Racism | WarSclerotic | Page 3

Posted tagged ‘Racism’

Top Dem Donor Compares Black Republicans to Nazi Collaborators

November 2, 2016

Top Dem Donor Compares Black Republicans to Nazi Collaborators, Power Line, Paul Mirengoff, November 2, 2016

(Get back on the plantation where you belong, Ni**ers! — DM)

The Democrats are worried, and justifiably so, that African-American voters aren’t supporting Hillary Clinton and other Dems to same extent that they backed Barack Obama. Actually, the Democrats are frantic about this.

Thus, Benjamin Barber, a top Democratic donor has been caught on camera attacking non-compliant African-Americans during a fundraiser. The video comes via Project Veritas Action.

Barber had this to say:

Have you heard of the Sonderkommandos? Jewish guards who helped murder Jews in the camps. So there were even Jews that were helping the Nazis murder Jews!

So blacks who are helping the other side are seriously f**ked in the head. They’re only helping the enemy who will destroy them.

Maybe they think ‘if I help them we’ll get along okay; somehow I’ll save my race by working with the murderers.

Or maybe they think that, given how the African-American community fares under Democratic rule, the Democrats are a bit like prison guards (though certainly not Nazis).

We are indebted both to Project Veritas Action and to Mr. Barber for this glimpse into the mind of the Democratic left. The public can decide who is “f**ked” in the head.”

Categories: Black Trump supporters, Clinton campaign, Clinton donors, Racism
Tags: Black Trump supporters, Clinton campaign, Clinton dorors, Racism

Comments: 1 Comment

The New Anti-Racist Racists

October 28, 2016

The New Anti-Racist Racists, Gatestone Institute, Douglas Murray, October 28, 2016

There is a trait campaigning groups have that is well known. Once they have achieved their objective, they continue. Usually it is because there are people with salaries at stake, pensions, perks and more.

Suddenly the SPLC seemed to spy a new fascism. The SPLC saw this new fascism in people who objected to people flying planes into skyscrapers, decapitating journalists and aid workers and blowing up the finish line of marathons.

One got the impression that it had become immensely useful for some people to be able to smear those concerned about Islamic fundamentalism, and try to make them akin to Nazis. The only other movements who find this equally useful are, of course, Islamic extremists.

Here is this “anti-racist” organisation, largely made up of white men who present themselves as being anti-racists, and yet who spend their time attacking Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a black immigrant woman. At the top of any list of “hate-groups,” the SPLC must in future be sure to place itself.

The SPLC’s list of “anti-Muslim activists” also includes a practising Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, one of the most principled and courageous people around calling out the extremists in his faith for their bigotry and hatred. He does so, like Hirsi Ali, at no small risk to himself.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC), based in Montgomery, Alabama, has struck again. The self-appointed boundary-markers and policemen of free discussion have issued what they call a “Field Guide” to help “guide” the media in “countering prominent anti-Muslim extremists.” It is hard to know where to start with such idiocy, so let us start from the beginning.

The SPLC was founded in 1971, ostensibly to fight for civil rights among other good causes. By the end of its first decade it was targeting the KKK and other racist organisations. So far so good. But like many a campaigning organisation, they experienced the happy blow of basically winning their argument. By the 1990s, there were mercifully few racist groups in America going about unchallenged. When a member of the KKK cropped up everybody in civil society pretty much understood that here was a bad person who should not be given a free pass.

But there is an odd trait in campaigning groups that is well known. Once they have achieved their objective, they continue. Why is this so? Usually it is because there are people with salaries at stake, pensions, perks and more. Campaigning for a particular thing or against a particular thing has become their way of life and their means of earning. And so they find a way to continue. For some years, the SPLC staggered around in such a manner, as pointless and purposeless an organisation as could be imagined.

And then in the last decade something happened to this increasingly obscure institution. It is not for me to speculate why or how this happened, whether it had to do with new staff or new money, but the focus of the organisation changed. Suddenly the SPLC seemed to spy a new fascism. They did not spy it in people who flew planes into skyscrapers, decapitated American journalists and aid workers or blew up the finish line of marathons. No, the SPLC saw it somewhere else. The SPLC saw this new fascism in people who objected to people flying planes into skyscrapers, decapitating journalists and aid workers and blowing up the finish line of marathons. For the SPLC, the big threat on the horizon was not Islamists but those people who objected to Islamists — that is, people they called “Islamophobes.” In the same way, they did not seem to have any particular problem with jihad, but they developed a huge problem with people they called “counter-jihadists.” To their existing lists of designated “hate-groups” they now added such people.

More honest groups might have balked at such a stance. More informed groups would have walked a thousand miles from such a stance. But the SPLC did no such thing. In fact, one got the impression that it had become immensely useful for some people to be able to smear those concerned about Islamic fundamentalism and try to make them akin to Nazis. The only other movements who find this equally useful are, of course, Islamic extremists.

The media today in America are increasingly wary of Islamic extremists. Most journalists do not want the parameters of what should be discussed dictated by Islamic fanatics. Whereas an organisation such as the SPLC, which did something good forty years ago, is the sort of institution that the media is for the time-being happy to hear from. Perhaps after this latest development that will no longer be the case.

The SPLC’s latest production is disgraceful, discrediting and sloppy even by its own increasingly disgraceful, discredited and sloppy standards. For this publication, they have listed “Fifteen anti-Muslim activists,” most likely in the hope that they will scare the media off inviting them on, or the wider public from being allowed to listen to them.

Among the list is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The SPLC lists a set of allegedly outrageous things that she has said, which have appeared in such obscure and extreme venues as The Wall Street Journal and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. They mention in passing — as though it were an incidental mishap — that Hirsi Ali’s film-making partner, Theo van Gogh, was slaughtered on an Amsterdam street by a jihadist, with a death-threat to Hirsi Ali pinned into van Gogh’s dying body. But they still clearly cannot imagine why anybody would have a problem with such a thing. One wonders how the staff of the SPLC would feel if one of their colleagues was murdered in such a manner? Doubtless they would shrug it off. Yet it remains that case that here is this “anti-racist” organisation, largely made up of white men who present themselves as being anti-racists, and yet who spend their time attacking a black immigrant woman.

