Wednesday, June 24, 2015


This word "hate" played a prominent role in the reporting of the shooting by the mainstream media. The weekend edition (6/19-6/21/15) of USA Today had the word "HATE" in very large letters on their front page, followed by in slightly smaller letters the words "IN AMERICA." The front page of the 6/23/15 LA Times had this headline: "Hate may bring down a flag." And the lead editorial of the 6/23/15 NY Times read: "Take Down a Symbol of Hatred."

As for the USA Today, were they suggesting that the evil killer in South Carolina was emblematic of America as a whole? And what is wrong with hate - in the right places. It is completely wrong to hate someone because of their race, ethnicity or religion, for example. But why is it wrong to hate evil and the perpetrators of evil? I am not a Christian, so I found it difficult to hear some of the victims' family members say they forgave the perpetrator. I do not.

But while we are on the topic, I could easily understand family members saying they hated the perpetrator. And should we not hate the worst mass murderers in history? I hate Hitler and what he did. Is it going to cause me to want to kill today's Germans? Of course not. I hate those who brought down the Twin Towers and murdered 3000 fellow Americans on 9/11, one of whom I personally knew and grew up with. Why shouldn't I hate them?

Yet, with all this talk of racism and hate, the front page of the 6/22/15 NY Times actually had it right with this headline: "Defiant Show of Unity in Church That Lost 9 to Racial Violence." Unity. The Times reported that at this past Sunday's church service, there were "whites sitting next to blacks, locals next to visitors." They also noted that hundreds were at a nearby memorial at a town square - and that most of those people were white.

Yet, besides Obama, there were others seeking to divide. Said one Reverend: "There's a consciousness around the country. I think they were, not embarrassed, but feel responsible. This was a serious wake-up call for white people."

It is difficult to get consistent statistics showing the number of homicides in the US. Different sites give different numbers. However, if we extrapolate, it is reasonable to say that in the year 2013 there were somewhere between about 12,000 and 14,000 murders in the US. A Bureau of Justice Statistics report from 2007 showed not only were blacks the victims of homicides 49% of the time, but blacks were the perpetrators of homicides 93% of the time. More recently, Chicago, Obama's home town, was noted to have a serious murder problem - again, with many of the victims and perpetrators being black.

So I remain confused. I would ask the above referenced Reverend when there will be a "serious wake-up call for black people?"

I cannot end this post without commenting on an article in the 6/22/15 NY Times. I could not believe it when the first sentence of the second paragraph used the complete "n" word. So Obama, who I have accused on multiple occasions of having no class, uses the "n" word - and now the NY Times feel free to do it? What? In the mainstream media's never-ending effort to support Obama, they copied him, and quoted others to explain why Obama said it. If the President of the United States says it, and the leading mainstream media outlet says it, is it now okay to use the "n" word? Low class and foolish on both their parts.

HATE, Part I

Americans mourned the cold-blooded murder of 9 fellow citizens last week at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina. An evil, white, 21 year old sat and prayed for an hour with parishioners before opening fire on them. Despicable, and one can only hope that he gets the death penalty.

As we have come to expect from this president, Obama passed up the opportunity to give an inspiring and unifying speech; but, rather, spoke as the Divider in Chief. Obama: "The legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives, you know, casts a long shadow, and that's still part of our DNA that's passed on. We're not cured of it. And it's not just a matter of it not being polite to say n..... in public." (For the record, Obama used the full "n" word, which this writer chooses not to do.)

Obama typically starts such a speech by noting that race relations and racial equality have improved dramatically in this country. However, he never seems to mean it as it is always followed by a "but," after which he makes it sound as if we are still in the first half of the last century. Exactly what is passed on in our DNA? Racism? A desire to kill blacks? Where does such nonsense come from? Worse, what does he think of white Americans, so many of whom voted for him twice?

Somehow, the main stream media decided that the real problem must be the Confederate flag, flying above various buildings in the south. (Guns, of course, were the other culprit.) Missing from much of the discussion was that evil exists. A check of US census data revealed that, as of 2014, there were an estimated 4,832,482 people in South Carolina. 68.3% were said to be white. That amounts to 3,300,585 white people. Has the sight of the Confederate flag thrown those 3 million white people into a murderous frenzy? Of course not. This was an evil young man who used certain symbols to demonstrate to others, and perhaps to himself, his feelings about race.

Do not misunderstand. I believe there are legitimate arguments that can be made about the flying of the Confederate flag - by both sides. But it is absurd to suggest that the flying of that flag was the cause of the perpetrator's murderous actions. It is ironic, is it not, that Obama links this killing to widespread racism, but is unable to see any connection between Islam and the killing of tens of thousands around the world. He will not say - nor allow anyone in his Administration to utter the words - "radical Islam." No, Islam is a religion of peace, but whites are a bunch of murdering scoundrels, I guess.

What was also of interest was how the Confederate flag was seen as a Republican issue only. Said the 6/23/15 front page of the LA Times: "...Republican presidential candidates struggled to keep from becoming embroiled in a long and potentially damaging debate over the painful legacy of racism from some in their party's ranks." Excuse me? Did the Times miss the fact that the Republican Abraham Lincoln was the president who fought a war to end slavery? Did they miss Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Clearly, they missed all the Democrats that fought the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, while Republicans made sure there enough votes to pass these landmark pieces of legislation.

In his recent interview, Obama once again managed to go after Fox News. It must really burn him that Fox easily draws more viewers than MSNBC and CNN. Obama: "...if you watch Fox News you inhabit a completely different world with different facts than if you read the New York Times." Of course, he was holding out the NY Times as the standard for the mainstream media. I agree with Obama's assessment. It is a different world. If you only read the NY Times or LA Times or other mainstream papers, you miss much of what is actually going on in your country and the world. Just look at the quote from the LA Times in the above paragraph. Are the Times writers and editors, perhaps, more interested in presenting the news within a left wing framework, or are they completely ignorant of history - you know, morons? It's one or the other. Maybe both.