the officials are tasked with preventing racial violence, it appears that in carrying out their duties, they have provided significant assistance to those protesting the killing of Martin, who black, by George Zimmerman, who is half white and half Hispanic.

The officials are members of the DOJ’s Community Relations Service, also known as “The Peacemakers,” a special unit established under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and empowered to act to mitigate local tensions between ethnic groups.

From the CRS website:

It is the only Federal entity dedicated to assisting state and local government units, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders. The CRS works to restore stability and accord.

Under President Obama, the group’s mission has expanded substantially. Officials are permitted to take on a more aggressive role, moving from a “reactionary” to a “preventative” stance, CRS Director Ondray Harris told the website Main Justice. And the categories that can bring in The Peacemakers now include gender, “gender identity,” sexual orientation, religion, and disability.

Martin’s killing set off vocal protests – led by Al Sharpton – demanding the arrest of Zimmerman. Faced with threats of escalating fury from the protestors, Florida officials arrested Zimmerman last week. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have both suggested sympathy for the protestors or for Martin himself.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, The Peacemakers have ended up offering advice and assistance to the protestors.

When racial tensions flared in Sanford, a league of secretive peacemakers reached out to the city’s spiritual and civic leaders to help cool heated emotions after 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in February.

When civil-rights organizers wanted to demonstrate, these federal workers taught them how to peacefully manage crowds.

They even arranged a police escort for college students to ensure safe passage for their 40-mile march from Daytona Beach to Sanford to demand justice.

The Peacemakers are viewed by the protestors as a quietly protective, on-the-ground force, the Sentinel story makes clear.

“They were there for us,” said the Rev. Valarie Houston, pastor of Allen Chapel AME Church, a focal point for the community after the unarmed teen’s death. She met the peacekeepers there for the first time during a March 20 town-hall meeting. “We felt protected,” she said.

Houston said the conciliators told her they act as the “eyes and ears of the community” and provided guidance about keeping their message about nonviolence clear.

At every rally, community meeting and march, since the shooting, conciliators were there.

In their Navy blue windbreakers, polo shirts and dark sunglasses, they look like federal agents.

Their caps are embroidered with the Justice Department’s seal. They watch and listen silently. But they say little publicly.

When reporters try to chat them up, they remain stoic, saying simply they cannot talk to the media.

There is a secretive aspect to the group’s activities, although officials assert this is to facilitate participation in The Peacemakers mediation efforts. According to Main Justice, officials are barred from revealing the identity of parties participating in negotiations overseen by the CRS.

If this isn’t big brother, what is?

Local Priest Has Me Seeing Red

Posted on by
Reply

While glancing at this morning’s issue of our local newspaper, I saw red. Red as in Communism and red as in anger when I saw this headline: “Economic disparity calls for leveling.” It wasn’t from a news story and it wasn’t on the editorial pages. It was on the Saturday weekend section.

What? Someone here’s spewing Marxist rhetoric, I thought.

Then I saw the author’s name and almost choked. It was the priest at the cathedral I used to attend. That headline – and his strays from Catholic doctrine – are why I no longer attend the church where I was married and where my children were baptized and confirmed.

A little background. The first Sunday he preached he criticized the parish for prejudice against gays. It stuck out because there never seemed to be any such action taking place. In Midtown, you don’t find much interest in that topic. It’s not a big issue. We are a tolerant community. No one really knew what he was even talking about. Then, he tried to convince us that no actual miracle occurred with the loaves and the fishes. No, Jesus didn’t actually make more food; he just inspired the community that came out and shared with everyone else. That was shocking.

Next, he tried to take over the approved renovation of the cathedral built and paid for by Italian immigrants in the 30s. He wanted to replace the painting above the altar with a picture of Our Lady rejected by the Los Angeles cathedral depicting her as a young Mexican woman. Parishioners were flaming mad that they had donated money with certain images to remain, then were told they would not. Ultimately, the parishioners won that fight, but it showed the social justice side of the man.

Meanwhile in the school, his liberal teachings were causing a drop off in enrollment. At a meeting one parent complained that the whole semester did not see a Mass for the children except on Ash Wednesday. I noticed how the stance on abortion was pushed aside during elections to favor the Democrats. And, I know for a fact, that this priest voted Democrat in primaries when the platform of that party is pro abortion. I know this because I worked at the polls and saw his request for that ballot.