Hirsi Ali is of course well known for being an ex-Muslim. But the SPLC’s list of “anti-Muslim activists” also includes a practising Muslim. Of course, if Maajid Nawaz were an Islamic extremist then SPLC would have nothing to say about him. But Maajid Nawaz is not an extremist — he is one of the most principled and courageous people around calling out the extremists in his faith for their bigotry and hatred. He does so, like Hirsi Ali, at no small risk to himself. If the jihadists within Islam are ever going to be defeated, it will be because of Muslims like Nawaz, who are willing to argue for reform on liberal, progressive, pluralistic and democratic grounds.

Yet for the SPLC, this Muslim is not just not the right type of Muslim — he is “anti-Muslim.” The charges that SPLC levels against Nawaz are (this is not satire) that he has (a) co-operated with, rather than worked against, the British police (b) suggested that customers in banks should have to show their faces (c) once failed to abide by the most hardline interpretation of Islamic blasphemy law (d) once visited a strip club on his stag-night.

2001

The Southern Poverty Law Center decided to turn itself into a racist organization, with its attacks on principled and courageous critics of radical Islamism such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali (left), a prominent ex-Muslim writer, and Maajid Nawaz (right), a moderate practising Muslim writer, radio host and politician. (Images source: Wikimedia Commons)

Who knows what lapses in personal decorum have occurred among the staff of the SPLC? Perhaps one of them once had extra-marital intercourse? Or perhaps one of them once consumed a glass of Merlot, in contravention of the hardest-line interpretations of Islamic scripture? Who knows, but who the hell would anybody else be to judge, and who the hell do the SPLC think they are? It seems that the SPLC has decided to turn itself from an anti-racist organisation into a racist one. An organisation that used to prosecute white racists has ended up attacking black and Muslim immigrants. At the top of any list of “hate-groups,” the SPLC must in future be sure to place itself.

Categories: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Islamists vs Islam, Islamophobia, Racism, Southern Poverty Law Center
Tags: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Islamists vs Islam, Islamophobia, Racism, Southern Poverty Law Center

Comments: Be the first to comment

What Should Americans Be Talking About?

October 17, 2016

What Should Americans Be Talking About? Gatestone Institute, Judith Bergman, October 17, 2016

Should Americans uphold the Judeo-Christian values, which have governed Western civilization until now? Or should they quietly allow the defeat of those values by a false liberalism — false, because it is anything but liberal — which will allow values, such as that of Islamic sharia religious law to settle over the United States? Will people willingly surrender their own culture in order to avoid becoming victims of intimidation?

Worse, these policies often come in the seemingly benign-sounding terms of “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, “peace”, “anti-racism”, and “human rights”; but are often used in an Orwellian way to mean their own opposites. “Diversity” means, “It is great to look different so long as you think the same way I do” and is also an acceptance of Islamic values. “Anti-racism” often means, in a racist way, anti-white or anti-Jew. “Human rights” now means a political agenda. “Peace” is used to mean the destruction of Israel. “Multiculturalism” means any culture except the Judeo-Christian one — regardless of whether that culture supports denigrating women, slavery, flogging, amputating limbs, murdering gays and the intolerance of all other religions and cultures. These inversions of language are having devastating consequences not only on university campuses, but also throughout the U.S. and abroad.

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all [that] the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…” — Muslim Brotherhood, 1991.

The question of whether to submit to these policies, as Europe is doing, or to uphold freedom, as Israel is doing, has arrived in the United States. The choice Americans make will immeasurably affect not just the US, but, despite sounding melodramatic, the future of Western civilization.

For the American voter, issues of immense urgency to the survival of the free world — such as individual freedom, dispassionate enquiry and freedom of speech and thought, which we dangerously have come to take for granted — are being derailed by crude language and behavior, when Americans need to be paying attention to serious threats to the United States, its allies and to the values of the West.

Internationally, these threats come from Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, and countless terrorist groups.

Domestically, they appear in the form of massive corruption — financial and otherwise — that is visibly hollowing out American institutions, such as the FBI (the failure to follow investigative procedure, followed by calls for FBI Director James Comey’s resignation); the Department of Justice (the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal, and the Attorney General meeting with a former president whose wife is under investigation); the State Department (email leaks are still yielding up evidence of collusion between the Clinton Global Initiative and the State Department under Hillary Clinton); the IRS (targeting conservative non-profits, and raiding the businesses of private citizens, who disagree with policy); the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to acquire power over every puddle in America) and the Executive branch in the “I have a pen and I have a phone” president’s dealings with Iran.

There have also been attempts by outsiders to incite racial and religious anarchy. The entrepreneur George Soros, for example, donated $33 million to turn events in Ferguson, Missouri from a local protest into chaos.

1952

There have been attempts by outsiders to incite racial and religious anarchy. The entrepreneur George Soros, for example, donated $33 million to turn events in Ferguson, Missouri from a local protest into chaos. (Image source: World Economic Forum)

Instead of helping Americans to create a safer, more prosperous way of life, the Ferguson events destroyed a community, devastated small business owners, and eroded security, the rule of law, and any hope for a better future. Who benefits? Creating chaos embeds a political dependency: rather than helping people to climb out of poverty, it keeps them voting for politicians to “rescue” them.

Jews and Israel are also targeted — often, regrettably, by other Jews, who appear naïvely to hope that they will thereby “immunize” themselves from attacks on Jews. Recently, for example, an article accused the U.S. Republican presidential election campaign of “significantly enhancing the presence of antisemitism in the public arena.”

Seriously?

