Michael Wolfe

Study up. Stand up. Speak up. Pray up!

Posts Tagged ‘race’

The Confederate Constitution: Axed States’ Rights and Codified Racial Inferiority into Law.

Posted by americana83 on August 5, 2015

There has been much talk of the Confederate battle flag and of the States’ rights supposedly represented thereby. Despite copying entire sections from the US Constitution, the Confederate Constitution omits key passages and makes some terrible additions. The following portions of Article IV of the Confederate Constitution undercut the argument that the Confederacy (and by proxy it’s flags) represent state’s rights. The CSA was absolutely totalitarian in its protection of slavery, with the constitution granting strong federal/national protections to the “institution” of slavery. Further, new states must recognize and defend the “institution” when they are created/admitted to the confederacy. I did not see any article containing a parallel to the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. It also contains languages specifically protecting Negro slavery. So not only is slavery protected and mandated, but racial inferiority is protected and upheld at the highest law of the Confederacy. While I would never support a law banning private citizens from having, flying or otherwise displaying Confederate battle flags, I would in no way endorse having one flying over a government building, or as part of my state’s insignia or emblem or flag.

Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

No state my forbid the importation of slaves.

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Slaves must be returned.to their “owners.”

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

All territory must protect and defend the buying and selling of black people.Notice it doesn’t just say slavery, but specifically Negro slavery. The CSA constitution is more or less a bastardized parody of the US Constitution, and the framers thereof had the gal to attempt to invoke the “the favor and guidance of Almighty God… ” in promoting it. Obviously, with how long the experiment lasted, the favor of God was not bestown upon its long continuance.


Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“A New Era of Cultural Insensitivity.”

Posted by americana83 on November 15, 2010

President Obama was hailed by his proponents as the herald for a new era. In a world that was said to be reeling from the “cultural insensitivity, ignorance, and foot-in-mouth syndrome” of previous President George W. Bush, Obama was presented as a culturally sophisticated, globe trotter who would “repair America’s image abroad.” As we have seen over the past two years, however, it has been almost exactly the opposite. Whether it was jumping in before knowing all the facts and declaring that the “cops acted stupidly” or his eloquent declaration that people were “wee-wee’d up” or bowing way too low to foreign leaders, he has finally shattered forever any record liberals may have claimed for Bush’s cultural insensitivity.

The President apparently cannot discern between Koreans and Chinese, and apparently thinks that they would not be sophisticated enough to send reporters that can speak other languages to an international press conference. It is utterly embarrassing. It is clear that the Korean press does not have a question, or does not wish to ask one, and after an appropriate interval, the Chinese press wants to ask a question. First the President assumes the individual is Korean, then he assumes that he cannot speak English, and he stresses throughout that he really doesn’t want a question from the Chinese press. This after it almost seems the Chinese stepped up to clear the deathly silence that was hanging over the audience as the president waited for someone to respond to his request for a question. It is ironic that the President would be so condescending and insulting to an individual representing the country to which he owes (and unfortunately our great-grandchildren too, though not by choice) so much for funding his and the progressive congress’s wild deficit spending sprees.

I find this particularly important because this was the one thing Obama was really supposed to deliver that was non-partisan. Instead he has insulted all of Asia, and those Americans who are paying attention to how our country is continuing to be represented abroad.

Posted in Barack Obama, culture, deception, Election 2008, International, intolerance, Obama, politics, Presidential, Racism, social spending, taxes, Travel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Weekend Healthcare Vote, Weekend Rally in DC!

Posted by americana83 on March 21, 2010

Crowd estimates were around 45,000. The crowds persisted throughout yesterday and today, as the house is poised to vote on this bill. Prayers were offered in the name of Christ for our nation and our legislatures, and from what I heard at last night’s rally, this morning for the first time in about a 100 years a real prayer service was hosted in the capital! We held a prayer service outside on the lawn to correspond with the one inside. A congressman led the service. The crowd was awesome and the prayer was great.

Last night several congressman came out and said they were no votes, and that they could here us chanting from inside the house rules committee.

Please continue to pray as the rallies continue today, and as some groups are mingling with the protesters possibly desiring to stir up trouble. I hope you will join me in prayer that the hearts of our congressman would be turned to oppose a bill that will do far more harm than it will do good.

I had the opportunity to lead a small prayer service for some fellow patriots. The spirit of the people was amazing. The alleged racist event could not have been tea partiers, the spirit of the people was just so opposed to that. In fact, it was the most ethnically diverse crowd of American’s I’ve seen yet at the rallies. More and more people are rejecting the myth about this being a white thing or a republican thing. Freed0m is an American thing! I have a great interview once I have opportunity to post it.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Lets talk about race.

Posted by americana83 on February 19, 2010

Its easy to talk about racists, to throw that toxic label onto your opponents when they don’t agree with you. The left loves to call conservatives racist, and talk about how Hitler was a right winger. Lets look at some of those enlightened folks on the left, and see what they say, when they likely haven’t had, or taken, time to carefully consider statements.

Chris Matthews: “For an hour I forgot he was black.

Joe Biden: “clean and articulate

Harry Reid: “light skinned and no negro dialect

How many conservatives do you know who go around saying those kind of things? The media would never stop talking about them. Obama appealed relentlessly to the race guilt of modern liberals by saying things of himself such as  “He doesn’t look like the other presidents on the dollar bills.” and “Skinny black man with a funny name. By and large, it is liberals who have worked to keep race at the forefront of politics, especially since the run up to the 2008 elections. the incessant drumbeat of the “historic election.”

Now what about the favorite posterboy of “right wing racism,” Adolf Hitler. Was he really “right wing” in the sense that American leftists imply?

Consider the following:

Did hitler promote a limited government and separation of powers?

Did Hitler believe in the right to keep and bear arms?

Did Hitler believe in Religious liberty?

Did Hitler believe in Freedom of the press?

Did Hitler promote economic freedom and private property?

No! Hitler promoted a totalitarian government (which makes sense once you consider Nazi is short for National Socialist German Worker’s Party). He boasted of the fact that under him Germany, for the first time had full gun registration. He persecuted the Jews and muzzled the churches. Opposition newspapers operating openly in Nazi Germany- ha! The claim that Hitler is “right wing” in the American sense is absurd. In fact, the swastikas that scared poor Nanci Pelosi present at tea parties had a “slash” through them, like the no smoking sign. They were part of a protest against totalitarian government, like the kind of government both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had.

Now I pose another question, who has been using race as a bludgeon? Does anyone remember how the Obama Justice Department mysteriously dropped the charges of voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers who were parading around with a weapon making threatening racist comments in front of a polling place? Have you ever heard such racist statements as “credit to your race” or “articulate and clean” or “hey I forgot he was black for an hour” or “he appealed because he was light skinned and had no negro dialect?” In case you think the New Black Panthers are sincere in their claims of non violence/intimidation, check out their Nationalist Manifesto, which really echos Hitler’s racial supremacy delusions (and empty rejection of Communists) and rails against white people and makes the claim that Black people have no place in America. As to their claim of not “actively campaigning” for Obama, check out the cover of their magazine here.

The progressives have tried to make it about skin so as to avoid the war of ideologies. Hitler spun the economic woes of Germany as a tale of the Jewish people gone wild, and the paradigm was skewed towards the euphoria of eloquent speeches and initially a few drops of “it’s their fault” racism which grew to become the consuming passion of Hitler’s tyranny. Today ignorant and evil men attempt to use race to divide us. To keep we the people at perpetual war with each other, even after the election that was supposed to usher in a post-racial era.

To the Christian, the Bible says God hath made of one blood all nations of man and that God is no respecter of persons. To the American, our Constitution was written to fulfill the testament of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with Inalienable Rights. The corruptions introduced as politicians tried to patch up the slavery issue without addressing the root sin were not the fault or original intent of the founders. Thomas Jefferson trembled when he thought of slavery and the justice of God.

To the liberal I ask: will you stop making this about race? Of the many people I’ve talked to and met with, I have yet to hear someone opposing these unconstitutional and immoral policies because the man pushing for them is black. To those few that do*, their ignorance will consume them,  for at the very least, racism is contrary to the principles of freedom and individualism, not to mention a crime against God.

Conservatism is an ideology, not a party. Not all republicans are conservative, and not all conservatives are republicans. And one of the greatest myths of modern politics, not all conservatives are white! The man the media portrayed as being a “racist threat” to Obama, was in fact, a black man joining in a rally to stand up for second amendment rights! Check out these others who boldly proclaim a conservative message of freedom and limited government or take a principled stand against the policies of Barack Obama:

Apostle Claver, of RagingElephants.org

Alicia Healy, 2010 Candidate for Ohio Senate

Lloyd Marcus, Tea Party Express and Anthem

Star Parker, 2008 Values Voter Summit

Pastor Manning (probably one of Obama’ most outspoken critics).

Those who continue to promote the myths that the Tea Parties are about race, or health care protesters are bigots, or that conservatism itself somehow breeds racism are either ignorant of the movements and should have done more research, or have malicious intent and are hoping to keep brother fighting brother while the rights of all of us, black and white and in-between.

United we stand, divided we fall. Reject the sparks of race war the media and “mainstream” media are trying to ignite.

Together, we shall overcome!

And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
(Acts 17:26)

But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
(1 Samuel 16:7)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
(John 3:16-17)

* the only group I have found that claims to be conservative is the council of conservative citizens, which somehow mixes the putrid collectivist ideology of race superiority/separatism  with claims of individualism and freedom. At least the New Black Panthers make no such claims and embrace a wholly collectivist ideology.  See my complete refutation of their “statement of principles” here.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Racism? Maybe MSN/Newsweek should look at the man in the mirror…

Posted by americana83 on January 25, 2010

Continuing in the vein of Pelosi, Jimmy Carter, and others, “the Root” has done everything but call Palin and the tea partiers nazis, though there can be little debate that they desire to do so and would do so with ecstasy if there was any proof. Consider the article‘s opening salvo:

It does not take a pollster, partisan or psychic to see a harbinger of things to come in Massachusetts voters’ choice of a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. If Barack Obama’s next three years in the White House are anything like his first, he will surely be a one-term president.

And for black America, that’s the good news.

Because if history is any guide, the truly awful news is that the smart money is on Sarah Palin to replace Obama in the White House.

Foreshadowing a Palin presidency is a perfect, gathering storm of economics, politics and tribalism, which is not to suggest that Obama is an innocent bystander in his reversal of fortune.

The so called liberal progressives are certainly tripping over the facts of wildly unpopular bailouts, record-setting deficits, outright marxists and maoists in the white house among other things in their mad dash to reach for the race-card. They are so blinded by their zeal to pin this all on “conservative racists” that they have no concern for truth, and would have black men and women run for their lives from a hockey mom. Does anyone think it condescending that articles like this tell “black folks” who they should run from? As if they need to be told, like children that “the evil tea party people are coming for you, because they hate Obama, and Obama is black, therefore they must be racists.”

Add to this some ignorant economic analysis:

Even before the recession hit, there were more maids, cashiers and waitresses in the United States than factory workers, and, when inflation is accounted for, workers have not had a raise in almost 40 years. The trillions of taxpayer dollars showered on Wall Street has produced record profits and fat bonuses, but has done nothing to loosen clogged credit lines. Lending in October of last year was down nearly 15 percent from the previous year—and the White House refuses to launch a New Deal-like jobs program, or provide any substantive relief to borrowers who are in over their head on mortgages, student loans or credit cards.

According to a recent Bloomberg News poll, only 8 percent of consumers say they plan to spend more in 2010, and with the circulation of cash slowing to a snail’s pace, you don’t need Paul Krugman to answer this question: If nobody’s lending, and nobody’s spending, how does your economy grow?

They fail to realize that unconstitutional government bailouts and explosions of spending are what cause inflation. In short, inflation is the government’s fault, and the logical connection then is that government is to blame for the assumed fact that workers have not had a raise in 4 decades. If Obama does launch more raw-deal styled spending, rest assured that inflation would accelerate its consumption of the earnings of the average worker.

Only 8 percent plan to spend more? That’s GREAT news. We as Americans have been spending way too much, maxing out credit cards, indulging the “must have now” syndrome that has taken over our culture. Further, citizens, unlike the government cannot extend their own credit lines or print more money to spend (it’s called counterfeiting, and the Federal Reserve is a master at it). Hugo Chavez’s government just stole 50% of the wealth in Venezuela in their quest to gain more money for Chavez to spend. Inflation is theft.

And now we get to some good ole fashioned libel a la racism:

A protracted stagnation will likely produce competing responses from voters in 2012, both of them bad for Obama. Polls show that African Americans continue to overwhelmingly support the president even though the unemployment rate for blacks is nearly twice the national average. That won’t change much, if at all, in the next three years. But will the laid–off African-American workers, who have exhausted their jobless benefits, turn out to vote in Gary, Ind., Detroit, Cleveland, Philly and Tampa with the same enthusiasm, and in the same numbers, as they did in 2008? Black New Yorkers certainly didn’t turn out last year for Bill Thompson, the African-American Democratic mayoral nominee, who lost narrowly to Michael Bloomberg, the Republican incumbent. Voter turnout was the city’s lowest in almost a century.

The only reason Obama loses the Black vote is that “they stay home?” Are you serious? There are many Black voices that decry the socialist march of Obama’s policies. Are they really implying in this article that Blacks should support a candidate merely because the candidate is black and liberal?

Conversely, while the economic climate is likely to leave the country’s most reliably liberal voting bloc demoralized and disengaged from an electoral process, this same dispossession has historically energized white, conservatives—particularly when cast in a racial hue. Consider the post-Reconstruction era, or the post-civil rights era, or even South Africa’s Afrikaners who responded to a fiscal crisis by electing the National Party which introduced apartheid in 1948. Today, you can see a populist, scattershot backlash, emerging in the form of the Republican-led “tea-bag” protests, South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson’s heckling of Obama and the rock-star sized crowds generated by Palin’s book tour.

Large numbers of ALL people are demoralized by the catastrophic events that have taken place since that cold January 20th in 2009. Now because they have voiced loudly these concerns instead of “shutting up and getting out of the way” as the elitists get out their socialist mops to “clean up,” they are automatically racist segregationists ready to burn crosses and prepare hanging trees? Guess they missed the 9/12 march on DC, or perhaps more likely, they didn’t miss it but they could not process the fact that there were black men and women taking a stand against the anointed “post racial” president. Did they really mean to imply that Scott Brown’s election was the front of a movement that would usher in Apartheid?

But it gets better:

On the same show, NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell said: “There’s an anger out there, and I have not seen it since my very first campaign which was George Wallace. There is an angry subtext because of economic dislocation.”

Like the defiant, segregationist Alabama governor, Palin, the former Alaska governor, speaks the language of the white Southern and suburban voters who fear that the American way of life is under attack from an out-of-touch, Godless, effete and multiracial big-city crowd. With her folksy charisma and parochial values, Palin is the latest in a long line of demagogues —from post-Reconstruction governors in the Deep South to Father Coughlin in the ‘30s, from Reagan to Lou Dobbs—who’ve emerged to redeem, or reclaim, the land from Northern carpetbaggers and uppity Negroes.

I think Palin would have a very real case for libel here. Palin has never condemned Obama & company for their race, has never advocated segregation, and has not behaved or spoken in a way that would lead any thinking person to conclude that she is a racist or a segregationist. Perhaps we should remember that it was Obama, who singled out the sole African-American supreme court justice as the one he didn’t think was- of all things- qualified for the position…

And now, that racial insanity has subsided, it is time for one more good suspension of common sense in the analysis of Scott Brown’s election:

…the problem is not, as much of the media alleges, that Obama and the Democrats have overreached. They haven’t gone far enough. Scott Brown, the Republican candidate in last week’s Massachusetts election, tellingly, made health care “reform” the focus of his triumphant campaign, traveling the state in an old, GM pickup truck, arguing, quite accurately, that the Senate health care plan would cost Americans more money, not less. According to one exit poll, Obama voters who opted for the Republican candidate Scott Brown in Tuesday’s election, said, by a margin of 3-to-2, that the Senate health care proposal “doesn’t go far enough.” Eight of 10 voters in the state continue to want a public option.

Again, are they serious? Brown’s campaign was against health care “reform.” 9/12, and other patriotic groups funneled money to his election because he promised to fight against it. They just can’t fathom that Ted Kennedy’s seat went to a man who pledged to use that seat to kill the legislative monstrosity that Ted helped to form. But then, this is the MSM, they were all “in the tank” for Obama. MSNBC still has that annoying “tingle up their leg” and cannot bear to see this president fail, or his agenda fail, because as his media arm, they would lose credibility… too late…

Sourced 1/25/2010. Quotes above claimed as a fair use critique of this article: http://www.theroot.com/views/how-barack-obama-paving-way-palin-presidency?GT1=38002

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

My thoughts on H.R.4173 – the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009”

Posted by americana83 on December 24, 2009

UPDATE 7/29/2010. The section pertaining to race is now 342. It was briefly removed all together, but made it back into the bill. The exact text is as follows, followed by my original article, which is still valid.


(a) Office of Minority and Women Inclusion-

    • (A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, each agency shall establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion that shall be responsible for all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities.

      (B) BUREAU- The Bureau shall establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion not later than 6 months after the designated transfer date established under section 1062.


    (2) TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITIES- Each agency that, on the day before the date of enactment of this Act, assigned the responsibilities described in paragraph (1) (or comparable responsibilities) to another office of the agency shall ensure that such responsibilities are transferred to the Office.

    (3) DUTIES WITH RESPECT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS- The responsibilities described in paragraph (1) do not include enforcement of statutes, regulations, or executive orders pertaining to civil rights, except each Director shall coordinate with the agency administrator, or the designee of the agency administrator, regarding the design and implementation of any remedies resulting from violations of such statutes, regulations, or executive orders.

(b) Director-

    • (A) equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of the workforce and senior management of the agency;

      (B) increased participation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the programs and contracts of the agency, including standards for coordinating technical assistance to such businesses; and

      (C) assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency.

  • (1) IN GENERAL- The Director of each Office shall be appointed by, and shall report to, the agency administrator. The position of Director shall be a career reserved position in the Senior Executive Service, as that position is defined in section 3132 of title 5, United States Code, or an equivalent designation.

    (2) DUTIES- Each Director shall develop standards for–

    (3) OTHER DUTIES- Each Director shall advise the agency administrator on the impact of the policies and regulations of the agency on minority-owned and women-owned businesses.

    (4) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in paragraph (2)(C) may be construed to mandate any requirement on or otherwise affect the lending policies and practices of any regulated entity, or to require any specific action based on the findings of the assessment.

(c) Inclusion in All Levels of Business Activities-

  • (1) IN GENERAL- The Director of each Office shall develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels, including in procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts.

    (2) CONTRACTS- The procedures established by each agency for review and evaluation of contract proposals and for hiring service providers shall include, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a component that gives consideration to the diversity of the applicant. Such procedure shall include a written statement, in a form and with such content as the Director shall prescribe, that a contractor shall ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion of women and minorities in the workforce of the contractor and, as applicable, subcontractors.


(d) Applicability- This section shall apply to all contracts of an agency for services of any kind, including the services of financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants, and providers of legal services. The contracts referred to in this subsection include all contracts for all business and activities of an agency, at all levels, including contracts for the issuance or guarantee of any debt, equity, or security, the sale of assets, the management of the assets of the agency, the making of equity investments by the agency, and the implementation by the agency of programs to address economic recovery.

(e) Reports- Each Office shall submit to Congress an annual report regarding the actions taken by the agency and the Office pursuant to this section, which shall include–

    (1) a statement of the total amounts paid by the agency to contractors since the previous report;

    (2) the percentage of the amounts described in paragraph (1) that were paid to contractors described in subsection (c)(1);

    (3) the successes achieved and challenges faced by the agency in operating minority and women outreach programs;

    (4) the challenges the agency may face in hiring qualified minority and women employees and contracting with qualified minority-owned and women-owned businesses; and

    (5) any other information, findings, conclusions, and recommendations for legislative or agency action, as the Director determines appropriate.

(f) Diversity in Agency Workforce- Each agency shall take affirmative steps to seek diversity in the workforce of the agency at all levels of the agency in a manner consistent with applicable law. Such steps shall include–

    (1) recruiting at historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, women’s colleges, and colleges that typically serve majority minority populations;

    (2) sponsoring and recruiting at job fairs in urban communities;

    (3) placing employment advertisements in newspapers and magazines oriented toward minorities and women;

    (4) partnering with organizations that are focused on developing opportunities for minorities and women to place talented young minorities and women in industry internships, summer employment, and full-time positions;

    (5) where feasible, partnering with inner-city high schools, girls’ high schools, and high schools with majority minority populations to establish or enhance financial literacy programs and provide mentoring; and

    (6) any other mass media communications that the Office determines necessary.

(g) Definitions- For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) AGENCY- The term ‘agency’ means–

(2) AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR- The term ‘agency administrator’ means the head of an agency.

(3) MINORITY- The term ‘minority’ has the same meaning as in section 1204(c) of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 1811 note).

(4) MINORITY-OWNED BUSINESS- The term ‘minority-owned business’ has the same meaning as in section 21A(r)(4)(A) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1441a(r)(4)(A)), as in effect on the day before the transfer date.

(5) OFFICE- The term ‘Office’ means the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion established by an agency under subsection (a).

(6) WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS- The term ‘women-owned business’ has the meaning given the term ‘women’s business’ in section 21A(r)(4)(B) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1441a(r)(4)(B)), as in effect on the day before the transfer date.

UPDATE 5/22/2010: This bill has now passed the senate. Four RINOS sided with the other liberal to pass a bill that is socialist and racist in nature. This is truly a blow to the dream that one day all men would be judged by the content of their character and not their skin.


View the latest actions on the bill

The list of GOPpers voting for this racist bill is as follows:

Sen. Scott Brown [R, MA]
Sen. Susan Collins [R, ME]
Sen. Charles Grassley [R, IA]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME]

So Scott Brown joins Olympia Snowe. Nothing like a slap across the face to the tea party grassroots that put you over the top, dashing hopes that we had actually gotten rid of Arlin Specter.

Section 1801 of this bill includes some very interesting language, especially since the government is already an “equal opportunity employer” that is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of age, race, gender, national origin, religion and others. This bill, thanks to the following language creates an entire race based bureaucracy throughout the agencies of the Federal government, even though it is not needed, and will increase the cost of government during a time of great financial strain (HR4173 text source):


1(a) Office of Minority and Women Inclusion

(1) ESTABLISHMENT- Not later than 180 days following the enactment of this title, each agency shall establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ‘Office’) that shall advise the agency administrator of the impact of policies and regulations of the agency on minority-owned and women-owned businesses, and shall be responsible for all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities, including the coordination of technical assistance, in accordance with such standards and requirements as the Director of the Office shall establish.

I would assume that any policy that would adversely affect a minority or woman owned business would also negatively impact any other business, since it is already ILLEGAL for the government to discriminate by race and gender. Extra bureaucracy we can’t afford, and do not need.

(2) CONSOLIDATION- Each agency that has assigned these or comparable responsibilities to existing offices shall ensure that such responsibilities are consolidated within the Office.

So, if a government office already has “diversity responsibilities” being handled as part of another job they need to “consolidate” those responsibilities into a NEW position, a mini race Czar. Last time I checked, consolidation involved a reduction or streamlining process, not the creation of a new position and extended bureaucracy.

(b) Director

And here are the chief Race Czars

(1) IN GENERAL- For each Office, the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a Director of Minority and Women Inclusion (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ‘Director’), who shall also hold a title within such agency comparable to that of other senior level staff who are, as applicable, either appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or act in a managerial capacity that requires reporting directly to the agency administrator.

(2) DUTIES- Each Director shall

(A) ensure equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic and gender diversity of the agency’s workforce and senior management;

I believe in equal opportunity. This legislation however, mandates diversity.  You cannot offer equal opportunity and demand equal outcomes. Every individual is different, and possesses their own skills and abilities. The best of the best should be offered the position, whether they be black or white or Asian or Hispanic, or any of the other diverse colors of humanity. Equal opportunity employment ensures that. However, if the thoughts expressed previously are any indicator, the current administration doesn’t concern itself with individuals, but rather collective identities.

(B) increase the (sic) partcipation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the programs and contracts of the agency;

C) provide guidance to the agency administrator to ensure that the policies and regulations of the agency strengthen minority-owned and women-owned businesses; and

(D) conduct an assessment, as part of the examination process for the entities regulated or monitored by the agency of the diversity and inclusion efforts by such entities.

It is not the government’s job to strengthen ANY business. It is a business’s job to strengthen itself by offering the best product or service at the best price, or to differentiate itself by offering services that are above and beyond its competitors, thereby allowing it to charge a premium for its goods or services. Government race-based initiatives subvert and undermine the free market, and treat race as if it is a handicap to overcome. This is an insult to the American people, and creates a scenario where race can readily become a deciding factor in denying the best business the task. It is absurd.

But there’s more. Going back in the bill we find this gem in section 1604 giving the government control over companies they (the President) deems in danger:

(b) Determination by the Secretary- Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law or the law of any State, if, upon the written recommendation of the Federal Reserve Board and the board of directors or commission of the appropriate regulatory agency as provided for in subsection (a)(1), the Secretary (in consultation with the President) determines that–

    (1) the financial company is in default or is in danger of default;

    (2) the failure of the financial company and its resolution under otherwise applicable Federal or State law would have serious adverse effects on financial stability or economic conditions in the United States; and

    (3) any action under section 1604 would avoid or mitigate such adverse effects, taking into consideration the effectiveness of the action in mitigating potential adverse effects on the financial system or economic conditions, the cost to the general fund of the Treasury, and the potential to increase moral hazard on the part of creditors, counterparties, and shareholders in the financial company,

then the Secretary must take action under section 1604(a), the Corporation must act in accordance with section 1604(b), and the Corporation may take 1 or more actions specified in section 1604(c) in accordance with the requirements of that subsection, except that, prior to the Secretary or Corporation taking any action under section 1604, the Federal Reserve Board or the appropriate Federal regulatory agency shall take action to avoid or mitigate potential adverse effects on low-income, minority, or underserved communities affected by the failure of such financial company.

Again, we have big government stepping in and preventing the free market from correcting itself. The effects of doing so are far more harmful in the long run because either: 1. A company is rewarded for bad behavior with government money, or 2. The government gains control of a company (and the government lacks both the skills needed to run a company efficiently, as well as the problem of a complete lack of the enumerated constitutional authority to do so) and more of our tax dollars are depleted. both the skills needed to run a company efficiently, as well as the problem of a complete lack of the enumerated constitutional authority to do so) and more of our tax dollars are depleted. The beautiful thing about a free market, is there are competitors that are ready and willing to take the place of fallen giants. Keeping the fallen giants on life support is a terrible waste of tax payers’ money and, again, a gross violation of the enumerated powers granted to the government by the Constitution. The federal government has no authority to either bail out or seize control of any company.

Also problematic is the fact that the secretive Federal Reserve is given a share of this unprecedented power, despite the fact that the Federal Reserve is completely unaccountable and has not even so much as been audited since its creation in 1913.

In conclusion, this bill subverts and perverts the concept of equal opportunity for all, allows the President and the Federal Reserve far greater control over the free market, and expands the size and scope of government while giving us nothing in return but Constitutional violations.

“Some animals are more equal than others.”  George Orwell, Animal Farm.

from my other site: thejeffersondemocrat.com

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

It’s legal now: Some people are more equal than others.

Posted by americana83 on October 26, 2009

In one of the worst and grossest violation of the legislative process, an entire bill, the`Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act’ was inserted into and passed along with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 . Slipped in as an amendment, the whole process made an utter mockery of our system, and against stressed the need for a law mandating single issue legislation. Why did they do this? They know the American people value free speech, they know ethnic minorities are already protected under current laws, they know that an open debate on Hate Crimes would be a lost cause, much like the open debate that has been raging about ObamaCare which has seriously slowed down (but not yet killed) Obama-Pelosi’s unilateral push for it.

This hell-inspired bill now makes some people more valuable in the eyes of the law, and thus, crimes committed against them receive harsher sentences.

    • (1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.

Such a bill requires the thought process of the defendant to be taken into consideration, think “the department of pre-crime”.  Not only that, but it adds changeable behaviors to the list of federally protected attributes which once only included immutables like race, color, national origin and disability. Behaviors which many Americans consider perverse are now enshrined essentially as protected minorities in federal law. Moreover, so called “gender identity” can change daily.

Lets look at this tragic legislation. Congress, the wise and all-knowing group that they are:

    Congress makes the following findings:
    • (1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.

Is not ALL violent crime a “serious national problem?” “Hate crimes dealing with race, color, national origin and sex are already codified law, the sole purpose of this bill, despite the insertion of James Byrd, Jr’s name, was to advance the leftist’s sexual agenda.

    • (2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.

Again, as is ALL violent crime.

    • (3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.

The federal government here seeks to integrate itself even deeper into the affairs of states, but I digress.

    • (4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.

This is a lie. Federal law already provides for the punishment of violent crime. Just because they say it, and write it into a law, does not mean it is the truth.

    • (5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.

So now, we have an individual crime, that has been transformed into a crime against a huge group of people, who were neither party to, nor victims of the crime.

    • (6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:

Oh really, this is interesting. So is sexually based regulation of interstate commerce on the way too? If some victims are worth more than others, are some shoppers and business worth more than others? This dangerous line of thinking will go along way in destroying equality in the United States.

      • (A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.

This is absurd. The actions of one apprehended and convicted murderer would impede the movements of an entire group of people across the entire nation? Really?

      • (B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

This can only be seen to impact religious or christian business owners, who do not want to be associated with homosexual, transexual or people uncertain of their gender expression, following the biblical injunction to “not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers or unrighteousness.” Racial discrimination is already illegal nationwide.

      • (C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
      • (D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.
      • (E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.

Again, I fail to see what this has to do with interstate commerce, and can only see it leading to sexuality playing a role in some future commerce bill.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
(Isaiah 5:20-21)

What Hate Crimes Legislation means:

Now that we in the United States have a federal law granting “sexual minorities” and religion protected status, here are some of the things we have to look forward to:

English Christian hotel owners sued for marriage policy

New Mexico Christian photographer sued for refusing to photo gay “wedding.”

California Christian school sued for “sexual orientation” policy

Religious Hate Crimes law condemns Christian for speaking against Islam

Canadian Pastor’s letter to the editor with a moral case against homosexuality hate speech

Quote: “Attorney General Eric Holder admitted a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister’s sermon about homosexuality would be protected by the proposed federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn’t be.

“But won’t Christians benefit from religious hate crimes protection. Given the current administration, no. Second, any group claiming to have the word of God, and to know the will of God should be able to defend the word of God with holy wisdom. The bible has been around for almost 2000 years, and has stood the test of time. Regimes have banned it, churches in the dark ages burned it and those who printed it, “science” critics have ripped into it, and still it stands. God does not need draconian laws to defend his name. Those religions who fear criticism, and seek to pass laws that ban such criticism, as the Islamic “republics” have, must be afraid that their god won’t stand up to criticism.

Now that we have our own national hate crimes law, I *hope* this next article happens here:

Canada’s internet hate crimes law ruled unconstitutional, and they don’t have a “1st amendment!”

Disclaimer: Opposition to a lifestyle, action or political/social cause (LAoPSC) does not mean hatred of those who engage in aforementioned disapproved LAoPSC. Believing that 2 wrongs do not make a right; I hereby denounce, discourage and reject any and all violence perpetuated, committed or plotted by any individual, group, organization or entity against those who support LAoPSC.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

the truth about D’s and R’s

Posted by americana83 on October 23, 2009

I am sure that some of you think I march lock-step with the GOP based on the things I have written about Barack Obama and all his sordid associations. However, if you think that, you have missed the point. Especially within the last year, the GOP has shown an abandonment of the professed principles that attracted me to it in the first place: family values, small government, low taxes, free market. However, it has become much more like the Democrat Party. Lets explore what has happened in the GOP, especially from the last months of G.W. Bush up to now.

George W Bush, really got the ball rolling by signing off on the Democratic progressives’ 700 billion dollar TARP fiasco. The government had no business doing that, and G.W. Bush, as a self-professing conservative, had no business signing off on something so grossly unconstitutional.

Michael Steele. Despite the initial excitement over his being named to the GOP chair, he quickly showed his true colors. In a GQ Interview that has since been scrubbed from the GQ website, Steele dug himself into a hole by revealing how he truly feels about conservatism, marriage, and abortion.

Why do you think so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party right now?
’Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we’ve created is that we don’t give a d**n about them or we just outright don’t like them. And that’s not a healthy thing for a political party. I think the way we’ve talked about immigration, the way we’ve talked about some of the issues that are important to African-Americans, like affirmative action… I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that’s important to a particular community doesn’t engender confidence in your leadership by that community—or consideration of you for office or other things—because you’ve already given off the vibe that you don’t care. What I’m trying to do now is to say we do give a d**n.

We “offer them nothing?” We “just don’t like them?” Does he think throwing in a curse word makes him trendy?  Has Steele fell into the Al Sharpton/Rev Wright/ Barack Obama mindset that conservative thought is inherently racist? It is clear that Steele knows very little about conservatism. True conservatism doesn’t offer handouts, or bribes for votes. What conservatism offers is equality. No one is esteemed above another on account of their race. Race quotas, race preferences, those things say “look, you’re not good enough because your a minority, and we need to give you a bonus so you can stand up against the non-minorities.” That is diametrically opposed to conservatism, which stresses the individual over the collective. Any organization that claims conservatism, while embracing racism, attempts to integrate an alien and evil ideology that subverts the whole claim of conservatism.

Now lets see what he says about homosexuality:

Do you have a problem with gay priests who are celibate?
No, it’s your nature. It’s your nature. You can’t—I can’t deny you your nature.

For a Seminarian, who would presumably have read the scriptures, God has a clear commandment for would-be priests/pastors/reverend:

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach…(1 Timothy 3:1-2). He would also have known this: “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26). He would also have been aware of the New Testament condemnation of such behaviors, and that a priest that is “dead in his sins” could never rightly divide the Word of God.

Let’s talk about gay marriage. What’s your position?
Well, my position is, hey, look, I have been, um, supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them. You know, the ability to be able to share in the information of your partner, to have the ability to—particularly in times of crisis—to manage their affairs and to help them through that as others—you know, as family members or others—would be able to do. I just draw the line at the gay marriage. And that’s not antigay, no. Heck no! It’s just that, you know, from my faith tradition and upbringing, I believe that marriage—that institution, the sanctity of it—is reserved for a man and a woman. That’s just my view. And I’m not gonna jump up and down and beat people upside the head about it, and tell gays that they’re wrong for wanting to aspire to that, and all of that craziness. That’s why I believe that the states should have an opportunity to address that issue.

Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”

So your feeling would be that people are born one way or another.
I mean, I think that’s the prevailing view at this point, and I know that there’s some out there who think that you can absolutely make that choice. And maybe some people have. I don’t know, I can’t say. Until we can give a definitive answer one way or the other, I think we should respect that.

Steele tossed his “faith tradition” under the bus. Apparently being a man pleaser is more important than being right. To rephrase his answer another way, “I’m not going to let my faith influence my positions.” Sounds a lot like a certain Senator John Kerry, who’s own professed faith played no role in any decisions he made regarding moral matters. He also throws the perverted concept that sexual perversions are the equivalent of race. Race is immutable, sexual preferences can change. His answer to that last question is just a bunch of waffling. There is no consensus that homosexuality is genetic, radical scientists have been searching for it for years.

How about abortion? What does Steele think about that?

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?

How so?
You know, Lee Atwater said it best: We are a big-tent party. We recognize that there are views that may be divergent on some issues, but our goal is to correspond, or try to respond, to some core values and principles that we can agree on.

Do you think you’re more welcoming to pro-choice people than Democrats are to pro-lifers?
Now that’s a good question. I would say we are. Because the Democrats wouldn’t allow a pro-lifer to speak at their convention. We’ve had many a pro-choicer speak at ours—long before Rudy Giuliani. So yeah, that’s something I’ve been trying to get our party to appreciate. It’s not just in our words but in our actions, we’ve been a party that’s much more embracing. Even when we have missed the boat on, uh, minority issues, the Bush administration did an enormous amount to advance the individual opportunities for minorities in our country. In housing. In education. In health care.

It is the whole stupid concept of the “big tent” that has condemned the GOP to electoral hades.  The party doesn’t claim to stand for anything. Obama and the Democrats are clear where they stand on many issues, even if they are dead wrong. A “big tent” can’t take a stand, a big tent has no choice but to move to the left to pick up the abortionists and the homosexuals and the socialists. Perhaps Steele wasn’t aware that one of the main reasons people were attracted to the GOP is for its professed pro-life stance. So much for “core values and principles,” Steel has chucked those under the bus in his quest to create an ecumenical mush that is incapable of drawing the hard core from the Democrat party, and too perverse to attract the conservative faithful.

The truth about D’s and R’s is this: The Republican party is rapidly selling out its principles and becoming a progressive party, akin to the progressive wing of the Democrat party. If I wanted a liberal candidate, I’d have voted for the progressive democrat. But with party bigwigs like the RNC and Newt Gingrich lining up to endorse and fund Progressives running as Republicans, it looks like you can just vote GOP to get a leftist. With Obama’s progressive appointees worshipping Mao, embracing Islamic Sharia law, and sponsoring gay p!rn, “mere” liberals may look like a better choice. However, the end result will be the same. When a republican receives the Margaret Sanger radical abortionist award, it is time to revoke the conservative credentials of ANYONE who supports, funds or endorses that candidate, regardless of their party affiliation.

All this said, parties labels increasingly mean nothing. It all has to do with positions. Ideologically speaking, liberals embrace change, conservatives preserve the norm. So depending on what is being preserved or changed, either label could be good or bad. With respect to the past, yesterday’s republicans where liberals, in the sense that they opposed tenaciously the establishment of slavery, and sought to change it. So the term “liberal” can be good depending on what kind of change is being sought. Movements towards personal freedoms in china would be liberal in the generic sense. However, on the modern political scene in America, Liberal has come to be associated with a specific set of goals, especially at the federal level. Among them are:

Changing society to embrace abortion as an absolute right

Changing society to embrace homosexuality as beautiful

Changing society to redistribute wealth

Changing society to abhor and abolish private ownership of guns

Change society to accept that government’s duty is to provide everything for its citizens

Change society to believe that profit is evil

Change society to believe religion (Christianity) has no place in the public square

Change society by creating permanent racial divisions, that some are more equal than others

Change society by submerging American exceptionalism and promoting globalist socialism (United Nations)

Changing society by getting citizens to accept outrageous government control (soda tax, carbon tax) out of fear

Changing society by rewarding law breakers (illegal immigrants)

Changing society to believe in a dubious “living constitution” that doesn’t actually mean what it says, but rather, whatever they want it to.

Changing society into a collective, and submerging the individual within it.

John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and every other major progressive Democrat politician supports most, if not all, of the above positions and are thus liberal. However, progressive republican politicians like Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, Olympia Snowe, DeDe Scozzafava, John McCain and others are increasingly supporting the above statement in a self-centered attempt to grow and strengthen a party structure as opposed to doing what is best for America and her people. Yet both sides of the isle will, when it is beneficial to their own agenda, in many cases parrot a conservative line to deceive the voters into supporting them. President Obama used a good conservative message of self-reliance in the final version of his school speech:

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.
And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. SOURCE

Basically, the meaning of the conservatism I espouse is this:

Preserving the concept of unborn children’s rights

Preserving the definition of marriage as between a woman and man

Preserving the right of people to keep what they earn legally

Preserving the private ownership of guns, and means of self defense.

Preserving the concept of personal and religious responsibility.

Preserving the right of people to earn a profit and spend or invest it as they desire.

Preserve the notion that America was founded on Christian principles, and that is what made us strong

Preserve the concept that there should be equality, no institutionalized racial preference or deference.

Restore American exceptionalism by getting us out of entangling alliances that are detrimental to our people (the UN)

Preserve American freedom by opposing all punitive taxes and government power grabs (global warming, soda tax)

Restore the concept that law breakers should be punished, not rewarded for their deeds.

Restore the concept of “original intent,” that the constitution means what it says it does, and that it actually guarantees the rights it claims to.

Preserving right of the individual to excel, and guaranteeing equality of opportunity, not outcome

I hope this clarifies my positions on the political parties, and that I do not champion a corrupt and liberal Republican party  as a replacement to the corrupt and liberal Democrat regime we currently reside under. I hope you will join me in seeking out and supporting conservative constitutionalists that will uphold the best and highest ideals of the American experiment, and speak out with boldness against radicals- regardless of party affiliation.

Actions speak louder than words. Listen and take heed. The future of our republic is at stake.

Newt teams up with Nancy Pelosi to sell the American people on global “climate change,” which is merely a UN scheme to soak the US for more money and even sovereignty:

1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations. (SOURCE: official UN site)

unofficial carbon credit ration coupon, based on WWII ration coupon

I daresay NO one who was a genuine conservative would sell out the prosperity and sovereignty of the US and her people for anything, let alone the JUNK science of man-caused global warming, er, I mean climate change.

liberal American politicians know no party lines

Progressive American politicians know no party lines

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Obama on race, what you may have missed…

Posted by americana83 on July 29, 2009

Obama and his campaign have talked about “post-racial” America. He ran a campaign on based on “unity” despite dividing his followers along racial lines on his campaign website. Consider the following brief exerts from Obama’s book, “Dreams from my father.” Whether Joyce is real, or a “composite” created by Obama (which is possible based on the preface, his feelings on racial identity are clear. Given his bi-racial heritage, he chose to adopt an African cultural identity. Certainly, no one can deny him that. And yet, when someone else decides to define themselves how they want, Obama lashes out viciously eviscerating them for not taking a “side” that he feels they should take (all of the exerts are from page 98-100 in the 2004 softback edition).

In his own words:

our worries seemed indistinguishable from those of the white kids around us. Surviving classes. Finding a well-paying gig after graduation. Trying to get laid. I had stumbled upon one of the well-kept secrets about black people: that most of us weren’t interested in revolt; that most of us were tired of thinking about race all the time; that if we preferred to keep to ourselves it was mainly because that was the easiest way to stop thinking about it, easier than spending all your time mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you. So why couldn’t I let it go? I don’t know. I didn’t have the luxury, I suppose, the certainty of the tribe. Grow up in Compton and survival becomes a revolutionary act. You get to college and your family is still back there rooting for you. They’re happy to see you escape; there’s no question of betrayal. But I hadn’t grown up in Compton, or Watts. I had nothing to escape from except my own inner doubt. I was more like the black students who had grown up in the suburbs, kids whose parents had already paid the price of escape. You could spot them right away by the way they talked, the people they sat with in the cafeteria. When pressed, they would sputter and explain that they refused to be categorized. They weren’t defined by the color of their skin, they would tell you. They were individuals.

It is clear by this that Obama has a disdain for those who reject a collective racialist identity for an individual one. It gets even better in the next section:

That’s how Joyce liked to talk. She was a good-looking woman, Joyce was, with her green eyes and honey skin and pouty lips. We lived in the same dorm my freshman year, and all the brothers were after her. One day I asked her if she was going to the Black Students’ Association meeting. She looked at me funny, then started shaking her head like a baby who doesn’t want what it sees on the spoon.

First, he builds up her physical attractiveness, especially to the black men. Then he goes for the kill. She doesn’t want to get involved with the BSA, so he converts her from a woman to a baby, ignorant and unwilling to get involved with something he believes is good. Throughout his book, Obama reveals how he self determined his own ethnic identity, molding himself into his own perception of an African man, not only rejecting the Anglo blood within himself, but connecting it with the rape of Malcom X’s mother. However, when Joyce attempts to chart her own ethnic identity, Barack slams her hard:

I’m not black,” Joyce said. “I’m multiracial.” Then she started telling me about her father, who happened to be Italian and was the sweetest man in the world; and her mother, who happened to be part African and part French and part Native American and part something else. “Why should I have to choose between them?” she asked me. Her voice cracked, and I thought she was going to cry. “It’s not white people who are making me choose. Maybe it used to be that way, but now they’re willing to treat me like a person. No-it’s black people who always have to make everything racial. They’re the ones making me choose. They’re the ones who are telling me that I can’t be who I am….”

Its clear from this that Joyce has a diverse heritage. Why should she be forced to exclude any part of it (including the “something else” which Barack so smoothly derides. Barack makes it seem like the “they” she is talking about is African-Americans or blacks as a collective whole. But this is deceptive. The “they” she is referring to here is very likely the racialized radicals like Obama and his mentor Frank Marshal Davis and later on Reverend Wright. The radicals must have constantly harassed Joyce about being a sell-out or “uncle Tom” pressuring her to despise the totality of her heritage and cast her lot with the racialized marxists (as we shall see later in the paragraph after the discussion on Joyce). Obama continues to rip Joyce:

They, they, they. That was the problem with people like Joyce. They talked about the richness of their multicultural heritage and it sounded real good, until you noticed that they avoided black people. It wasn’t a matter of conscious choice, necessarily, just a matter of gravitational pull, the way integration always worked, a one-way street. The minority assimilated into the dominant culture, not the other way around. Only white culture could be neutral and objective. Only white culture could be nonracial, willing to adopt the occasional exotic into its ranks. Only white culture had individuals. And we, the half-breeds and the college-degreed, take a survey of the situation and think to ourselves, Why should we get lumped in with the losers if we don’t have to? We become only so grateful to lose ourselves in the crowd, America’s happy, faceless marketplace; and we’re never so outraged as when a cabbie drives past us or the woman in the elevator clutches her purse, not so much because we’re bothered by the fact that such indignities are what less fortunate coloreds have to put up with every single day of their lives-although that’s what we tell ourselves-but because we’re wearing a Brooks Brothers suit and speak impeccable English and yet have somehow been mistaken for an ordinary n***er.

Don’t you know who I am? I’m an individual!

So, based on the fact that Joyce refused to join herself to one organization, Obama concludes she avoided black people. He goes on to deride integration, painting “nonracial” culture as merely a white thing. This paragraph also makes the ignorant assumption that all cabs are driven by white racists, all women are fearful of black men, and all “coloreds” are less fortunate. Of course his derision of individuals and individualism has become a trademark of his campaign and presidency, most recently highlighted by his attempt to transform a confrontation between a cop and a belligerent uncooperative man into a national race war. Obama deals in collectivist mentalities not personal freedoms, liberties, or individuals. This is explained by the paragraph immediately succeeding the above, where he arrogantly claims to “understand” people like Joyce:

The truth was that I understood her, her and all the other black kids who felt the way she did. In their mannerisms, their speech, their mixed-up hearts, I kept recognizing pieces of myself. And that’s exactly what scared me. Their confusion made me question my own racial credentials all over again, Ray’s trump card still lurking in the back of my mind. I needed to put distance between them and myself, to convince myself that I wasn’t compromised-that I was indeed still awake. To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.

He only understood her in relation to his socialistic mindset. He basically says that Marxism is part of an uncompromised “black” identity! Then, he slams people who identify as “individuals” instead of collectives as being “confused.” His radicalization is also demonstrated in his choice of friends. “Birds of a feather flock together.”According He chose Marxists and radicals as his friends, and he did it carefully. Here he succeeds in tying his ethnic identity (Black) to radical ideologies (Marxism and leftist activists). Therefore, by his definition, Joyce, or any other multi-racial or African who rejects his mixture of leftist radicalism to embrace individualism or a western mindset would be a “confused” individual “selling out” their ethnic identity.

Someone with a truly post-racial mentality would not attempt to use race as a bludgeon or wedge to force someone off of the beliefs they hold dear. Barack Obama is stuck in a racist marxist mindset that has no place in an America that has been making continued strides towards a standard of true equality as far as laws and government can create such a standard. He himself is proof that progress only goes as far as individuals are willing to take it. For it takes only one person to revive the specter of government sanctioned racism, one judge that puts race above justice. Yes, an individual can almost single handedly turn the ride of progress back, and then use the resulting discord to further his degenerate ends. Sonya Sotomayor, Van Jones, Maria del Carmen, and other racists and Marxists are being selected for positions high in Obama‘s administration. Over two hundred years of progress in relations between Americans of diverse colors are being systematically dismantled by the man who was heralded as the culmination of racial unity and equality.

Posted in Barack Obama, deception, Election 2008, intolerance, news, Obama, Presidential, Racism, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

The Anti-Tea Party Movement: Profiles in hypocrisy.

Posted by americana83 on July 10, 2009

Update 8/25/2010. My congratulations to Mike Flugennock, the artist who created the original artwork of the fine “attempted” parody below, who recently stumbled across my website! After painting a hasty gathering of black conservatives as a “fail” because there weren’t 1.6 million people there, accusing Breitbart of  editing the Sherrod video (without mentioning explicitly the alleged klan robes and burning cross materials stashed in his closet), he did something I have to sincerely thank him for doing: he managed to find ONE ‘tea party’ candidate that was swapping racially insensative and vulgar emails. It is here that I remind everyone why it is important that moral values go along with advocacy for constitutional economic reforms or we will lose the country. A focus on bare economics will set us up to fail, as this candidate clearly does not have a firm foundation. Anyone who forwards racist and profane emails should not attempt to lead this movement, you will inevitably be exposed (the bible does say your sins will find you out) and you will do much more damage to the cause you profess to support. However, one thing that Mr Flugennock didn’t take into account when he slammed my article is that this article was written well before Carl Paladino’s perversions were known. I stand by my claim that the tea party, and the true conservative movement in general, is motivated by ISSUES not race. I should note here that racism can only stem from a collectivist mindset, since individualism is a tenant of conservatism, no true conservative can be a racist. And Mr. Flugennock is also correct that parody is ‘fair use.’ And Mr. Flugennock, I don’t care why you were laughing, I’m just glad I was able to brighten your day! 🙂

The Main Stream Media love to call the Tea Parties an “Astroturf” movement, meaning that they aren’t an authentic movement of the people, that they are merely people drawn to conservative celebrities, whether they be Glenn Beck or Rush (though Rush has intentionally distanced himself from the movement citing that very reason.

Yet, this same MSM saw no problem at all with, nor did they call the Hope and Change campaign in 2008 “Astroturf” despite the celebrities that climbed on board.

Will-I-Am and other liberal elites exalt Obama in a song flavored with “praise and worship” styled music and lyrics.

“Obama Girl” uses her body and sexy poses with images of Obama to cultivate an aura of celebrity around Obama that is empty. Do you really thing “boring discussions of policy” could have created such undying love in a generation (my generation) with perpetual ADHD? The MSM gave her several awards for her fantastic piece of astroturf. (While it resulted in actual votes, I consider popularity built around sexy political images instead of policy and practicality to be fake aura) (Astroturf is used to cover over dirt and concrete concealing reality in a prefabricated illusion of lush greenness)

A more “distinguished: part of the astroturfing of Obama was the incessant pimping of the “historical” aspect of Obama’s election. This pimping was carried out by every MSM news outlet, and by most news papers, for which Obama’s race trumped his agenda and any other considerations (This included the “conservative” Columbus dispatch, which though it technically endorsed “McCain-Palin” trumpeted the “historic” aspect of the election in almost every article written, with references to race so constantly, they must have thought all their readers had Alzheimer’s and forgot the historic aspect within seconds of reading of it.

One could argue that celebrities like the black eyed peas’ Will-I-AM, and cyber celebs like “Obama Girl” helped to propel Obama’s campaign over the top, creating an aura of celebrity around Obama himself. The media and other celebrities were complicit in making the “historical” aspect of the election, namely Obama’s skin color, the main attraction, followed by his “hip youngness.”

The Tea Parties, by contrast, do not center around a cult of personality. While Obama Girl and company made it about Obama’s “hotness” or “making history” the Tea Parties are about ideas, the chief among them opposing socialism (rapidly expanding government spending and control) and hailing the restoration of the free market and individual liberties.

Movements need leaders, who understand what’s going on with the ability to explain why something needs to be done.

They call these things a product of Fox. That’s because Fox angered the other stations by actually covering the protests and rallies in a “fair and balanced” manner, without resorting to juvenile derision tactics employed by CNN and MSNBC. (Speaking of such who can forget the MSNBC anchor that got a thrill going down his leg when he heard Obama’s voice?)

The other attempt going on to discredit the movement is that its only “old white guys” protesting the “historic election.” They think everyone else is as superficial and race-based as themselves, and that the only reason anyone could possibly oppose Obama is because “he is a black man.” This tactic is also employed by ignorant youtube kitties which make videos like this one:

The author of the video has included this email address in the video’s intro. flugennock@sinkers.org since he has disabled comments and video replies, I would urge you to email him and tell him that he’s wrongly and grossly slandering average Americans of all walks of life.

Claiming the Tea Party attendees are Nazis and white power people. He missed the passionate latin American immigrant who spoke at the DC rally, as well as the diversity within the very audience he tried to paint as little hitlers. These people lie to make themselves feel better, and because they have nothing of substance to attack people standing up for the constitution, and against tyranny. So they call them “racists” and “tea baggers”

My photo collage of the attenders of the July 4th Washington DC tea party.

People of all colors issuing an open invitation for Janeane Garafolo to attend the July 4th Texas tea party and see who makes up the tea party movement.

Ironically, with a little creative editing of my own, one of Flugennock’s own comics can be turned on him…

bigbus satire

Posted in Barack Obama, communism, deception, Election 2008, Entertainment, Hollywood, moveon.org, news, Obama, Presidential, Racism, social spending, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »