If you connect the dots between racism, sexism and democrats you end up with one word:

Hijacked.

In both cases we had serious social issues.  We had serious social revolution.  We had real change and social enlightenment.

And we ended up with both issues being hijacked by the democrat party for political gain, with many of the advances and changes being lost in the betrayal.

In both cases equality and empowerment were traded for victim hood and entitlement.

I am no social expert on either topic.  But I can speak to change because I have seen change.

I have seen peoples attitudes shift and their determination to be fair and to ignore race and sex.

But I have also seen opportunists.  People who stir the flames of distrust to gain power and prestige.

I have seen racism and sexism offered as default explanations to imaginary problems.

I have seen white males herded into an atavistic corner, and told they are racists and sexists and that they can never change because of institutional discrimination and white male privilege.

I have seen well meaning people trashed for nothing.  For using a word that sounds like something bad but isn’t.  For being respectful.  For being honest about common sense issues.

And yes, I have also seen hold outs of a lesser enlightened era, and such people are sad parodies of humanity.  People who do indeed hold onto baseless stereotypes and beliefs.

And when you take those people and ram them headfirst into the opportunists and baiters, you might almost believe that nothing good has changed.

The real truth if liberals were honest, is that race and gender relations are much much better than they used to be.

But to hear some liberal talking heads speak, nothing has changed.

Where it is the saddest and where it exposes the real liberal agenda, is when you couple these two topics with conservatives.  Michael Steele was lampooned in black face  by black liberals.  Clarance Thomas has been castigated as not really being black.  Sarah Palin is undergoing a fierce roasting by liberal feminists, and Condi Rice has always been treated as a side show freak by liberal blacks and women both.

Desperation. 

Nothing more, and nothing less.

The democrats have reached a severe point of desperation in the presidential race as they face something they cannot understand, and find to be anathema:  A woman who is feminist, successful, and unapologetically conservative.

The democrats would have you believe that conservative men are unibrowed atavistic chauvinists who want their women barefoot and pregnant.  They likewise consider conservative women to be ignorant slaves to their religion and men, and when one pops up that is strong willed, yet not subservient to the liberal agenda and dogma, they freak out, and begin to attack them for the very things that they claim to respect:  Women who are independent to their own ideals, dependent on no one and willing to fight for their beliefs.

The attacks on Palin are by far some of the sexist and most ridiculous attacks I can recall, and in their own way, they are a massive compliment to Ms Palin’s qualifications.  The democrats know she is not only capable and qualified, but that she brings a sense of life to the campaign that has never been seen. 

Politicians of all stripes rely on a simple tactic to try and resonate with voters, that of showing that they are “one of you” in word, deed or philosophy.  Politicians as a rule are so out of touch, that they instinctively feel the need to offer this olive branch of familiarity.

The problem is that Sarah Palin really is “one of us”.  She was raised in a small town, did not have the wealth and privilege and ivy school education that permeates Washington DC.  She did not get a law degree, she went for Journalism.

She was a mom raising her kids who answered a call to serve her community and her talents and abilities helped her rise to the top.  She came from no where and with her conviction and determination she unseated established politicians, and then went on to be so audacious as to actually do a good job.

First the wrong way.  This kind of thinking honestly flabbergasts me.

Chris Satullo: A not-so-glorious Fourth: 

U.S.  atrocities are unworthy of our heritage

Tuck the soaring speeches in a drawer for another time.

This year, America doesn’t deserve to celebrate its birthday. This Fourth of July should be a day of quiet and atonement.

For we have sinned.

We have failed to pay attention. We’ve settled for lame excuses. We’ve spit on the memory of those who did that brave, brave thing in Philadelphia 232 years ago.

The America those men founded should never torture a prisoner.

The America they founded should never imprison people for years without charge or hearing.

The America they founded should never ship prisoners to foreign lands, knowing their new jailers might torture them.

Such abuses once were committed by the arrogant crowns of Europe, spawning rebellion.