While “conservative” radicals, such as white supremacists do exist, they are not even close to overtaking the mainstream discourse. That space, rather, seems to have been filled in the last decades by self-described “liberals” who now seem to dominate it to such a degree that the Dean of Students at the University of Chicago, John Ellison, felt obliged to write a letter warning prospective applicants not to expect a “safe space.” “Conservative” radicals are not the ones hunting down Jews — “liberals” and Islamists are victimizing and shutting them out.

Ironically of course, the liberals have not yet figured out that the agendas of these two groups are incompatible (as in gender equality); perhaps they are trying to “immunize” themselves, too.

Public debate in the US, particularly in the next few weeks, really needs to be about choosing what policies would actually improve the lives of Americans. Should they uphold the Judeo-Christian values, which have governed Western civilization until now? Or should they quietly allow the defeat of those values by a false liberalism — false, because it is anything but liberal — which will allow values, such as that of Islamic sharia religious law to settle over the United States? Will people willingly surrender their own culture in order to avoid becoming victims of intimidation?

American university campuses, which should proudly be championing debate of all ideas, have instead been rife with antisemitism for years, mostly because a “thought police” obsessed with identity politics — another way of saying my race, religion, skin color or sexual proclivity is good, yours is not — has overtaken campuses and turned them into embittered war-zones. It is postmodern Stalinism.

Worse, these policies often come in the seemingly benign-sounding terms of “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, “peace”, “anti-racism”, and “human rights”; but are often used in an Orwellian way to mean their own opposites. “Diversity” means, “it is great to look different so long as you think the same way I do” and is also and acceptance of Islamic values. “Anti-racism” often means, in a racist way, anti-white or anti-Jew. “Human rights” now means a political agenda. “Peace” is used to mean the destruction of Israel. “Multiculturalism” means any culture except the Judeo-Christian one — regardless of whether that culture supports denigrating women, slavery, flogging, amputating limbs, murdering gays and the intolerance of all other religions and cultures. These inversions of language are having devastating consequences not only on university campuses, but also throughout the U.S. and abroad.

The glue that brings “liberals” and Islamists, such as the Muslim Students Association (MSA) in the US (a front[1] for the Muslim Brotherhood), together in a common cause is the goal of eradicating Israel — of course always only under the euphemisms of “helping Palestinians” and “Peace,” even though Jihadi camps for children were organized first by Palestinians.

A 1991 official document authored by the Muslim Brotherhood outlines its strategic goals for civilizational jihad in North America. It depicts the Muslim Brotherhood’s plans for civilization jihad in the United States stating:

“The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all [that] the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers… [W]e must possess a mastery of the art of “coalitions”, the art of “absorption” and the principles of “cooperation.”

The question of whether to submit to these policies, as Europe is doing, or to uphold freedom, as Israel is doing, has arrived in the United States. The choice Americans make will immeasurably affect not just the US, but, despite sounding melodramatic, the future of Western civilization.

________________-

[1] In a 1991 official document authored by the Muslim Brotherhood, outlining its strategic goals for civilizational jihad in North America, the Muslim Students Association was mentioned as “one of our organizations and the organizations of our friends”, that is, a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood. The document was entered as evidence in the 2008 Holyland Terror Funding Trial.

Categories: 2016 elections, Academia, Antisemitism in America, Clash of civilizations, Clinton campaign, Clinton corruption, Clinton e-mails, Clinton obstructions of justice, Department of State, Diversity, Islam and females, Islam and human rights, Islamists in America, Leftists, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, National secuity, Obama, Racism, Snowflakes
Tags: Academia, Antisemitism in America, Clash of civilisations, Clinton campaign, Clinton corruption, Clinton e-mails, Clinton obstruction of justice, Department of State, DIversity, Islam and females, Islam and human rights, Islamists in America, Leftists, Multiculturalism, Muslim Brotherhood, national security, Obama, Racism, Snowflakes

Comments: Be the first to comment

PU**YGATE: Horrors! Trump Caught in Guy Talk!

October 8, 2016

PU**YGATE: Horrors! Trump Caught in Guy Talk! Dan Miller’s Blog, October 8, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors.– DM)

The left apparently believes that the Trump campaign must end in disgrace because, in 2005, Trump was recorded (apparently surreptitiously) bragging in a private conversation with George H.W. Bush’s nephew, Billy Bush, about how he tried (but failed) to get a Hollywood starlet to have sex with him. For shame! Wait a minute. That’s “guy talk” and most healthy males occasionally engage in it when not in mixed company. Methinks I smell a bit of hypocrisy.

“Girl talk?” I don’t know. Do they discuss how sexy voting should be?

Juanita Broaddrick, one of Bill Clinton’s “alleged” rape victims, had this to say about Trump’s words:

“How many times must it be said,” she tweeted Saturday morning.

“Actions speak louder than words. (Donald Trump) said bad things! (Hillary Clinton) threatened me after (Bill Clinton) raped me.”

Broaddrick’s dose of perspective comes as the mainstream media has been silent and uninterested in the ongoing accusations against Bill Clinton and Hillary’s attempts to silence his accusers.

But in the last 24 hours, they’ve reported ad nauseam about Trump’s 2005 locker room talk caught on a hot mic.

I agree with this statement in an article at Kingsjester’s Blog:

This has to be one of the biggest exercises in hypocrisy that I have ever seen.

Modern American Liberals are the same ones who brought us a crucifix in a jar of urine and a painting of Christ with elephant dung smeared all over it, applauding them both as avant-garde art and the “artists” who created those vile exhibits as “artistic geniuses”.

The same followers of the political philosophy who have been supporters of relative morality and situational ethics, are now acting so grossly offended by an 11-year-old video of Donald J.Trump engaging in a private conversation with a friend, in which he used a word that can be heard in every men’s and boys’ locker room across this nation, that they are curled up in their safe spaces, clutching their pearls and their blankie, sucking their thumbs, and crying out for their Mommy to “make the bad man stop”. [Emphasis added.]

