This is hilarious. Well, once you get past the fact that Al Sharpton is somehow a relevant media voice after having been a complicit instigator whipping up anti-Semitic mobs which murdered innocent people. And the fact that his claim to fame is predicated on stoking fears of racism in cases where young, black, supposed "victims" were proven to be liars, thereby ruining the lives of the wrongfully accused. Oh, and that he's an insufferable tax cheat and therefore a hypocrite who does not pay his "fair share" to provide ballast to the redistributive agenda he espouses with vitriolic race rhetoric.
But once you get past all of that, this is hilarious.
William Sullivan
Showing posts with label Sharpton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sharpton. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Race Before Reason
Rick Santorum effectively destroyed Sharpton's moral credibility a couple of weeks ago. Santorum had suggested that, as a black man and a constitutional lawyer who should be sensitive about civil rights, our president should be against abortion in all forms. Sharpton took exception to that, and was subsequently beaten down by the logic that spewed forth from Santorum's mouth.
Santorum suggested that unborn children are legally allowed to be killed and siphoned from their mother's womb for the same reason that slavery was tolerated: an obscure legal distinction about the value of their lives in society.
This makes perfect sense to most people-- but not Sharpton. Al goes on to suggest that this scenario is entirely different, because it was not a state of biological development that caused the obscurity for blacks; whether a fetus or an elderly, blacks were considered less worthy of civil rights than others. He goes on to question the humanity of the fetus, whether it has a heartbeat, or developed lungs, is crucial to the abortion debate.
Really, Al? Even many of the pro-choice abortion advocates I speak with or encounter blogging concede the fact that the fetus, after a certain point in fetal development, is a human life. And for those that are still wacky enough to argue otherwise, science, not religious doctrine, handily proves them wrong. After twenty weeks or so, a fetus can sleep, urinate, and respond rapidly to stimulus such as a bright light. This would also suggest the nervous development to feel pain. Yet pro-choice advocates would still suggest they be eligible for legal destruction?
Going even further, (as I'm sure Al knows, being a fan of Obama and all) our president failed to vote against infanticide, or partial birth abortions. Maybe Al should think about that. Our president has advocated the murder of a fully developed fetus, so in Obama's eyes, biological development, or any lack thereof, obviously isn't any concern of his. It is apparently his belief that a fully developed child lacks not only civil, but human rights until the moment he leaves his first home in the womb.
Santorum's points about the fetus’ lack of legal humanity certainly stand true. What about his contention that the unborn children of the black community are bearing the brunt of the savagery?
Not only is this a tragic fact, but destroying the unborn children of the black community has even been suggested as public policy by leaders such as Nancy Pelosi! She has suggested that abortion be a vital factor in her version of a “final solution” to stemming the social cost of welfare. And we certainly don’t have to remind Al Sharpton about the racial tapestry of the welfare recipients in this country. He’s made quite a comfortable living exploiting poverty stricken blacks.
And his reluctance to pay taxes for his success presents yet another blow to his moral credibility, this one being rather ironic. On one hand, he insists that the rich should pay heftier taxes in order to provide for the blacks in poverty that he and Obama wish to keep aborting at holocaustic levels. On the other, he refuses to pay the taxes that would be redistributed among the masses that he supposedly champions.
There is nothing to revere in the “Reverend” Al Sharpton. Rather, he seems to lack any semblance of a moral compass, clinging to race-baiting and defense of President Obama rather than embracing morality and reason.
Santorum suggested that unborn children are legally allowed to be killed and siphoned from their mother's womb for the same reason that slavery was tolerated: an obscure legal distinction about the value of their lives in society.
This makes perfect sense to most people-- but not Sharpton. Al goes on to suggest that this scenario is entirely different, because it was not a state of biological development that caused the obscurity for blacks; whether a fetus or an elderly, blacks were considered less worthy of civil rights than others. He goes on to question the humanity of the fetus, whether it has a heartbeat, or developed lungs, is crucial to the abortion debate.
Really, Al? Even many of the pro-choice abortion advocates I speak with or encounter blogging concede the fact that the fetus, after a certain point in fetal development, is a human life. And for those that are still wacky enough to argue otherwise, science, not religious doctrine, handily proves them wrong. After twenty weeks or so, a fetus can sleep, urinate, and respond rapidly to stimulus such as a bright light. This would also suggest the nervous development to feel pain. Yet pro-choice advocates would still suggest they be eligible for legal destruction?
