Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Tuesday, 12 April 2011

How's that Hope and Change working out for y'all?

Following US President Barak Obama's announcement that he will be seeking re-election in 2012, the Clarice Fledman at the American thinker published an article entitled The Story of O (Icarus, not Pegasus), which included a number of suggestions from friends as to the campaign slogans which Obama might chose this time round, these were:

Change We Need, and That I Promised Four Years Ago, Except in the Areas Where I Continued Bush's Policies, or Where Through No Fault of My Own Things Got Worse, Because Let's Face It Not All Change is For the Better - Not That You Should Dwell
If You Vote For Me Only Once You're a Racist

I Am Better Off Than I Was Four Years Ago

We Are The BS We've Been Waiting For"

"Hope You Didn't Expect Change" or

"Keep The Change (We Want Your Folding Stuff)".

It's just too bad that "The Violent Torpedo of Truth" has been taken.

I Finally Got Some of That Experience You Were Bitching About

You Have My Word On It: Three Wars, Tops

A Second Term Will Make a Great Topic For My 4th Autobiography

Confident Smugness For An Uncertain World

Give Me a Second Chance, And I'll Prove You Are Worthy of Me

No Matter What Crisis I Cause, I Will Remain Serenely Above It

You Can't Fool All the People All The Time, So Shoot For 50.1%

Do readers have any further suggestions they could add to the list?

___________
Source

Sunday, 20 March 2011

Remember when ...............?

.. Barry O popped over to Oslo to pick up his prize for high expectations?

Saturday, 6 November 2010

Forward to 2012

My cautionary posting last weekend was clearly too pessimistic and probably influenced by the disappointment which accompanied the UK General election back in May. Likewise, some of the blog posts I read on Monday and Tuesday, predicting a landslide win of in excess of 100 house seats and capture of the senate were overly optimistic. That was not going to happen, at least not yet.

These are early days and although a significant number of people have begun to wake up, many more still continue to slumber. The odd folks of Delaware, for instance, continue to stagger forward like cheerful zombies, obediently voting the way CNN tells them to, and I have no idea what the Nevada voters must have been smoking (or sniffing).

Clearly not all of which was hoped for was achieved, and certain results, such as Nevada and possibly Alaska leave the controlled media a straw to cling to and a half truth they can use to downplay the strength of the Tea Party. Meanwhile the significance of any Tea Party failure will be exaggerated. Christine O’Donnell, defeated by the treachery of Karl Rove, one of the most vicious media campaigns since those launched against first Hillary Clinton and then Sarah Palin in 2008, and a few unwise statements in her youth, will also continue to be unfairly derided in the manner the MSM reserve for those victims they successfully brought down.

However, this remains a very satisfactory outcome in terms of where it places the protagonists in advance of the election in 2012.

Obama has lost his magic and has been seriously wounded and will almost certainly never regain his, one time, Messiah like status. He has been humiliated and a break has been placed on his plans, most of which may now never be achieved. However, the fact that the Democrats have retained a fingernail’s grip on control of the senate mean that they, and Obama will still have to take responsibility for whatever goes wrong and they will not be able to blame the Republicans for their failings with any credibility.

That is not to say they will not try.

The Republicans on the other hand have demonstrated that they are in the ascendancy, which will both motivate their supporters and boost their images as potential winners, whist the Democrats struggle to play down the worst losses in over 60 years.

Failing some unforeseeable disaster, all the Republicans need to do is behave themselves and pick the right contender to run in 2012. That of course will be the challenge, as a suitable Republican candidate is not obvious from the choices currently available.

Some will I am sure encourage the excellent Ron Paul to have another go, but his age and the narrowness of his platform seriously undermine his prospects to my way of thinking. Whereas his son Rand, for all his charisma is not yet ready (Conservatives should not make the mistake the left did, when they put Obama forward before he was ready).

Sadly, in my view, supporting a Sarah Palin candidacy at this time would be a huge risk. For all the lady’s popularity with the Right, and her obvious qualities, unfair as it may seems, she carries too many wounds from the vicious media assaults upon her over the last two and a half years and there is insufficient time for those wounds to heal. Would the American people really elect into power someone who has been the butt of so many jokes, who has been impersonated by so many bad comedians and had their head photoshopped into so much pornography?

I do not know the answer to that question, except that it is too great a risk to take at this point in the fight back. It is not fair, but when the left set out to vilify someone they are vile, they are ruthless and sadly they are effective.

In fact, and much as I hate to say this, I do not believe the Right should choose a female candidate for 2012. Only Conservatives love strong women, the left are far too sexist to forgive any woman who dares to step beyond the limited roles (victim, liberal earth mother or man hating feminist) which Political Correctness permits them to play and they will hunt down and destroy any woman who tries to perform a different role or who stands in the way a preferred , ethnic minority, candidate.

There are few things more blood thirsty and vicious than the left in pursuit of a woman who dares to be conservative, and the public, with their taste for female hate figures will be only to willing to believe what they are told (as they did with Palin).

I look forward to the day America has a conservative female president, at 46, and 54 respectively, in six or ten years time, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann could be that President, but 2012 is too soon and too important to take a risk.

Finding the right candidate is key, not only to achieving victory in 2012 but also to sustaining power. I can't see the right candidate just yet, lets hope he steps forward soon.

Meanwhile, we can take a moment to enjoy a very encouraging start.

Sunday, 31 October 2010

Time for America to prove its enemies wrong

It has long been popular amongst left wing commentators and intellectuals both in Europe within the liberal rim of America, to view the average (white) American, that is to say those living in the bible belt or wider, “fly over” states as being dumb. The liberal media encourages us to laugh like drains at film of Americans questioned randomly in the street, who are unable to identify the location of Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Australia on the map, or who have no idea what country they celebrate becoming independent from on the 4th of July.

The alleged stupidity, racism and general lack of liberal values lurking at America's red heart simultaneously provides the opinion forming Left with both an unending source of hilarity and an army of stereotypes upon which to hang their ideological agendas.

In Europe, we have long become accustomed to watching documentaries filmed in places like Kentucky or Texas, where the locals, who speak in that slow drawl which the media long ago educated us to associate with ignorance and bigotry, have their comments and responses to questions edited and distorted, so that the politically correct interviewer, nodding conspiratorially at the camera, can expose them as ill educated, xenophobic, or, if the narrative requires it, as irredeemably hateful.

The American accent, together with the white South African accent, the German accent and to a lesser extent the Australian are the only accents we remain permitted to mock, and only the American, German and Afrikaner may now (together with upper class English) be reviled.

This, of course, only applies to white people who speak with American, South African or German accents. Colour, plays a huge role in how we have been conditioned to view an accent. For instance, the Southern Belle accent, hailing from places such as Georgia, Alabama and the Carolinas when spoken by a white woman evokes in out Pavlovian minds the frivolous arrogance of privilege, inbred racism, and of course stupidity. Yet, let that same musical voice come from the lips of a black woman and we hear poetry and the deep dignified echoes of a noble soul, perfected so successfully by Maya Angelou, and aspired to somewhat less successfully by Chicago born UK resident Bonnie Greer.

Of course it is a conditioned view, an attitude created by a thousand bad movies and though the constant propaganda pumped into our lives through the Stasi approved thought control device in the corner of most living rooms.

How could a country of stupid people become the richest, the most powerful and most successful nation in the world. Asia and Africa are larger in terms of land mass and population, Africa has more in terms of natural resources and, beneath the Sahara its land is no less fertile, yet for all the millennia of world history Europe alone rivals what America achieved in just four centuries (slightly more than two as an independent nation).

America's enemies point to its military power as the cause of America's greatness, but which came first, and was it military might which invented the aeroplane, the steamboat, the microprocessor, the pacemaker, air conditioning(1), a cure for polio, and put the first man on the moon?. It was not military might which achieved those, and so many other great advances from which we all benefit. It was the American people who achieved them together with the prosperity and comfort which they were able to extend to most of their population and who made the American dream a global aspiration by 1950.

The people who built America were not dumb, and they were not the hicks and hill billies which the obnoxious Bill Maher claims half his country men to be

However, from time to time, even the brightest of people can do some very dumb things, and in November 2008 the American people did something so dumb that it goes some considerable way towards proving true much of what their left wing critics say about them. Except that in this instance, their critics would not have considered what they did to be dumb.

In November 2008, the American people allowed a swooning media to persuade them into voting into the most powerful position on the planet a man with virtually no relevant experience, of whom they knew virtually nothing other than that he attended a fanatically racist church and had some very dubious associations. They entrusted the power to destroy the planet to a man who's career consisted of brief dalliance with the law, a period as a Chicago community organiser and an incomplete term in the US senate, where he had achieved nothing other than a reputation as the “most liberal” senator with one of the worst voting records.

Most people who voted for Barrack Obama knew absolutely nothing about him before he ran for president. The blacks voted for him because he was black, and, to some degree, so too did the whites, they voted for a black man to prove to themselves they were not racist, one of the worst sins in modern America, and because they wanted to believe a promise he never fully quantified.