The overwhelming hypocrisy of it all is that they want Americans to be so reviled by Donald Trump’s use of that word that they overlook the documented fact that Bill Clinton is a Serial Adulterer and that Hillary Clinton swears like a drunken sailor and has admitted in documents released by Julian Assange yesterday that she is “far removed from the troubles of Middle Class Americans”. [Emphasis added.]

I stole this cartoon from that article, and it fits:

I also agree with this article at Canada Free Press titled Liberals are Prudes — Who Knew?

Recently much ado has been made of some crude comments that Donald Trump made some years back. Media mavens are all aflutter with outraged disgust. I do not know what convent these shocked sisters came from, but I have heard similar male braggadocio my entire adult life. Perhaps they need to get out more. [Emphasis added.]

Apparently many of the pundits we watch on TV have been closet Puritans all this time – who knew? Many of them are the same ones that informed us that displaying Christ crucified in a jar of human urine is art; that murdering fetuses in order to harvest their organs is not obscene, and who insist that our children be taught the ins and outs of fornication at younger and younger ages (pun noted)—so one can be forgiven for being somewhat surprised by their air of affronted prudery. Poor dears, one does wish them a speedy recovery – hand out the smelling salts please.

So Donald Trump has feet of clay—guess what? I like him that way! I am so sick of polished, slick talking, glad-handing, backstabbing, dishonest corrupt politicians that I could scream. I’ll take the real deal—I’ll take Trump with his rough edges and sharp elbows, warts and all, over any of the oh-so-refined thoroughly corrupt bought-and-paid-for globalists being shoved down our throats. Now they are disgusting.

Trump’s “nasty” talk was hardly unique. Here are some audio cuts of former presidents, and even the current president for whom Ms. Dunham thought voting for would be sexy, being “nasty:”

In one of his many addresses to his troops during World War II, General George Patton commented that “a man who won’t f**k won’t fight.” The quote is from a 2011 Washington Post article titled “No sex, please. We’re soldiers.” That address, like many of General Patton’s others, was well laced with profanity; it helped to motivate the troops and they loved it. Would today’s “metrosexuals?” They would not likely admit it even if they did.

Patton’s grim expression did not change. “There are four hundred neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily”, he roared into the microphone, “All because one man went to sleep on the job”. He paused and the men grew silent. “But they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before they did”. The General clutched the microphone tightly, his jaw out-thrust, and he continued, “An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is pure horse shit. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don’t know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about fucking!”

The men slapped their legs and rolled in glee. This was Patton as the men had imagined him to be, and in rare form, too. He hadn’t let them down. He was all that he was cracked up to be, and more. He had IT!

“We have the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world”, Patton bellowed. He lowered his head and shook it pensively. Suddenly he snapped erect, faced the men belligerently and thundered, “Why, by God, I actually pity those poor sons-of-bitches we’re going up against. By God, I do”. The men clapped and howled delightedly. There would be many a barracks tale about the “Old Man’s” choice phrases. They would become part and parcel of Third Army’s history and they would become the bible of their slang.

. . . .

He could, when necessary, open up with both barrels and let forth such blue-flamed phrases that they seemed almost eloquent in their delivery. When asked by his nephew about his profanity, Patton remarked, “When I want my men to remember something important, to really make it stick, I give it to them double dirty. It may not sound nice to some bunch of little old ladies at an afternoon tea party, but it helps my soldiers to remember. You can’t run an army without profanity; and it has to be eloquent profanity. An army without profanity couldn’t fight its way out of a piss-soaked paper bag.” [Emphasis added.]

I remember that many years ago (1959 or 1960) when I was in ROTC at Yale — then an all-male college — an instructor (an Army captain) mentioned that he hadn’t seen one of the cadets with his date much over the weekend. The cadet responded, “even the best ***** gets moldy.” We all laughed.

From the Washington Post article linked above,

As late as the 1980s, officers’ clubs on military bases in the United States and abroad regularly featured performances by strippers. “I think we used to call them exotic dancers,” Scales recalled.

Some things have changed in our current enlightened age. Obama is gung-ho for diversity in the military and wants as many women and “others” as possible in combat branches. While the left still praises “art” such as “a crucifix in a jar of urine and a painting of Christ with elephant dung smeared all over it,” it finds guy talk and cartoons depicting Mohammad disgusting.

Paul Ryan was apparently “sickened” by Trump’s remarks.

He decried Trump’s newly revealed comments in stark terms.

“I am sickened by what I heard today,” Ryan said. “Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.”

Congressman Ryan must be “sickened” quite easily, but then perhaps there was never any guy talk in his presence, lest he “sicken.” Assuming that many others also are unaware that men engage in guy talk when women are absent and find Trump’s insulting comments outrageous, perhaps they should keep in mind that he is an equal opportunity insulter. Although he does not likely engage in guy talk with women and does not have sex with men, otherwise he treats men and women the same.

Leftists insist that we be politically correct and say nothing that they find offensive — No cartoons depicting Mohammad, no disparaging references to Sharia law, Islamist persecution of non-Muslims, sex slaves and even Muslim females, no “racist” comments that “Black Lives Matter” is racist, and no opposition to uncontrolled, unvetted immigration and resettlement of refugees from Islamic areas where Sharia law and Islamist violence are endemic. And, of course, there must be no mention of Hillary’s many lies, her corruption, the Clinton Foundation, or her foul treatment of Bill’s bimbos. That would be “sexist” or something. Boo hoo.