Going even further, (as I'm sure Al knows, being a fan of Obama and all) our president failed to vote against infanticide, or partial birth abortions. Maybe Al should think about that. Our president has advocated the murder of a fully developed fetus, so in Obama's eyes, biological development, or any lack thereof, obviously isn't any concern of his. It is apparently his belief that a fully developed child lacks not only civil, but human rights until the moment he leaves his first home in the womb.
Santorum's points about the fetus’ lack of legal humanity certainly stand true. What about his contention that the unborn children of the black community are bearing the brunt of the savagery?
Not only is this a tragic fact, but destroying the unborn children of the black community has even been suggested as public policy by leaders such as Nancy Pelosi! She has suggested that abortion be a vital factor in her version of a “final solution” to stemming the social cost of welfare. And we certainly don’t have to remind Al Sharpton about the racial tapestry of the welfare recipients in this country. He’s made quite a comfortable living exploiting poverty stricken blacks.
And his reluctance to pay taxes for his success presents yet another blow to his moral credibility, this one being rather ironic. On one hand, he insists that the rich should pay heftier taxes in order to provide for the blacks in poverty that he and Obama wish to keep aborting at holocaustic levels. On the other, he refuses to pay the taxes that would be redistributed among the masses that he supposedly champions.
There is nothing to revere in the “Reverend” Al Sharpton. Rather, he seems to lack any semblance of a moral compass, clinging to race-baiting and defense of President Obama rather than embracing morality and reason.
William Sullivan
Friday, October 29, 2010
The NAACP’s Last Desperate Effort
For some time, the NAACP has insisted that the Tea Party is comprised of racists and extremists, and have done everything possible to label it as a "whites-only" club.
Repeatedly, though, they have failed to provide any real evidence. Of course, that fact hasn't stopped those who want to believe it from doing so. Some people feel that any negative word regarding Barack Obama is an unquestionable sign of racism. And the Tea Party is certainly guilty of speaking out against our president, so many of Obama’s supporters have no doubt that the Tea Party is a racist hate-group.
But outside of these aforementioned people, the Tea Party is earning respect and influence in the political landscape, while the NAACP has lost nearly all credibility with the American public. And they had been doing so long before the Tea Party was even a whisper. Essentially, the NAACP is now considered by most as a dinosaur civil rights organization that has little useful potential in today's world beyond rabble-rousing, race-baiting, or community organizing. And there's not much real value in any of those things, except perhaps the latter, which perplexingly became a vital tool for any presidential skill-set in 2008.
The NAACP is gasping its last breaths of relevance before leaving the spotlight. And this is a good thing for most Americans. While we thank the NAACP for its contributions to the struggle for civil rights decades ago, we are tired of more recently shaking our heads at its outlandish claims of racism, and its efforts to prey on Americans’ fear of bigotry.
So now, desperate to remain relevant, they have produced a document meant to expose the Tea Party's racist roots and anti-Semitic values.
I would not doubt that there are very isolated segments of the Tea Party that hold bigoted or racist views. There are bad apples in every bunch; even Barack Obama’s supporting electorate has been proven to consist of blatant racists that suggest the infanticide of white children. But let's be honest. Most people who find the Tea Party to be racist usually think that way because of the perceived lack of racial diversity that the media loves to exploit.
But the Tea Party doesn't get a fair shake with this whole diversity thing. Membership may be largely Anglo-American, and African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans may hold a minority membership, but isn’t that reflective of the actual ethnic ratio of the American tapestry?
Furthermore, the Tea Party is even more disadvantaged by the fact that its counterparts are not even playing by the same rules. The NAACP, for example, is not held to the same standard of ethnic diversity, as its supporters are largely African-American. But we do not see Keith Olberman asking blacks at NAACP rallies, “Where are the white faces?”
The Tea Party is comprised of men and women of all races, bound together by a common set of principles, a shared sense of injustice in the government levying unwanted taxes, and a staunch desire to preserve traditional American values. Race is not a pre-requisite to be in their club, nor is any person denied membership due to their race.
I think Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would be proud.