But back to his article. He praises the Occupy Wall Street protestors (yes, those who raped, attacked and caused economic hardship wherever they landed) for bringing “to our nation’s consciousness the widening income disparity between the wealthiest 1% and the remaining 99%.”

He continues that the U.S. is the most economically unequal nation in the advanced world. “Why have religious leaders been so silent about this economic disparity?” he asks. Well, maybe because it isn’t any of their business. Remember that “render to Caesar” quote? And, by the way, many haven’t been silent like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakan, Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson. They mount a podium every day – with press coverage – don’t they?

“The Scriptures – especially Jesus in the Gospels – speak much more about money and the disparity between the rich and poor than they do about other important issues being raised in our nation these days,” he continued. I guess Jesus didn’t directly address abortion, the national debt, high gasoline prices or the attempt by the government to take over every aspect of our health care, so we should just chuck those.

He goes on to pooh pooh fasting, especially the Catholic practice of not eating meat on Fridays in Lent. Somebody email Pope Benedict and tell him to tuck into meat on Fridays. Father says it’s OK.

He outdoes himself with this next logical pirouette, however: “‘Glad tidings’ are truly the reversal of good fortune. Those at the bottom of the ladder find freedom and hope, Jesus says. And by mentioning ‘a year of favor from the Lord,’ Jesus was speaking of the Jubilee Year, spoken of in the Book of Leviticus. It teaches the Chosen People that every 50 years, all debts are to be erased. All land has to be returned to the original owner, and those trapped by financial bondage need to be released.”

Where to begin? At the dig to the Jews and the stereotype of them as mercenaries? In practical terms he’s calling for amnesty for illegal aliens, a forgetting of student loans, freeing deadbeats from paying mortgages and all the other giveaways we have. It struck me in particular since I had just heard from a friend who with her husband is buying homes and refurbishing them for rentals. They are doing it to have some income to supplement the pittance and maybe even doubtful existence of Social Security. The first house they renovated and rented procured one month’s rent for them and a tenant who refuses to pay the rest. A judge sided with the renter and is allowing her to live there for as long as she likes. Another court date awaits, but in the meantime they have lost money they could not afford. How can this be just? Another prospective tenant thought she was a good renter because she and her husband had enough welfare checks connived from the government to rent the house.

But, no, the Father insists that a “leveling” take place. “The rich are to give away their wealth to those who are poor.” I believe Jesus meant voluntarily and not, as he is suggesting, by a government redistributing it.

In fact, as he ends his piece, he writes “In Lent, we celebrate that Jesus truly ‘emptied’ himself and voluntarily put himself on the side of the alienated and broken.” Really? I thought Easter was about Jesus dying to free us from sin and showing that he was God by rising again. I don’t think it was a call for the redistribution of wealth. Maybe he needs to be a follower of Marx or Lenin instead of Our Savior.

It’s shocking to me to see a priest so obsessed with material goods. Since when does Social Justice take precedence over the spiritual needs of the flock?

I guess it has since the 60s when the whole movement gained ground. Like the War on Poverty, mankind will never produce equality and justice. Those will only occur in heaven. It is presumptuous of him to believe he can force people to do it.

Somewhere free will and God just got thrown under the bus.

You can read his article here:http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/mar/17/guest-commentary-economic-disparity-calls-for/

Thoughts on the Debate

Posted on by
Reply

By now pundits are writing that Mitt Romney won the debate (surprise, huh?) and that Santorum got hurt. John King, CNN moderator, has been attacked for not asking about gas prices, Fast and Furious, China and cuts in our nuclear warheads. Newt seemed to have a good night and Paul was, well Paul.

It’s always best to watch the debates yourself and draw your own conclusions. Here are a few of mine.

Actually, King did mention gas prices, but it morphed into a discussion of Iran. Santorum, Gingrich and Romney made sure everyone knows they support Israel. Paul played the scare card of the draft. In his scenario, war mongering neocons will have your son and daughter camou-ed up by January 20, 2013. As for any real policy, Paul punted and babbled. He gets the Chamberlain award.