It is now two year on, and it would take either a moron or a fully committed socialist not to realise what a terrible mistake they made. Not only is Obama clearly not up to the job but his every act and policy runs contrary to the best interests of the Average American and to the future of their nation.

In two day's time those same average Americans go to the polls when they have the opportunity to deliver a verdict on the current administration, and also to do something to make up for the damaging mistake they made in 2008. The polls suggest that the result may be devastating for the president and for his party.

However, nothing is certain until it is done, and there remains the possibility that the American electorate will prove that they are, after all, as dumb as their cynical European enemies and home grown liberal traitors always claimed they were. If their enemies are right, then on Tuesday the American voters could show that the greatness which was America has now been brainwashed and dumbed down to the point where they no longer have either the ability, or the will to save themselves.

There are troubling indicators, a US correspondent of mine wrote at the weekend, incredulous at the fact that some houses still proudly displayed Democrat signs. Commentators on TV have suggested that, despite how little attention the current Administration has paid to the nation's security, the latest security alert could influence events in the Democrat's favour, if Obama pretends to be tough enough.

Yesterday an estimated 150,000 people (or 215,000 if you believe the US media, which some dumb people still do) attended Jon Stewart's “Give Barry a second chance he might get better” rally, menacingly entitled “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear", somehow missing the soviet style implication that anyone who does not agree with the ruling administration must necessarily be insane.

Things could go either way, and the presidents colour, and voter racism, may influence events, but not in the way the liars in the press pretend. We must never underestimate quite how racist the black and Latino electorate in America are or how strongly most white voters wish not to be racist. Whatever, their reasons for voting, they know they are delivering a verdict on America's first black president, can they deliver that verdict or will Obama's colour save him at the last moment?.

In the same way as we have been brainwashed about Americans, they also have been brainwashed about themselves. These are, alter all, a people who still believe that racism is a white on black affair, despite all the evidence around them, that lie could still win the day.

That fact, more than the inevitable mass voter fraud by the Democrats and lies the media will surely tell is the greatest threat in Tuesday's election.

America faces the greatest test they have faced in generations will they finally act against the forces determined to destroy them or is all too late?. In just over 48 hours we will know if America can still be saved, or if its people truly are as stupid as their enemies always said they were.


________________________________

(1) Contrary to the Black Inventions Myth that an African American called Frederick Jones invented air conditioning in 1949, in fact a white man Dr. Willis Carrier built the first machine to control both the temperature and humidity of indoor air. He received the first of many patents in 1906 (US patent #808897, for the "Apparatus for Treating Air"). In 1911 he published the formulae that became the scientific basis for air conditioning design, and four years later formed the Carrier Engineering Corporation to develop and manufacture AC systems.

Friday, 29 October 2010

A Danger for America

In the lead up to next Tuesday's Mid Term elections in the USA, American readers might wish to take note of this cautionary posting at The American Thinker.

The Democrats' Final Recourse: Massive Vote Fraud
By Selwyn Duke

The reports are rolling in from all over the country. A Craven County, NC resident attempts to vote a straight Republican ticket, but his choices come up straight Democrat four times, despite receiving assistance from poll workers. In NC's Lenoir County, registered Democrat Ervin Norville also tries to vote straight Republican but finds that his ballot has the names of several Democrat candidates selected. Boulder City, NV resident Joyce Ferrara says that when she and several others went to vote for Sharon Angle, they found that Senator Harry Reid's name was already checked off. In Dallas County, TX's congressional district 30, Democrat Eddie Bernice Johnson's name was the only one on the ballot in a few locations (no, she isn't running unopposed). And some states have been late in mailing out military absentee ballots, whose recipients, interestingly, are known for their Republican leanings.

These happenings are generally referred to as "mistakes" and "glitches," but if that's all they are, then we're witnessing a truly historic anomaly. Because either the mainstream media is now suppressing stories of mistakes and glitches benefiting Republicans, or the laws of probability have suddenly been rescinded and tossed coins are coming up donkey tails every time. Welcome to American elections, Venezuelan style.

Click here to continue reading at the American Thinker

Saturday, 16 October 2010

Friday, 3 September 2010

The Lakin Case - Update

Unsurprisingly an army judge has refused the defence request for sight of documentation which might reveal evidence or otherwise of President Obama's eligibility in the court martial of Lieutenant Colonel Terrance Lakin. As I explained in a previous posting Lakin has refused to obey orders to deploy to Afghanistan until President Obama proves that he is eligible to serve as President.

Lakin's defence had asked to see copies of Obama's school records, which are amongst the library of documentation which the president is withholding abd also a deposition from Officials in Hawaii who claim to have seen Obama's original birth Certificate.

The judge in a judgment so disingenuous it would be laughable were it not so contemptible stated that the eligibility of Lakin's commander in chief is irrelevant to Lakin's court martial.

This is despite the fact that retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney sent a sworn affidavit to the Court Martial supporting Lakin’s motions that seek the president’s birth and school records.

The judgment was not surprising as it is becoming clear that there is no judge in America with the honour or courage to allow any defendant or plaintive to require the US president to prove his eligibility.

The dishonesty of the reporting of this case continues in this MSNBC report which includes the lie that "Hawaiian officials say they have records proving Obama was born there". Hawaiian officials have said no such thing, they have only stated that there is a birth certificate on file, they have NOT stated what it proves.

However, only a fool would expect honest reporting of this case in the Believer Media.

Wednesday, 1 September 2010

Blurring the truth - Part 1

Some while ago I posted a video of Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin explaining his reasons for refusing to be deployed to Afghanistan until US President Barrack Obama provide proof that he is eligible to serve in the role of president. That is to say, proves that he is a natural born citizen of America, as required by the US Constitution.

Lakin contends that, if Obama is not eligible to be president, then he does not have the legal authority to order soldiers to go to war, and in all likelihood kill people.

If that were the case then he, Lakin could be guilty of a criminal act, arguably a war crime in breach of international law were he to obey those orders.

A hearing is scheduled in Lakin's court-martial case this Thursday at which a ruling is expected on defense requests for the release of some of the documents which the president has so far withheld.

When posting the video, I did not express any personal view as to the merits of Lt. Col Lakin's argument, other than to say that he was a brave and honourable man, and certainly a bigger man than the rag taggle troop of media whores and pundits who are currently attacking him on tawdry, pretend news, sites such as the congenitally dishonest CNN and the progressively unwatchable MSNBC.

The posting received quite a lively response, including a number of comments from from people who took the view that Lt. Col Lakin's case had no merit, he was either deluded, racist or a coward, that Obama had already proved he was born in the US state of Hawaii and therefore had no case to answer.

The comments can be read by clicking here, and hope I am not misquoting anyone, however, as I read it the arguments were widely as follows:
  • Obama has produced an official and legally binding document confirming that he was born in Hawaii
  • Hawaiian officials have verified Obama was born in Hawaii
  • This document has been verified by various independent non-political websites, such as FactCheck.org and Snopes.com
  • In 1961, two Hawaiian newspapers carried announcements of baby Obama's birth
  • A conspiracy of the type suggested would require too many people to be in on it for it to work
  • If there was evidence that Obama was not eligible the Clinton team would have found it and exposed it.
  • And (as of last month) the Whitehouse have issued a copy of Obama’s passport, showing he was born in Hawaii.

Most of these points (apart from the passport image, which has only just appeared) are addressed in a lengthy analysis of Obama's claims to eligibility by Douglas J Hagmann of NorthEast Intelligence Network these are compiled into two reports which are available in the following PDFs:

Investigative Report Part 1

Investigative Report Part 2

I fully acknowledge that Mr Hagmann is not an unbiased source, however, when you look into this matter it becomes clear that very few of the sources on either side are unbiased, including those who claim to be “independent”. Therefore, so as to judge this issue, one has to rely on the quality of the analysis, rather than any claimed neutrality on the part of the analyst.

This is not difficult, given that there is very little attempt at analysis on the part of Obama's defenders, (or the “believers" as one might call them) just a lot of arrogant jeering and name calling, whereas Douglas Hagman makes some very telling points and raises issues, especially in part 2, which have not been satisfactorily answered. Hagmann's reports make interesting reading, and I urge you to read them, whatever your take on this issue.

At this point I would like to make clear that I have no idea where Obama was born, he may well have been born in Hawaii as he claims, however, the fact remains that, despite claims to the contrary, this has not been conclusively proved.

A significant number of questions have been raised which cast doubt on Obama’s claims, and these questions have not been satisfactorily answered. In addition to this, there is some evidence that Obama and his supporters may have deliberately sought to mislead the public over this issue, which in itself is troubling. Meanwhile the president has spent at least one million dollars, some estimate the figure as two million, in efforts to prevent the release of documents which would answer the question.

This inevitably raises the suspicion that something is being hidden, and it is something which the president of America does not want the American people to know.

Why does this matter?

It matters because the person involved has been placed in the position of being the most powerful human being on the planet. He has at his disposal one of the mightiest arsenals of weapons ever assembled, weapons which destroy planet Earth many times over, and he has the power to order their use against any nation he chooses to. He is at the head of the worlds only current super-power and has at his command the means of impacting upon the well being, or otherwise of every nation and every individual alive today and upon their descendents .