So as usual, the NAACP’s claim of racism seems very manufactured and outlandish. But what about the claim of anti-Semitism in the Tea Party?
This is a futile, utterly outrageous attempt to paint the Tea Party some sort of Neo-Nazi organization. The NAACP’s argument is that some (again, very isolated) conservative elements of the Tea Party have been associated with anti-Semitic groups in the past. This is an absurd generalization that would equate to suggesting that the entire Democratic Party is a racist organization because Robert Byrd, a formerly prominent member of the Party, had been an influential member of the Ku Klux Klan. But that would be nothing more than ridiculous exaggeration. And as we know given the evidence in the last few decades, the NAACP is certainly not above that.
But since the NAACP is so eager to bring up the subject of anti-Semitism, perhaps we can take a glance at the broadly anti-Semitic rhetoric of a few African-American political figures that associate with the NAACP.
Barack Obama sat under the tutelage of a man that for twenty years spouted anti-Zionist rhetoric deriding America for its efforts to establish and defend an Israeli state, and is prone to making such comments as “them Jews ain’t gonna let him [Obama] talk to me.” Louis Farrakhan is a well-known and militant anti-Semite. Both were invited to speak at an NAACP event this past summber.
While running for president in 1984, Jesse Jackson claimed that the Jews were conspiring against him after he made a negative comment about Jews in New York, calling the city “Hymietown.” In 1991, Al Sharpton fueled an anti-Semitic riot by delivering speeches demonizing “diamond merchants” (code for Jews), which resulted in a rabbinical student being stabbed to death by a mob shouting, “Kill the Jews!” Both have been associated with the NAACP in the past.
The NAACP’s accusing the Tea Party of anti-Semitism seems to hold little water. But when you consider the anti-Semitic past of these African-American political figures associated with the NAACP, it really hearkens to the proverbial pot and kettle.
The Tea Party should have no problem deflecting these nonsensical claims. If anything, it furthers the damage to the credibility of the NAACP. Sal Russo of the Tea Party Express suggests that this event makes it obvious that “the NAACP has abandoned the cause of civil rights for the advancement of liberal Democrat politics.”
And that should come as no surprise to most Americans. Strong-arming, race-baiting, community organizing and activism are the NAACP’s calling cards, commonly used to extract money from private business and the wealthy under the guise of “social justice.” I’d say the organization meshes rather nicely with the current administration in Washington.
William Sullivan
Repeatedly, though, they have failed to provide any real evidence. Of course, that fact hasn't stopped those who want to believe it from doing so. Some people feel that any negative word regarding Barack Obama is an unquestionable sign of racism. And the Tea Party is certainly guilty of speaking out against our president, so many of Obama’s supporters have no doubt that the Tea Party is a racist hate-group.
But outside of these aforementioned people, the Tea Party is earning respect and influence in the political landscape, while the NAACP has lost nearly all credibility with the American public. And they had been doing so long before the Tea Party was even a whisper. Essentially, the NAACP is now considered by most as a dinosaur civil rights organization that has little useful potential in today's world beyond rabble-rousing, race-baiting, or community organizing. And there's not much real value in any of those things, except perhaps the latter, which perplexingly became a vital tool for any presidential skill-set in 2008.
The NAACP is gasping its last breaths of relevance before leaving the spotlight. And this is a good thing for most Americans. While we thank the NAACP for its contributions to the struggle for civil rights decades ago, we are tired of more recently shaking our heads at its outlandish claims of racism, and its efforts to prey on Americans’ fear of bigotry.
So now, desperate to remain relevant, they have produced a document meant to expose the Tea Party's racist roots and anti-Semitic values.
I would not doubt that there are very isolated segments of the Tea Party that hold bigoted or racist views. There are bad apples in every bunch; even Barack Obama’s supporting electorate has been proven to consist of blatant racists that suggest the infanticide of white children. But let's be honest. Most people who find the Tea Party to be racist usually think that way because of the perceived lack of racial diversity that the media loves to exploit.
But the Tea Party doesn't get a fair shake with this whole diversity thing. Membership may be largely Anglo-American, and African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans may hold a minority membership, but isn’t that reflective of the actual ethnic ratio of the American tapestry?