The initial question of the night, however, had to do with the economy. Santorum rejected Romney’s use of the term “the 1%” saying the lingo gave credibility to a movement that really doesn’t exist. Paul called Santorum a fake, which was pretty disingenuous considering he’s a big earmarker.

King asked Romney what his self anointed “severe conservative” label meant. Romney spewed out examples of his philosophy in action as businessman and governor. Please, Mitt, enough about your Olympics gig! How many more times do we have to hear it? Slow down, too. Running things by that fast doesn’t make me believe you, just that you want to confuse us.

John King took his jabs all through the evening. His deadpan delivery carries with it indictments. He, too, hurries them through towards the question, but he’s gotten his bias out. For instance, he said “there’s a lot of anger in the base of the party about some of the things that have happened in the past and the Tea Party especially: earmarks, pork barrel spending – it’s a tiny slice of the budget, we all know that, but if you talk to a Tea Party activist they think an example (that’s what it sounded like) is the gateway to corruption.” Slow down, Hoss! Take a refresher course at the Ernest Hemingway school of journalism, would you. He went on to direct it to Rick Santorum, having gotten his dig at unappreciative, unintelligent Tea Partiers.

It was a gotcha for Santorum who went on to talk about good and bad earmarks. Mitt attacked, but the way he said requests for federal money should be made is the way they are made. He was confused. Romney has an irritating habit of interrupting people, too. Wonder how Ann and the kids like it.

The inevitable birth control question came up, even though King tried to act like it was minor and they’d move on. He got booed for it, but it didn’t move on. Newt smacked him down over it in a satisfying way. Santorum was good when he discussed how the issue is more than just birth control, but cultural and something the federal government can’t legislate away. He spoke of the problem of unwed mothers, often young and impoverished and how it hurts society. The others tried to act as if Santorum supports Planned Parenthood. But does anyone think a father of eight supports it?

It was a neat trick of Romney to try and blame Santorum for Obamacare. Whaaatt? Santorum wasn’t even in the Senate at that time. Romney tried to say if he hadn’t endorsed Arlen Specter, it wouldn’t have happened and then to use Santorum’s endorsement of him in 2008 post Romneycare, as an indicator of his pushing Obamacare. It was all very twisted and not effective.

King served up another gotcha to Santorum on women in the military. Santorum had said earlier that it could be fraught with problems. He should have turned on King and told him that surely there are more pressing problems to address in a two hour debate than this.

They then went on to discuss the No Child Left Behind act, another minefield for Santorum. Santorum blundered when he said he’d been a team player in President Bush’s early legislation. It probably didn’t go over well.

There was a dagger for Newt in it, too, when he reminded the audience of his junkets with Al Sharpton, touring the country to promote education. I’m sure he’d like to put that away in a lockbox.

The question to describe yourself in one word was a silly one. Maybe the best answer would have been “multifaceted.”

The wrap up came with a question about misconceptions about each. Santorum sounded whiny when he mentioned he had been outspent 4 or 5 to one and was still standing. Everyone blathered on about electability before the debate came to its end.

Did it change anyone’s mind? Guess we’ll find out next week.

The Newt Deal

Posted on by
Reply

Those who were too young to remember 1994 when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House and who have heard him debate might look kindly on the grizzled old politician.

Yes, he’s very intelligent. Yes, he answers questions well. Yes, he debates beautifully. But as Quin Hillyer points out in an article in the American Spectator (spectator.org/archives/2011/11/03/newtonian-physics) they might want to reconsider voting for him as the Republican presidential nominee.

I, for one, can’t get past the ad where he and Nancy Pelosi sit on a couch on a beach, lamenting global warming. Then there was his odd tour with Rev. Al Sharpton. Remember how he backed RINO candidate Dede Scozzafava against Doug Hoffman in the New York special election? He ranted against conservatives, calling those who differed in opinion with him “purists.”

Then when Paul Ryan came out with his budget, Gingrich trashed it. He called it “radical change” and said it was “right wing social engineering.” He faulted it and trumpeted that on talk radio. Not the view I want a president to hold.

His wife’s enormous bill at Tiffany’s has never adequately explained by Gingrich. He’d undergo intense scrutiny about it if he were the nominee.

Hillyer also discusses an incident mentioned by Senator Tom Coburn and some budget cutting where Newt went ballistic. Seems he lashes out more at his fellow Republicans in private than he does to Democrats.

And it was Republicans who suffered when Gingrich pursued the government shutdown. That was a gift to Bill Clinton. He did it again with Monica Lewinsky and the impeachment debacle. Was it hubris that made him think he could be carrying on an affair and it wouldn’t be noticed? Was he naive enough to expect Clinton wouldn’t go after him? Talk about bad judgment! In the next election Republicans lost ground in Congress.

There is also a disturbing self destructive twist with Newt which might partly explain his impeachment pursuit.

It’s nice to be able to debate well in a presidential campaign. Once won, however, a debate isn’t going to help you deal with the Chinese, the Europeans, the economy or even the opposition at home. If people go beyond that and look at the man’s record, it will be hard to see a viable candidate in him.

Thoughts on the Debate

Posted on by
Reply

Perry did better than expected. I liked his feisty quality. He was a presence this time. Perry was right about the 9-9-9 plan; it will boost everyone’s sales tax to an insupportable level. He hinted that he will be introducing his next economic plan Friday and that it will be based on a flat tax. Not a surprise, really, in that Steve Forbes is advising him on it.

All I got out of Cain was you can’t mix apples and oranges. He seemed to flub in trying to explain his plan. Who wants to pay almost 20% sales tax in Tennessee? Or any sales tax in tax free New Hampshire? I don’t see them going with this plan. It truly will hurt lower and middle income people. And what of sales of used goods? That is something unclear in his plan. The vagaries of it would lead to bartering and finding ways around the law. Plus, who thinks he could get it through Congress? He has no legislative record. Sorry, but business is not the same as working with the opposition.

Some say Newt won the debate. Perhaps. He is intelligent and has steeped himself in issues via his foundation. But I can’t get the picture of him on a couch with Nancy Pelosi, pushing for global warming initiatives, out of my mind. I believe he did it with Al Sharpton, too. Ugh. Newt also has a proclivity for self destruction. He has a talent for saying the odd thing that gets him in trouble. His personal finances are also grist for the rumor mill. He didn’t strike me as highly successful in dealing with Clinton when he was Speaker. Clinton outmaneuvered him every time. Not a good omen for working with the media and the Democrats.

Romney seemed flustered when accosted with illegal immigration employment and Romneycare. Sparring with Perry, methinks Romney doth protest too much. He said Massachusetts residents preferred his Romneycare 3 to 1. Where did he pull that number out of? He criticized Perry and Santorum for interrupting, but when on to hog time and to jab every chance he had.

Ron Paul didn’t seem to lose an eyebrow this time. His thoughts on the economy are good, but when it comes to foreign policy, he’s a disaster. Does he think all the bad players will go away because he wants them to? Very naive.

It was great to have Huntsman absent. He’s already out of money. Santorum did well, but he’s out of money, too. He didn’t win his home state in the last election; he wouldn’t win it in 2012. Michele Bachmann always comports herself well, but her chances seem slim, too.

The questions this time had a better range of issues. Anderson Cooper did pretty well handling the candidates. It would be nice if there were fewer players on the stage. There really isn’t time to get into anything in detail.

Shame on Cain

Posted on by
Reply

The Washington Post’s ridiculous story yesterday slamming Perry for a word on a rock was bad enough. The newspaper talked about some hunting grounds leased by Perry’s father in the 1980s that had a big rock with the word N—erhead on it. They cited seven anonymous sources that said Perry did not move fast enough to remove it. Rick Perry said that the first time he went to the land and saw the rock – around 1983 – he called his dad and asked him to remove it or paint over. Perry Sr. agreed and did at his first opportunity.

Looks like the WaPo tried to macaca Perry as they did George Allen in 2006, but this is a real nothingburger. They did not even interview Perry for the story. His family didn’t own the land and he hasn’t been there sine 2006.

Anyhow we expect that from today’s media. It’s what’s called drive by journalism. They drive by and fire at a target, doing their damage and then leave.