Today, our nation does such things in the name of our safety. Petrified, unwilling to take the risks that love of liberty demands, we close our eyes.

We have done such things, on orders from the Oval Office. We have done them, without general outrage or shame.

…

Our silence is complicit. In our name, innocents were jailed, humans tortured, our Constitution mangled. And we said so little.

…

The world sees this, even if we are too dim to grasp it. We’ve lost respect. We’ve shamed the memory of Jefferson, Adams and Franklin.

…

So put out no flags.

Sing no patriotic hymns.

We deserve no Fourth this year.

Let us atone, in quiet and humility. Let us spend the day truly studying the example of our Founders. May we earn a new birth of courage before our nation’s birthday next rolls around.

Ah, liberal self loathing.  I have never understood it. 

Sister Toldjah weighs in:

In the lead up to the Democrat’s National Convention, we have a little controvery.

From Hot Air:

The city of Denver has already begun to celebrate the Democratic National Convention, which officially begins less than two months from now.  Pre-events have included the Colorful Food Watch and the Festival of Unpaid Bills, and yesterday’s State of the City speech began with Leftist Patriotism on Display.  Instead of singing the national anthem as requested, Rene Marie replaced it with a protest song:

Mayor John Hickenlooper’s annual State of the City address may get more attention for what wasn’t included than what was.

At the start of the event Tuesday morning, City Council President Michael Hancock introduced singer Rene Marie to perform the national anthem.

Instead, she performed the song “Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing,” which is also known as the “black national anthem.”

When she finished, the audience responded with mild applause. The national anthem was never performed.

(shaking head)

Hickenlooper and city officials got caught completely by surprise, as Marie kept her intentions hidden until the actual performance.  None of them acted to stop her or lead the crowd in the actual national anthem either, but by the time they would have realized what was happening, it was probably all over.  Marie wanted to make a political statement, and succeeded — in setting off a firestorm.

Angry officials and residents lit up talk-radio phone lines in Denver afterwards.   Councilman Charlie Brown declared that the US has one national anthem for all Americans, and that the Star Spangled Banner was the appropriate choice for the event.  Marie could express herself in any number of venues, Brown noted, but that official city events should feature the actual American national anthem.

Ever since Al Gore’s lie-fest misrepresented this it has continued to grow until the face of the cute majestic polar bear has become the face of the Eco Alarmists.

Every day I see Tv commercials bemoaning the plight of the mighty creatures, sad music plays while a momma bear leaves her cubs on the melting ice and swims off into the sea.

What they don’t tell you is that is normal behavior, and has nothing to do with climate change at all.

While Al Gore scares you into believing the bears lead a doomed existence, the reality is the populatoin of the bears is about 4 times what it was 60 years ago.

Rather than being threatened, the bears are flourishing.

So what prompted the US to declare them threatened?  A fraud by the Eco Warriors.  Nothign more.

As Michelle Malking notes:

It’s been in the works for quite some time, but now the decision is official. Polar bears have been listed by the Bush Interior Department as a “threatened” species. This is the first listing attributed to global warming.

What’s really going on here?

Kenneth Green at AEI exposes the politics behind the eco-radicals’ polar bear campaign and the consequences:

Listing the polar bear as a threatened species would have significant public policy consequences. It would set a new precedent, representing the first linkage of species endangerment with global warming. Such a listing would basically wall off the entire Arctic region to exploration, resource extraction, and development–at least by U.S. companies–and a threatened species listing would give environmental groups the ability to sue future U.S. governments to force them to reverse climate change by whatever means necessary.

There is little doubt that such lawsuits would be filed quickly. According to the NRDC:



Listing the polar bear guarantees federal agencies will be obligated to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out will not jeopardize the polar bears’ continued existence or adversely modify their critical habitat, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be required to prepare a recovery plan for the polar bear, specifying measures necessary for its protection.

…

His recent comments about how middle class America is a bunch of bitter gun crazed religious bigots is revealing, even as it is not a shock.

Unshockingly we discover an upper class politician is out of touch with the people he claims to represent.  Unsurprisingly we discover that the liberal elitism we have all remarked on in the past is just as ingrained in Obama as any other liberal. 

For all his claims to be just a middle class guy who did well, his success, like so many others who claim to have that connection, has left him out of touch.  His claim to being a 2nd Amendment scholar has left his no idea why Americans love guns. 

Most revealing is that his roots in his church have left him clueless about how many people rely on their faith as an integral foundation in their lives.

Maybe that is the most revealing aspect, and one of the sources of the greater points of hypocrisy.

Obama’s church and his mentoring by Rev J Wright have left Obama with a very cynical view of religion.

Obama’s church and Wright himself are apparently more concerned with the Afrocentric message of despair than a message of hope in which most American’s see their faith.  Faith in God and in their church to many middle class people gives them a solid foundation of hope and love they can cling to when life does send the twists and turns.

Obama’s by contrast preaches despair and anger and ignores the positives.  Obama’s religion, for all his comments about bitterness, is rooted in encouraging bitterness.

I find it interesting that his own church uses bitterness as a core value, and he himself has defended that bitterness as understandable, and now in another attempt at relativism he extends that bitterness, but with negative implications.

Is this just more liberal elitism, or is this a new twist?

_{Crossposted at Peace Thugs.}

While poking around You Tube, I found this video.

While the initial impulse is to cheer, it makes me somewhat sad at the same time.

Let me clearly state that I find Code Pink to be fairly disgusting and offensive.  If I were at one of their protests I would be hard pressed to contain my temper.

Code Pink has no respect for dignity, nor for the civil rights of their opposition. They will without hesitation cross lines to infiltrate into the areas designated for other protesters.  They will illegally block entrances, and do, as one member stated, “anything” to bring attention to their cause.

But at the same time, there is a principle at stake behind the nuttiness, and that is free speech, and while I despise their message, I have to respect their right to have on.  I will of course draw the line at legal, if they violate the law let them be treated accordingly.

So in other words, while I have little sympathy for them, I have to allow that their right to be publicly idiotic is guaranteed by the same Constitution I swore to defend, 20 something years ago.

So when I see the frustrated pro troop protesters lose their tempers and commit acts that are more reminiscent of Code Pink and other liberals, I am somewhat sad.

Obviously the people in question are adults, and if they choose civil disobedience, that is their right to do so.

But at the same time, they are also acting to make their antagonists martyrs and victims, by violating their free speech, and if there is one thing liberals know how to exploit, it is victim hood.

I am not going to point to a particular act or comment by the pro troop folks in that video as  my example of crossing the line.  Let the reader make his or her own choice about how to respond when insanity walks their streets.

Maybe that the only way to get these idiots in church.

Idiots, plain and simple.  Why defile a church and disrupt an Easter Service to protest a war that the Catholic Church already opposes?

Someone please, explain this to me?

Ani-war protesters attack Catholic parishioners in Chicago Update: Bail set a little … high

A group of anti-war protesters interrupted an Easter Mass in Chicago yesterday, stunning parishioners with their shouts during Cardinal Francis George’s homily. They then squirted stage blood on the congregation, leading to their arrest and an angry confrontation in the gathering space outside the hall. As it turns out, the protesters not only were mostly incoherent, but also very, very late (via Memeorandum):

Six people were arrested at Holy Name parish’s auditorium Sunday after disrupting an Easter mass to protest the Iraq war.

The group—whose female and male members identified themselves as Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War—stood up at the beginning of Cardinal Francis George’s homily and shouted their opposition to the conflict, which marked its fifth anniversary last week. As security guards and ushers tried to remove them from the service, the demonstrators squirted fake blood on themselves and parishioners dressed in their Easter finery.

The red substance, which one protester later described as “stage blood,” initially drew gasps and a few terrified yelps from the 600 worshipers at the mass. The shock, however, quickly transformed into anger as people booed the six while they were escorted from the parish auditorium.

Why did they target the Chicago cathedral? Almost three months ago, Cardinal George met with President Bush. The protesters explained (much later) that the Cardinal should have challenged Bush to end the war during that private meeting. They failed to explain (a) how they know that Cardinal George didn’t do that, and (b) why it took them ten weeks to protest the meeting.

Michelle Malkin has written a blog tracing in detail a list of the more egregious assaults on Military Recruiters by the Anti War Left.  For those of us pissed off by the Berkeley Council’s attempts to drive them out, this shows that to be a drop int eh bucket.  Here are a few excerpts:

Special report: Tracing the Left’s escalating war on military recruiters

Ideas have consequences. Inaction has consequences. For the past several years, I’ve chronicled the Left’s escalating war on military recruiters–and the apathetic, weak-kneed response to it. In Unhinged, I devoted a sub-section of my chapter “They Don’t Support Our Troops” to the organized campaign of harassment against recruitment offices on college campuses nationwide. The anti-recruiter thugs have thrived thanks to a combination of public indifference, law enforcement fecklessness, and left-wing ideological apologism. As you may recall, I have personal experience with the anti-recruiter propagandists, who lie through their teeth, exploit media sympathy, and harbor nothing but raw hatred for the men and women who protect and defend their rights to bitch and moan.

Many observers wanted to shut out any possibility that yesterday’s bombing at the Times Square recruitment center was ideologically motivated.

But will any on the left and in the Democrat Party raise their voices–loudly and clearly–to condemn the ongoing, militant anti-recruiter campaign?

Will they urge the Code Pinkos and their ilk to halt their intimidation and obstruction efforts?

Or will they continue to sit silently and attempt to downplay yesterday’s bombing as an isolated incident– instead of the all-too-predictable symptom of reckless tolerance for dangerous “peace”-peddlers skating on the edge of sedition?

Context matters. Drawing on my past reporting and blogging, here is a brief history of the anti-military recruitment movement’s mounting acts of vandalism and violence (which is by no means comprehensive and which I’ll continue to amend as commenters and readers remind me of other incidents). Let the apologists and pooh-poohers delude themselves into believing that the Times Square bombing was a “lone” act. The facts speak for themselves:

OK, in case you didn’t know, a small bomb was detonated in New York’s famed Times Square, just outside the door of a USMC recruiting office.

Now, I admit when I heard this, my first inclination was similar to many of my blogging peers, that the anti war activists had decided to take their show to the big apple, in a big way.  Hot Air summarized it well:

Given the escalating protests over military recruitment, it seems inevitable that people would bomb those who seek to protect the nation and fight our enemies. This morning, unknown attackers bombed a Times Square military recruitment office.

…

Now the movement has decided to morph into domestic terrorism. Of course, the people responsible will claim that they bombed the office during the night to keep anyone from being hurt. That’s exactly the same kind of rationalization that people like the Weather Underground and the SLA used at first, anyway — that terrorism was justified by their politics. In fact, a few like William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn still claim that.

As it turns out there are two twists that make this both likely and unlikely:

First this:

Police now say that the bomb was “roughly similar” to two other bombings in NYC, at the Mexican and British consulates. They have some clear video of the incident as well:

Officials said that in today’s attack, a man bundled in a gray hooded jacket or sweatshirt and wearing a backpack was seen riding a bicycle around the recruiting station and acting suspiciously moments before the explosion. Video footage from a surveillance camera showed a bicyclist dismounting, approaching the recruitment center, then returning to the bike and riding away before the explosion occurs.

Interesting. It fits closer to Bob Owen’s analysis. And I’ll say this much — if so, then my original post jumped to conclusions. The anti-war protesters have turned to intimidation and vandalism, and if unchecked will proceed to violence. However, this may not have had anything to do with the anti-war movement, and I should have been a little more circumspect about that this morning.