Posts Tagged ‘Resentment’

Social Injustice Because Someone Succeeds?

by Rev. Austin Miles on Monday, September 16th, 2013

This is article 62 of 82 in the topic Redistribution of wealth/socialism

Social Justice means that people who work and succeed must accept that they are selfish and be compelled to share their wealth with those who do not. It is social injustice for anyone to feel inferior and not be a part of another person’s success. Very effective, skillful misuse of words.

There are many ministers who are far better preachers than this writer. There are writers whose abilities place them far above others.

There are those who are certainly better looking and popular. And many who live in more elaborate houses and drive fancier cars.

Teenagers are the top contenders for social injustice classification for all of the above. They become withdrawn, silently angry and resentful for their own lack of standing or success.

Just being around those who are thought of as superior, or seen as someone with a mental strength not possessed by others, can be intimidating to those who find themselves in their presence. The resentment begins to boil.

That would be easy to understand—to feel inferior in the shadow of another person’s strength and skills, followed by the admiration they receive from others, while the one observing accepts the role of ‘wall-flower.’  So what’s the use of even trying? One could never match that. Really?

Preaching is an art form. This chaplain has never professed to be a preacher but does not think it injustice because others are fantastic behind the pulpit, which exceeds the abilities of this minister. But God has dealt with me differently with different skills and approaches, with an effective speaking ability to occupy the space entrusted by Him to these hands.  I admire those who give dynamite sermons and whose appearances on TV are star quality. Admire yes, but never trying to compete.

There are writers, whose skills are so high that I would not even attempt to equal them. Authors like the late Irving Stone and present day movie and concert critic, Richard Scheinin of the Contra Costa Times.

Scheinin is masterful in his knowledge of his subject and astonishing in his refreshing use of words, such as his review of “Bolero” conducted by Michael Tilson Thomas of The San Francisco Symphony.

He described a lively violin portion as ‘like a riot of fire flies.” He stated how the conductor subtly danced with his shoulders as the intensity of the piece began to build.

But it is not considered ‘social injustice’ for that writer to be more talented than this one. We should not compare ourselves to others or try to compete, but rather celebrate individual giftings.

The term, Social Justice, is one framed by Karl Marx and the entire Socialist-Communist Party for the purpose of causing national unrest and instability by turning groups of people against other groups of people. As that destabilization takes hold, weakening the population, the Czars prepare to move in to take over. That is precisely the agenda and exactly what is happening today.

This morning, I saw a young black man without a shirt, shuffle-walking across a street, posture stooped, eyes darting in all directions. His body language poured out persecution, rejection, inferiority and anger at the people on the streets and in the cars around him.

Click to continue reading “Social Injustice Because Someone Succeeds?”
Go straight to Post

Confessions: Obama Thinks He’d Fit in Better in Europe

by Doug Powers on Wednesday, September 4th, 2013

This is article 905 of 1015 in the topic Obama

Obama, speaking in Sweden today, proved again that he is absolutely incapable of going overseas without bashing the country of which he’s president:

“You know, I have to say that if I were here in Europe, I’d probably be considered right in the middle, maybe center-left, maybe center-right, depending on the country. In the United States, sometimes the names I’m called are quite different,” Obama said at a joint press conference.

Then stay there. Problem solved.

Watch the video below. It comes off more like a confession in a therapy session than an American president’s statement in a foreign country. This is a man harboring a lot of resentment:

Go straight to Post

Eric Holder’s Stand Your Ground Squirrel

by Michelle Malkin on Thursday, July 18th, 2013

This is article 50 of 61 in the topic Courts


Eric Holder’s Stand Your Ground Squirrel
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2013

Welcome to the Obama administration’s cringe-inducing non sequitur of the week. On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder continued stoking the fires of racial resentment over a Florida jury’s acquittal of George Zimmerman. In an address to NAACP leaders, who are demanding federal intervention, Holder attacked Stand Your Ground self-defense laws.

All together now: Squirrel!

“Separate and apart from the (Trayvon Martin) case that has drawn the nation’s attention, it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods,” Holder opined. He then baselessly claimed that such laws are creating “more violence than they prevent” and used his platform to promote citizens’ “duty to retreat.”

So, what exactly do Stand Your Ground laws have to do with Zimmerman and Martin? Absolutely nothing, of course. Outside your own home, common principles of self-defense dictate that unless you have reasonable fear of deadly force or harm, you must flee if possible rather than use deadly force. But a “duty to retreat” rests on the ability to retreat. And “duty to retreat” was irrelevant in Zimmerman’s case because — pinned to the ground with Martin on top of him, bashing his head on the concrete — he was unable to retreat.

This didn’t stop the NAACP crowd from cheering their heads off when Holder tossed out his red meat. Holder’s racial-grievance-mongering agenda has also been bolstered by media propaganda outlets, who’ve been dutifully bashing Stand Your Ground regardless of the facts.

The New York Times, for example, falsely claimed in an editorial preceding Holder’s speech that the jury “reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of the now-notorious Stand Your Ground provision in Florida’s self-defense law.” Rolling Stone made a similarly inflammatory claim, calling Martin a “victim of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.”

All nonsense. The jury received standard instructions. Zimmerman did not invoke the Stand Your Ground provision. Zimmerman later waived his right to a pretrial immunity hearing under the Stand Your Ground procedures.

And as National Review’s Sterling Beard points out, “The only time Stand Your Ground came up during the trial proper was when a prosecution witness stated that he’d taught a class Zimmerman had attended that covered Stand Your Ground.”

Even the prosecution rejects the cynical attempt to tie Martin’s death to Stand Your Ground. Prosecutor John Guy couldn’t have made it clearer during the trial: “This case is not about standing your ground.” During their post-trial press conference, as conservative talk show host Victoria Taft first noted, a Miami Herald reporter asked the prosecution team specifically whether Stand Your Ground “affected the facts in this case and whether this case could have been won, perhaps, pre the changes in the law.”

Prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda replied: “You know, self-defense has existed for a long time. And we’ve dealt with it in Jackson for a long time. We’ve tried a lot of self-defense cases; I’ve personally tried 10-15 self-defense cases. They’re tough cases, but we accept it so … the law really hasn’t changed all that much. Stand Your Ground was a big thing, but really the law hasn’t changed.

Click to continue reading “Eric Holder’s Stand Your Ground Squirrel”
Go straight to Post

Obama, Maybe Catholicism is “Divisive” — and Maybe That’s Good

by Selwyn Duke on Saturday, June 22nd, 2013

This is article 199 of 259 in the topic Education

954801_blogIt isn’t always true that “united we stand.” United in the wrong things we can fall, and sometimes, for some to stand on principle, we must stand divided.

Barack Obama is currently taking some heat for what has been characterized as a shot at Catholic education. While in Northern Ireland for the G8 summit recently, Obama spoke to an audience of approximately 2,000 students at Belfast’s Waterfront hall and said, “If towns remain divided — if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden — that too encourages division and discourages cooperation.” Now, it should be mentioned here why this is considered an attack on Catholic education. While there are Protestant schools in NI, the government school system is mainly Protestant while most Catholic children attend schools run by the Catholic Church. And you can bet that if Obama were authoring an end to school segregation in NI, his solution would not be to eliminate the government schools and have everyone attend the Catholic ones.

Yet I won’t criticize Obama here the way some have. After all, there is a controversy in the U.K. over NI’s school “segregation,” a situation that sees more than 90 percent of children in NI attending separate schools. So, in fairness, Obama’s writers were likely just echoing the politically correct, Kumbaya sentiments of the U.K. press. Instead, I’d like to pose a question that gets at a deeper issue:

What is the real source and nature of division?

Since Catholicism is thought part of some negative division here, perhaps we should start with the words of Christianity’s founder. Jesus said in Luke:

Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation. For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against his father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother, the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

So is division really a bad thing? Or is it that it’s an inevitable thing given man’s nature? Or it is that division shouldn’t be the main focus at all?

We always hear things such as “So-and-so is very divisive,” as if it can be some unilateral phenomenon. But the individual certainly wouldn’t be divisive were he the only man on Earth; it takes two to tango. There is division when there is disagreement, and eliminating it would be as simple as one side deciding to agree with the other.

Nonetheless, the blame for division is almost invariably placed on just one side — usually that which is in the minority or lacks clout. Thus, I’m sure Galileo was considered divisive when he advanced Copernican heliocentrism and opposed the long-used and seemingly tried and true Aristotelian system. The abolitionists were considered divisive when they proposed an end to the age-old institution of slavery. I’m sure the early Christians were considered divisive when they opposed the brutality of the Roman arena. And we could cite any number of other examples from history.

Click to continue reading “Obama, Maybe Catholicism is “Divisive” — and Maybe That’s Good”
Go straight to Post

President Obama is not like any American, or even politician, I have ever know or have seen …

by Stephen Levine on Tuesday, May 28th, 2013

This is article 868 of 1015 in the topic Obama

Every once in a while, someone sends me an e-mail containing an article that resonates as a truthful exposition of what I also believe to be true. In many cases, stated far more eloquently and succinctly than similar expositions. Therefore, it is with the written permission of the author, Maureen Scott, and the website, that I offer the following re-print article to my readers.

The Architect of Destruction

By Maureen Scott

“Obama comes from a community organizer background where it’s us against them. But that’s not who we are. And that’s not the position the leader of our Nation should take.”
– Dr. Benjamin Carson
Obama appears to be a tormented man who is filled with resentment, anger, and disdain for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps because, as a child, he grew up around family members and mentors who instilled him with an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. That bitterness seems not to have left him.

