WARNING - VERY GRAPHIC!
Kill ‘All White’ Men, Women, Babies, Blind, Cripple, Fa**ots, Lesbians & Old Crackers, Says New Black Panthers Vile Radio Opening; Then ‘Dig ’Em Up’ & ‘Kill ’Em Again’
After news broke Wednesday of the New Black Panthers calling for the killing of white babies (see that here), more shocking audio from the group’s radio program has now surfaced. In the organization’s radio opening for August 13, they play a shocking segment from Khalid Muhammad, a former spokesman for Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. In it, he advocates extreme violence against white people in general, and specifically gays, lesbians, babies, and women:
We give them 24 hours in South Africa to get out of town by sundown. I say, if they don’t get out of town, we kill the men, we kill the women, we kill the children, we kill the babies, we kill the blind, we kill the cripple, we kill the crazy, we kill the fa**ots, we kill the lesbians, I say god dammit we kill them all.
If they are white kill ‘em all. Why kill the women? Why kill the babies? They are just innocent blue-eyed babies? Because god dammit they are going to grow up one day to rule your babies. Kill them now. Why kill the women in South Africa? I say kill the women because the women are the military manufacturing center. And every nine months they lay down on their backs and reinforcement rolls out from between their legs, so shut down the military manufacturing center by killing the white woman.”
15 comments:
WHAT?? No comments about how we should do a mock drill on facing a treat from the proven hostile black panther party.
Come on Lib's I thought you were supposed to be cerebral types.
No, Dale, you clearly have the upper hand in that department.
sheila, really??? are you proud of the efforts of this blog in the last few days? look at the stories posted on the first page as of this morning, your regression is almost complete. you really should be embarrassed, your effort when lacking intellectual ground simply revert to blatant race baiting and fear mongering of the worst degree. i guess all you have left is the best effort you can put forth to gin up fear and pander to the lowest common denominator.
i assume these will be your new talking points as both of your candidates continue to run from issues like taxes, medicare, budget sequestration, and foreign policy."A"
Ah, well said, A, and a much more thoughtful offering than I submitted. In a way, I feel that's the kind of case I've been building, maybe perhaps nowhere except in my own head, but if you look not only at the kind of stories on this blog but also the charcterizations, the shoddy journalism, there's an argument to be made that this blog really serves no purpose at all. Not that there aren't well-written conservative blogs; it's just that this doesn't seem to be one of them.
There's the undue emphasis on a fringe group, a story which contributes nothing to the political conversations; the one-liner attack on either Biden or the media ("lame streeam media" is a bit middle-schoolish for me to be considered serious thought). I especially like the post about how Davidson College was so horribly out of line for kicking Chik-Fil-A off of campus, but the content of the post itself clearly demonstrated that Davidson College was acting within their own bylaws, and Sheila appeared not to know the the PCUSA church ordains homosexuals - of course they're offended at Chik-Fil-A! Even for opinion pieces, this is bad.
It's the combination of the iorrelevant choices of material and the consistent lack of a coherent argument that, maybe anywhere else, would completely obviate the need for the blog. It would die from lack of hits. But, here, in Lee County, among Lee County conservatives, "Fresh Brewed Conservatism" passes for an alternative to the local media. I mean, if you are a conservative in Lee County you have to choose among several horrible online choices (Founding Fathers, anyone? If I started a blog and started posting as Voltaire, that surely wouldn't make me Voltaire, now would it?!). Just horrible.
One last point, just to highlight yours. Their candidates do run from those issues (although many seem to have the AFP talking points in their back pocket. It is such a shame that Rush Limbaugh, the self-admitted entertainer, is such a might element of source material for these folks; otherise, their opinions about issues might be a bit more lettered), and so does this blog. Which is to say, perhaps, that the very forces which have spawned candidates like Frank Del Palazzo and Kirk Smith are alive and well and in operation in this lukewarm cup of joe. Cheers.
First IT'S MY BLOG. Ok now that we've got that cleared.
What is it that pisses you off Jay? Excuse the language? Is the fact that these dangerous people happen to support the left and the Democrats? And we're showing the readers what the heck is being said?
I'm sorry but I don't see YOUR PRESIDENT saying these guys are wrong. Would they be like his son if he had one?
So be it. Mama always told me...look like a thug, act like a thug, hang around a thug, well you're considered a thug.
Might be something to think about.
I am extremely proud of this blog. And I welcome any comments from anyone at anytime even if I disagree.
Go get in the face of the Black Panthers please. Go. We will be waiting for your report.
Sheila
And shut up trying to put the Lee GOP Candidates in the same blog post as the New Black Panther Party.
Shameful.
Well, I assure you, I have exhaustively argued on this thread and another that the NBPP had nothing to do with any group represented in Lee County. You seem to be the one arguing differently. That "these dangerous people happen to support the left" is no more relevant than the fact that Fred Phelps is a Democrat. You're the one that can't beat this dead horse quite enough.
I have sufficiently responded to your unreasonable demand that the President do your bidding and dignify this group with a public condemnation. This concept seems to complex for you to understand, so I will move on.
Based on your line of reasoning, it is you who are shameful. In the "same blog post as the New Black Panther Party" you "put" yourself, me, Democrats, your readers, The President (whether you like it or not, he is your president, unless you are in this venue repudiating your citizenship), and your own mother. Now, that would be shameful, if any of that meant anything. But, of course, it doesn't. There is such a thing called context, and, in context, I did not link the Lee GOP candidates to the NBPP any more than you linked them to your own mother. The shame is on you for failing to capably read and interpret. If you approach the news the way you approach my posts, it is no wonder your conclusions are so often wrong-headed and empty. I would commend to you "How to Read a Book" by Mortimer Adler. I read it as an undergraduate in 1996, and I believe it would change your life. At the very least, it would likely change your blog.
Yes, it's your blog, and if you want to say ridiculous, unsupported things, you are free to. Upon this we agree.
I'm not pissed off. Forgive me if I sound pissed off. I just happen to believe that words mean things. One of the reasons I left your side is because I picked up my head, looked around and realized that words don't mean that much to your side anymore. You give lip service to it, but here you are, day after day cranking out half-truths, appeals to authority, knocked-down straw men and other logical fallacies as if the bulk of conservative thought is a well-collated presentation of zingers and one-liners, threaded together to say nothing. Failing that, you resort to name calling and personal attack. It's basically the 4th grade.
This does not make national news as this does not demean the terrorist threat of TEA party members, veterans, 2nd Amendment & pro-life supporters, and those that view the Constitution as sacred not a "charter of negative rights" (BHO - 2001 Public Radio Interview - WBEZ FM)!
This election is going to be fun. . .
Jay,
Not to get personal. Ok let's get personal.
PBO has condoned this action by his silence. Isn't that exactly what you would accuse Romney of? Haven't heard a peep out of the ol guy about the NBPP saying they were going to kill white women and babies.
I see you're falling for th trap ... BRAVO..Attack the messenger and forget the message.
Your shoulders must hurt carrying all the water for the left.
No, Sheila, but my sunburn hurts from being outside all day yesterday, registering people to vote. It's the little sacrifices, y'know? It's so hard to be a liberal. I had to learn how to speak French, Spanish, Hindi and dolphin, just to relate; I get bruised up and scratched from hugging all of those trees; in yoga I get all bent all out of shape by the guy next to me, who is so intolerant - which I hate; I mean, constantly feeding the hungry; bleeding out of my heart; shooting hoops with the brothers,and bruising my badonkadonk; saving the endangered snails; and, my Prius is always running out of juice - I'm telling you - it's SO hard. (excerpted from "To Be a Liberal" by Roy Zimmerman)
President Barack Obama. Is it so hard to say? I just laugh a little, remembering how Hannity took some poor news commentator to task for not giving President Bush enough respect, because this poor schlepp called His Holiness "Mister Bush". And, when you call the President PBO, I just have to wonder where you were when that little debate was going on, and where you are now. Hypocrisy is a nasty thing.
You are a walking compendium of logical fallacies. This one is called an argument from silence. The way it goes is this: you need evidence to make an argument. When you say, for example, "Where are my car keys?" And, I say nothing, and then you say, "Aha! I knew that you knew where they were!" You are making an argument based on a complete lack of evidence.
The NBPP says they're gonna kill white women and babies! The president says NOTHING about it! Therefore, the president must CONDONE the statements of the NBPP! Classic argument from silence. A logical fallacy.
There is a kind of racist element to your argument, too. It's like you're saying that because the NBPP is saying they're going to kill *white* women and babies, that's the reason that the president needs to respond. Now, I'm not calling you a racist, so don't jump on me for that; I do agree with the muppets in "Avenue Q" that "everyone's a little bit racist sometimes," and that we must strive to be better than our base natures. But, one should check such impulses when attempting reasonable thought(that is your goal, yes?).
Anyway, your argument is false! It's based on a logical fallacy, and goes nowhere from there. You accuse me of attacking the messenger and forgetting the message. Not so. I am accusing the messenger (you) of making a poor argument based on illogical premises, using salacious material in order to engender a dramatic response from your readers. In other words, you used an attention-getting story as a hook to trick readers into reading your story, which was put together in a way that any first-year philosophy student could pick apart as being poorly argued. (That's an objective statement; I checked, and at both NC State and UNC, "Logic" in both their mathematical and philosophical offerings are 2nd-semester freshman-level offerings.)
Wrong..."The NBPP says they're gonna kill white women and babies! The president says NOTHING about it! Therefore, the president must CONDONE the statements of the NBPP! Classic argument from silence. A logical fallacy."
He sure didn't take long to make it known that Trayvon would be like his son. Knowing, KNOWING this would incite more anger and cause more people to do irrational things. Zimmerman, and I have no clue about guilt/innocense, was treated as a criminal before being found as such.
He should condone the NBPP. Instead his AG, HIS APPOINTED AG lets them off the hook with the bullying they did in the last election. So you bet your butt he should have said something. And if he doesn't, to me he condones it.
Go tell PBO to do something about them, Jay. I won't hold my breath. I think you're all talk and no do.
Heheheeheh... "So, to me, he condones it." All you're saying is that, having been confronted with your logical fallacy, you refuse to repent of it.
"Go tell PBO [sic] to do something about them, Jay." Sure. I'll just call the President up on the liberal line. What fantasy world do you live in? Once again, just because you thnk the President should speak to an issue publicly doesn't mean he should. Personally, I don't think he should dignify this fringe group with public recognition.
"I think you're all talk and no do." Who are you to say that to me? You are a blogger - "all talk" is in the job description! Moreover, You don't know me very well, but when I was working for your side, I was a busy little bee. Seems reasonable that, now that I've left the dark side, I'd still be a busy bee.
As for your AG charge, well, you don't know what you're talking about. The AG did bring suit, but the standard of proof for voter intimidation is extremely high, and the NBPP were not found responsible (see (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243408/new-black-panther-case-br-conservative-dissent-abigail-thernstrom?pg=1#close). I have made this point before. You are up in arms over nothing.
Back to your illogical argumentation. you began your post with one word "Wrong." Ummm.. how so? You disagree that yours is in argument from silence? If so, then you should be prepared to provide evidence that the President supports the NBPP.
Maybe you think your evidence is the President's participation in the Zimmerman case. Of course, that would just be another argument from silence, since the Zimmerman case has nothing to do with the NBPP.
Maybe you think your evidence is the way the AG's office handled the voter intimidation charge in 2008. But, to say that this voter intimidation case is connected to the rant on Black Panther radio 4 years later is a stretch, even for you.
Regardless of whether or not you "bet your butt," you're wrong. Your main argument for believing that President Obama condones the NBPP is that he has not publicly condemned its most recent rant. That is textbook argumentation from silence. You hedge your bet a little when you say "to me he condones it," as if you're saying, "well, this is a subjective thing, and I get to say whatever I want, subjectively, so to me, he condones it." But, obectively speaking, when you make unsuccessful arguments those arguments are said to have failed.
You have failed to make a case that the NBPP is in any way connected to President Obama. You have failed to show that The President in any way supports or condones the opinions or actions of the NBPP.
Subjectively, sure, you can believe whatever you want. But, to make an accusation, you need evidence. To make an argument, you need logic. Your evidence is empty and your logic is false. If you still believe what you're saying here, then you believe it in spite of having no evidence.
Go change your opinion, Sheila. But, I won't hold my breath; I think you're all talk and no think.
I believe you've failed to make the case he doesn't. Sorry Jay not changing my opinion.
We have proof the AG won't do a thing about it.
You better believe if this was a Bush administration you would be all over them. And you'd be right to do so.
So while you're taking up for them...Nice to know we, women and our babies, have this threat.
That is domestic terrorism and our President and AG need to comment on it and make sure the threats are not followed through. When they do, give me a shout if you catch it before I do.
Got to go work now so that I can pay for PBO and Michelle's vacation.
Why don't you close comments and really get me?
I failed to make the case? Dear heart, it was your case to make, not mine. Objectively speaking, you failed to support your case. I didn't have to prove a case; I just had to topple yours. So, no matter how many ways you keep repeating it, your argument from silence just doesn't hold water.
I suppose this is my last post on FBC. In an earlier thread you decided the the best way to win an argument was to close comments. There were no vulgarities, no violations of any rules (in fact, you have no moderation rules, and your previous position was that you did not engage in moderation of any kind), but you cut off comment as the ultimate way of saying, in effect, "You guys, SHUT UP." Well, I've often thought that so many of you would wither under the rules and rigors of a formal debate, and this most recent action of yours was the penultimate offense, a luxury you would never have in a true debate. Either you moderate comments for content or you participate in the debate. You don't do both. But, since YOU do, then I choose to leave.
I get the sense that that's what you all want, anyway - to always be in the company of those with whom you agree. With this, then, I grant your wish. Farewell.
Like I said in reply to your Facebook message to me: At some point the conversation MUST end because we keep reiterating the same jargon over and over.
You will have multiple opportunities to do such.
Your closing comments above sound just like "A"'s when he/she got totally ticked off at the other instance.
I don't see what's wrong with closing at a point. WRAL.com does it. Many others. They moderate and I don't. Can't win for losing with you Jay.
Give me some credit for allowing you to speak openly.
Post a Comment
Comments are welcome as long as they are civil and on the topic.