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton campaign, Donald Trump misogynist, Hillary and Bill's Bimbos, Hillary Clinton - "Feminist", Hillary Clinton and sexism, Hypocrisy, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton, Media and Islam, Never Trumpers, Obama and diversity, Political correctness, Politics, Racism, U.S. Military
Tags: Clinton campaign, Donald Trump misogynist, Hillary Clinton and sexism, Hilllary and Bill's Bimbos, Hypocrisy, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton, Media and Islam, Never Trumpers, Obama and diversity, Political correctness, Politics, Racism, U.S. military

Comments: 9 Comments

Islam is not a race? Obama White House wants to change that

October 1, 2016

Islam is not a race? Obama White House wants to change that, Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, October 1, 2016

For years those of us who have dared to note how Islamic jihadis invoke the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims have been accused of “racism.” This Big Lie has been repeated so often and so insistently, without any breaking of ranks among the bought-and-paid-for mainstream media, that it has become commonplace. In response, I have repeated more times than I could possibly recall: “What race is the jihad mass murder of innocent civilians again? I keep forgetting.” I’ve pointed out almost as often that Muslims who believe that their god is commanding them to wage war against and subjugate those who don’t believe as they do come in all races, and that race has nothing to do with their imperatives.

These simple truths have not stopped the charges of “racism,” of course, because those charges have Soros millions behind them, and a seemingly endless supply of well-paid Leftist and Islamic supremacist operatives eager to repeat them. But apparently the patent falsehood of the charge has caused some concern to this propagandist cabal, because now the Obama White House is attempting to give the propaganda a better footing by declaring a new race: “Middle Eastern and North African.”

It’s not a perfect designation, because it would include Middle Eastern and North African Christians and other non-Muslims, and would exclude Muslims who aren’t Middle Eastern and North African, but the principal beneficiary would be Muslim Arabs, and that is obviously the objective. This new designation would allow the incoming Clinton administration, among other things, to enforce “the Voting Rights Act and drawing congressional and state legislative district boundaries,” i.e., gerrymander districts to exaggerate Muslim voting power; establish “federal affirmative action plans and evaluating claims of employment discrimination in employment in the private sector,” i.e., continue and expand Obama administration efforts to establish special preferences and accommodations for Muslims in the workplace; and help “minority-owned small businesses get federal grants and loans,” i.e., make sure that Muslim-owned businesses get a healthy slice of the federal taxpayer pie.

Those special privileges are, ultimately, what this is all about, as well as to bolster the spurious charge of “racism” leveled against those who oppose jihad terror and Sharia supremacism.

obama7

“White House wants to add new racial category,” by Gregory Korte, USA Today, October 1, 2016:

WASHINGTON — The White House is putting forward a proposal to add a new racial category for people from the Middle East and North Africa under what would be the biggest realignment of federal racial definitions in decades.

If approved, the new designation could appear on census forms in 2020 and could have far-reaching implications for racial identity, anti-discrimination laws and health research.

Under current law, people from the Middle East are considered white, the legacy of century-old court rulings in which Syrian Americans argued that they should not be considered Asian — because that designation would deny them citizenship under the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. But scholars and community leaders say more and more people with their roots in the Middle East find themselves caught between white, black and Asian classifications that don’t fully reflect their identities.

“What it does is it helps these communities feel less invisible,” said Helen Samhan of the Arab American Institute, which has been advocating the change for more than 30 years. “It’s a good step, a positive step.”

On Friday, the White House Office of Management and Budget advanced the proposal with a notice in the Federal Register, seeking comments on whether to add Middle Eastern and North African as a separate racial or ethnic category, which groups would be included, and what it should be called.

Under the proposal, the new Middle East and North African designation — or MENA, as it’s called by population scholars — is broader in concept than Arab (an ethnicity) or Muslim (a religion). It would include anyone from a region of the world stretching from Morocco to Iran, and including Syrian and Coptic Christians, Israeli Jews and other religious minorities.

But the Census Bureau, which has been quietly studying the issue for two years, also has gotten caught up in debates about some groups — such as Turkish, Sudanese and Somali Americans — who aren’t included in that category. Those are issues the White House is trying to resolve before adding the box on 2020 census forms.

Adding a box on the census form could have implications beyond racial identity. According to the White House notice, the new data could be used for a wide range of political and policy purposes, including:

• Enforcing the Voting Rights Act and drawing congressional and state legislative district boundaries;

• Establishing federal affirmative action plans and evaluating claims of employment discrimination in employment in the private sector;

• Monitoring discrimination in housing, mortgage lending and credit;

• Enforcing school desegregation policies; and

• Helping minority-owned small businesses get federal grants and loans.

Adding the classification also would help the government and independent scholars understand more about trends in health, employment and education.

“We can’t even ask questions like that, because we don’t have the data,” said Germine Awad, an Egyptian-American and professor of educational psychology at the University of Texas at Austin….

Categories: Islam, Islamists in America, Obama administration and Islam, Obama and Islam, Racism
Tags: Islam, Islamists in America, Obama administration and Islam, Obama and Islam, Racism

Comments: 1 Comment

Black Racism Goes Mainstream

September 30, 2016

Black Racism Goes Mainstream, Front Page Magazine, Matthew Vadum, September 30, 2016

rg-1

All of this racist violence carries the official seal of approval of the Democratic Party which endorses the terrorism of Black Lives Matter, just as it backed the racist terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan of old. The only difference is that today the victims have a different color skin.

******************************

Black racism is getting worse in America because it is being validated, endorsed, and legitimized like never before.

And it’s not just Barack Obama doing this.

This race-based hatred is promoted by America-hating currency speculator George Soros who has been funding the racist, violent Black Lives Matter movement for years.

Instead of urging crime-fighting, Chris Stone, president of Open Society Foundations, supports disarming the police, a move that would make things worse and leave society at the mercy of criminals.

Black criminals aren’t to blame for rising crime rates because trigger-happy cops are on a killing spree in the U.S., he writes. “Those who kill innocents rarely do so sadistically. There are always excuses and explanations, stretching notions of self-defense, exaggerating threats, claiming mistaken identities.”

Although the U.S. is the least racist nation on the face of the earth there is a discernible shift underway. Too many black Americans and their radical non-black allies feel comfortable routinely spewing anti-white sentiments in public. Their crude, sometimes genocidal statements are becoming increasingly mainstream in the Obama era. In a case of defining deviancy down, antisocial anti-white sentiments are accepted by the media as normal, even admirable. The universities, strongholds of radical leftism and kooky identity politics, cleared the way for this.