But what is truly egregious is Herman Cain’s reaction to the story. He slammed Perry as “very insensitive” on Fox News Sunday and ABC News. Cain joined in playing the race card with Al Sharpton, who suggested Perry should leave the race.

If you’re allying with Al Sharpton, maybe that should tell voters something. In conservative circles the racism card is a sore point to people who feel they are unfairly targeted with an ideology they despise. Cain should be ashamed of himself. He comes off, as one person wrote, as an “opportunistic huckster.”

People angry at Perry for suggesting conservatives who would deny children of illegal immigrants an education have no heart, have a far more grievous issue with Cain’s remark. It was wrong and opens to the opposition a new weapon, validated in their eyes, by a black man.

It was beneath Cain to do that.

Dems Gone Wild

Posted on by
Reply

Every election season has its jackassery, but this November’s kicks it up a notch.

Thankfully that activity is on the part of the donkey party this year. The GOP has been circumspect, save for Carl Palladino, but even then his reaction to his child’s privacy is at least understandable.

But the Democrats? Fear and loathing has driven them to froth at the mouth.

Leading them is the president himself who can’t seem to do anything but step in it whenever he gets before a microphone. Many of his mistakes seem driven by his car metaphor for the state of the economy.

For months Obama’s been talking about how the Republicans drove the car into the ditch and how he and the Democrats have struggled to get it out of there. Every time he speaks he elaborates. First, it was them getting into the ditch, getting hot, working hard and getting it out. Then, he couldn’t leave that alone and said the Republicans were sitting on the sidelines sipping a Slurpee. He amused himself so much with this image that his next punchline was that he didn’t want to give the keys back. At other speeches the car was placed on a cliff, hurtling, twisting and flipping all the way to the rocky bottom. Al Sharpton, who also loves a good story, added an alligator attack. Evidently even nature was conspiring against the heroic Democrats.

The next turn in the story came the other day. Obama graciously told his audience “We don’t mind the Republicans joining us, but they gotta sit in the back.” In today’s racially charged atmosphere, you have to finish that phrase with “of the bus.” Obama knows that. He couldn’t resist adding a little class and race warfare. Stupid and inflammatory.

Next, he goes on Latino radio and asks for votes to “punish our enemies and reward our friends.” Since when are Americans at war with each other? Does our president really want that? We’ve already had a Civil War and it didn’t work out too well.

Other candidates’ campaigns have the same smell of desperation. The Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Florida, Alex Sink, seemed to cheat during her debate when she got info on a phone call. In Kentucky, the Democrats launched a Moveon.org activist to stalk and lunge at Rand Paul before his debate. Someone tackled her, but she seemed to know what she was doing. She’s done similar things before and earned felony charges in May in Lousiana at a protest.

Then Russ Carnahan, Democrat in Missouri, appears to have used a seance group as a front to funnel money to lefty investigators to dig up dirt on his opponent, Ed Martin.

In Nevada, voters find their electronic ballots already punched for Harry Reid. Allegations that he is giving people free food and gift cards to vote for him are surfacing, too. Similar hijinks are happening in North Carolina.

Have you ever seen the Democrats so out of control?

Even “civilians” are piling it on. Joy Behar can’t restrain herself on “The View.” She yelled “Come here, bitch,” to Sharon Angle. “You’re going to hell!” Why not actually mud wrestle Angle, Joy? At least that would be more honest and more dignified than your outbursts.

I skip over the assaults on the Tea Party. They’ve been going on all year. We’re used to every invective being hurled at them by now.

How much more can they squeeze in in the last few days of the campaign? Don’t underestimate them. We’ll have to put up with it just a little longer.

Then the GOP tow truck can come and get the car out of the mud, although the Democrats seem to love and wallow in it.

Blaze Fires Up Blogosphere

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a new blog that should be quite interesting for conservatives.

Theblaze.com has been called a mixture of Biggovernment.com and the Huffington Post. Take a look at it.

Today’s headlines: “Time to Reeducate you on Obamacare,” “Shocking Racism at Al Sharpton’s MLK Anniversary,” “New York Residents don’t support Ground Zero Mosque,” and “Education Secretary Pressed Employees to Attend Sharpton Rally.”

It looks like one to add to your favorites.