| |||
| |||
| |||
January 9, 2013
In the wake of the heart-rending massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, 
The Founders understood that the inside was the most important focus, not the outside. This is why Thomas Jefferson believed the teachings of Jesus were so effective, explaining:
January 7, 2013
The year is coming to a close. Thank goodness.
Maybe in 2013 we won’t have to worry about Honey Boo Boo, Gangnam Style, Kony 2012 and Mayans. Those topics and more were the ephemera of the year. While Democrats and Republicans were fighting to see which party could run America, the traditional media were trying to run it into the ground by consistently taking a one-sided approach to coverage.
On every major news story of the year – abortion, gay marriage, the economy, the fiscal cliff and guns – major media outlets consistently and openly sided with the left. Gone was any pretense of neutrality. From the media’s campaign against Mitt Romney to their campaign for gun control, the bias of the press was never worse.
Picking out bad media moments is like looking for egos in Washington or corruption in Congress. Here are the year’s lowlights:
10. The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife: Journalists love anything that tears down Christianity. Give them a spicy tale of Jesus’s wife and they treat it like it’s, well, gospel. The New York Times front-paged a story about a cell phone-sized scrap of papyrus that included the phrase: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife…’” CBS reporter Allen Pizzey claimed
it “challenges the very foundation of Christian thinking.” When the Smithsonian pulled a planned documentary and experts said they thought the papyrus was bogus, journalists were reluctant to report that news.
it “challenges the very foundation of Christian thinking.” When the Smithsonian pulled a planned documentary and experts said they thought the papyrus was bogus, journalists were reluctant to report that news.
9. $1.2 Billion Reasons to Complain About ABC: Jim Avila’s crusade against a meat company led to at least 2,000 lost jobs and more than half a billion dollars in economic damage. After that, we know where the beef is – in court. Beef Products Inc. is suing ABC for $1.2 billion for reporting that took a popular form of lean beef and rebranded it as “pink slime.” ABC’s agenda-based reporting gets dragged into the light for all to see. BPI’s operation is clean and professional. Can ABC say the same?
for reporting that took a popular form of lean beef and rebranded it as “pink slime.” ABC’s agenda-based reporting gets dragged into the light for all to see. BPI’s operation is clean and professional. Can ABC say the same?
8. It’s All Racism: From MSNBC’s Touré to ESPN’s Rob Parker everything in post-racial America is still racial. Maybe they should focus more on the human race.
everything in post-racial America is still racial. Maybe they should focus more on the human race.
7. Occupying The Media: The Occupy Wall Street revolutionaries might not be in the news as much as they once were, but they still occupy the hearts of many journalists. That includes the riots, arson, violence, a bomb plot, intimidation of police and arrests (7,719 at last count). Journalists said it was America’s “Arab Spring” and despite constant coverage, paid little attention to the movement’s thuggery.
, intimidation of police and arrests (7,719 at last count). Journalists said it was America’s “Arab Spring” and despite constant coverage, paid little attention to the movement’s thuggery.
6. Guns Are Evil, Except When Team Obama Ships Them to Mexico: Shootings in Aurora, Colorado, and Newtown, Connecticut, were awful tragedies made far worse by agenda-oriented reporting, especially by CNN. Yet when the “fast and furious” scandal killed up to 300 Mexicans with Obama admin-approved guns, few in the media cared.
5. The War on Women: The media’s war on women has become a self-defining fantasy where any support for traditional marriage, the life of babies or more is anti-womyn. Yet, when New York Times writer Jeré Longman attacks Olympian Lolo Jones just before her big race, he’s being a good custodian of the 1st Amendment.
4. The Deadly Islam Video: The murder of our ambassador to Libya and three others was a great example of how the media cover for the president. CNN’s Candy Crowley actually intervened in the presidential debate to side with Obama and derail discussion of Libya. Journalists followed the president’s lead and blamed a video for murderous protests and even the initial attack, instead of defending free speech.
and even the initial attack, instead of defending free speech.
3. Media Support for Gay Marriage: Newsies looked like an aging cast of “Glee,” with almost every major news organization showing its support for gay marriage. CNN’s Anderson Cooper came out; ABC weather guy Sam Champion even married his boyfriend. But coverage isn’t just about rights, it’s about wrongs – “journalistic” attacks on Chick-fil-A, a shooting against a conservative organization that opposes gay marriage and more.
2. We’re Not Dems, We Just Play Them On TV, and Everywhere Else: Democrats, er, journalists who love Sen. John Kerry, despite his wealth, attacked Mitt Romney for far less wealth on everything even his wife’s rehab horses, as well as his faith. Most media election coverage was more electioneering for Obama than journalism. We finally have a three-party system: Republicans, Democrats and The Media.
1. Let’s Pretend You’re Racist: The Trayvon Martin shooting was a tragedy. NBC’s awful reporting made it worse. Lawyers for George Zimmerman sued NBC after that network’s editing made the man look like a racist. NBC fired three employees but still maintains the video was doctored in an “error” network execs “deeply regret.” They better hope their jury pool won’t be as tainted as the Zimmerman trial.
employees but still maintains the video was doctored in an “error” network execs “deeply regret.” They better hope their jury pool won’t be as tainted as the Zimmerman trial.
Sadly, 2013 will likely be worse.
Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.
. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/29/10-most-embarrassing-examples-media-coverage-in-2012/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz2HKyZKFgu
January 5, 2013
WHO REALLY OWNS AL JAZEERA? AND WHAT’S TO BECOME OF CURRENT TV’S HOSTS?
Since the news broke earlier this week about the sale of Al Gore’s ultra-liberal Current TV, much has been said about who bought the channel (Al Jazeera) and who tried — but was rejected (Glenn Beck). Beyond that story, the media deal brings many questions to light.
Who owns Al Jazeera?
That’s a fairly simple question. The network is owned by the Qatari government, which is run by the Al Thani family. The U.S. State Department describes Qatar this way:
Qatar is an hereditary constitutional monarchy governed by the ruling Al Thani family in consultation with a council of ministers, an appointed advisory council and an elected municipal council.
It’s a kingdom — complete with a royal family that controls massive wealth from their substantial oil and gas reserves.
Will “Al Jazeera America” (one reported new name of the channel) keep any of the programs from the Current TV lineup?
Perhaps a better phrasing of that question would be: Why would Al Jazeera keep any of the programs from the Current TV lineup?
Image: Facebook
Most reports about the sale have mentioned that the Qatar-owned outlet was buying Current TV not for its programming but for the access to an estimated 42 million cable TV households that carried it. If cable operators allow Al Jazeera to simply slide into Current’s channel position, that increases its potential audience nearly tenfold. However, that plan was also hit with a significant body shot this week: Almost immediately after the sales was announced, cable giant Time Warner — the fourth-largest provider in the country — announced that it was dropping Current TV from its systems.
Joy Behar, Stephanie Miller, Elliot Spitzer and others at Current have undoubtedly been aware of the difficulty network has had in establishing an audience. Despite being in almost half of the country’s cable TV households, Current and its programming is virtually unknown to an overwhelming majority of Americans. Most of the awareness came from the hosts promoting their shows on other outlets. Joy Behar could plug her “Say Anything!” show on ABC’s “The View” and radio talkers like Bill Press and Stephanie Miller were able to flog their television efforts on radio, but none of these translated to ratings significant enough to argue for the channel’s survival.
It also seems unlikely that Al Jazeera would openly accept some of the shows on Current. After all, the channel is owned by the Qatari government and the country has some very strict rules when it comes to lifestyles and behaviors. The State Department again offers offers some vital information about the network’s new owners:
Islamic beliefs and tribal traditions provide an important foundation of the country’s customs, laws and practices.
Translation: Shariah law is the standard in Qatar.
Current’s new bosses are also not as tolerant of the broad spectrum of “lifestyles” we see here in America. Some of the openly gay hosts, like Stephanie Miller, might have to ask themselves if they could work for a company that would consider them criminals who deserved to be whipped and locked away in prison? Again, we’re quoting the State Department’s public information on Qatar:
Homosexual activity is considered to be a criminal offense, and those convicted may be sentenced to lashings, a prison sentence, and/or deportation.
Gay lifestyles are not the only problem that Al Jazeera’s owners might have with some of their new employees. People with HIV/AIDS are advised against visiting the country:
Qatar does not allow individuals with HIV/AIDS to live in the country. Medical exams are required for all long-term visitors and residents. Individuals who have HIV/AIDS may be subject to deportation
The country is also very strict on what women can wear in public. Qatar does not require all women to wear the burqa in public, but it does take issue with many wardrobe choices considered acceptable in America:
Foreign visitors are expected to remain sensitive to Islamic beliefs and practices and not dress in a revealing or provocative manner, including the wearing of sleeveless shirts and blouses, halter tops and shorts.
In addition to Qatar’s constraints on fashion, free speech is also something that the new owners have issues with. Again, from the guidance of the State Department:
Incidents involving insults or obscene language/gestures often result in arrest, overnight imprisonment and/or fines whether the incident occurs between private parties or involves officers of the law. Insulting someone in public is considered a punishable offense.
Based on that information, one could safely assume that most of the Current TV lineup, if the channel were carried in Qatar, would be subject to arrest on a daily basis, if they ever set foot in the country.
And what if Al Jazeera were to offer to keep any of the Current TV hosts? Would any of the very liberal on-camera talent agree to stay if offered a position with a company run by a gay-hating, free speech squelching, theocratic monarchy that makes its billions selling oil and gas?
One high profile host on Current TV has already announced that she is leaving the network: Former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, host of “The War Room.”
While media outlets seemed to draw a line connecting the end of Granholm’s TV show with the Al Jazeera purchase, Granholm’s Facebook announcement sought to debunk that:
“My agreement with Current was for the duration of the election (and the sale). It has been a very fun adventure; we are blessed with a wonderful team. We’ll continue to broadcast ‘The War Room’ for the next few weeks through the transition, but after that I’ll be going back to teaching, speaking and other things.”
It will certainly be interesting to see if Al Jazeera retains any of the present staff from Current TV. To date, they have only stated some rather vague intentions.
Al Jazeera spokesman Stan Collender told USA Today that the new channel “will offer straightforward, in-depth journalism,” but many in the news media are dubious of that statement. Al Jazeera does not exactly have a spotless record for “straightforward” reporting:
In 2008, former ABC-TV Nightline reporter Dave Marash, brought on to anchor Al Jazeera English for American audiences, quit after two years and said the anti-American bias at the station was “reflexive.”
Media watchdog groups have also stepped up to voice their concerns about this deal. Andrea Levin, president and director of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, told USA TODAY:
“The agreement by Al Jazeera cable television network to buy Current TV is not necessarily a plus for U.S. cable operators or their audiences. It (Al Jazeera Arabic) is not the Middle East equivalent of CNN, as it is often but mistakenly described.”
Qaradawi – Host of “Sharia and Life”
Ms. Levin cites a specific example when speaking of one of the channel’s most popular programs called “Sharia and Life.”
…hosted by Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a former “spiritual guide” of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Qaradawi has called for conversion of Europe and North America to Islam and a Muslim-led genocide of Israel and the Jews.
Earlier this week, TheBlaze covered Al-Qaradawi and his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Jazeera.
With that, many questions still remain:
- How many of Current TV’s 40million plus cable households will remain after cable companies consider the new owners and what might be seen on the channel?
- Will there be straight-forward reporting on Al-Jazeera America?
- If offered jobs on the new network, will any of the Current TV talent agree to work for a company with ownership that considers gays to be criminals who deserve to be whipped and jailed?
We’ll be watching.
Proof the 2nd Amendment isn’t just for muskets or militia
In a suburban neighborhood outside Atlanta, a mother exercised her fundamental American right to bear arms and protect her children from an intruder during a home invasion yesterday afternoon.
It’s a good thing the woman didn’t buy into Piers Morgan’s “musket argument.”
Those things are terribly time consuming to reload and since 5 shots were barely enough to slow the intruder down, I don’t think the musket would have gotten the job done.
A woman hiding in her attic with children shot an intruder multiple times before fleeing to safety Friday.
The incident happened at a home on Henderson Ridge Lane in Loganville around 1 p.m. The woman was working in an upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her children to a crawlspace before the man broke in using a crowbar.
But the man eventually found the family.
“The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he’s staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver,” Chapman told Channel 2’s Kerry Kavanaugh.
The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved.
“She’s standing over him, and she realizes she’s fired all six rounds. And the guy’s telling her to quit shooting,” Chapman said.
The woman ran to a neighbor’s home with her children. The intruder attempted to flee in his car but crashed into a wooded area and collapsed in a nearby driveway, Chapman said.
Deputies arrested 32-year-old Atlanta resident Paul Slater in connection with the crime. He was taken to Gwinnett Medical Center for treatment.Slater is reportedly a repeat offender having been arrested six times since 2008. Perhaps, this time, he’ll finally learn the lesson our correctional facilities can’t seem to teach him.
It’s a good thing the woman didn’t buy into Piers Morgan’s “musket argument.”
January 4, 2013
America is a continuous revolution of dangerous ideas.
I want to say that this single statement explains in my opinion what America and Americans are all about. The US is ab unfinished painting. It is always being reinvented, always reaching for perfection but it's core principles and vales do not change.
December 31, 2012
Proves yet again liberals are the real violent, hateful,
close minded people.
close minded people.
Kaul: Nation needs a new agenda on guns
This time, the debate has to be about more than not offending the NRA's sensibilities.
I’m glad I retired five months ago.
Think of it: I was spared writing about the presidential election, an event so vacuous it made reality TV seem interesting. If there was any serious discussion of an important national issue — global warming, obesity, transportation policy, the morality of drone attacks on civilian populations, the environmental consequences of fracking, existential implications of the designated hitter — I missed it.
Instead, we got a campaign of misrepresentations, exaggerations and outright lies. The Republicans were by far the worst offenders, but President Barack Obama didn’t cover himself in glory either.
I was happy with the result of the presidential election, but I didn’t regret not covering it. And I was entirely content to go on not writing about things. (If I could make a living at that, life would be perfect.)
But then Newtown happened. A misanthropic young man who never seemed particularly violent killed his mother then broke into an elementary school and massacred little kids, teachers and the principal.
And the very air changed. The holiday season suddenly turned somber. You looked at the small children around you differently, as fragile, precious gifts to be cherished and, above all, protected.
Obama struck that note in his moving speech at the memorial service. Speaking for us all, he said: “We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.”
Nice words, but somehow not enough. Not nearly enough.
That’s when I figured I should write a column about it. During my 50-year career, every time some demented soul would take a semiautomatic gun and clean out a post office, a school or a picnic, I’d get up on my soap box and let loose with a withering diatribe about guns, the National Rifle Association and weak-kneed politicians. Did it about 75 times, give or take.
And in every case the main effect was a spike in gun sales.
Still, I thought I’d give it one more shot ... er, chance.
Obama’s speech was fine as far as it went, but it didn’t go very far. Neither have any of the other responses I’ve heard.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she was going to introduce a bill to ban the sale and importation of assault weapons. Great, but the bill wouldn’t apply to weapons already out there, and in defining illegal weapons, it listed more than 900 exceptions.
Nine hundred!
The thing missing from the debate so far is anger — anger that we live in a society where something like the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre can happen and our main concern is not offending the NRA’s sensibilities.
That’s obscene. Here, then, is my “madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” program for ending gun violence in America:
• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.
• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.
• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.
And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures. None of that is going to happen, of course. But I’ll bet gun sales will rise.
December 30, 2012
The birds and the bees? Natural law and same-sex civil marriage
Print
Share
While some have wondered why Pope Benedict felt the need to mention same-sex marriage around Christmastime, few will wonder why Chicago's Cardinal Francis George went on the record in Sunday's Chicago Tribune on the matter:Two Illinois legislators will introduce same-sex marriage legislation this week in the lame duck session of the Illinois General Assembly. Last week,250 Jewish and Christian clergy signed a statement in support of the legislation; George was not one of them.
George rightly points out that Catholic doctrine's opposition to same-sex sexual expression is rooted not in scripture or tradition but in an appeal to "natural law," a system of ethics first proposed by Aristotle but modified for Christian use by Thomas Aquinas. The nice thing about natural law is that it doesn't appeal to sectarian or confessional doctrine to justify its conclusions but on what is determined through the use of 'reason" to be "natural" to human beings as rational animals--though it often requires belief in a divine creator as the source of natural law. Principles or goods derived from natural law can be things as basic as the duty of self-preservation or the care of children. What it isn't, however, is looking at nature for examples of "good behavior"--for example, monogamous pairing among bird species is not a natural law argument--or at least not a good one--for monogamous marriage among human beings. You can always find a counter-example in nature; same-sex sexual behavior, for example, is commonly observed among animals.
It's a bit tricky to connect the civil and religious institution of marriage in all its complexity to natural law, though. George argues that "marriage comes to us from nature. That's based on the complementarity of the two sexes in such a way that the love of a man and a woman joined in a marital union is open to life, and that's how families are created and society goes along. … It's a matter of reason and understanding the way nature operates." So, for George, natural law includes marriage (a religious and civil institution created and governed by various human laws), the "complementarity of the sexes" as something built into creation (we'll have to assume he means biological and not gender roles), that this relationship is "open to life" (all the time?), and, finally, "that's how families are created and society goes along" (all societies?). That's quite a bit to expect from natural law, and it also assumes a common understanding of "reason" and "the way nature operates." Good luck with that in our pluralistic culture. (By the way, I'm sure George could give a much more erudite and sophisticated account of his natural law argument against same-sex marriage--this is a newpaper story after all.)
Also quoted in the story is a scholar from the "other" side, Bernard Schlager, executive director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry at Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, Calif: "On sexual ethics, nature is neutral," he says. "We're moral beings. We may look to nature for some aspects of how we are in our lives, but we answer to a higher standard. Sexual behavior is an expression of human love."
The big question, however, is simply: Is that an adequate description of marriage as we now practice it? Is that an adequate description of how marriage has always been practiced across cultures? Or, to put it another way, have human societies across cultures agreed that George's description is, indeed, the "natural" definition of marriage? That's what natural law is supposed to do after all. We could ask the same question of Schlager: Is sexual behavior always an expression of human love? Both may argue that in the most moral situation, the answer to those questions is yes. For George it is simply definitional: "When we get behind the church and behind the state, you've got a natural reality that two men or two women … cannot consummate a marriage. It's a physical impossibility."
Obviously George's is by no means a universal definition of marriage, nor has sexual behavior within marriage always been an "expression of human love": For most much of its history, marriage has been defined as the union between a man and one or more women that functioned as much to assure paternity and property transfer as to express human love. Nowadays, at least in the West, but beyond as well, marriage has become more a special form of friendship that may or may not include procreation (or even sex for that matter); when it is "open to life," it usually results in far smaller famllies than it once did. While it's certainly true that men and women "naturally" come together sexually and produce children, the way societies have organized that biological function have varied, and by and large they continue to recognize as "married" couples who were never able to procreate--in fact, the church has long insisted that such marriages cannot be dissolved. Over the years and in many cultures, that has sometimes been a very unpopular position.
In the end, I'm not sure that natural law is all that helpful in the matter of same-sex civil marriage; when it comes from the mouth of a public religious figure, it ends up looking like a religious argument passing itself off as a neutral rational argument anyway. If anything, I think it better to distinguish between what is a sacrament within the Christian household and what is a contract in the civil realm. Each has its own appropriate arguments. Once we dismiss prejudice against gay and lesbian people as legitimate arguments against their civil marriage (and George, to his credit, says that "nobody should be disdained or persecuted because of their sexual orientation"), all that's left is the question of whether a civil marriage requires both a male and female partner (regardless of their willingness and ability to procreate). That's a question voters, courts, and legislatures are now deciding.
Within the churches, however, we have another set of questions that we ought to be asking, the first of which is simply: Why do we celebrate marriage in church at all? What has marriage to do with the reign of God? Is it indeed a kind of friendship? Does it require a commitment to at least attempt to bear children, or if not able to, to adopt or rear them in some other way? We might start by asking married couples and those who wish to be married to answer those quesitons themselves. We might be surprised by the answers we get.
Kwanzaa is a ridiculous, racist holiday
Ann Coulter
Is it just me, or does Kwanzaa seem to come earlier and earlier each year? And let’s face it, Kwanzaa has gotten way too commercialized.
A few years ago, I suspended my annual Kwanzaa column because my triumph over this fake holiday seemed complete. The only people still celebrating Kwanzaa were presidential-statement writers and white female public school teachers.
But it seems to be creeping back. A few weeks ago, House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., complained about having to stick around Washington for fiscal cliff negotiations by accusing Republicans of not caring about “families” coming together to bond during Kwanzaa. The private schools have picked up this PC nonsense from the public schools. (Soon, no one will know anything.)
It is a fact that Kwanzaa was invented in 1966 by a black radical FBI stooge, Ron Karenga — a.k.a. Dr. Maulana Karenga — founder of United Slaves, a violent nationalist rival to the Black Panthers. He was also a dupe of the FBI.
In what was ultimately a foolish gamble, during the madness of the ’60s, the FBI encouraged the most extreme black nationalist organizations in order to discredit and split the left. The more preposterous the group, the better.
By that criterion, Karenga’s United Slaves was perfect. In the annals of the American ’60s, Karenga was the Father Gapon, stooge of the czarist police.
Despite modern perceptions that blend all the black activists of the ’60s, the Black Panthers did not hate whites. They did not seek armed revolution (although some of their most high-profile leaders were drug dealers and murderers). Those were the precepts of Karenga’s United Slaves.
United Slaves were proto-fascists, walking around in dashikis, gunning down Black Panthers and adopting invented “African” names. (That was a big help to the black community: How many boys named “Jamal” are currently in prison?)
It’s as if David Duke invented a holiday called “Anglika,” which he based on the philosophy of “Mein Kampf” — and clueless public school teachers began celebrating the made-up, racist holiday.
Whether Karenga was a willing dupe, or just a dupe, remains unclear.
Curiously, in a 1995 interview with Ethnic NewsWatch, Karenga matter-of-factly explained that the forces out to get O.J. Simpson for the “framed” murder of two whites included: “the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, Interpol, the Chicago Police Department” and so on. Karenga should know about FBI infiltration. (He further noted that the evidence against O.J. “was not strong enough to prohibit or eliminate unreasonable doubt” — an interesting standard of proof.)
In the category of the-gentleman-doth-protest-too-much, back in the ’70s, Karenga was quick to criticize rumors that black radicals were government-supported. When Nigerian newspapers claimed that some American black radicals were CIA operatives, Karenga publicly denounced the idea, saying, “Africans must stop generalizing about the loyalties and motives of Afro-Americans, including the widespread suspicion of black Americans being CIA agents.”
Now we know that the FBI fueled the bloody rivalry between the Panthers and United Slaves. In one barbarous outburst, Karenga’s United Slaves shot to death two Black Panthers on the UCLA campus: Al “Bunchy” Carter and John Huggins. Karenga himself served time, a useful stepping-stone for his current position as a black studies professor at California State University at Long Beach.
Karenga’s invented holiday is a nutty blend of schmaltzy ’60s rhetoric, black racism and Marxism. The seven principles of Kwanzaa are the very same seven principles of the Symbionese Liberation Army, another charming legacy of the Worst Generation.
In 1974, Patricia Hearst, kidnap victim-cum-SLA revolutionary, posed next to the banner of her alleged captors, a seven-headed cobra. Each snake head stood for one of the SLA’s revolutionary principles: Umoja, Kujichagulia, Ujima, Ujamaa, Nia, Kuumba and Imani — the exact same seven “principles” of Kwanzaa.
Kwanzaa praises collectivism in every possible area of life — economics, work, personality, even litter removal. (“Kuumba: Everyone should strive to improve the community and make it more beautiful.”) It takes a village to raise a police snitch.
When Karenga was asked to distinguish Kawaida, the philosophy underlying Kwanzaa, from “classical Marxism,” he essentially said that, under Kawaida, we also hate whites. (Kawaida, Kwanzaa and Kuumba are also the only three Kardashian sisters not to have their own shows on the E! network.)
While taking the “best of early Chinese and Cuban socialism” — excluding, one hopes, the forced abortions, imprisonment of homosexuals and forced labor — Karenga said Kawaida practitioners believe one’s racial identity “determines life conditions, life chances and self-understanding.” There’s an inclusive philosophy for you.
Kwanzaa was the result of a ’60s psychosis grafted onto the black community. Liberals have become so mesmerized by multicultural nonsense that they have forgotten the real history of Kwanzaa and Karenga’s United Slaves — the violence, the Marxism, the insanity.
Most absurdly, for leftists anyway, they have forgotten the FBI’s tacit encouragement of this murderous black nationalist cult founded by the father of Kwanzaa.
Kwanzaa emerged not from Africa, but from the FBI’s COINTELPRO. It is a holiday celebrated exclusively by idiot white liberals. Black people celebrate Christmas. (Merry Christmas, fellow Christians!)
Ann Coulter is an author and political commentator.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/30/kwanzaa-is-a-ridiculous-racist-holiday/#ixzz2GW2s2BzH
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)