Showing posts with label responding to. Show all posts
Showing posts with label responding to. Show all posts

Friday, August 30, 2013

Dead souls of a cultural revolution (DP: sorry for auto-start ad--hit the mute until the interview)


Last Friday, Christopher Lane, a 22-year-old Australian here on a baseball scholarship, was shot and killed while jogging in Duncan, Okla., population 23,000. He died where he fell.
Police have three suspects, two black and one white. The former said they were bored and decided to shoot Lane for “the fun of it.”
 
As Lane was white and the shooter black, racism has surfaced as a motive. Thursday came reports that killing a white man may have been an initiation rite for the black teens in joining some offshoot of the Crips or Bloods.
What happened in Oklahoma and the reaction, or lack of reaction to it, tells us much about America in 2013, not much of it good.
Teenagers who can shoot and kill a man out of summertime boredom are moral barbarians, dead souls.
But who created these monsters? Where did they come from? Surely one explanation lies in the fact that the old conscience-forming and character-forming institutions – home, church, school and a moral and healthy culture fortifying basic truths – have collapsed. And the community hardest hit is Black America.
Black mobs routinely terrorize cities across the country, but the media and government are silent. Read the detailed account of rampant racial crime in “White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Race Riots to America”
If we go back to the end of World War II, 90 percent of black families consisted of a mother and father and children raised and disciplined by their parents. The churches to which these families went on Sundays were stronger. Black schools may have been largely segregated, but they were also the transmission belts of patriotism and traditional values rooted in biblical truths and a Christian faith.
Though such schools graduated hardworking, law-abiding and productive citizens, today they would be closed as unconstitutional.
Indeed, all of those character- and conscience-forming institutions of yesterday are in an advanced state of decline today.
Seventy-three percent of black kids are born to single moms. Black kids who make it to 12th grade may often be found reading at seventh-, eighth- or ninth-grade levels. In some cities the black dropout rate can hit as high as 50 percent.
Drugs are readily available. And among black males ages 18 to 29, in urban areas, often a third are in prison or jail, or on probation or parole, or walking around with a criminal record.
Where do the kids get their ideas of right and wrong, good and evil? In homes where the father is absent and the TV is always on. From radios tuned in to rap and hip-hop. From films where Hollywood values prevail and the shooting never stops. From street gangs that sometimes form the only families these kids have ever known.
Still, crime has fallen since 1990, we are told.
And so it has. But that is only because the baby boomers, the largest population cohort in our history, passed out of the high-crime age group a quarter of a century ago, and because the jail and prison population in America has tripled.
Order Pat Buchanan’s brilliant and prescient books at WND’s Superstore.
What kind of leadership do we see today in Black America?
What can be said for an NAACP that was lately demanding a Justice Department investigation of a rodeo clown running around a bull ring in rural Missouri in an Obama mask, but cannot find its voice to address a black-on-white atrocity in Middle America?
When Trayvon Martin was shot to death in a murky incident in Sanford, Fla., Jesse Jackson rushed there to declare: “Blacks are under attack. … Killing us is big business.” Trayvon was “shot down in cold blood by a vigilante … murdered and martyred.”
After Chris Lane’s cold-blooded murder, Jesse tweeted: This sort of thing is to be “frowned upon.”
If I had a son, said President Obama, he would have looked like Trayvon; 35 years ago, I could have been Trayvon. Can the president not find his voice to speak to the parents of Chris Lane?
Since Lyndon Johnson took office, 50 years ago, we have spent trillions on his programs for health care, housing, education, food stamps, welfare and civil rights. Are we living in that Great Society we were promised?
In that same decade, we were told that the social, cultural and moral revolution bursting forth on the campuses would rid us of the repressive old-time morality and Old Time Religion, and lead to a more equal, just, humane and better America, a beacon to mankind.
Yet, are not the killers of Chris Lane who shot him for the fun of it the “do-your-own-thing!” children of that cultural revolution?
The death of Trayvon was said to be reflective of the real America, a country where black folks live in constant fear of white vigilantes and white racist cops. What nonsense.
In the real America, interracial violence is overwhelmingly black-on-white. Even if the media will not report it, everybody knows it.
And journalists will not dig into the numbers that prove it, for the truth would undermine their ideology and contradict the narrative that governs and gives meaning to their lives.
For liberals, America is always “Mississippi Burning.” It just has to be that way.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/dead-souls-of-a-cultural-revolution/#e1cOLYHBH0Am455i.99

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Press--laughing at, not with, Gibbs and Obama over tax hypocricy

It's only 50 seconds but reveals everything: 1) (finally) skeptical press, over 2) clearly broken campaign promise by Obama that's 3) inoperative due to the higher priority of socialist/single-payer health scheme, to which 4) mouthpiece Gibbs can only stammer and prevaricate prompting 5) open, laughing derision from the no-longer-enamored reporters.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/29/video-press-corps-now-openly-laughing-at-obamas-backtracking-on-taxes/

Monday, June 15, 2009

To briefly respond to the tired tactic of calling someone a "chickenhawk," as Mr. Merhoff so disgustingly did on June 10 in agreeing with Mr. Gray's broadside, which I deal with below:

Anyone throwing the insult, "chickenhawk," at me or anyone on the right side of the political divide, is doing nothing more or less than childish name calling that is substituting for adult, thoughtful, reasoning and polite, respectful debate. Such individuals are apparently incapable of forming such reasoned arguments and hence resort to childish name calling. The slanderous term became popular on the anti-Iraq war left when they thought they came upon yet another little bit of shorthand logic (or illogic, as it were) over the fact that decisions to send American military to war, and then to support their continued involvement in said war, were made by many who had never served in uniform.

Proving the hypocrisy is simple: Lincoln--no Army service (local militia with no combat); Roosevelt--no service; Reagan--no service; Clinton--no service. HINT: America's military is set up by the Constitution with civilian control and decision making. You can't have it both ways and ignore the non-military record of president's you like when they act as commander-in-chief, but then throw non-service in the faces of those supporting military actions you disagree with. Either deploying men and women to combat or into harm's way is authorized or it isn't; if it is legitimately authorized by Congress, AS THE IRAQ WAR WAS, you can either support it, or not, hope America prevails, or not, but make the argument, don't just insult and call names, Mr. Merhoff. And unless you're going to rehash the totally discredited liberal arguments of Bush's Texas Air National Guard service (facts: he started too late, and flew aircraft too old, to use in Vietnam; some pilots did die flying Air National Guard planes; and compared to Clinton, Bush was a hero) just stop with the transparent hypocrisy over epithets like "chickenhawk".
First, we had the letter of June 8, wherein Mr. Gray unleashed a broadside that unloaded every conceivable insult short of calling me a "chickenhawk," which cheap insult came in a later cheapshot by Mr. Merhoff. I have nothing but respect for those who served honorably, like Mr. Gray, but his protestations that I criticized President Obama on Memorial Day is simply a convenience for his outrage that I should take any occasion to speak ill of Obama (I have a previous letter to editor from Mr. Gray that takes a similar approach--insults upon brickbats that never, ever disprove a single fact in my columns, never formulate a single coherent counter-argument to my fact-based, informed critiques of Obama).

That is why I wrote for today's column that such opponents of my speaking out, in writing, are the real thugs and bullies, writing their diatribes for the sole purpose of intimidation--as evidenced by the above-mentioned failure to disprove a single, principled statement I make showing Obama for the duplicitous hypocrite he has turned out to be.

First, how low is it to throw my (admitted and regretted) involvement in Vietnam War Protests back in my face to attempt to discredit my support for America and her troops now? This comes from the liberal side of the aisle that for 8 years has told us, ad infinitum and ad nauseum, that "dissent is patriotic/highest form of patriotism" and such; I've seen many veterans and currently serving military state that they did or do what they do to secure the freedom for those protesting what they do, to have that freedom. Does Mr. Gray feel that those who protested, whether against Vietnam or Iraq, were exercising their patriotic right to, shall we say, "petition the government for redress of grievances" (in the Constitution somewhere)? Many Americans, protesters included, honestly felt a sense of duty to protest then, as many did against the Iraq war, but folks have the right to be wrong, too.

I never did anything in my youth to insult Vietnam vets, so to try to equate my peaceful protest with the protesters that Mr. Gray encountered that tried to get him and his fellow soldiers to shirk their duty is just, well, an unwarranted cheapshot and low blow. Yes, I have written and believe that the protest movement against the Vietnam war was, intentionally or not, knowingly or not, an expression of "useful idiot-ism" in service to the communist enemies fighting against us. I didn't know that then, though, and I'm sure many on the left would take issue with me if I documented the extent of complicity and manipulation directed by communist, anti-American actors behind the Vietnam protest movement. We could have won that war at several points long before the protest movement had begun to exert political pressure to abandon Vietnam. Gen. Patton said it best when he said that Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser--decisions in Washington, uninfluenced by those of us with long hair and signs, made the decisions that resulted in America's loss in Vietnam.

Particularly contributing to that loss were the Democrats in congress that refused to honor America's obligations to provide air support and supplies to South Vietnam after our military mostly withdrew (acts that were no longer done with mass protests since the draft had ended). Had we simply done that, the south would have been able to defend itself, and America would have "won." I didn't cause us to lose, the brave men and women in uniform didn't, Democrats in congress did.

So, if I'm to be castigated for peaceful protesting, after which I expressed my regret and became a supporter of America and our military, what should be said for someone like (now Senator) John Kerry, who did far more than I ever could have dreamed of, to undermine our military in Vietnam, with his lies told before Congress about atrocities (lies documented to have been fabricated for the charade called "Winter Soldier")? Did Mr. Gray express similar outrage and oppose Kerry for president? Or is his outrage selectively applied, as the saying goes, to those he disagrees with when he chooses to take sides. How about any outrage over, again, John Kerry for saying that we were just "terrorizing" civilians at night in Iraq.

As I wrote, nothing in Mr. Gray's missive disproved what I wrote that is simply on the record factually true about Obama on Memorial Day, May 25: His speeches are "replete with straw men arguments, fallacious reasoning and erroneous, revisionist history." His blatant dishonesty over Gitmo; criticizing, but continuing, military tribunals and other war on terror tools; and saying interrogations methods were illegal without backing it up with Justice Dept prosecutions--all stand as valid critiques of Obama that those, like Mr. Gray, on the left simply want to intimidate into oblivion.

I have nothing to be ashamed of, Mr. Gray, and could prove the amounts of money and other forms of support I give for our local, as well as national military, but I'll not stoop to the level of dignifying your letter in that way.

By the way, I had a student deferment until the lottery gave me too high a number to be drafted. So I didn't enlist; I wish I had, but I wish I had done a lot of things differently. I don't wish I hadn't written a single word exposing the lies, hypocrisy and hyper-leftwing-ism of Obama.