American culture used to do a better job organically marginalizing racism. Until Barack Obama began running for president it can be argued racism barely existed at all in the United States.

Sure, the racial grievance industry with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and groups like ACORN, used to stir up trouble and use racial antagonism to shake down corporations, but these activities never had the feel of legitimacy about them. They were dirty and quite properly looked down upon by most normal Americans but today such activism wins praise from and invitations to the White House.

Recent events seem to confirm this trend in which the public expression of anti-white racist sentiments and violence against whites is being destigmatized.

As Breitbart News reported yesterday:

In an assault captured on video, Feras Jabro, a Donald Trump supporter wearing a “Make America Great Again” baseball cap, was harassed, chased, thrown to the ground and beaten by Black Lives Matter activists at a protest in El Cajon, California. […]

A longer video, shot from the victim’s perspective, shows the man standing in the crowd then being hit from behind, running from an angry mob, and then being beaten on the ground simply for wearing his MAGA hat.

The vicious attack happened on the second night of protests in the San Diego suburb of El Cajon, where Black Lives Matter protesters are angered about the police shooting death of Alfred Olango, 38. El Cajon police say they shot and killed Olango after responding to a call from his sister that he was acting erratically. Olango refused to comply with police orders, then “assumed a shooting stance” with what appeared to be a gun, but later turned out to be a vape cigarette electronic device. The Smoke Advisor, an online vaporizer authority, afterwards showed the vaporizer in question to be very small and harmless looking.

The beating of Jabro by an angry black mob made Fox News Channel and a few conservative news websites but that’s it.

The mainstream media described the protest at which the Trump supporter was roughed up as “peaceful.”

Another case proves that the narrative always moves forward with or without the facts. The brother of Keith Lamont Scott, a black career criminal who was fatally shot by a black police officer in Charlotte, N.C. on Sept. 20 after he menaced police with a stolen gun, spewed racist hate.

Tim Jackson told reporters, “Just know that all white people are fucking devils. All white cops are fucking devils, and white people.”

Just about nobody cared.

Racist graffiti turned up this week in Hillsborough County, Florida. Among the phrases spray-painted in public were “kill white people,” “black lives matter,” and “BLM.”

This barely caused a ripple outside the locality where it occurred.

In August Milwaukee was rocked by race riots after a black cop shot Sylville Smith, a young black man carrying a stolen gun who fled police. Video footage shows rioters chanting “black power!” before asking “is they white?” as cars move slowly by. “Yeah they white!” someone says, prompting rioters to run towards the vehicle. “Yeah they white, get their ass!” shouts another.

“Hey they beatin’ up every white person!” one rioter says. “He white – beat his head – bitch!”

Sherelle Smith, the dead man’s sister, urged rioters to relocate their activities to the white suburbs.

“Burnin’ down shit ain’t going to help nothin!” a video showed her telling a mob. “Y’all burnin’ down shit we need in our community. Take that shit to the suburbs. Burn that shit down! We need our shit! We need our weaves. I don’t wear it. But we need it.”

CNN edited out the woman’s reference to moving the violence to white neighborhoods, making it seem like she was calling for peace. But even doctoring the news stirred little outrage in most circles.

Last November University of Chicago student Jabari R. Dean was arrested for posting a death threat online. According to prosecutors he vowed to go to the campus quad “armed with a M-14 Carbine and two Desert Eagles all fully loaded” and “execute … 16 white male students.”

He added, “I then will die killing any number of white policemen in the process. This is not a joke. I am to do my part and rid the world of the white devils.”

All of this racist violence carries the official seal of approval of the Democratic Party which endorses the terrorism of Black Lives Matter, just as it backed the racist terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan of old. The only difference is that today the victims have a different color skin.

If Hillary Clinton becomes president, the scourge of black racism is likely to become far worse because she panders to the radical racist left more aggressively than Barack Obama does. She also has a massive chip on her shoulder because she’s not black and feels she has something to prove.

Think about that.

Categories: Black Lives Matter, Contempt for America, Democrat plantation, George Soros, Hillary Clinton and BLM, Hillary Clinton and racism, Law enforcement, Racism
Tags: Black Lives Matter, Contempt for America, Democrat plantation, George Soros, Hillary Clinton and racism, Law enforcement, Racism

Comments: 1 Comment

RIGHT ANGLE: Hillary’s Fall is Sexist!

September 22, 2016

RIGHT ANGLE: Hillary’s Fall is Sexist! Bill Whittle Channel via YouTube, September 21, 2016

Categories: 2016 elections, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton and sexism, Obama and racism, Obama and sexism, Obama's America 2016, Racism, Sexism
Tags: Hillary Clinton and sexism, Obama and racism, Obama and sexism, Obama's America 2016, Racism, Sexism

Comments: Be the first to comment

CNN now literally putting words in Donald Trump’s mouth

September 20, 2016

CNN now literally putting words in Donald Trump’s mouth, Hot Air, Jazz Shaw, September 20, 2016

Somebody in the production booth had to consciously make the decision to add in a word which Trump did not utter and, even more to the point, put it in quotes so it looked like an exact transcript of what the candidate said. There’s simply no way that the reasonable observer could write that off as an accident.

***********************

What’s going on at CNN in terms of their “hard news” editing process these days? The latest questionable achievement in journalism coming out of Atlanta caught my attention by way of Scott Adams’ Twitter feed yesterday, highlighting an instance where The Most Trusted Name in News ran a chyron which rather pointedly edited comments made by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. While discussing the issue of profiling and once again using Israel as an example, The Donald failed to use a word which would have made the comment far more incendiary to the Left, so CNN took the liberty of inserting it for him.

cswsuplukaanihe

Scott Adams @ScottAdamsSays

@CNN adds the word “racial” to Trump’s quote. Deeply irresponsible. Crosses the line. #Trump

6:44 PM – 19 Sep 2016

You’ll notice the difference between the caption and the actual text of the remarks comes down to one word. The Hill highlights precisely how they molded the narrative.

CNN added the word “racial” to Donald Trump’s Monday comments on terrorism and immigration, and is running headlines reporting that the GOP nominee is advocating “racial profiling”.

But a review of the transcript of Trump’s comments to Fox News that CNN quoted, however, shows that Trump never put the word “racial” in front of “profiling.”

“You know in Israel, they profile,” Trump said Monday to Fox News. “They’ve done an unbelievable job — as good as you can do. But Israel has done an unbelievable job. And they’ll profile. They profile. They see somebody that’s suspicious. They will profile. They will take that person in. They will check out.”

Even if this were examined in a vacuum, that’s a fairly egregious bit of editing. Just as with American law enforcement agencies, Israel’s defense forces engage in profiling. Using patterns and prior records of criminal activity (or terrorism in the case of Israel) is how you maximize your chances of success. But when you stick the word “racial” in front of it you have yourself a liberal talking point which is a sure fire way to gin up the base and get out the vote for Democrats.

But we don’t have to look at this in a vacuum. It’s even more remarkable when we consider this chyron edit as part of a larger pattern. Somebody in the production booth had to consciously make the decision to add in a word which Trump did not utter and, even more to the point, put it in quotes so it looked like an exact transcript of what the candidate said. There’s simply no way that the reasonable observer could write that off as an accident.

Now add it in with the recent incident where CNN blurred out the logo on a Trump shirt being worn by a subject being interviewed for a story having nothing to do with the election. These aren’t things that just happen by accident in an operation of that size and reach. There’s a culture in every newsroom and it bleeds over into the published product they put out. Of course, CNN isn’t alone in this pattern. Just look at the CBS incident last week where their evening news segment edited out a critical three seconds of an interview with Bill Clinton when he talked about his wife’s history of fainting spells. Sure, they wrote that off as having been done purely in the interest of time, but is anyone actually buying that?

CNN can’t afford to deliver the impression that they’re trying to put a thumb on the scale this close to the election. Their place in the food chain is supposed to be the “hard news” middle ground between MSNBC on the Left and Fox News on the Right. But there’s something going on behind the scenes at that network, and they owe their viewers an explanation for how this keeps happening and what they plan to do to correct it.

Categories: 2016 elections, CNN, Donald Trump, Profiling, Racism, Trump and media
Tags: CNN, Donald Trump, Profiling, Racism, Trump and media

Comments: Be the first to comment

London’s police ignore Muslim officers’ ‘extremist views’ for fear of being labeled ‘Islamophobic’

September 12, 2016

London’s police ignore Muslim officers’ ‘extremist views’ for fear of being labeled ‘Islamophobic’ Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, September 12, 2016

In a generation or two, when Britain is engulfed in chaos and civil war, and the island’s remaining non-Muslims are subjugated as dhimmis under the rule of Islamic law, some young British non-Muslim may ask his or her parents or grandparents: “What did you do to resist our subjugation and the Islamization of Britain?” And the answer will come: “Why, I didn’t do anything. I was afraid of being called ‘racist’ and ‘Islamophobic.’”

It took a Muslim police officer to blow the whistle on this. None of the non-Muslim police officers had the courage. “Javaria Saeed, who worked for the Metropolitan police’s counterterrorism department, took exception to comments made by a Muslim constable who said that female genital mutilation was a ‘clean an [sic] honorable practice’ that ‘shouldn’t be criminalized.’…She also alleged that the same officer said that Muslims who had been victims of domestic violence should not go to the police, but, instead, seek resolution through sharia courts.”

But no significant action was taken. And that means that in the future, it will be even more difficult for police in Britain to do anything about female genital mutilation or wife-beating among Muslims. To make any move would be “Islamophobic.” That will be the epitaph of Britain.

uk-police2

“London’s police ignore Muslim officers ‘extremist views’ for fear of being labeled ‘Islamophobic,’”RT, September 11, 2016 (thanks to Lookmann):

A former female Muslim police officer has accused London’s Metropolitan police of being more worried about “political correctness” than tackling the extremist views of some Muslim officers because they fear being branded “Islamophobic.”

Speaking to the Sunday Times, Javaria Saeed, who worked for the Metropolitan police’s counterterrorism department, took exception to comments made by a Muslim constable who said that female genital mutilation was a “clean an [sic] honorable practice” that “shouldn’t be criminalized.”

The 35-year-old resigned from the capital’s police force in March after she became disillusioned by “political correctness,” which resulted in a culture of “us and them” to emerge among some Muslim officers who believed themselves to be above the law.

“My experiences were that it was Muslim officers being racist towards my individual views; also in private, holding racist views against white officers, and sexist views against females,” she said, speaking to the Sunday Times. “If such views were held and expressed by white officers, they would be fired.”

Saeed was a constable in the SO15 counterterrorism division, which was set up to improve relations with the Muslim community. She also alleged that the same officer said that Muslims who had been victims of domestic violence should not go to the police, but, instead, seek resolution through sharia courts.

No action was taken against the police sergeant when she raised both cases with senior officers. The 35-year-old, who had been part of the Metropolitan police for a decade, told the Sunday Times that she had been called a “bad Muslim” by other Muslim officers for not wearing a hijab and that some colleagues told her she was “better off at home looking after your husband.”

“Racism in the Met is not from white officers, in my case, but from Muslim officers who the service refused to properly investigate because they were afraid of being called Islamophobic and racist,” she added.

“You give management action to minor offences, so it’s pretty outrageous that the Met did not take proper action against him,” Saeed said. “If he was a white officer, he would have been fired.”

The former police officer mentioned that she had been told by other senior members of the force that complaining about Muslim policeman would “hinder” her hopes for promotion in the future….

Categories: Britain, Islamisation, Islamists in Britain, Islamophobia, London, Political correctness, Racism
Tags: Britain, Islamisation, Islamists in Britain, Islamophobia, London, Political correctness, Racism

Comments: Be the first to comment

Prince Hussein on Trump and Farage as ‘Demagogues and Fantasists’

September 11, 2016

Prince Hussein on Trump and Farage as ‘Demagogues and Fantasists’, American Thinker, Paul Austin Murphy, September 11, 2016

Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein — a Jordanian of the Hashemite tribe (which traces itself back to Muhammed) — has just called various right-wing Western politicians “demagogues and political fantasists”. Mr. Hussein did so while addressing a security conference in The Hague.

Here’s a few words on the Prince himself.

Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. He’s the son of Prince Ra’ad bin Zeid, the former Lord Chamberlain of Jordan. Hussein himself was once Jordan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

A Jordanian as a UN human rights chief? That’s the same Jordan that doesn’t allow a single Jew to become a citizen and which is a specialist administrator of torture. (Jordan does allow Israelis and Jewish tourists.) This also squares well with all those Saudis at the United Nations who preach to the rest of the world about interfaith, terrorism and, believe it or not, human rights.

Here’s Wikipedia on Jordan’s current record:

“ — limitations on the right of citizens to change their government peacefully;

— cases of arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, poor prison conditions, impunity, arbitrary arrest and denial of due process through administrative detention, and prolonged detention;

— breaches of fair trial standards and external interference in judicial decisions;

— infringements on privacy rights;

— limited freedoms of speech and press, and government interference in the media and threats of fines and detention that encourage self-censorship;

— restricted freedoms of assembly and association…

— legal and societal discrimination and harassment of religious minorities and converts from Islam are a concern…

— legal and societal discrimination and harassment of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community;

— loss of Jordanian nationality by some citizens of Palestinian origin;

— restricted labor rights; and

— cases of abuse of foreign domestic workers.”

Prince al-Hussein included Geert Wilders, Donald Trump, and Nigel Farage in his broad generalisations. However, he singled out the Dutch leader, Geert Wilders, as an especially bad “bigot”.

Then Trump and Farage came in for an attack. Apparently they use the same tactics as the Islamic State. Yes, you read that correctly.

Well, if Geert Wilders is a “demagogue and political fantasist”, so too are very many people in the Netherlands, because opinion polls have just told us that Wilders’ party — the Freedom Party (PVV) — is leading the polls in that part of the world.

Wilders, like Nigel Farage, has also recently addressed the American people. More precisely, Wilders addressed the U.S. Republican Party National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, last month.

Prince al-Hussein went into more detail when he spoke at the inauguration of the Peace, Justice and Security Foundation.

Firstly, he said that he was speaking directly to Geert Wilders and his “acolytes”. Indeed, he was speaking to all the populists, demagogues, and political fantasists who inhabit Europe and America.

Prince Hussein continued:

“I am a Muslim, who is, confusingly to racists, also white-skinned; whose mother is European and father, Arab. And I am angry, too, because of Mr. Wilders’ lies and half-truths, manipulations and peddling of fear.”

Isn’t it strange when European political/economic elites and Arab princes (in this case) cast disparaging remarks about “populists” and populism? It’s as if populism is as culpable as racism is nowadays. It’s also interesting to hear Hussein say that because he’s white, this ends up being “confusing to racists”. Really? But, Prince Hussein, Islam is not a race and neither do Muslims constitute a single race. So why should patriots and counterjihadists be confused by Hussein’s whiteness? Is he mixing-up patriots and counterjihadists with those very many Leftists who see everything in terms of race? Or, instead, is he confusing them with the very many Muslims who use the “race card” to quell all criticisms of Islam and Muslims (as Muslims)?

Prince Hussein returned to his themes of populism and Mr. Wilders. His said that the PVV’s (Wilders’ party) manifesto is “grotesque” and that Wilders has much in common with Donald Trump, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, France’s National Front leader Marine Le Pen, and UKip’s Nigel Farage. Moreover, he called for decisive political action to be taken against populism and patriotism. (Whatever could he mean by that?)

In one news piece I read, Prince Hussein talked about “half-truths” and “oversimplification” when it comes to Islam. In detail, he said:

“But in its mode of communication, its use of half-truths and oversimplification, the propaganda of Daesh uses tactics similar to those of the populists.”

That’s strange really because Hussein, at least here, seems not to have given any examples of such “half-truths” or “oversimplifications”. However, since Hussein pretends to believe that all the critics of Islam think that there can be no such thing as a white or a yellow Muslim, perhaps he’s mistaking Islam’s critics for other people.

I said earlier that International Socialists (i.e., Leftists) see everything in terms of race (as National Socialists also do), and that Muslims use the charge of racism to help them install sharia blasphemy law, so here’s Hussein elaborating on this. He said that “humiliating racial and religious prejudice fanned by the likes of Mr Wilders” had become official policy in some countries.

Mr. Hussein also warned that such racism and populism could easily and quickly descend into “colossal violence”. The only places in which there is colossal violence nowadays are Muslim countries. These Muslims, however, aren’t the victims of white racism or populism: they are victims of Muslim-on-Muslim “hate”. As for Europe and the United States, it will almost a certainty be the case that most of the violence which happens in the future in these countries will be the responsibility of Muslims. And Prince Hussein himself will bear some of the responsibility for that.

Prince al-Hussein finished off his speech with the following words:

“Are we going to continue to stand by and watch this banalisation of bigotry, until it reaches its logical conclusion?”

Sorry, Mr. Hussein, I see much more bigotry and violence coming from the Muslim quarter than I do from anywhere else in the world. And, in a certain sense, such violence is partly a result of what Hussein and his United Nations are attempting to bring about in European and American — i.e., sharia blasphemy law.

Categories: Donald Trump, Geert Wilders, Islam and human rights, Islamic hatred of others, Jordanian human rights, Nigel Farage, Prince Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, Racism, UNCHR
Tags: Donald Trump, Geert Wilders, Islam and human rights, Islamic hatred of others, Jordanian human rights, Nigel Farage, Prince Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, Racism, UNCHR

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives