Michael Wolfe

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

Posts Tagged ‘Racism’

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 »

The War on Black People

Posted by americana83 on May 10, 2012

Sharpton is right, there is a War on Black Pe0ple. The pr0blem is he missed who is conducting it. Its not the GOP, and it didn’t start yesterday. It was openly conducted by probably the most notorious American racist of the 20th century. She talked of a “Negro problem” the way the Nazis talked of a “Jewish question.” I guess I can’t blame Sharpton for missing it because others far greater than he missed it too (the best I can hope for in this is ignorance). Of course, none of them want to touch it because it is a progressive leader of the only women’s right progressives seem to care about, abortion. Of course its evil leader is Margaret Sanger.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble

– This and more evil quotes here.

This evil woman was the founder of an organization that receives tax payers’ money. The president embraces it, and received high ranks from it for his political career in Illinois. This organization has murdered more blacks than probably any other racist organization in America in the past hundred years.

More about the dead Commander in Chief of the War on Black People

Her organization eagerly accepts money for “any reason” including a specific request to exterminate black people



How can the so-called leaders of the black community ignore such an organization and even be complicit in its nefarious activities. Those who call themselves ministers especially? And even more, how can a “Reverend” Al Sharpton declare that there is a “War on Black People” without acknowledging the leaders of this war? Further, he must think pretty low of Black Americans if he thinks government welfare cutbacks are targeted at Blacks, when there are many  more white people on those programs, are a war on Black people, then just wait until the whole unsustainable mess collapses. It is better for the government to withdrawal from the failed decades long “war on poverty” (which actually increases dependency and destroys autonomy) now than to face a collapse with no withdrawal period.

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

Glenn Beck Doesn’t Hate The Jewish People: A Point by Point Rebuttal to the JIDF’s Anti-Beck Campaign

Posted by americana83 on June 17, 2011

Update: TO clear any possible confusion, the JIDF (Jewish Internet Defense Force)  has nothing to do with the IDF (Israel Defense Force) and is not affiliated in any way with the government of Israel. I support and embrace a sovereign and independent nation of Israel and oppose any and all attempts to disarm, partition or otherwise damage it. This article is concerned not primarily with the personality of Glenn Beck, but of the ability of even usually good organizations to use and descend to slander and deception when they put an agenda ahead of the truth.

I only address this issue because I take such matters of racial hatred seriously, and that charges of racism/anti-Semitism should only be made when there is clear and indisputable proof of said charge. The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) has often taken a decent stand and I have stood with them on some issues. However, I cannot stand with an organization that condones, sanctions and engages in slander and outright fabrications of the truth.  Recently, they have been attacking Glenn Beck as an anti-Semite, without any credible sourcing. Further, it must be noted before reading this that it has become clear through this episode that the JIDF defines witnessing and reaching out to Jewish people with Jesus Christ as anti-Semitism on par with the Holocaust, “Hitler’s dream.”   This would qualify many people who genuinely love the Jewish people as anti-Semites. The JIDF also counts the New Testament of the Bible as anti-Semite too, and has demonstrated animosity towards Messianic Jews, who have accepted Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah. These things said, now lets examine the JIDF’s claims against Glenn Beck:

1. JIDF claims that Beck placed the guilt of Jesus’s death on the entire Jewish population saying, “He promoted the anti-Semitic idea that the Jews killed Jesus to millions.  All of us.  We’re all to blame, apparently.”

Regarding the YouTube video link above, one YouTube user said this, and it is true:

another misrepresentation by TYT. He is clearly stating that christ was NOT victimized by the jews. If you understand the actual context of his statement (which you wont unless you see the whole thing…which I have) then you understand that he is stating that THE JEWISH PEOPLE ARE NOT TO HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE DEATH OF JESUS. He is stating that the “jesus as a victim” theology is an abomination..which it is. TYT….i can actually smell the shame from here….jgmetals81

Further, Glenn Beck wrote the following letter to the ADL, which is on their website and which I here quote in its entirety:

Mr. Foxman,

Thank you for the note and for reaching out to me.

As you assumed, it was certainly not my intention to say what I have been accused of saying. I strongly believe that it is a historical fact that the Romans, not the Jews, put Jesus to death and that fact has been confirmed by the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations.

Although the words I chose did not make this clear, I was trying to reference accusations that have been made against the Jews and how some of those accusations have led to horrors like the Inquisition as they were permitted to go unchallenged.

While as a non-Jew, I can never fully understand the suffering that has resulted from the historically inaccurate deicide charge, as someone with German heritage, I recognize the horrors that have been perpetrated on Jews throughout history and have asked if my ancestors knew what was taking place and looked the other way or how they could not have known of the horrors taking place. .

Thank you again for reaching out to me, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my thoughts and would welcome the chance to continue the dialogue so I can better understand the injustices that your organization is committed to fighting.


Glenn Beck

The ADL accepts Beck’s clarification, but the JIDF does not.

2. The JIDF claims Beck endorsed an anti-Semite while discussing the book “The Red Network,” written by Elizabeth Dilling in 1934. Here is a segment of the transcript posted on Glenn Beck.com where he discusses the book:

GLENN: Oh, I know. I know. This here is a pocket history of the American Revolution, pocket history, 1826. Now, I’m getting a lot of people sending their books in. I think they are mainly from people who are like, “I don’t have any relatives to leave them to and I know you’ll preserve them.” And I will. In fact, I had a conversation with my daughters yesterday when I came home. I showed them these books and I said, I will come back from the grave if I ever see anybody with jam hands generations down the road that don’t appreciate what these books are. But I’m also getting these. This is a book, the Red Network. This came in from 1936. People — McCarthy was absolutely right. Now, he may have used bad tactics or whatever, but he was absolutely right. This is a book — and I’m getting a ton of these from people who were doing what we’re doing now. We now are documenting who all of these people are. Well, there were Americans in the first 50 years of this nation that took this seriously and they documented it. And this is from 1936. And in it, it talks about, it’s The Who’s Who and Handbook For Radicalism For Patriots. This is, who were the communists in America. The overwhelming number of communists? Labor unions.

The other thing that they talked about was, in this book that I was reading last night, they said, you know, there’s this — there’s this teachers union thing but you really want to know who the real radical communists are? The NEA. That’s 1936. And they are talking about this new organization that is really nasty that you really have to look out for. The NEA. But everything this book has talked about they have mainstreamed.

Until I read it, I can’t comment on the book’s content, but, given Beck’s record, I doubt he would knowingly give place to anti-Semitism. Beck was discussing a book he was reading that exposed communism in America, and said that regarding communism, the book had a prophetic element to it. It should also be noted that, according to Wikipedia, Dillings didn’t give place to anti-Semitism until 1940:

She then wrote The Roosevelt Red Record and Its Background (1936), condemning the New Deal, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and officials in his administration, claiming they had strong links to Communists. In The Octopus (1940), which she wrote under the pseudonym Rev. Frank Woodruff Johnson, she attacked the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and linked Jews to communism. It was then that she shifted her emphasis to Jews as being responsible for all the world’s problems, partly based on her readings of the Talmud.

This should mean that Red Network was not an anti-Semitic work, however, I will not assert this until I have read the book.

3. The JIDF accuses Glenn Beck of trivializing the Holocaust. Apparently they believe that examining the many evil elements of the National Socialist agenda is equal to trivializing the Holocaust. One must also note that Germany did not go from Weimar Republic to Holocaust over night, and there were many incremental changes that set the state for an atrocity of that magnitude to occur in a supposedly civilized country. Unfortunately, the best source they offer is “Countdown with Keith Olbermann, obviously not someone to go to for an unbiased analysis of Glenn Beck:

As you can see, even in these cherry-picked seconds long snippets, Glenn Beck does not call any of these things “the Holocaust” but merely discusses aspects of Nazi (National Socialist) teaching and policy. Nothing Anti-Semitic about it. And Keith certainly doesn’t understand the danger of allowing empathy to take the place of the law, and is ignorant of the dangers of government funded propaganda, but those are topics for another place and time.

4. They take issue with Beck’s list of “most dangerous people,” accusing Beck of being an anti-semite because he denounced the following individuals. I have hyper-lined each individual to his discussion on GlennBeck.com, and I will let you be the judge of whether or not these individuals deserve to be denounced, without regard to their alleged backgrounds (brief quotes are from the linked article):

· Edward Bernays: Bernays believed that people were motivated by irrational, animal urges. It was a philosophy of the Progressive era, much different than that of the Founders. He believed people were motivated by self-preservation, security, aggression or sex. He shared many of the same theories as Freud.

· Sigmund Freud: Freud basic tenet: hidden deep within all human beings were dangerous and irrational desires and fears. People are not rational  – we have inside of us powerful sexual and aggressive forces that were remnants of our animal past. Feelings we repressed because they were too dangerous.

· George Soros: QUOTE:  “I don’t deny the Jews their right to a national existence–but I don’t want to be part of it.” That experience notwithstanding, Soros has chosen to exclude Israel and Jewish causes, by and large, from his massive philanthropy-a decision that has caused comment among one of his colleagues in the financial community, particularly those who are strong supporters of Israel. In Hungary, Soros has been subject to anti-Semitic attacks. Referring to being a target, Soros, in his book “Underwriting Democracy,” wrote, “I am ready to stand up and be counted.” When I mentioned that rather suggestive line to Soros during one of several extended interviews with him, he responded quickly, “Right. It took me a long time.”

· Cass Sunstein: The office of information and regulatory affairs, Cass Sunstein who I maintain is the most dangerous man in America because you never see this guy coming. According to Red State, Cass Sunstein had championed creating fake websites and using outside 501(c)(3) interest groups to act as alleged independent champions of government policy and to, quote, cognitively infiltrate, end quote, opposition websites.

·Andy Stern, QUOTE: “We created global trade, we created global finance. We created global companies, but we forgot to create a global government.”

· Walter Lippman: Walter Lippmann was the guy who every journalist in America has studied and hails as a hero. He was a eugenicist or eugenics guy. He was a progressive, he was a member of Woodrow Wilson’s administration. He was a really evil dude. When he when Walter Lippmann heard about Fabian Socialism, he said the guys opened up for him. But Stuart Chase just went and became a Fabian Socialist with him at Harvard.

· Frances Fox Piven: The above video shows Frances Fox Piven, in her own words, calling for chaos and manipulating current events in order to achieve the goals of the progressive movement.

· Ed Rendell:(Link is to full article which is provided on Glenn’s abbreviated article. Not really much on Beck’s site if Beck Considers him one of the “most dangerous, its not readily clear on his website: QUOTE: Glenn highlights the real problem with ‘discourse’ in America today – superiority. He plays the incredibly revealing audio clip of Ed Rendell trying to explain his position on an issue, and when the guest disagrees his reaction is shocking. Read more and watch a free clip HERE.

5. The JIDF takes Glenn Beck’s ignorance of some of the tenants of “Reform Judaism, and transliterates it into blame for a forum poster blaming 9/11 on Israel!

That’s right. Despite the fact that the Glenn Beck forum itself identifies the 9/11 attackers as mostly the Muslim Brotherhood. The JIDF’s slander of Glenn Beck has echoed across the internet, leading others to blame the ludictrus article, which doesn’t show up using the JIDF’s google search hyperlink that is supposed to prove Glenn Beck believes Israel did 9/11. What a vicious and deceitful way to slander someone. But according to the JIDF, it is true because someone was repeating in forums related to Glenn Beck, the 9/12 movement, Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. The JIDF doesn’t even take care to note that Glenn Beck has absolutely no control over the individual 9/12 groups, and that trolls can join groups and post obscene things and then go away.

They end this point with the ridiculous assertion that based on one screw ball’s alleged post that, ” it’s no wonder that many of Beck’s fans believe that Israel was responsible for 9/11. I do not know why they have such animosity towards Beck now. Well actually, it will become apparent with the final point.

A comment in response to their coverage here, had this to say:

You have no proof Glenn Beck wrote this. You are relying on a post by a nobody. You are guilty of the 9th commandment. You are trying to slander Glenn Beck’s reputation w no evidence at all. I did not expect this from you guys. I watch his show daily and he is pro-Israel all the way. I know he would never say such a thing. You are being just like the media, posting lies and ruining somebody’s reputation without evidence of wrongdoing. I did not expect this low from this group. Glenn Beck 5:00 EST fox channel. Folks watch it and see for yourselves! Also, check out all of the replies to this article on facebook.

6. Then, they blame Glenn Beck for the alleged Mormon practice of baptising Dead Jews to convert them to mormonism! But that is just a side rant,  here’s the kicker, and the reason for that animosity, and I quote:

And no, his superficial “support” for Israel to get all the Jews there so that he and his Mormon and Christian “Rapture Ready” minions can convert us, does not convince us that he does not hate Jews.  “Support” like that—with an agenda to convert (ie. destroy) Jews—is not support at all, it’s a Hitler-esque dream.

The JIDF equates preaching salvation through Christ (and most of what I have heard Glenn Beck say about Jesus and Christianity has been basic Christian doctrine, not Mormon doctrine. They assert that preaching destroys Jews, and that it is tantamount to Hitler’s “dream.” Hey, JIDF, isn’t that trivializing the Holocaust, which you so baselessly and deceptively accused Glenn Beck of doing earlier? Equating a gospel tract, or a quote of John 3:16 to committing genocide is ridiculous.

But it doesn’t end there. They even take credit for Glenn Beck’s departure from his TV show on Fox News:

All of this explains why we called for him to be fired.  And within two days of doing so, he was.  (Never mind that Van Jones’ group, ColorofChange.org also declared the same thing too – Wolfe) It was probably a “coincidence,” but we’re glad still when stuff like that happens.  It gives us a shred of faith that there might be a shred of justice in an overwhelmingly unjust world.   The fact that this nutcase Glenn Beck influences millions and makes millions is just one of the many things wrong with it.  Beyond this, our pointing out the facts does not mean that we are diving our people.  If anyone is responsible for so much disunity among right and left wing Jews, it’s people like Glenn Beck, who obsess and express so much hatred toward our left-wing brethren.  Who can blame them for voting for Obama when right wing nutcases like Glenn Beck foster so much hatred and vitriol toward them?  Is that going to bring us closer to them, or further away?  Like it or not, left wing Jews are our brethren.  We can “convert” them to the right wing through our smarts, not by blaming all the world’s problems on them, as idiots like Glenn Beck and his fans always do.

In this post, the JIDF is claiming racial solidarity (because clearly people like Soros and Stern are not practicing the Jewish faith, 10 commandments, etc) trumps ideological unity, which is in line with the progressive agenda and which keeps people from recognizing those who are out to harm all of us! The JIDF, throws all of its principles under the bus and espouses the left’s racial solidarity and translates it into an us verses them. Glenn Beck has been open and outspoken against far left ideologues, politicians, and celebrities of every stripe. This charge from the JIDF is absurd in the highest fashion. Even one of the racists in the anti-semitic forums that came up from one of the hyperlinks posted by the JIDF said this: “A small part of me wonders if he tries to slip little things in without getting himself in too much trouble. I doubt it but the possibility is perhaps there. But, and this is a big but, when he speaks on the actual topics of J (capitalization mine) ews and Israel he is a HUGE Philosemite and typical neo con.” You can google it to find the quote if you like, I do not wish to post links to hate forums.

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

A National Disgrace: Obama Vs Israel

Posted by americana83 on March 29, 2010

In a move more fitting of a spoiled child than a sitting president, Obama walked out on a meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel earlier this week. This on the heels of his arrogant shout of go ahead and try to repeal this bill that the people wanted, and the constant whining of liberal talking heads about how rude and ignorant and racist Obama’s growing opposition is (incidentally, Obama’s demands for Jews to stop building on their land smacks of racist antisemitism, but then you should be used to the blatant hypocrisy of this administration by now.

From WND,

Earlier this week, Obama walked out of a meeting with Netanyahu at the White House, inviting the Israeli leader to remain alone and reconsider his negotiation stance … or get out.

“I’m still around,” the daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot quoted Obama as saying, before walking out on the stunned Netanyahu. “Let me know if there is anything new.”

One would think that the boy king would be more than pleased enough to have (unconstitutionally and against the will of the people) consolidated medical power in the hands of the state that he could handle a “petty disagreement” about land that isn’t even his! But no. He cannot handle dissent. He cannot handle resistance to his agenda. So he does what any dignified national leader would do, walks out and tells another sovereign leader that he’s still willing to talk if he comes around to Obama’s point of view.

Yes, change has come to America, domestically and abroad. The way Obama treats our allies is a disgrace. The way he cozies up to dictators and anti-American tyrants is shameful. America has had her share of mistakes.  But we really outdid ourselves in November of 2008. God help us.

If anyone from Israel is reading, or anyone who have ever looked to the United States as the land of freedom: the person who currently describes himself as the President of the United States does not represent the people of the United States. His beliefs and agenda are diametrically opposed to the best of what America has stood for. He respects neither our Constitution or our allies, or the God of our founding fathers. He serves only himself. Our congress is more concerned about the president’s legacy than the will of the people. Please forgive us as a people for neglecting the responsibility we have as a superpower to vet those who would be our leaders. Forgive the myriads who went out and voted merely to “make history” instead of electing a real leader. Forgive us. Please pray for us, that God would raise up judges that would bring America back to righteousness, even as the judges did over ancient Israel.

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
(2 Chronicles 7:14)

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 »

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 »

Brief overview of the Health Care Town Hall with Senator Sherrod Brown

Posted by americana83 on August 14, 2009

On Wednesday at about 10AM, the Senator held a Town Hall, or “Round table” as the aides in his office called it (thereby denying there was any town hall, according to those I spoke to regarding their efforts to find out about the event). I decided to get there an hour early only to find out that an hour early is about two hours too late. The staff kept saying that the main room was full, and they were busy preparing an overflow room (where no one was able to ask questions, and to which the senator did not make an appearance).

Despite the assurances of the staff that the main room was filled, large groups kept being admitted ahead of the line,  all of the ones I saw either had “planned parenthood” stickers clearly present, or “Organizing for America” signs.

For about 1/2 the meeting, audio was terrible, prompting several people to leave the overflow and go home. One of whom was a gentlemen in a suit with a House of Representatives binder who seemed increasingly agitated about the meeting. I was hoping to talk to him afterward, but he left about 15 minutes in.

On stage, the whole panel was totally for the AAHCA bill as it stands, with Sen. Brown noting one point of disagreement. Overall the talking points were the same (the “40 million” uninsured, the “public option” would keep insurance companies honest, you can “keep” your current coverage, etc) and it was clear that the purpose of the Town Hall was not to have an honest discussion about the bill, but to merely garner a “friendly” town hall unlike any of the open town halls held across the country (with the exception of the “Yes we can!” town hall hosted by the president).

Overall, given the timing of the meeting (10AM on a workday, selective admittance, long winded sales pitches by each of the people on the “round table,” hastily and poorly concocted “overflow” room, it was an organizational and conversational failure. With the Senator solidly in the bill’s camp (having helped write it), it was clear that he is on board regardless of what his constituents want.

As far as protestors go, there were 3 sides represented outside: those for the bill (complete with glossy pre-fab signs), greenpeace, and those who oppose the bill.

One thing I feel has been particularly interesting. I was talking with an acquaintance, not specifically about the healthcare bill, but the words of Nancy Pelosi, and how she called the protesters “un-American” And he brought up the psychological term “projection,” whereby an individual accuses his opponents of the very thing he himself is guilty of. There has been much harping about how “Fox News is bankrolling the protesters!” When in reality it seems that these protesters are individuals. I have yet to see an anti-ObamaCare protester carrying a glossy pre-made sign, while the proponents of the plan almost exclusively are carrying expensive ready made sings that SOMEONE bought and paid for (there was one individual that had a homemade pro-reform sign that I could see), and which were being distributed to the proponents as I was waiting for the meeting.

This healthcare bill AAHCA has some very deep pocked bankrollers (including radical abortion proponent Planned Parenthood).

So, to those who look at see “Fox News Operatives” disguises as elderly, disabled, moms, college students, nurses, or John Does, take a good look at that glossy sign, and ask yourself where the money came from to print and distribute all of them.

And after all this, why not take some time to sit down and take a long hard look at what is in this bill…


Full text of bill avaliable at above link

Posted in Barack Obama, Columbus, deception, Election, health care, Obama, Ohio, taxes, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 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 »

What would MLK, jr say?

Posted by americana83 on August 29, 2008

No doubt you’ve heard about the official nomination of Senator Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate. No doubt you’ve heard it was on the anniversary of King’s speech. I have read several accounts of the nomination in different Ohio papers. See if you can see the inherent Ironies, especially in this exert from an online article by the Columbus dispatch, one of the larger newspapers in Ohio:

Exactly two score and five years since an American icon brought forth his dream of a society based on the content of a person’s character instead of the color of his or her skin, Barack Obama last night became the first black presidential nominee of a major party in U.S. history.

Every paper I’ve seen highlighted Obama’s skin color. Obama accuses the Right of playing the race card. He says they oppose him because “He’s young and inexperienced, and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?” He has been consistant in painting his opponents as racists, without calling them such. But he has no problem with asserting that they oppose him because of his name and color.

I wonder why he doesn’t get on those in his camp (as most major media is) for continuing to make race a main issue. It is being hit so hard, you’d think that to oppose Obama in any form, to question his past associations with terrorists and racists, is to attack a people group as a whole.

Would anyone accuse some of being racist for attacking McCain? I doubt it. It is time for the media to quit worshipping at the alter of Obamania and wake up to the fact that there are very real, very serious issues with Obama, all of which have nothing to do with skin.

Posted in Barack Obama, deception, Election, Election 2008, Obama, Presidential, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Economics 101: Did Obama Pass it?

Posted by americana83 on July 14, 2008

In his book, Dreams From My Father, Obama makes this commentary regarding the release of a line of bathroom products by the Nation of Islam (Power brand) and advertised in it’s Newspaper, The Final Call:

The newspaper also carried…promotions for a line of toiletries–toothpaste and the  like–that the Nation had launched under the brand name POWER, part of a strategy to encourage blacks to keep their money within their own community.

After a time, the ads for POWER products grew less prominent in The Final Call; it seems that many who enjoyed Minister Farrakhan’s speeches continued to brush their teeth with Crest. That the POWER campaign sputtered said something about the difficulty that faced any black business–the barriers to entry, the lack of finance, the leg up that your competitors possessed after having kept you out of the game for over three hundred years. (Page 201)

The problems an upstart company faces going against an established giant like Crest in its mainstay product would be the same for anyone! No upstart could instantly gain the brand loyalty, quality and economies of scale that an established firm has. Further “you” haven’t been kept out of the game for over 300 years. Anyone who has never been exposed to invention techniques, college, or who didn’t have parents who ran a business are just as economically impared as those who can trace their family line back 300+ years. Why? Because economic sense and entreprenuership are NOT genetic, they are learned!

Further, Obama neglects some important factors regarding the fizzle of the Nation of Islam(NOI)’s POWER line:

The parent company, NOI is widely considered racist and antisemitic

The target market is going to be very small

The brand loyalty of Crest is well established

They could never match the price as an upstart and make money

Their radicalism alienated many potential customers

As a side note, Obama noted that he “would occasionally pick up the (NOI’s) paper” p201, and yet it must have been quite frequently because he goes on to note the gradual diminishing of the ads for the POWER line.

On page 202, he goes on to lament that the “unifying furvor” garnered from Farrakhan’s speeches wasn’t able to carry over into the every day choices of blacks, and he blames this on “decisions forced by a market economy.”

If this is the “economic prowess” that Obama will bring to the white house, that race and the free market are the sum of the problem, then how on earth will he lead this country out of a recession? With the taxes and governmental spending explosions he promotes? Coupled with his radical mentality, I do believe he will take this country’s economy out of the recession…

and bury it in a coffin.

Posted in Barack Obama, communism, Election, Election 2008, Islam, Obama, Presidential, Racism, social spending | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »