The racist party hates Reagan

Yes, there is little to distinguish many of the two parties' leaders, but the principles those politicians are supposed to represent couldn't be more diametric.

A response to this with credit to this:

A greater percentage of Congressional Republicans than Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act.

You ought to ask the reasons for Reagan's positions, but you won't, since facts are anathema to you.

Blacks benefited from Reagan's economic policies more than Whites (color-based identifiers are revolting, but since you define people by the melanin-content of their skin cells, so be it).

Pat Buchanan (who's got his own issues with jihad and Israel) invented the term "Southern strategy"; what did he say about the "change" in Republicanism?

"We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense, and leave it to the ‘party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.”

If Southerners wanted to stay with the racist party, they'd have stayed Democrat. They went to the Republican Party because of the freedom issues Buchanan noted.

And right after Reagan's "states rights" speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi -- where Democrat Michael Dukakis spoke eight years later -- he went to New York to speak before the Urban League.

Reagan opposed "affirmative action" -- racial quotas -- just like JFK, Bayard Rustin, and the Urban League board of directors. He hired Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell. And Reagan signed Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday into a national holiday and approved a 25-year extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Why do you hate "states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense"? Why do you hate America and its citizens of every hue?

Democrats depend on the obedience -- and ignorance -- of "minority" voters in fastening their chains on them.

You're either too gullible to realize it or too complicit to admit it.

Degenerate Leftists make Republican promoting bad theology look like Philipp Melanchthon

The theology of the candidate mentioned in the article is abysmal -- homosexuality, along with every other sin, comes from the heart -- but those opposing her in defense of perversion and tyranny are even worse.

Offered in response to one of the deranged Left's foot-soldiers, here:

How absurd.

It is the Democratic Party which is the major political bastion of racism (and sexism) in the United States. That's why any "minorities" -- but especially Blacks, because of their near total compliance with your party's electoral dictates -- are eviscerated if they think for themselves and do anything but what their masters on the Left demand of them.

The Republican Party is the party of Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act (a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported it), and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

But the Democrat Party is the party of slavery, Segregation, the KKK (its terrorist wing), and institutionalized racial division, demagoguery, and exploitation.

Here's a blunt obliteration of the absurd manipulation by which so many of your elected representatives have risen to and maintained power:

"There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs - partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

--Booker T. Washington.

"Authentic Jews" peddling inauthentic history . . . and theology

(The true) God is not racist.

Some are so tormented by sentiments of racial inferiority that they are unable to evaluate and represent facts faithfully.  Like those who want to make Jesus African, so too some want desperately for Hebrews/Jews from Abraham to Moses to the Sephardim (Iberian Jews) to be black (this trend is color-blind; some want Anglo-Saxons to be the lost tribes of Israel).  Following are a few observations on one site's false claims regarding Israel and Africa:

"This makes it seem likely that the Afroasiatic languages originated in Africa and then spread to the Asian continent."

Since all descend from Noah and his sons, and their common language was confused at Babel, no language "originated" in Africa.

"the ancient Hebrews came out of North AFRICA (Egypt)."

The Israelites came out of slavery in Egypt led by Moses, at YHWH's command, and by His power.  Their ancestors -- Jacob and his family -- entered the land as honored guests because Joseph was so esteemed that he attained a position in all of Egypt second only to Pharaoh's.  His father Jacob (Israel) was the grandson of Abraham, and he was from Mesopotamia ("Ur of the Chaldees"), not Africa.

Sometime before the Exodus, while in exile from Egypt, Moses married Zipporah, a Cushite (Ethiopian) woman, a daughter of Reuel, the priest of Midian.  Five hundred years later, King Solomon received the Queen of Sheba (Ethiopia) as a guest in Israel.  Regarding "Cushite" and "Sheba," some dispute the two terms as referencing Ethiopia, but the imperial family of Ethiopia traces its lineage to the union of Solomon and the Queen, and Josephus identified her as a "Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia."  He comments regarding the nation of Cush, son of Ham and grandson of Noah:

"For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Cush ["Chus"]; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Cushites ["Chusites"]" (Antiquities of the Jews 1.6.2).

So, one branch of "authentic" Jews is Ethiopian.

The author of Authentic Jews continues:

"The largest centers of Jewish population and learning were once in Africa, NOT EUROPE."