Furthermore, the Tea Party is even more disadvantaged by the fact that its counterparts are not even playing by the same rules. The NAACP, for example, is not held to the same standard of ethnic diversity, as its supporters are largely African-American. But we do not see Keith Olberman asking blacks at NAACP rallies, “Where are the white faces?”
The Tea Party is comprised of men and women of all races, bound together by a common set of principles, a shared sense of injustice in the government levying unwanted taxes, and a staunch desire to preserve traditional American values. Race is not a pre-requisite to be in their club, nor is any person denied membership due to their race.
I think Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would be proud.
So as usual, the NAACP’s claim of racism seems very manufactured and outlandish. But what about the claim of anti-Semitism in the Tea Party?
This is a futile, utterly outrageous attempt to paint the Tea Party some sort of Neo-Nazi organization. The NAACP’s argument is that some (again, very isolated) conservative elements of the Tea Party have been associated with anti-Semitic groups in the past. This is an absurd generalization that would equate to suggesting that the entire Democratic Party is a racist organization because Robert Byrd, a formerly prominent member of the Party, had been an influential member of the Ku Klux Klan. But that would be nothing more than ridiculous exaggeration. And as we know given the evidence in the last few decades, the NAACP is certainly not above that.
But since the NAACP is so eager to bring up the subject of anti-Semitism, perhaps we can take a glance at the broadly anti-Semitic rhetoric of a few African-American political figures that associate with the NAACP.
Barack Obama sat under the tutelage of a man that for twenty years spouted anti-Zionist rhetoric deriding America for its efforts to establish and defend an Israeli state, and is prone to making such comments as “them Jews ain’t gonna let him [Obama] talk to me.” Louis Farrakhan is a well-known and militant anti-Semite. Both were invited to speak at an NAACP event this past summber.
While running for president in 1984, Jesse Jackson claimed that the Jews were conspiring against him after he made a negative comment about Jews in New York, calling the city “Hymietown.” In 1991, Al Sharpton fueled an anti-Semitic riot by delivering speeches demonizing “diamond merchants” (code for Jews), which resulted in a rabbinical student being stabbed to death by a mob shouting, “Kill the Jews!” Both have been associated with the NAACP in the past.
The NAACP’s accusing the Tea Party of anti-Semitism seems to hold little water. But when you consider the anti-Semitic past of these African-American political figures associated with the NAACP, it really hearkens to the proverbial pot and kettle.
The Tea Party should have no problem deflecting these nonsensical claims. If anything, it furthers the damage to the credibility of the NAACP. Sal Russo of the Tea Party Express suggests that this event makes it obvious that “the NAACP has abandoned the cause of civil rights for the advancement of liberal Democrat politics.”
And that should come as no surprise to most Americans. Strong-arming, race-baiting, community organizing and activism are the NAACP’s calling cards, commonly used to extract money from private business and the wealthy under the guise of “social justice.” I’d say the organization meshes rather nicely with the current administration in Washington.
William Sullivan
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Sharpton says 2008 election was a commitment to socialism
Al Sharpton claims that the American people knew they were voting for a socialist when they voted for Barack Obama. According to Sharpton, when they voted for Obama, they "voted for socialism." (1)
But recall that in the 2008 election, anyone who used the term "socialist" in reference to Obama was immediately dubbed a racist. The expression had become a racial slur to Barack Obama's supporters, a synonym of the n-word, and was as taboo to utter as Barack Obama’s middle name during the campaign.
So it's unlikely that most Americans knew he was a socialist before he was elected. Americans only began to believe it when they saw the Obama administration seek to control the energy, banking, auto, and ultimately the insurance and healthcare industries.
But sadly, Al Sharpton is right about one thing. He said that socialized healthcare was "not some concept the president introduced after he won." Americans should have known he promised socialism, because all we needed to do was listen. There were clues every time he talked about "social justice" or redistribution of "the pie."
But rather than paying attention to the substance of what Obama was saying in the campaign, many Americans just listened to a well-oiled spin machine tell them that he was not a socialist. They just accepted the Obama campaign's word that he sought bipartisanship and transparency, and took solace in the fact that he was not George Bush. They buried their heads in the sand, only occasionally peeking out to clap their hands when Obama gave one of his wonderful “chicken-in-every-pot” speeches.
