Lie, shakedown, and repeat
In politics herds matter. Around 70 percent of evangelical Christians vote for Republicans while 90 percent of blacks for Democrats. What conclusions can we draw from these numbers? Well, if you’re a progressive you might automatically assume that since blacks vote predominantly for Democrats that the opposition must be racist. Or, since so many Christians vote Republican, liberals are all going to hell, or at least Purgatory (now called Durango Mountain Resort; I think it was part of the 2002 Papal Bull). I don’t believe that, but that’s basically what the Molotov-throwing Left does on a daily basis.
Large groups who vote the same aren’t necessarily correct. Has voting for Democrats in lockstep since the late ’60s helped blacks? Poverty hasn’t decreased among blacks. Crime hasn’t decreased. Education hasn’t gotten better. In fact, blacks are worst off socio-economically now than they were before the Left started treating them like children and wards of the state. The demagogues on the Left will just blame this on racist opposition to progress, but the Left ran Congress for decades before 1992. What does the Left offer Blacks today that will improve things? Not a damn thing except handouts and lip service. Politically, it’s an effective strategy for the Left; creating dependency through grievance mongering and envy has become the hallmark of today’s Democratic Party.
Groups are institutions. People like Al Sharpton must protect the status quo to remain relevant. The question is what can the government do to help blacks? The answer is nothing. It’s not the answer anyone likes to hear. It’s one that’s not politically popular. Anyone who wants to learn can learn in our education system. Our public school system is flawed, but it doesn’t turn away people who are diligent. There’s no magic bullet to force people to educate themselves.
All the money the U.S. wastes on handouts would probably be better spent paying children to go to school. At least that would create some incentive, but is that what we want to do? Do we really want to reward those who don’t care?
President Lincoln was often described as an "extremist" while he was alive.
I’ve never been quiet about my feelings for Glenn Beck. He just annoys me for a variety of different reasons. Evidently, Beck and others are doing a rally at Lincoln Memorial this weekend. Instead of covering the event the Washington Post wants to spin the rally as a plus for Democrats.
But with just a few days before the Beck rally, basic questions linger, including how big it will be and whether the event, which Beck says is nonpolitical, will help or hurt Republicans in November. Also unanswered is whether Beck can pull off the connection to King without creating offense – or confrontation with another event the same day led by the Rev. Al Sharpton.
I have other questions. Will the media manufacture another racism claim? Will the nonpolitical event help or hurt Democrats in November? Also unanswered is whether Sharpton can pull off the connection to Beck without creating offense – or confrontation with another event the same day led by Glenn Beck. One thing is for certain: the Post is hoping for some kind of game-changing headline to cripple the GOP.
The Washington Post article loves to talk about how extreme Glenn Beck is, but what about Al Sharpton? The man is a complete reprobate. The fact the media presents Sharpton as some kind of leader for African Americans is insulting to every flavor, stripe and color of mankind, especially blacks.
Of course the main rhetorical point from an event like this is, “How big is the crowd?” It doesn’t matter how large the crowd is because it doesn’t mean anything. It’s been two years since the ObamaMania tour and what has changed? Almost twice as many Republicans voted in the Florida primary than Democrats. Those large crying crowds are just a memory now. They symbolize the nature of crowds. They are like a vapor, much like mainstream press coverage.
Is there anything more annoying than people we constantly seek media attention? Curtis Sliwa is one of those silly figures that pops up on cable news. I saw him on CNN last night while flipping through the channels, but he’s been on almost every cable news network. It’s impossible to miss him; he’s always wearing that hideous red beret.
I’m sure Sliwa’s Guardian Angels have done some good things, but he’s still a media chaser. Al Sharpton made a name for himself in the fabricated Tawana Brawley case. After that was shown to be a hoax we should have never heard from Sharpton again, but sadly, he’s still eating up air time. Like Sharpton, Sliwa has been part of various fabricated incidents in order to get press.
I’m sorry, I just can’t take a person dressed like that seriously.
I just don’t understand why anyone would pay attention to a guy who has made a career out of being a media whore. It’s even worse that Sliwa is considered part of “conservative talk radio.” That’s just the endorsement conservatives need. Some half hearted vigilante who dresses up in his own uniform. Sliwa wants to be Batman except we know who he is, and we know he’s not actually helping anyone.
I haven’t watched or read any of the recent coverage of Michael Jackson’s death and goodbye tour/funeral. However, I did see that Al Sharpton spoke at the funeral. For some reason I have a feeling it sounded something like this…
Friends, Americans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Michael Jackson, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with Michael … The noble Paul McCartney
Hath told you Michael was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Michael answered it …
Here, under leave of Paul and the rest,
(For Paul is an honourable man;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come I to speak in Michael’s funeral …
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Paul says he was ambitious;
And Paul is an honourable man….
He hath brought many gold records home to London,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Michael seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Michael hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Paul says he was ambitious;
And Paul is an honourable man.
You all did see that in Neverland
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Paul says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Paul spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason…. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Michael,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
Recent Comments