Until Islam.  And before that, in Israel, Mesopotamia, Persia, Babylon.  Wherever Jews go, there is a center of learning.

Here is more evidence that racial grievances and the need for religious/political esteem has compromised the author's intellectual integrity:

It was April 9th, 1865, on the Roman/Gregorian calendar but, the HEBREW calendar corresponding date was the 13th day of the Hebrew month of Abib/Nissan, the Hebrew year being 5625, on a Sunday.

The news of Gen. R.E. Lee's surrender was received in Washington DC after nine o'clock on Sunday evening, April 9th, and at a somewhat later hour in other cities.

This made it Passover, for the sun was down, that is when the Hebrews in the U.S.A were freed, 1435 was when the Portuguese began removing the YIsraelites from West Afrika, and 1865 was when General Lee surrendered in the civil war.
430 Yrs is how long our forefathers were in slavery in Kemet {Egypt}.

Both times the Israelites were freed on the Passover, after 430 Years!

The author's history here is just wrong: America was not a nation until 1776 by Declaration, and in reality at the successful conclusion of our War of Independence in 1783.  American slavery ended by Proclamation in 1863 and in practice at the close of the War Between the States in 1865.  The longest "American" slavery could have lasted was 89 years.  Even if you include Colonial times, slavery there began as indentured servitude for a variety of "races;" it was not until the seventeenth century that slavery in America became distinctly racial:

in Maryland and Virginia, both of which passed laws that made black indentured servants slaves for life; these laws also segregated free blacks from European-Americans by making intermarriage between blacks and whites illegal.

If you want to consider the Atlantic (Old World/New World) Slave Trade, the earliest date I can find for the beginning of the capture, transport, and selling of African slaves is 1444 (or 1441) by the Portuguese; Brazil abolished slavery in 1888 (that's 447 years).

And none of this includes Islam's millennium of enslaving Africans, or the practice of slavery in general throughout human history, which includes African kings taking slaves for human sacrifice and the Aztecs doing the same.  As soon as one group of people was strong enough to use force against its neighbor, slavery was born.

I appreciate a person wanting to take pride in one's ancestry.  But that should be grounded in truth.  All of us are descended from Noah and his sons; the flexibility in genetic expression allowing the variety in human appearance we see today does not change the fact that we are one race.  Sadly, the "authentic Jew" is so focused on "blackness" that it's affected his ability to deal honestly with the facts.

So, who are "authentic Jews"?

A Jew might say, "It depends on the Jew you're asking;" an Evangelical might answer, "Someone who observes the Mosaic Law;" a Muslim might respond, "Those who 're-vert' to Islam;" and a liberal might reply with, "Those who vote Democrat."  But what does the God of Israel say?

The Apostle Paul, a Pharisee who referred once to himself as a "Hebrew of Hebrews" and recognized the myriad  blessings God had given to the nation of Israel, says that the "true Israel" are not those who are genetically-Jewish only, but those who live by faith in the Promised Messiah, whether they are Jew or Gentile. He writes:

"not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring" (Romans 9:6-8).

"no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God" (Romans 2:28-29).

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified" (Galatians 2:15-16).

Christ is the Savior of the Jew first and then the Gentile, the Messiah promised to Adam, Abraham, and Moses.  He is our salvation.

Fitzgerald on fun, and indispensable, learning

The good news is, more and more of us know and continue to learn about the Religion of Gratuitous Decapitation.

Reflections on knowing Islam the way Allah and the prophet from hell define it, by Hugh Fitzgerald:

Up and down the coasts of Europe one can find ruins, the remnants of ancient watchtowers and fortifications. One is seldom provided with any explanation; when something is written very occasionally in a guidebook, there is mention of "invaders." Who were these “invaders”? The history of Muslim raiders, up and down those European coasts, the pillaging and razing of villages and towns, the murders, the vandalism, the seizure and enslavement of, over time, at least a million people from Western Europe, with the raiders even getting as far as Ireland and, in one celebrated case, Iceland, is hardly known to the Western world.

Giles Milton's book White Gold focuses on one Cornishman, Thomas Pellow, who was seized and brought back to Morocco in the mid-18th century. There the vast palace complex of Moulay Ismail, which Western tourists come to admire, was built on the sites of, and making use of the stone taken from, the prior non-Muslim structures. So many of the so-called "wonders of Muslim architecture" were built in this way, including the celebrated Omayyad Mosque in Damascus, which is on the site of, and makes use of, the St. John the Baptist Church that was previously on the same site. And who do you think built the Taj Mahal? Muslim soldiers, or enslaved Hindus?

When you begin, as many Infidels have, to study Islam, and then extend your study beyond the texts, and then add the behavior of Muslims today, and then go still further and begin to study the history of Islamic conquest, and the Islamic exaggerated claims to achievement, and the Islamic treatment of all non-Muslims subjugated by Muslims and Muslim rule, all sorts of the dark past become necessarily illuminated. How many of us, a few years ago, had any idea about when the Turks arrived in Byzantium, or why Constantinople fell, or when? Who knew about the Seljuk Turks, or the Ottomans? Who was aware of where Aramaic was spoken, or that the Maronites were a non-Arab people living in present-day Lebanon long before the Arab Muslims arrived? Who knew, even -- why Tom Friedman has just in the last week or two discovered -- that there are Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, and that the difference is not a minor one, and did not originate with the Americans clumsily undoing all that splendid harmony that naturally reigned in Iraq just a few pre-Saddam years ago? This is all nonsense, of course, but it is predictable nonsense.

It is wonderful, isn't it, to begin to study the history of the Middle East, and the history of Byzantium, and the history of Europe, all because it now has an immediacy and a significance that we who were not history-haunted did not previously ascribe to it all. But now that we are menaced by those who are haunted not so much by history as their own crazed version of history, we are forced to study -- and we are forced to be quick studies.

. . . studying that history is now essential. It is necessary to learn what taqiyya is, and what constitutes an acceptable isnad-chain, and the details of Muhammad's life (as Muslims accept it). It is essential to find out that Muslims do not accept the principle of Pacta sunt servanda, but follow instead the model of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya. All this is all the more essential seeing how even the most reasonable westernized semi-truth-telling Muslim will continue to skitter around the central question . . . .

Patrick Henry on Slavery

Since Henry makes a clear distinction between "Christianity" and Christ, the Bible, and historical Christian practice, it is clear the term refers to the practice of the churches of his day, not to the religion of Christ.

From here:

"It is not a little surprising that Christianity, whose chief excellence consists in softening the human heart, in cherishing & improving its finer Feelings, should encourage a Practice so totally repugnant to the first Impression of right & wrong. What adds to the wonder is that this Abominable Practice has been introduced in the most enlightened Ages, Times that seem to have pretensions to boast of high Improvements in the Arts, Sciences, & refined Morality, have brought into general use, & guarded by many Laws, a Species of Violence & Tyranny, which our more rude & barbarous, but more honest Ancestors detested. Is it not amazing, that at a time, when the Rights of Humanity are defined & understood with precision, in a Country above all others fond of Liberty, that in such an Age, & such a Country we find Men, professing a Religion the most humane, mild, meek, gentle & generous, adopting a Principle as repugnant to humanity as it is inconsistent with the Bible and destructive to Liberty. . . .

I cannot but wish well to a people whose System imitates the Example of him whose Life was perfect. And believe me, I shall honour the Quakers for their noble Effort to abolish Slavery. It is equally calculated to promote moral & political Good.

Would any one believe that I am Master of Slaves of my own purchase! I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. . . .

I believe a time will come when the oppo. will be offered to abolish this lamentable Evil. Every thing we can do is to improve it, if it happens in our day, if not, let us transmit to our descendants together with our Slaves, a pity for their unhappy Lot, & an abhorrence for Slavery. If we cannot reduce this wished for Reformation to practice, let us treat the unhappy victims with lenity, & it is the furthest advance we can make toward Justice."

We're at the last stage, the beginning of the end of the West

This will be our lament -- if there's anyone left to mourn.

From Alexander Fraser Tyler, warning the Founding Fathers of the dangers of democracy, since the Athenian republic had fallen because of an inherent weakness in democracy . . . allowing the ignorant, easily-manipulated [or selfish] common people to determine government policy:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back again into bondage."

And here is Aldous Huxley in the Forward to Brave New World, describing the end of the American experiment:

"Only a large-scale popular movement toward decentralization and self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism . . . A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers."

Socialism is slavery, in Jefferson's own words

Socialism is a form of statism that plays upon muddied, emotional misconceptions of charity and equality to justify appealing to others' greed and sense of entitlement for their votes.

The one who works and has the fruit of his labor taken from him at the point of a gun is made a slave to the State; the one who receives from the State the fruit of others' labor is made not only a dependent, but a thief.

The responsibility to earn one's daily bread is transferred to the State; the Christian responsibility for charity is transferred away also.

In matters of self-defense and national security, the same abdication of individual responsibility occurs. A citizen threatened by another calls for police rather than defend himself, and it is easy for a man to think to himself when his nation is at war, "Why should I go to fight? We have people who are paid to do that."

(What will become of that large, professional, standing army in the hands of a tyrant?)

The best solution for preserving Liberty is a militia, free men fulfilling their individual responsibilities to defend hearth and home, as our forefathers did.

From here:

On April 13, every American should raise a champagne glass high to toast the farmer, architect, scholar, revolutionary and American president born that spring day in 1743: Thomas Jefferson. One of our greatest Founding Fathers, Jefferson lovingly carved much of the government and character of his precious gem, America.

He penned numerous documents extolling the revolutionary ideas of his time, including the stirring words on the parchment that is the soul of America, "The Declaration of Independence." Yet how many of our current citizens – and elected officials – truly understand its meaning?

The Declaration launched the first country in history based on the principle that every individual possesses certain "unalienable" rights. According to Jefferson's writings, "free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their Chief Magistrate." No tyrant can violate the rights of man, nor can any majority vote in Congress. "[T]he majority, oppressing an individual," says Jefferson, "is guilty of a crime ... and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."

Our rights belong to us as individuals, with each of us possessing the same rights. There are no "rights" of groups to any special favors or privileges. It is inappropriate, for example, for pizza eaters to lobby Congress for a "right" to a free pizza every Thursday. If Congress grants their wish, out of concern for their nourishment or their votes, it acts outside of its proper function. According to Jefferson, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated [in the Constitution]."

Our rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness are rights to take action; they are not entitlements to the goods and services of others. Jefferson defined liberty as "unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." This means we may act in our own behalf, for example, to earn money and buy a house, but we may not expect the government to tax others to provide us with a house for free.

Life requires productive work and effort to sustain it, a fact that Jefferson considered to be our glory. When his Monticello farm fell on hard times, he began producing nails, and did so proudly because "every honest employment is deemed honorable [in America]. ... My new trade of nail-making is to me in this country what an additional title of nobility ... [is] in Europe." He scorned the "idleness" of the European aristocracy, calling their courts "the weakest and worst part of mankind." What would he think of our current government's grants and handouts to countless special interest groups, a practice that rewards people for non-effort?

Our right to property means we have the right to keep the things we acquire. Does a rich person have less of a right to property than a poor person? According to Jefferson: "To take from one because it is thought his own industry ... has acquired too much, in order to spare others who ... have not exercised equal industry and skill is to violate the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." What would he think of the persistent cries of today's politicians to "tax the rich," thereby depriving them of their property and the pursuit of their happiness?

Jefferson ardently championed the spiritual and intellectual independence of the individual. He was so proud of authoring the "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom" in Virginia that he had this fact etched on his tombstone. The bill ended the practice of paying the clergy with public funds because "to compel a man to furnish ... money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." Jefferson believed that religion was a completely private matter and fought for a "wall of separation between church and state." He was "against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another"; and he swore "eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." What would he think of today's attempts by religious lobbyists and elected officials to dictate public policy based on their faith?

Since, all laws are the codification of someone's morality, and American Liberty is founded upon the doctrines of Christ, the author's intent here is unclear. She continues:

Because we possess rights, governments are instituted. Wise government, explains Jefferson, "shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." Government acts only to protect us from acts of force or fraud, apprehending perpetrators who pick our pockets or break our legs; otherwise, it does not regulate or control our lives in any way. Jefferson was "for a government rigorously frugal and simple ... and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans. ..." What would he think of the 150,000-page Code of Federal Regulations and the swarms of agencies, commissions and departments that today swallow 40 percent of our national income?

Jefferson believed citizens to be capable of self-sufficiency because they possess reason. "Fix reason firmly to her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion." He expected people to use their minds to overcome obstacles and control their own lives. He gently chastised his 15-year-old daughter when she had difficulty reading an ancient text on Roman history without the aid of her teacher. "If you always lean on your master, you will never be able to proceed without him. It is part of the American character to consider nothing as desperate – to surmount every difficulty. ..." Americans, he continued, "are obliged to invent and to execute; to find the means within ourselves and not to lean on others." To do otherwise, his daughter would be "thought a very helpless animal, and less esteemed." What would he think of today's entitlement programs, which destroy a person's capacity to think and act for himself, and transform him into a helpless dependent?

Within a mere page in the calendar of history, the powerful doctrine of individual rights led to the abolition of slavery, the suffrage of women and the spread of freedom to many countries around the globe. It all began with the founding of America.

Jefferson fought for a country in which the government had no power to encroach on the mind, the life, the liberty or the property of the individual. He fought for a country in which the individual was unshackled for the first time in history and could live for the pursuit of his own happiness, instead of being a pawn in the hands of the state. The way to pay tribute to Jefferson – and to ourselves – is to protest the hammering of our rights by officials who can't tell a diamond from a rhinestone, to hold dear the jewel that is America, and to polish the ideals for which Jefferson in the Declaration pledged his life, his fortune and his sacred honor.

There is no defense for Barack Hussein Obama's 20-year endorsement of an America-hating racist

Or for his own racism and deceit.

UCLA Bruin and Laker great Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has a 'blog.

Comments are moderated there; we'll see if Kareem will post this.

I disagree respectfully with any defense of the "reverend" Wright.

If he has experienced discrimination, then anger and resentment are understandable. As a free man in a free society, he has the right to speak his mind.

Slavery and the discriminatory laws that followed were evil, unjust, and contrary to America's founding creed, but it was Americans (Christians at that) who brought the nation's laws in-line with its confession.

The Declaration itself, the Abolitionist movement, the election of Abraham Lincoln (the staunchly anti-slavery and first Republican president), and the Civil Rights Act are all the will of the American people. They are expressions of their fundamental belief in justice and Liberty derived [ultimately] from Christ's teachings.

(It always saddens me when African-Americans -- understandably embittered by racism they've experienced -- reject Christianity as a "white man's religion" and embrace Islam, not realizing that both are Middle Eastern religions and that while Christ taught true equality for all, Mohammed commanded slavery [of] and offensive warfare against all who refuse the invitation to Islam.)

Racist, hate-filled rants from a pulpit would be despised if coming from a white man; racism and hate should be no more acceptable coming from a black man.

As for the senator, what discrimination has Barack Obama experienced? He is living proof that in America all have the opportunity to achieve success as they define it.

Senator Obama grew up in Hawaii, is of a mixed-race background, lived for a time asa Muslim in Indonesia, was elected to state government, and is now a United States Senator with an excellent chance at becoming president.

How is America racist?

Thought cannot be legislated. All people -- regardless of ethnicity -- can be racist, ascomments by Wright and Obama prove.

Not voting for someone because of the amount of melanin in their skin is wrong; voting for someone because of it is irresponsible.

I will not vote for Obama, not because of his skin color, but because of his 20-year endorsement of an America-hating racist, his own racism and deceit, his ties to Muslim thugs in Kenya, and his rabid socialism.

Update, April 10: Since submitting my comments for moderation several days ago, one new post has been added, and it wasn't mine. So much for Kareem's tolerance for uncomfortable facts.

Slavery acknowledged and abolished ultimately by Christianity

From here, in response to doubt about what the Scriptures say regarding slavery.

The spread of the Christian religion resulted in the abolition of Slavery as a global institution (it exists still under Islam).

The belief that all people have a Divine right to Liberty is powerfully expressed in the words of the American Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

God is not indifferent to the injustice of slavery. His word makes it clear that His intention for Man has always been Liberty:

-God created the first man and woman free.

-His Commandments protect an individual's life, reputation, and property.

-He came down to save His people from slavery in Egypt.

-The Mosaic Law recognized the ubiquitous and permanent nature of the "peculiar institution" and legislates to ameliorate its effects.

-The New Testament urges respect and dignity among fellow Christians, reminding the enslaved believer that he is truly free and the free believer that he is Christ's slave.

-Believers are to be content in whatever their circumstances at the time of their conversion (even if in slavery, for the goal of the Christian life is to bear witness to the Son of God; millions of slaves in armed rebellion would have done little to promote the Gospel).

-They are urged to gain their freedom, if possible.

-And though speaking of the greater freedom from sin, death, and the devil, we are told, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free."

Those who seek to justify slavery from the Biblical texts must misrepresent them to do so.