It is not the color of his skin that is a problem – for anyone in America. Rather it is the blackness that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there should be abiding pride and love for this country.

Think: Have we ever heard Obama speak lovingly of the U.S. or its people, with deep appreciation and genuine respect for our history, our customs, our sufferings and our blessings? Has he ever revealed that, like most patriotic Americans, he gets “goose bumps” when a band plays “The Star Spangled Banner,” or sheds a tear when he hears a beautiful rendition of “America the Beautiful?” Does his heart burst with pride when millions of American flags wave on a National holiday – or is he moved to sadness and reflection when someone plays “taps” on a trumpet? Has he ever felt the depth of our admiration of the military, as lovers of those who keep America free feel when soldiers march by? It is doubtful – because Obama did not grow up sharing our experiences or our values. He did not sit at the knee of a grandfather or uncle who showed his medals and told of the bravery of his fellow troops as they fought and tramped through foreign lands sacrificing for a cause greater than their own lives. He didn’t have grandparents who told stories of suffering and then coming to America, penniless, and the opportunities they had for building a business and life for their children.

Away from this country as a young child, Obama didn’t delight in being part of America and its greatness. He wasn’t singing our patriotic songs in kindergarten, or standing on the roadside for a holiday parade and eating a hot dog, or lighting sparklers around a campfire on July 4th as fireworks exploded over head, or placing flags on the gravesites of fallen and beloved American heroes.

Rather Obama was separated from all of these experiences. He doesn’t really understand us and what it means to be an American. He is void of the basic emotions that most feel regarding this country and is insensitive to the instinctive pride we have in our national heritage.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Romney’s excellent speech (with video links)

by Michelle Malkin on Tuesday, July 17th, 2012

This is article 781 of 1298 in the topic 2012 Elections

I’ve been tough on Mitt Romney and leaned hard on his campaign to take the gloves off, get in the fighting spirit, and push back against Obama narratives.

Today in Irwin, Pennsylvania, Romney delivered.

The Right Scoop has both excerpts and full speech video clips.

Watch here.

As I noted on Twitter during the speech earlier this afternoon, Romney impressed with both the substance and the delivery of his rallying cry on behalf of individual achievement and free enterprise. He was energetic and passionate.

I believed in what he was selling: A vision for restoring American greatness and defending success.

Obama’s inability to hide his ideological contempt for entrepreneurs & individual success has helped Romney self-actualize.

If he gives this speech with the same zeal and optimism from now until November — offering a clear, unapologetic contrast to Barack Obama’s bitter politics of resentment, class warfare, and entitlement, Mitt Romney will win.


More praise for Romney’s speech here.

Go straight to Post

Another Black History Month: the left’s favorite time of the year

by Lloyd Marcus on Friday, February 3rd, 2012

This is article 56 of 166 in the topic Racism

Alas, another Black History Month, or as the left likes to view it, their annual “Opportunity To Exploit Race Month.” It is the month in which liberals attempt to convince us that race relations in America have progressed very little since the days of police unleashing dogs on civil rights activists.

Rather than presenting a balanced honest look at Black History, leftist school teachers and the media say America is still racist and whites should feel eternally guilty. Also included in the left’s message is that blacks must continue to vote monolithic for Democrats in order to keep rich white Republican racists at bay. Yes, for the most part, Black History Month is a propaganda tool of the Democratic party.

Black history is woven with remarkable blacks who strove for excellence and achieved major success. Knowledge of such black pioneers would inspire black youths and help them realize how blessed they are to be born in America; the greatest land of opportunity on the planet.

America is unique in that you can grow beyond your family history and humble beginnings. Most folks around the world are destine to walk in their parents foot steps. If your dad was a peasant worker, you will be a peasant worker.

In American, countless hugely successful blacks came from humble beginnings. This is why it so offends me to hear black politicians and the media constantly telling blacks that they are not functioning in an equal playing field. Such rhetoric inspires resentment, hopelessness and a “why should I try” attitude in black youths. Consequently, 70% of black youths drop out of high school and many enter a life of crime. These self serving black politicians are selling their lie to black America solely for political reasons; to keep blacks voting for their supposed saviors and avengers, the democrats.

Allow me to address this “equal playing field” trap. Folks, “nothing” in life is equal or totally fair. I am sorry, but some folks are born thin and beautiful. In some cases, they may have an advantage. But in regards to minorities not having opportunity, there is not enough racism in America today to stop anyone from achieving anything. To blacks who “want” to believe America is systematically keeping them down, I say stop whining, making excuses, get up off of your butt and go for your dreams.

It drives me crazy hearing black and white liberal intellectuals discussing the problems in the black community without any references to blacks taking personal responsibility for their behavior/choices. Every solution offered by the left to deal with urban black issues revolve around more taxpayer spending and more failed government programs. And no discussion of problems in the black community would be complete without including the classic excuse “it’s the white man’s fault,” thrown in for good measure.

Now, I know some blacks reading this article will respond like a black radio show host did while interviewing me, “Sounds like you don’t like your own people.” Wrong! I say these things because as a Christian, I love, not just blacks, but all people. And I want what is best for them.

Click to continue reading “Another Black History Month: the left’s favorite time of the year”
Go straight to Post

Celebrating Failure!

by Jason Whitman on Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

This is article 27 of 49 in the topic Budgets

Today marks the 1000th day since the Senate Democrats last passed a budget. A lot can happen in 1000 days, and Heritage has produced an excellent must-see video with that very theme.

The true irony is the fact that this date falls on the same day as the president’s State of the Union Address. He has already made it clear he intends to use his SOTU speech to press the Democrats message of class warfare and resentment. The Democrats continue to celebrate failure with no regard to the course of the Nation.

Go straight to Post


by Burt Prelutsky on Thursday, January 12th, 2012

This is article 465 of 1298 in the topic 2012 Elections

by BurtPrelutsky

There seem to be two kinds of Americans. There are those who wish this nation could once again be what it used to be, a beacon for those who cherished freedom and liberty. Then there are those who look at America and wish it could be more like Cuba, of all places. Or if not Cuba, perhaps Spain or Mexico or Venezuela, with maybe just a smidgen of Iran or Egypt or the West Bank tossed in, and a dash of the Occupy Wall Street movement. In short, they prefer a swamp to a melting pot.

I can’t pretend to understand those on the Left. I don’t know why they think the way they do. Once I was being interviewed on a radio show and the host asked me if I was proud to be an American. I shocked him, and even myself a little, when I said I wasn’t. I told him that I was proud of my various grandparents, proud that they had the gumption to make their way across a continent and an ocean to get here. But what did I have to be proud of? I was simply handed a gift. I was just lucky. I won the big lottery. I got to be born an American. What I can’t fathom is why all those liberals, progressives and run-of-the-mill Democrats, don’t seem to share my sense of gratitude, harboring only resentment.

RINO = Republican In Name Only

I also have no idea why they continue to ballyhoo Barack Obama. He’s a hypocrite, a liar and he’s supremely arrogant. If he were only your neighbor, he’d be so obnoxious, you’d consider moving. But here he is the commander-in-chief, and these louts carry on as if the sun shines out of his backside.

His view of America is a place where the dumbest, the laziest and the least grateful, are entitled to everything that the smartest, most decent, hardest-working individuals have. Redistribution of wealth has a nice, uplifting tone to it, but when you cut through the slag, it comes down to taking by force what taxpaying, law-abiding people have and handing it over to those who want it.

It strikes me as pretty obvious that when you pander to those whose most over-riding emotion is envy, you destroy a nation. It is Obama’s game plan now, just as it was in 2008 . Unlike any other president, Obama hopes to conquer by dividing blacks and whites, rich and poor, union members and the rest of us. It’s atypical in America, but it is business as usual in every communist country that has ever existed.

If Obama were to be re-elected, it would be the death knell for this country. Not because of any specific thing he would accomplish over the next four years, although he would very likely have the opportunity to re-create the Supreme Court in his own distorted image, but because of what his re-election would say about us.

Were he to win in November, it would prove that less than 250 years after the creation of this republic by such giants as Washington, Madison, Adams, Franklin and Jefferson, the majority of Americans are prepared to hand the country over to moral and intellectual pygmies.

Click to continue reading “STILL THE LAND OF THE FREE?”
Go straight to Post

Democrat hold up Obama Appeals court nominee

by John Lott on Friday, January 6th, 2012

This is article 28 of 118 in the topic Obama Appointments

A normally fast confirmation for an Obama nominee is being held up by a fellow Democrat. From the NY Times:

When a Democratic president nominates a federal judge from a state with two Democratic senators — and the Senate itself is controlled by Democrats — a speedy confirmation hearing typically follows.

But in an unusual case of intraparty defiance, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey is holding up President Obama’s nomination of a judge to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the only time a Democrat has tried to block one of Mr. Obama’s judicial nominees.

Mr. Menendez would not comment. But the nominee, Patty Shwartz, has been in a relationship for more than two decades with the head of the public corruption unit for New Jersey’s federal prosecutor. And that unit investigated the senator during his 2006 election fight, an inquiry Mr. Menendez has long contended was politically motivated. . . . .

But the connection has led lawyers and judges in the state to speculate that Mr. Menendez is acting out of resentment, rather than any concern about Judge Shwartz’s qualifications. . . . .

Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin