Pastor Kellyby Pastor George Kelly

Our nation’s recent “Civil Rights” history (1954 to the present) is one in which Americans are both rightly and justly proud of.

The America of the pre Supreme Court’s Brown vs. Board of Education decision of 1954 was one in which America was greatly divided by Race, Gender, and Regional sensibilities.

The late great historian John Hope Franklin wrote that with regards to importance in the field of Civil Rights initiatives that three President’s come to mind:  1.) President Harry S. Truman; 2.) President John F. Kennedy; and 3.) Lyndon B. Johnson.

Dr. Franklin stated that these three Presidents are important because Truman broke through the field of American indifference; Kennedy saw the need for [Federal] action; and Johnson applied that action.  Mr. Franklin felt that if he had to rank these three Presidents’ with regards to importance that he would rank President Kennedy in third place.

All three of the aforementioned Presidents were members of the Democratic Party.

This is extremely impressive when one remembers that the Democratic Party was composed of the Solid South which strongly supported “segregation” and “second-class” citizenship for her people of color.  The Democratic Party came a long way from their “racist” and “segregationist” past.

While John Hope Franklin was known during his lifetime as an expert in the areas of both American history and American Studies, one might be tempted to add one more President to his list and that would be thee name of former President Dwight David Eisenhower.

President Eisenhower was referred to affectionately by the name of “Ike” during his lifetime.

President Eisenhower was a decorated 5-Star General, a former college president (Columbia University), a gentleman farmer (he owned a farm in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania) – and the 34th President of the United States of America.

President Eisenhower lived from 1890 to 1969 and he was a man of “The Greatest Generation” and he was a man of his time.

When Eisenhower was born, America was less than one generation removed from the Civil War.  Furthermore, the world in which Eisenhower inhabited as a young boy/man was one in which Negroes and Whites lived in worlds that with regards to economic attainment and educational pursuits was mostly “segregated and unequal.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower grew to manhood during the timeframe between both World War I and World War II.  As a young man Eisenhower shared many of the prejudices of his day; historians such as the late Stephen Ambrose wrote that one might have stated that “Ike” did not care much for Negroes.  However, to his credit, Ike’s viewpoints on race changed during his lifetime.

Towards the end of the Second World War, Ike was short on manpower and he saw that there were many Negroes soldiers who were not deployed as combatants in the European theater.  General Eisenhower asked these men if they would like to suit up for combat duty; to the General’s delight these men eagerly desired to fight for their nation.

It was events like this one in Europe that began a slow and deliberate process of changing Eisenhower’s view towards Negroes from one of seeing them as second-class citizens to embracing Negroes [Black or African-Americans today] as full and equal citizens.

Once Eisenhower became President, he involved himself in a series of quiet and behind the scenes moves that greatly enhanced the fight for Negro rights and enabled the nascent Civil Rights Movement to pick up speed and momentum.

President Eisenhower appointed former California Governor Earl Warren (R) to the Supreme Court as Chief Justice.  Secondly, President Eisenhower appointed many Southern judges (members of the Republican Party) to both the district and appellate courts.     Much has been written about these judges who were dubbed the title of “Unlikely Heroes”; these judges applied the logic of the Brown decision to the school and domestic jurisdictions within their legal purview.

Eisenhower forced the state of Arkansas to comply with desegregation by sending Troops to force the Democratic Governor Oval Faubus and recalcitrant southern political establishment to admit Negro students to Little Rock’s Central High School in 1957.

An interesting note is that President Eisenhower asked Vice-President Richard Nixon to place a call to the Evangelist Billy Graham to ask the Reverend Billy Graham for his thoughts on this situation.  Dr. Graham was born in Charlotte, North Carolina and as a native of the South he had unique insights into the Southern mindset.

Without blinking an eye, Mr. Graham told the Vice-President that the South MUST NOT be allowed to flaunt the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision which he saw as being both proper and morally just.  Dr. Graham suggested that force be used if necessary.  President Eisenhower surprised with this answer called Graham himself to confirm and he received the same answer from Mr. Graham as was given to Vice-President Nixon.

Finally, Eisenhower continued the process of desegregating our nation’s capital that began with the Truman Administration and which was not fully completed until President Lyndon Johnson handed the keys of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to the newly inaugurated President Richard M. Nixon in 1969.

One might suggest to the late historian John Hope Franklin if he were alive that President Eisenhower deserves a place in the Honor Roll of Presidents that have made significant contributions in the field of Civil Rights.

President Eisenhower, we should all thank you for your capacity for growth, integrity, and for your positive contributions toward American equality.

What do you get when you combine alcohol, instant access to the internet and a double overtime goal by a black member of the Montreal Canadians player who has victimized the Boston Bruins many times over the years?



That’s a pretty bad tweet but it’s only one, it’s not like the whole city was tweeting something like that…

17,000 tweets?

Many racist tweets circulated in the wake of Subban’s game-ending goal. Though this has happened before, the volume of the hateful tweets directed at Subban reached a rather horrifying scale. According to analysis company Influence Communications, the terms Subban and the N-word were used simultaneously on 17,000 tweets Thursday. In fact, the N-word was a trending topic on Twitter in Boston for a time after the game

The weirdest part of the story one report stated that the majority of those tweets were not negative.

The Bruins wasted no time in condemning this:

Bruins President Cam Neely issued a statement calling the tweets “racist” and “classless.” He said they came from an “ignorant group of individuals” who do not reflect the organization.

Ignorant group?  This was trending on twitter in Boston.

Several thoughts come to mind:

I can’t think of worse timing for something like this.

Is there anything that would throw away the sympathy of Boston Strong faster than this, then again as this is the bluest city in the bluest state in the country I don’t know how anxious the MSM will be to push this. 

Both Cloven Bundy & Donald Sterling are elderly people and some have suggested their words were a function of the times they were born in, but I doubt very many of the people tweeting that night were born before I was.

How stupid do you have to be to do something like this on twitter where it is tied to you and all who know you?

I can’t square this in a town where David Ortiz is THE sports hero (As I’ve said before I’d take him at the plate with the game on the line over Yaz or Williams, particularly in the playoffs). 

The saddest thought?  I must conclude from this event that we as a people haven’t changed as much as I would have liked to think


By Fausta Rodriguez Wertz

Before you read this post, keep in mind that an attack on an American embassy or consulate is an attack on American soil. The attack occurred on the 12th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attack.

The Twitchy guys had a field day with The Breakfast Club-like response from former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor:

Bret Baier: According to the emails and the timeline, the CIA circulates new talking points after they remove the mention of al-Qaeda, and then, at 6:21, the White House, you,
Tommy Vietor: Me.
BB: add a line about the administration warning of September 10th, of social media reports calling for demonstrations. True?
TV: I . . . believe so.
BB: Did you also change attacks to demonstrations in the talking points?
TV: Maybe. I don’t really remember.
BB: You don’t remember?
TV: Dude, this was like two years ago.

Let’s interrupt this for a second to raise the issue of the video:
Andrew McCarthy, who convicted the Blind Sheik over the first World Trade Center attack, points out (emphasis added),

In the weeks before September 11, 2012, these jihadists plotted to attack the U.S. embassy in Cairo. In fact, the Blind Sheikh’s son threatened a 1979 Iran-style raid on the embassy: Americans would be taken hostage to ransom for the Blind Sheikh’s release from American prison (he is serving a life sentence). Other jihadists threatened to burn the embassy to the ground — a threat that was reported in the Egyptian press the day before the September 11 “protests.”

The State Department knew there was going to be trouble at the embassy on September 11, the eleventh anniversary of al-Qaeda’s mass-murder of nearly 3,000 Americans. It was well known that things could get very ugly. When they did, it would become very obvious to Americans that President Obama had not “decimated” al-Qaeda as he was claiming on the campaign trail. Even worse, it would be painfully evident that his pro–Muslim Brotherhood policies had actually enhanced al-Qaeda’s capacity to attack the United States in Egypt.

The State Department also knew about the obscure anti-Muslim video. Few Egyptians, if any, had seen or heard about it, but it had been denounced by the Grand Mufti in Cairo on September 9. Still, the stir it caused was minor, at best. As Tom Joscelyn has elaborated, the Cairo rioting was driven by the jihadists who were agitating for the Blind Sheikh’s release and who had been threatening for weeks to raid and torch our embassy. And indeed, they did storm it, replace the American flag with the jihadist black flag, and set fires around the embassy complex.

But back to the Baier-Vietor interview:

10 seconds into the video:
TV: A couple of things: One, I was in the situation room that night, ok?, and we didn’t know where the ambassador was definitively,
BB: Was the President in the situation room?
TV: No, and the fact that your network at one time reported that he watched video feed of the attack as it was ongoing is part of what I think is being innacurate
BB: Let me get to the bottom of that. Where was the President?
TV: In the White House.
1 minute into the video:
BB: Where was the President?
TV: In the White House.

Watch the whole interview:

Only after a series of edits — with various State, White House, and CIA officials massaging the talking points — do the talking points themselves “spontaneously evolve” to include a direct claim that there were demonstrations in Benghazi. Vietor will have you believe “that’s what bureaucrats do all day long.”

The fact remains that

The most serious attack on a US mission since the storming of the country’s embassy in Tehran in 1979 has occurred in a nation that Washington claims to have liberated from tyranny.

A retired U.S. Air Force brigadier general who was on duty at U.S. African Command headquarters in Germany during the Benghazi attacks said today said commanders quickly concluded that the event did not evolve from a protest, but that it was “a hostile military action.” This took place in the height of the 2012 presidential campaign, with the talking points of “Obama killed Bin Laden and al-Qaeda’s on the run.”

Where was Obama? Where was Hillary?

So where were they on the fateful night of September 11? Tommy Vietor–formerly Obama’s van driver, now, apparently, a foreign policy spokesman–says that Obama wasn’t in the situation room. Where was he? Resting up for his big fundraising trip to Las Vegas the next day? And how about Hillary? As Paul wrote earlier this evening, retired Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell testified today that the military should have tried to rescue the besieged Americans in Benghazi. Why didn’t they? They were waiting, he testified, for a request from the State Department that never came.

Now there’s another Benghazi email,

The private, internal communication directly contradicts the message that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney repeated publicly over the course of the next several weeks.

Jay Carney’s now saying those emails aren’t about Benghazi.

More questions: Why was Chris Stevens in Benghazi? Why were requests from an ambassador for additional security denied?

One more question: How did the attackers know the ambassador would be at the consulate in Benghazi rather than at the embassy in Tripoli?

But, hey, nothing to see here. “It’s all a partisan issue,” a phony scandal.

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics and culture at Fausta’s Blog.

Stuart:  Oooh Sheldon, I’m afraid you couldn’t be more wrong.
Sheldon:  More wrong? Wrong is an absolute state and not subject to gradation.
Stuart:  Of course it is. It’s a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable; it’s very wrong to say it’s a suspension bridge.

The Big Bang Theory, The Hofstadter Isotope 2009

One of the things about life is how important perception is, if people believe something they tend to act accordingly regardless of the facts.

The Heart of propaganda is to sell perception and this is what the MSM is all about as Kathy Shadle notes:

“Young people today get their news from The Daily Show!!!”
But as I’ve been saying: The ratings of Tosh.0 are higher than those of network-mates The Daily Show and The Colbert Report combined.
How does that supposedly translate into votes and worldview?

It translates to votes because people THINK it translates to votes, so even if you are a young person who doesn’t watch the Daily show, if you are told by others that this is what the “cool kids” are doing or saying the incentive to follow along is incredible, that’s how it translates into worldview.

But if you are a person who can actually count, who is a cultural conservative who believes in reality that just doesn’t fly:

one reason Rush Limbaugh makes $40 million a year is because he stubbornly points out that one plus one equals two, when everyone else insist it equals 492 or “avocado” or “shut up.”

Alas while Limbaugh has the numbers, John Stewart has the ear of those who are considered the “arbiters of cool” who create the background noise for those who do not pay attention, and while Limbaugh’s audience dwarfs Stewart’s that audience itself is dwarfed itself by the number of Americans whose only exposure to the political world is the background noise that the media generates.

Until we move to change that background noise the “Tomato is  a suspension bridge.” & “1 + 1 = Avocado” crowd will have the edge.

We talked a little about Jay Carney and the implausible explanations concerning the latest Benghazi revelation. Morning Joe tacked the issue and as usual Donnie Deutsch tried to spin this as a loser for Republicans and Joe Scarborough just exploded:

“You see the White House spokesperson lying on national television. You see an ABC Newsperson shocked that he’s lying and treating the press corps like they’re stupid. He says it’s not about Benghazi. Republicans and conservatives have been called fools for a year now for saying this happened. They don’t release it with the original the documents. They finally, reluctantly are forced to release it. Then you have the White House lying about it, saying it’s not about Benghazi, and you’re only reaction is, ‘Hey, Republicans better not overreact to the cover-up?’


Some might argue this is a part of the pattern of the “more conservative” Joe Scarborough in prep for a new political run, others might say that it’s all moot since without a TARDIS the media can’t change the fact that they were harder on Mitt Romney than Barack Obama on Benghazi when it mattered. Still others might note it’s a real welcome change from the normal reaction the media has if anyone questions the administrations veracity:

Given that undeniable truth what the media is doing in even raising the issue, particularly on MSNBC?   They are doing what the media is always doing, creating a battlefield meme for the Democrats, just not for Hillary:

Consider, since the Sept 11th 2012 attacks the media has alternated from ignoring the Benghazi attacks to attacking Mitt Romney over this.  The question becomes why didn’t they ignore this?  One might argue this is a “bombshell” or a smoking gun, but there have been plenty of bombshells and smoking guns on all kinds of issue that the media has happily left to Fox news.  There is  no reason why they could not have continued to ignore this subject.

Also consider that while the left has continued to push the Hillary 2016 meme for months we’ve also heard people in the media say  Hillary Clinton is going to have to address the Benghazi issue while at the same time these same media people haven’t been able to name any actual accomplishment on her part.

So what is going on here?

A clue comes from a post a wrote back in January reminding you that there are plenty of Democrats from Andrew Cuomo to Elizabeth Warren who would like to be president and each of those folks have their own party & media entourages who would follow them into White House.  Add that to the long memories of the Clintons on every slight and you get

… people who have a clear incentive to make sure that the Clintons and their loyalists with long memories do not get a chance to use those memories to “bridgegate” them.

These democrats can’t attack Hillary directly but they can decide to allow an issue the Clintons thought buried comes to the forefront and as I’ve said before:

unlike any GOP candidate these people have relationships with members of the MSM who will be happy to do a favor for a friend and get something like this before the general public and then use it as proof of their lack of bias vs the GOP.

Given that context  while one might look at Donny Deutsch’s words that set Scarborough off:

I want to put up a warning for the Republicans because obviously the Republicans are seizing on this and jumping in. I think this is fools gold for 2016.

and, at first think he is trying to create the talking point for Hillary.

Think again.  I submit and suggest what he was doing was building a strawman that  Joe & Mika were happy to knock down.

Conservatives might think they are finally getting the left to pay attention, but what I suspect what’s happening has more to do with Democrat  presidential ambitions then the media finally deciding to become responsible.

Update: And right on cue…


Don’t Run for President, Hillary. Become a ‘Post-President’ Instead
The political world and her most fervent fans may be exercised about a presidential bid. But she should forget it. If she wins, it’s too much stress for too little return.


And not only does Tina Brown put out this piece the day after the great debate on Morning Joe, but she appears on the show the very next day to pitch it.

I’m shocked SHOCKED.


Olimometer 2.52

It’s May and we are coming off the three worst months we have seen around here.

This blog exists as a full time endeavor thanks to your support. The reporting, the commentary and the nine magnificent seven writers are all made possible because you, the reader choose to support it.

There are 31 days in May, our goal is $1465 to pay the writers & provide a paycheck a Mere $47.25 a day.

Two tip jar hitters each day at $25 would do it.

If you think the work we do here for the conservative movement is worth it, please consider hitting DaTipJar below.

Naturally once our monthly goal is made these solicitations will disappear till the next month but once we get 61 more subscribers  at $20 a month the goal will be covered for a full year and this pitch will disappear until 2015. Consider the lineup you get for this price, in addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit) and Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Sunday  Linda Szugyi (No one of any import) on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week. If that’s not worth $20 a month I’d like to know what is?