The racist face of today's Democratic Party

As noted here:

"Democratic US congressional candidate Rashida Tlaib..claimed her ancestors provided Jews with a 'safe haven" around the time of the Holocaust. The truth is very different...

Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s antisemitism..has veered clearly into the undeniable. This past Saturday, our organization, The World Values Network, took out a full-page ad in The New York Times highlighting her shocking comments, which should not be allowed to pass unpunished.

A guest of the Skullduggery Podcast, Tlaib was asked to explain her belief in a one-state solution (spoiler: there’s no Israel). Instead of staying on the subject of contemporary politics, Tlaib decided to go down memory lane and right into the Holocaust.

Here are her comments in full, to deflect any accusations of word manipulation:

“Absolutely. Let me tell you – I mean, for me, I think two weeks ago we celebrated – or took a moment I think in our country to remember – the Holocaust. And there’s a kind of a calming feeling, I always tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust in the fact that it was my ancestors – Palestinians – who lost their land; and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity. Their existence in many ways had been wiped out, and some people’s passports – I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post the Holocaust, post the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that – right? – in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away – right – and it was forced on them.”

Nancy Pelosi tweeted, “Republicans’ desperate attempts to smear @RepRashida & misrepresent her comments are outrageous. President @realDonaldTrump & House GOP should apologize to Rep. Tlaib & the American people for their gross misrepresentations.”

This is the face of today's Democratic Party.  Racist and hypocritical.  The same people who accuse President Trump of being "racist" are defending the rabid anti-Semitism of a Democratic candidate for Congress who "celebrated" - her own word - the Holocaust.

Related reading here.

College students: I hate President Trump's State of the Union Address and I think it was racist...even though it hasn't been delivered yet

Cabot Phillips writes:

"This Tuesday, President Donald Trump will give his first State Of The Union address to the nation.

Critics of Trump have already begun to express displeasure with his actions in the days leading up to the speech, leading some to wonder whether this opposition is substantive, or rooted in a distaste of Trump as a person.

Wanting to find out, Campus Reform headed to New York University to ask students their opinions of President Trump’s State of the Union. The only problem for them was that the speech would not take place for another seven days…

Would that stop them from giving strong, condemnatory opinions on the speech?

See for yourself."

Watch the video and witness the herd mentality which is representative of many of today's college students.

Philip Johnson, in his book "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law & Culture, tells a story which is both amusing and frightening at the same time. He writes: "I am convinced that conscious dishonesty is much less important in intellectual matters than self-deception...The German biologist Bruno Muller-Hill tells a memorable story to illustrate his thesis that 'self-deception plays an astonishing role in science in spite of all the scientists' worship of truth':

When I was a student in a German gymnasium and thirteen years old, I learned a lesson that I have not forgotten...One early morning our physics teacher placed a telescope in the school yard to show us a certain planet and its moons. So we stood in a long line, about forty of us. I was standing at the end of the line, since I was one of the smallest students. The teacher asked the first student whether he could see the planet. No, he had difficulties, because he was nearsighted. The teacher showed him how to adjust the focus, and that student could finally see the planet and the moons. Others had no difficulty; they saw them right away. The students saw, after a while, what they were supposed to see. Then the student standing just before me - his name was Harter - announced that he could not see anything. 'You idiot,' shouted the teacher, 'you have to adjust the lenses.' The student did that and said after a while, 'I do not see anything, it is all black.' The teacher then looked through the telescope himself. After some seconds he looked up with a strange expression on his face. And then my comrades and I also saw that the telescope was nonfunctioning; it was closed by a cover over the lens. Indeed, no one could see anything through it.'

Muller-Hill reports that one of the docile students became a professor of philosophy and director of a German TV station. 'This might be expected,' he wickedly comments. But another became a professor of physics, and a third a professor of botany. The honest Harter had to leave school and go to work in a factory. If in later life he was ever tempted to question any of the pronouncements of his more illustrious classmates, I am sure he was firmly told not to meddle in matters beyond his understanding.'" (pp. 156-157).

Do we honestly believe that this herd mentality is not to be found throughout our society and even in the Church? If so, we deceive ourselves. Pope Benedict XVI has warned of a liberal notion of conscience which is nothing less than a retreat from truth. In a keynote address of the Tenth Bishops' Workshop of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, on "Catholic Conscience: Foundation and Formation," he says that liberalism's idea of conscience is that: "Conscience does not open the way to the redemptive road to truth - which either does not exist or, if it does, is too demanding. It is the faculty that dispenses with truth. It thereby becomes the justification for subjectivity, which would not like to have itself called into question. Similarly, it becomes the justification for social conformity. As mediating value between the different subjectivities, social conformity is intended to make living together possible. The obligation to seek the truth terminates, as do any doubts about the general inclination of society and what it has become accustomed to. Being convinced of oneself, as well as conforming to others, is sufficient. Man is reduced to his superficial conviction, and the less depth he has, the better for him."

Is there really any difference between Harter's classmates, who insisted that they could see a planet and its moons when such was impossible, and those who succumb to social conformity and insist that an unborn baby is not really a human being when all the scientific evidence suggests otherwise?

Are today's college students being prepared to think critically or simply to mindlessly regurgitate what their far-left liberal professors tell them to believe and/or what the far-left mainstream media reports?

What do you think?

Related reading: here.

The Ku Klux Klan endorses Hillary Clinton and gifts her campaign $20,000

The Gateway Pundit reports:

"Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has received more than $20,000 in donations contributed by members of the Ku Klux Klan, a prominent member of the hate group announced earlier this year."

Ku Klux Klan leader Will Quigg has openly endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.  As reported by The Washington Times, Quigg, a California Grand Dragon for the Loyal White Nights, said that, "For the KKK, Clinton is our choice."

Small wonder given Hillary Clinton's racist comments about crime and "certain kinds of kids."

Hillary Clinton on the Confederate Flag

As noted here, Hillary Clinton has said that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of our racist past and shouldn't fly anywhere.

In the light of her comments, what must we make of the photograph below which hasn't been photoshopped?

If the Confederate Flag is to be deemed offensive as depicted on the roof of a car (the General Lee) on a television sitcom (The Dukes of Hazard), how then should its placement on the bookshelf of a presidential candidate be interpreted?

Related reading here.

Democrats created and own the Confederate Flag...

Writing for National Review, Deroy Murdock quotes Governor Nikki Haley, referring to the Confederate Flag, as saying, "My hope is that by removing a symbol that divides us, we can move forward as a state in harmony."

Then Murdock correctly notes, "Haley, a rising Republican star, is correct to lower the Confederate flag. It has reflected Democratic racial oppression since it was stitched together in 1861, and has been hoisted by Democrats ever since. Just as Republicans — led by President Abraham Lincoln — valiantly crushed the Democrat-run Confederacy, Republicans proudly should banish the Stars and Bars to private property and history museums. They also should remind Americans that Democrats waved this frightful banner until very recently.

 As the Civil War began, the Army of Northern Virginia, led by eventual Democratic activist Robert E. Lee, adopted the battle flag that is under contention today. It became the secessionists’ national banner in 1863. Its designer, William T. Thompson, praised it in the Savannah Daily Morning News that May 4:

As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism. Another merit in the new flag is, that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals.

Two years later, that flag was in tatters. The North beat the South, and the Confederacy was gone with the wind.

How did this symbol of a pro-slavery breakaway republic wind up atop South Carolina’s state capitol? As the debate raged over civil rights in 1961, the Democratic legislature under Governor Ernest “Fritz” Hollings, a Democrat, raised the Stars and Bars to mark the “Confederate War Centennial.”

About that time, Hollings presented a Confederate flag to President John F. Kennedy, another Democrat.

Of course, Democratic U.S. senators such as former KKK Grand Cyclops Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tennessee’s Albert Gore Sr. (father of you know who), and Arkansas’s J. William Fulbright (Bill Clinton’s mentor) stood shoulder to shoulder with Hollings and other segregationist Democratic governors, most notably Arkansas’s Orval Faubus and Alabama’s George Wallace. (Wallace installed the rebel flag over his statehouse in 1963, the day before Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy arrived to discuss integration.) While Byrd and Company filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, these state executives blocked schoolhouse doors to exclude blacks.

Illinois’s Republican senator Everett Dirksen finally broke the bigoted Democrats’ filibuster and got the Civil Rights Act approved for the signature of Democratic president Lyndon Johnson." Full article here.

Father Lawrence Lovasic, in his book The Hidden Power of Kindness, explains that, "You practice professional hypocrisy when, in public office or business, you speak against some evil and in reality practice it yourself, or when you complain of losing money while you yourself are making an unjust profit..." (The Hidden Power of Kindness, pp. 138-139).

These words apply to Democrats like President Obama who attempt to distance themselves from the negative stigma attached to the Confederate Flag while attempting to manufacture a narrative which lays the flag at the doorstep of Republicans or Conservatives in general.

President Obama, your hypocrisy is showing.

Clark University's "Freethought Society" promotes racist Charles Darwin and the fantasy of Darwinian Evolution

I was not surprised to learn that Clark University's "Freethought Society," a student group which is Christianophobic and celebrates mocking Christian belief, promotes Darwin Day.  Darwin Day is described as, "..a global celebration of science and reason held on or around Feb. 12, the birthday anniversary of evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin."

It is most ironic that Darwin Day should be described as a "celebration of science and reason" since Charles Darwin epitomized neither.  Darwinian evolution has been thoroughly refuted and has nothing to do with science.  In fact, Professor Louis Bounoure, Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, and later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, was quoted in The Advocate (March 8, 1984, p. 17) as having said that, "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups.  This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.  It is useless." 

In his work The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Darwin asserted that, "At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."

This is reason?  Darwin believed that the European race, following the inevitable laws of natural selection, would emerge as the distinct species, human being, while all the "transitional forms" - such as the gorilla, chimpanzee, Negro, Australian aborigine - would become extinct.  In his Descent, Darwin issued a call to arms while offering his solution as to how the European race could be saved from slipping back down the slope of evolution:

"When a race of plants is once pretty well established, the seed-raisers do not pick out the best plants, but merely go over their seed-beds, and pull up the 'rogues,' as they call the plants that deviate from the proper standard.  With animals this kind of selection is, in fact, likewise followed; for hardly any one is so careless as to breed from his worst animals."

Ernst Haeckel, a zoologist,  would later popularize Darwin's racist ideas in Germany and the Third Reich , greatly influenced by them, would launch its eugenic program and its "Final Solution."  Haeckel  would argue, in one of his numerous books entitled "History of Creation," that, "In the same way as by careful rooting out of the weeds ['rogues' as Darwin had called them], light, air, and ground is gained for good and useful plants, in like manner, by the indiscriminate destruction of all incorrigible criminals, not only would the struggle for life among the better portion of mankind be made easier, but also an advantageous artificial process of selection would be set in practice, since the possibility of transmitting their injurious qualities by inheritance would be taken from those degenerate outcasts." (History of Creation, 1. 178).

Enter Adolph Hitler with his plan for a Master Race.

Women didn't fare too well in Darwin's thought either.  In The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, he advances the idea that men are naturally superior to women and that man is capable of, "a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on 'Hereditary Genius' that ... the average of mental power in man must be above that of women."

There you have it.  Clark University's "Freethought Society," a student group which has little to do with actual thought, is promoting a racist ideologue whose theories have been largely discredited.  And this with Clark University's approval. Even as Deborah Dwork, Director of Clark University's Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, engages in slander against Pius XII, a great Pontiff who condemned National Socialism and its racist ideology.

Unbelievable.

Former President Jimmy Carter attempting to silence dissent from Obama's socialist policies

In his "I Have a Dream" speech, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Now, former President Jimmy Carter, the same man who referred to Barack Obama as a "Black Boy" (see video here) is asserting that the overwhelming portion of opposition to President Obama's socialistic policies is racist in origin (see here).

A convenient way to silence debate and political dissent. Paint the opposition as racist even when there is no evidence of racism. Never mind that ordinary decent Americans, many of whom voted for Barack Obama, are concerned about their future and the future of their children. No, according to former President Carter, most of those who have been expressing their concerns over the direction this country is heading in are racist. This response from Rush Limbaugh is most relevant.