Furthermore, the truth or otherwise of this matter reflects directly on the integrity of the leader of the free world, and surely that matters to us all.

To grant one man such power it is essential to at least know who he is. A few bits of circumstantial evidence suggesting he may be who he says he is are not good enough.

As Douglas Hagmann points out there is a difference between evidence and proof. What has been produced is evidence, what is in short supply is proof.

For instance, in a murder trial, evidence could be that you own a shoe with an imprint similar to the footprint left in blood a murder scene.

Proof on the other hand is demonstrating that the mark was left by your shoe and that your foot was in it at the time.

Obama's supporters point arrogantly at the shoe print, they have not, however, put Obama in the shoe.

According to Hagmann, Obama's refusal to produce the documents asked of him, would automatically exclude him from becoming the head of any major business corporation, do we really require less of the leader of the free world?

In the remaining part of this article I will comment on the various arguments in support of President Obama’s eligibility. As this runs to some length, the article continues on Sarah Maid of Albion II.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING

Monday, 30 August 2010

Revisiting Katrina

Five years on from Hurricane Katrina and efforts continue to paint the event as the definitive example of modern day black victimhood in the face of white indifference.

President Obama, returning to the centre of his dwindling power base and struggling to shore up the levees protecting his floundering presidency, kept true to this theme when he described the events of August 2005 as not only a “natural disaster, but also "a man-made catastrophe - shameful breakdown in government that left countless men and women and children abandoned and alone"

The Mainstream media also continues to present the disaster in in a manner which fits comfortably into this narrative. The title of the UK Channel 4 documentary “Hurricane Katrina: Caught on Camera” should really have included the words “...and heavily censored”, for this focused almost entirely on innocent African America victims and and the alleged inadequacy of the Bush administration's response. Glossed over almost entirely were the disturbing events which occurred in the immediate aftermath of the event revealing quite how tenuous American society's grasp on civilisation has become.

In America itself, some media outlets have taken the narrative even further. The stiflingly politically correct New York Times (see my recent essay on political correctness) famous for consistently suppressing all news of the atrocities and horrors of Stalin's Russia throughout the 1930, and, more recently, for its factually incorrect and downright dishonest reporting of the Duke Lacrosse (1), which, if only a fraction of it had been true would have seen the three innocent white defendants sent to prison for thirty years, have gone beyond white indifference to allegations of white guilt.

Black journalist Trymaine Lee, writing last Thursday indulges his racist fantasies to the full in an article laughably entitled “Rumour to fact in tales of post Katrina Violence” evokes images of white vigilantes mowing down innocent African Americans. Mr. Lee is certainly on a mission, but some of his reporting certainly stretches credibility. I particularly liked the fact that one interviewee by the name of Malik Rahim, after stating “I done seen bodies lay in the streets for weeks,” is later quoted stating, somewhat more eloquently, “How can you remove the scars from the eyes of all the children who witnessed these atrocities?” suggesting he may have taken a course in English language between quotes.

There will be more of this type of reporting, and we can be guaranteed that even more anti-white bile and hatred will ooze out of main stream media, should the discredited old harlots survive in their present form until the tenth anniversary.

However, for a different and slightly more credible perspective on events during those dark days in New Orleans I would draw your attention to a blog posting yesterday by Nicholas Stix, in which he points out that contrary to the popular myth about Katrina, disproportionately more whites than blacks were killed in the aftermath of the hurricane.

If Nicholas Stix is right, and the high quality of his previous reporting gives me some confidence that he is, then this adds to the conclusion that despite all the attempts by the liberal media to attach their own ideological fables to the disaster, the most accurate account of Hurricane Katrina remains that written by Jared Taylor, two months after the event and entitled AFRICA IN OUR MIDST.

________________

Hat Tip: Robert

(1) Analysis of the New York Times' disgraceful reporting of the Duke Lacrosse Hoax can be read at the Durham in Wonderland blog or in in the book "Until Proven Innocent" by Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson

Saturday, 21 August 2010

Now you have seen the bully in action

By Robin Hind

Obama and Cameron went world wide on television on the 20th July. This gave Obama an opportunity to display himself as convivial and benignly affable; an exercise in fellowship as he addressed the Prime Minister as “David”. He also showed, when he answered press questions that without pre-written notes, that he rambled ineptly, failing to get to the point of the question at times, and missing the point at others. It seemed that his aim was to show himself as a pliable, approachable, good natured fellow. He steered clear of discussing British Petroleum in his efforts to appear friendly

This performance contrasted with his earlier address to the American Nation (for that read the World) in his inflamed attack on British Petroleum after the accident in the Gulf of Mexico.

It was then that he showed the bully in action. On worldwide television there was no sign of statesmanlike wisdom. None of the dignity expected of the world leader.

The Gulf of Mexico spill is, we all know, a huge tragedy. But was the Obama assault the way to go?

Sane and objective people could have expected the following type of approach from a mature American leader:

“We are all concerned about the tragedy in the Gulf. However, we must remember that tapping the resources of the world is hazardous and always has been. The risks of drilling for oil have been shouldered by those who have taken many risks – risks of personal injury, financial risks, and risks to the environment. In America we have risked, and because of that, we have particularly benefitted from our oil resources. Much of the quality of life of our nation has rested on the availability of various forms of energy which we have mined or bought from others, always treading a narrow path between risk and benefit. The industries, which have made us the wealthiest country in the world - not only the steel, automotive and manufacturing industries but also agriculture - have depended upon this windfall of energy with which we have been blessed.

Our task now is together, in the closest of harmonies, and in earnest co-operation, to battle this catastrophe with all the intellectual, engineering, and financial resources which we and others can muster.”
What we got instead was the accusative and aggressive confrontation. It was a polarization into heroic “us” and villainous “them”. It was a litany of blame and aggression. It was a variant of “if there is blame fix it fast”. It was the adverserial lawyer’s demand for compensatory cash in its crudest packaging.

That was the bullyboy asserting his authority and pulling rank. That was a man who is showing himself that he is inter-nationally divisive, promoting his ego and trying to entrench his authority by fixing blame on a passive target.

The question which therefore arises is who he will gun for what in the future. Which of us will become victims to his arrogant, bumptious aggression? Is this the man whose true nature will polarize the world into conflict within the frame of hypocritical appeasement?

Robin Hind

Tuesday, 17 August 2010

Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin a man amongst midgets




Lieutenant Colonel Lakin faces a military tribunal because he refuses to Afghanistan until Barrack Obama proves his eligibility to be the US president. Lt. Col Lakin explains his reasons in the tape above Only Obama and a few of his closest allies know the truth of this matter but one thing is for certain Lt. Col Lakin appears to be an honourable and brave man.

He is certainly a bigger man than the pygmies who have been attacking him in the US media.

Tuesday, 13 July 2010

Did Obama steal the election?



It seem that he stole the primary from Hillary Clinton, so how much further did it go?

Thursday, 8 July 2010

Modern American Racists

Members of the New Black Panthers intimidating voters during the 2008 US Presidential Election

When film appeared following the 2008 US election day vote clearly showing members of the black supremacist New Black Panthers threatening voters outside a Philadelphia polling station, there appeared to be very compelling evidence of voter intimidation which is a criminal offense. The outgoing Bush administration certainly thought so, as they launched a prosecution.

Many were surprised, therefore, when the new US Attorney general Eric Holder (pictured above) announced that current US administration had dropped that prosecution.

When J Christian Adams, an Official at the US Department of Justice resigned earlier this year, accusing the administration of dropping the case as a result of racial bias it will have added to the growing suspicions many people now have about the racist attitudes of those currently running the United States of America.

These suspicious are shared by black Conservative commentator Eric Rush, who's excellent article on the subject I have pasted below:
__________________________________________

Barack Obama: Racist in chief









For months, Americans have been treated to wanton accusations of racism in the public square regarding our wish to secure our border with Mexico and misgivings vis-à-vis the Obama administration's handling of the Islamic terrorist threat, to name just two.

Now, we bear witness to an instance of racism and racial double standard on the part of this president and his administration that surpasses the surreal: This week, former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that the administration ordered attorneys in the Civil Rights Division to ignore cases involving black defendants and white victims. Adams further asserted that the department, headed by Attorney General Eric Holder, contrived to drop charges against members of the New Black Panther Party stemming from an incident of voter intimidation in 2008, a slam-dunk case over which Adams ultimately quit in disgust.

To American progressives and the establishment press (which has been complicit in every seditious machination devised by Barack Obama and his minions) the contention that our president and this administration are racists is practically incomprehensible – but that is precisely where I am going. Although it still eludes those who are either dedicated Obamanoids or profoundly dim, our president's antiwhite, anti-Christian, anti-American and anti-Semitic sentiments have been painfully evident for some time. The New Black Panther Party case is just the cherry on the topping.

Erik Rush's brand-new book is bold, daring and needed: "Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal - America's Racial Obsession"

While Justice contended that the Civil Rights Division determined that "the facts and the law did not support pursuing claims" in the New Black Panther case, and that it is "not uncommon for attorneys with the department to have good-faith disagreements about the appropriate course of action" in certain cases, Adams' claims and aggregate testimony bear out as well as clarify the tenor of the Holder Justice Department. This retrograde, black-nationalist comportment is the worst sort of policy held to by an administration since the days of segregation.

In short, it is abject racism.

Although this is part and parcel of the perverse racial sensibilities advanced by the political Left over the last several decades, its expanse and depth of insinuation have become nothing short of astounding. I have asserted previously that Obama gets a pass on account of this because he is black, but even astute observers didn't expect it to go this far. There is not one traditional national news outlet that is covering this atrocity, and, if they are forced to, there's little doubt that they will brand Adams a shill for the GOP and Fox News.

I suppose that such odious standards ought not be surprising coming from a man who spent 20 years listening to the bigoted ranting of a racist, anti-American pastor (in the personage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright), but the absolute refusal of the establishment press to acknowledge this phenomenon indicates that we have a larger long-term problem with them than we do with Obama. His decades-long dedication to radically subverting the very idea of America has manifested in congruent deeds. His actions (and inactions), which have exacerbated every difficulty that has presented itself, his racism, appeasement of our enemies and de facto abdication of his constitutional duties should have between 75 percent and 90 percent of Americans taking to the streets, screaming for his impeachment. Yet, they are not, largely because the Fourth Estate has become the fifth column.

One thing at a time, however.

I am quite certain that there will be a great deal of resistance, even on the part of Obama detractors, to pursue this issue to its logical conclusion. Even if the press is compelled to do its job regarding the Justice Department's criminal conduct, it is unlikely that the ripples will reach the White House. There are two reasons for this. One: That is the way this administration operates. Attorney General Holder will be sacrificed before Obama is implicated, even though it is evident that this administration is rife with racist, anti-American communists all the way to the top.

Two is that there are too many forces in play who are terrified of our president crashing and burning, even among those who detest him. If he is voted out in 2012, that's one thing, but if our celebrated "first black president" is forced to resign in shame – that is a completely different matter. Not only would every far-left faction mobilize en masse, but even more moderate rank-and-file black Obama supporters would be enraged. It would be perceived as the final "racist affront" of a white establishment that has already been demonized to the degree that many blacks perceive America to be as institutionally racist as it was five decades ago.

The long and short? We're stuck with a racist president. Well, we've survived those before; it's Obama's intention to transform our nation into a cross between China and Venezuela that I'm more concerned about.
________
Source

Tuesday, 6 July 2010

Defined for convenience

In a speech which Barak Obama made last week, he, the president of America, defined being American as follows. "Being an American" he said "is not a matter of blood or birth; it's a matter of faith."

Given the questions which have still not been answered regarding the president's claim to be a "natural born American" and thus eligible to hold the position of US president, one is tempted to say that is a very convenient definition. The implication being the American people should believe that Obama is eligible to serve as their president not on the basis of proof of eligibility but on the basis of faith, which is another word for a belief which does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Belief that "the one" was born in Hawaii because he says so, and belief that a "Certification of Live Birth" is the same thing as a birth certificate because he says it is.

However, Obama's definition of American is even more convenient, and flexible, than that, it is not only the definition which enables him to claim he is eligible for the job be holds, but it is one which, if he is very lucky and very devious, may just enable him to stay in the job.

What Obama was talking about, of course, were the millions of illegal immigrants currently in America, the illegal immigrants he disingenuously continues to claim amount to only 11 million but who's numbers most analysts place closer to 40 million, and those same illegal immigrants who offer Obama his only possible chance of being reelected in 2012.

In less than two years the president has lost the support of the whites who fell for his undefined message of hope and change (you can "believe" in) in 2008, and although, as the recent election of Alivin Greene in South Carolina proves, black voters will vote for a black candidate irrespective of merit, there are not yet enough legal non-white voters in America to guarantee an abject presidential failure a second term in office. That is why Obama, and the Democrats, need the illegal ones, who are statistically far more likely to vote Democrat.

This is why, unless the current US administration has hit upon some other means of circumventing democracy, there will almost certainly be an attempt at an amnesty, otherwise known as "comprehensive immigration reform" within the next two years, possibly before the crucial mid-term elections this coming November.

Some believe that the president may even attempt to pardon millions of illegal aliens by Executive order, thus granting them citizenship, and more importantly, voting rights.

Whatever means is attempted, if the current incumbent of the White House has his way, before the US presidential elections in 2012, tens of millions of illegal aliens will become Americans on the basis of faith, Barak Obama's faith that he has a right to the job he is so self evidently unqualified for.

Tuesday, 22 June 2010

A Dog in the Manger Presidency

By Kelly O'Connell

s it possible to base an entire presidency on venal acts of jealousy and illicit confiscation ? This essay argues such is currently the case. If one accepts that Obama has socialist/Marxist values, then he seeks, by definition, an economy based upon a shattering of the 10th Commandment… “Thous Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor’s House….” But the Greek pagan moralist writer Aesop had Obama’s character pegged in his Dog in the Manger fable 2,500 years ago.

If you run a campaign on the argument you are an unprecedented natural-born leader, despite utter inexperience—can you afford to let anyone else outshine you? The notion that an exemplar, par excellence, will fall full-born, like Athena from the head of Zeus is appealing. This concept is seductive probably for the same reason Jesus has unmitigated attraction to this day: A young man who has never sinned arises to lead His people to the promised land of enlightenment and salvation.

Obama: Promised Messiah, Or Barnyard Pooch?

Question: Could Barry O still be savior of the world? The project of turning Barack Obama into a Jesus-like Messiah presents an impassable gulf. First, Jesus was an ultra-pure idealist teaching His followers they should so closely follow His Father’s Word that earth would be turned into God’s Kingdom. But Obama merely riffs upon vague, pleasant-sounding generalities, “hope,” “change,” et al, while using these empty phrases as an excuse to launch innumerable elaborate Chicago-styled scams. Second, Jesus spent an apparent 3 decades studying the Tanakh, aka Old Testament, and quite probably memorized the whole, based upon His peerless knowledge and ability to improvise off the cuff. Yet, Barack seems relatively untutored in any subject, but especially biblical traditions. Third, Obama seems positively Pharisaical, being a holier-than-thou, smug, sanctimonious, hypocritical finger pointer who positively scoffs at unenlightened non-liberals. Ironically, these were exactly the types Christ most harshly condemned. And it was the Pharisees who finally had him eliminated because His purity was a constant remonstrance against their greed, arrogance and corruption.

In fact, the ancient personality Barack most resembles is not Jesus, but the Dog in the Manger—a fable by the Greek Aesop. It is the story of moral failure born by incompetence and jealousy. The fable is as follows:

A Dog looking out for its afternoon nap jumped into the Manger of an Ox and lay there cozily upon the straw. But soon the Ox, returning from its afternoon work, came up to the Manger and wanted to eat some of the straw. The Dog in a rage, being awakened from its slumber, stood up and barked at the Ox, and whenever it came near attempted to bite it. At last the Ox had to give up the hope of getting at the straw, and went away muttering:

"Ah, people often grudge others what they cannot enjoy themselves"

Continue reading at Canadian Free Press

________________________________

Interesting fact the Obama administration turned down offers of help from 13 different nations when the Gulf of Mexico oil spill first occurred, but Obama continues to "kick BP's ass" for not doing enough.

Hat tip Dr. D

Tuesday, 11 May 2010

Obama's Monstrous Regiment

If anyone was in any doubt, following the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court, that Obama had an unfriendly agenda, will have been disabused of that doubt by the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stephens.

After having first appointed a Hispanic feminist with a history of racist judgement and anti (white) male rhetoric, Obama now seeks to foist another radical feminist on the American public, this time one with a very unfriendly attitude towards the free speech provisions of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Elena Kagan is, of course, also politically correct right to the tips of her wide fitting pumps and served as White House Council during the Clinton administration. However, it is her attitude towards free speech and her writings on the subject which will give many pause for thought, Whilst a tenured professor at University of Chicago Law School she published amongst other things a law review article on the "Regulation of Hate Speech”, which she linked with pornography in the manner with which a dishonest politicians will link an agenda driven issue with an otherwise unconnected but emotive subject, so as to merge the two concepts in the public mind.

(We await the “Love immigration hate paedophiles” initiative with bated breath)

In this she wrote”"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the vital importance of protecting free speech amplified when that speech goes against the popular orthodoxies of the day?

Of perhaps greater interest was "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," an article Kagan also wrote whist at Chicago. Obama's power base, discussing governmental regulation of speech in general. In that article Kagan went further and argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or indeed to the government.

Once can imagine Stalin nodding with approval at such an assertion

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens,which chillingly states: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

The US Supreme Court is the highest judicial court in America, it is the final appellate court, its decisions can impact upon US society and beyond for generations.

The fact that Obama's first two nominations for the Supreme court have been such extreme examples of radical feminist, anti male any white pro-affirmative action anti free speech repressive political correctness tells us as much about him and his mission as it does about these two rather unpleasant women.