Sharpton said that with the healthcare bill, Obama “delivered what he promised” to the American people. But it’s evident now that he did not deliver what the American people thought they were being promised.
The American people have had the false promises of bipartisanship and transparency rubbed in their face for over a year, and never more shamefully than this past weekend. Obama’s healthcare bill did not receive one Republican vote, so it was hardly bipartisan. And as far as transparency, the bill itself was hidden from the public until days before the vote, and even if it would have been available for longer, it was such a convoluted monstrosity that teams of paralegals would need weeks to decipher it.
What Obama claimed to offer the American people was a reprieve from Washington nonsense. No more business as usual with lobbyists and special interests. No more backroom deals to get votes. But there were more earmarks and hidden pork in this bill than most Americans wanted to see in a decade. And to further the corruption, he bribed representatives of his party to sell out their own constituency to pass his overwhelmingly unpopular healthcare legislation, and created an expansion of debt that requires the need for an unprecedented burden on the middle class. This is not what most Americans signed on for when they bought his rhetoric about “hope and change.”
But according to Al Sharpton, that should not matter. Obama was elected, so no matter how bad it tastes or how badly they feel misled, the American people just need to deal with a government takeover of our healthcare system.
And even though it’s an ideology that is entirely contrary to our constitutional republic’s form, Americans should somehow just be alright with the fact that our president is a socialist.
We're not. And that's why we're outraged. And that's why Americans will continue seeking "change" in November.
William Sullivan
(1) http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/sharpton-america-overwhelmingly-voted-for-socialism-when-they-elected-obama/blog-283849/
But recall that in the 2008 election, anyone who used the term "socialist" in reference to Obama was immediately dubbed a racist. The expression had become a racial slur to Barack Obama's supporters, a synonym of the n-word, and was as taboo to utter as Barack Obama’s middle name during the campaign.
So it's unlikely that most Americans knew he was a socialist before he was elected. Americans only began to believe it when they saw the Obama administration seek to control the energy, banking, auto, and ultimately the insurance and healthcare industries.
But sadly, Al Sharpton is right about one thing. He said that socialized healthcare was "not some concept the president introduced after he won." Americans should have known he promised socialism, because all we needed to do was listen. There were clues every time he talked about "social justice" or redistribution of "the pie."
But rather than paying attention to the substance of what Obama was saying in the campaign, many Americans just listened to a well-oiled spin machine tell them that he was not a socialist. They just accepted the Obama campaign's word that he sought bipartisanship and transparency, and took solace in the fact that he was not George Bush. They buried their heads in the sand, only occasionally peeking out to clap their hands when Obama gave one of his wonderful “chicken-in-every-pot” speeches.
Sharpton said that with the healthcare bill, Obama “delivered what he promised” to the American people. But it’s evident now that he did not deliver what the American people thought they were being promised.
The American people have had the false promises of bipartisanship and transparency rubbed in their face for over a year, and never more shamefully than this past weekend. Obama’s healthcare bill did not receive one Republican vote, so it was hardly bipartisan. And as far as transparency, the bill itself was hidden from the public until days before the vote, and even if it would have been available for longer, it was such a convoluted monstrosity that teams of paralegals would need weeks to decipher it.
What Obama claimed to offer the American people was a reprieve from Washington nonsense. No more business as usual with lobbyists and special interests. No more backroom deals to get votes. But there were more earmarks and hidden pork in this bill than most Americans wanted to see in a decade. And to further the corruption, he bribed representatives of his party to sell out their own constituency to pass his overwhelmingly unpopular healthcare legislation, and created an expansion of debt that requires the need for an unprecedented burden on the middle class. This is not what most Americans signed on for when they bought his rhetoric about “hope and change.”
But according to Al Sharpton, that should not matter. Obama was elected, so no matter how bad it tastes or how badly they feel misled, the American people just need to deal with a government takeover of our healthcare system.
And even though it’s an ideology that is entirely contrary to our constitutional republic’s form, Americans should somehow just be alright with the fact that our president is a socialist.
We're not. And that's why we're outraged. And that's why Americans will continue seeking "change" in November.
William Sullivan
(1) http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/sharpton-america-overwhelmingly-voted-for-socialism-when-they-elected-obama/blog-283849/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
