racism (44)

 

Sowell and Williams, Two Blacks Used to “Racism” Accusations

 

Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams are used to being called “Racists” and “White Supremacists” by people who hear them on radio or read their words or hear their writings quoted.  The two rather dark-skinned Blacks often get a good belly-laugh when it happens.  So it was natural when Sowell wrote a column praising William’s latest book “Race and Economics,” that both men received scathing online attacks from the Progressive fringe of the political spectrum; and even got called “Uncle Toms” from many Blacks well-informed of the two men’s identities. 

This is not a new experience for either man.  Like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; Florida Representative Allen West; Republican Presidential contender Herman Cain; Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and famous General Colin Powell . . . fiscal-conservative and Constitutional-conservative Blacks often pay a huge price  and are often labeled “traitors” by large segments of the Black community as a whole.  Williams and Sowell first met back in 1970 when both men were working on the same research project back in Washington, D.C.  A new book that year entitled “The Poor Pay More” was proving to be scandalous press fodder for the liberal media . . . in a very short article, Williams destroyed that book’s argument and it quickly fell out of print.  How did he do it?

Williams agreed, yes, prices were higher in low-income minority neighborhoods. But he unequivocally rejected the book's claim that this was a result of “exploitation” or “racism.”  He simple referred to the common-sense logical approach he’d used to write his doctoral dissertation on the question.  Williams documented that the costs of doing business in many low-income neighborhoods (insurance; no economy of scale; greater shoplifting and other theft threat; etc.) was usually significantly higher and these costs were simply passed on to the consumers there.  That was, according to Thomas, the first time that Walter Williams was called a “White Racist.”

Thomas lauds Williams’ new book Race and Economics and especially loved a couple of its chapters.  In Chapter 6, Williams returns to the original question raised by The Poor Pay More argument.  The clinching bottom-line argument is:  despite higher markups in prices in low-income neighborhoods, there is a lower than average rate of return for businesses there” which, of course, is presumably the main reason why so few businesses choose to operate there.  Thomas continues, “my own favorite chapter . . . is Chapter 3, the most revealing chapter in the book.”

 

Williams begins Chapter 3 thusly, "Some might find it puzzling that during times of gross racial discrimination, black unemployment was lower and blacks were more active in the labor force than they are today." Moreover, the duration of unemployment among blacks was shorter than among whites between 1890 and 1900, whereas unemployment has become both higher and longer-lasting among blacks than among whites in more recent times.

“None of this is explainable by what most people believe or say in the media or in academia. But it is perfectly consistent with the economics of the marketplace and the consequences of political interventions in the marketplace.”

The book "Race and Economics" explains how such interventions impact blacks and other minorities, whether in housing markets, the railroad industry or the licensing of taxicabs-- and irrespective of the intentions behind the government's actions.

Both Thomas and Williams see minimum wage laws as classic examples of the harm done by government interference. “The last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate was 1930. That was also the last year in which there was no federal minimum wage law.”  Besides the minimum wage laws, the impact of the Unions upon Black employment was also huge.  Throughout labor’s history, the Black worker has been the least welcome in the union halls.  When the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was passed in 1931 it required that “that "prevailing wages" be paid on any government construction projects-- "prevailing wages" almost always meant union wages. Since Blacks were kept out of construction unions back then, and for decades thereafter . . . many black construction workers lost their jobs.  The stated purpose of the law was to protect the workers . . . what it did instead was to marginalize even further the poor and minorities.  Before the law was passed an awful lot of non-union Black construction crews were able to underbid union White contractors.  After the bill, the haves prospered while the have-nots suffered.  These problems expanded after the true minimum wage laws were required by the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 and under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.  After those laws the negative consequences for black employment across a much wider range of industries was absolutely devastating.  Today young Blacks are unemployed at a 52.7% rate compared to young Whites at 27.2%, but back at the turn of the century before minimum wage laws came on the scene young Whites were much more employable than older ones and young Blacks had lower unemployment rates still.

Thomas concluded his review this way, “The factors that cause the most noise in the media are not the ones that have the most impact on minorities. This book will be eye-opening for those who want their eyes opened. But those with the liberal vision of the world are unlikely to read it at all.”

One thing that Williams said recently on FOXNews’ Stossel show was that “government intervention over the last seventy years did something that no amount of slavery, Jim Crow or discrimination was able to do:  it destroyed the Black Family” citing statistics that roughly 72% of Black children in the 20’s lived in two-parent homes and less than 30% do so today.  “After the Black mother tells Dad to move out, because she might lose her checks . . . the Black father becomes disposable in the community.”

 

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Read more…


 

 http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics_research2011.html
 
TEA Party Voters Constitute
a Different Breed of Conservative
 
 
            Wiser Research and Rasmussen Reports recently published new polls with intriguing depictions of TEA Party voters and society’s perceptions of them . . . . Of course, literally hundreds of surveys about the TEA Party have been conducted. Dozens more comparing TEA (“Taxed Enough Already” or “Taken Enough Abuse”) Party folks to typical conservatives or to typical Americans, typical Republicans or to Independents have also been done in the last year. Some of the most common claims of the mainstream media about the TEA Party were absolutely and quickly refuted by the mainstream polling organizations . . . the following “generic” poll information comes from numerous surveys on the subject which will be followed by the two recent and more specific surveys about the TEA folk from Rasmussen Reports; and Wiser Research . . . we’ll look far more closely at the Rasmussen and Wiser data. Here are the conclusions about the make up of the TEA Party that can be drawn from mainstream research thus far:
1) TEA Pary members were not stupid as liberal pundits suggested, but more highly educated than the general populace and than other conservatives.  
2) They were not racists, but less likely to be hold racist views than the general populace. 
3) They were more likely to be older than 45. 
4) The other demographics of the TEA Party vary somewhat from region to region. However, in general they are older -- more than 150% as likely to be over 65 as under age 28. Men outnumbered women by about 56-44 among TEA Partiers. Blacks and Hispanics are represented among the TEA Party but around 50% less frequently than found in the general populace for both groups. Catholics are found among the TEA Party about 30% less frequently than in the general populace;  Jews are found about 60% less frequently than among the general populace. Asians are found at about 10% less often than in the general populace. TEA Party events are often family events for younger couples that are involved.
5) TEA Partiers are more likely to be successful and enjoy higher earnings. 
6) More likely to own a business or represent a profession such as doctor, architect, engineer, computer-programmer etc. than the general public.
7) The mainstream media were right about one thing:  TEA Partiers were far more likely to watch FOXNews regularly and far more likely to question the “fairness” of other popular media sources of information such as the traditional broadcast networks.
8) They come from all over the political spectrum but typically described themselves as Republicans 54% of the time; as Independents or “Other” 28%; as Democrats 12%; and as Libertarians 6%.
9)   Despite efforts to portray them as extremists, recent surveys show that 47% of the voters regard their own views as closer to the TEA Party then to those of our representatives or senators and 54% say the TEA Party views are closer to theirs than what they perceive to be the views of President Obama.
10)   TEA Party people are far more likely than other voters to call themselves “Fiscal-Conservatives”; “Constitutional-Conservatives”; or “Libertarians.”
11) TEA Party people are far more likely to describe themselves as “well-informed on the issues” than regular conservatives 58% to 41% and than the general public where only 30% agreed with that self-description.
12) While studies by groups like the Huffington post seem to aim at portraying TEA Partiers as “trailer trash” and “100% sold on” the Republican Party: TEA Partiers “perhaps because of their age” come from a higher than average income levels and largely describe themselves as previously “inactive” politically.
13) Perhaps because of their age, TEA Party members are more likely than members of the general public to have owned or managed a business or to have served in managerial positions than the general public.
14) TEA Partiers are more likely to regard themselves as “very well-informed politically” and “economically” than the general public. About 78% of them agree with the statement “Lower taxes creates jobs.”
15) The single-most consistent aspect of the TEA Party that everyone agrees upon is that they are overwhelmingly conservative. Studies have shown that only 6-10% of TEA Partiers consider themselves “liberal” and only 22-25% consider themselves to have “centrist” political views.   When the word “moderate” is used, however, a large amount of the TEA Party considers themselves to be fiscally-conservative moderates.
16) Under-represented professions among TEA Partiers include teachers and lawyers.  Union involvement is found, but less than among average voters.  Many are involved in the computer industry or information technology.
17) TEA Party people are far LESS likely to describe themselves as “Socially-Conservative” and more likely to call themselves “Social- Moderates” or even “Social-liberals” than regular conservatives. They are far less likely to think that total bans on abortion; absolute right to prayer in public schools; teaching creationism in public schools; or gun control are “major issues at this time” and far more likely to point to debt; jobs; runaway government spending; and expansion of government as the most serious issues of our day. While both types of conservatives are highly likely to oppose gay marriage, TEA Party conservatives are more likely to approve of or be neutral toward the gay lifestyle. These numbers and attitudes have been fairly consistent for the last year regardless of who’s doing the polling.
18) While we’ve seen no polling data on this, Rajjpuut has done a lot of “informal polling” and would describe the “level of violence” found at TEA Party demonstrations (perhaps in keeping with their age) as “virtually non-existent” especially compared with that of the left-wing activist and Union activist demonstrations he’s seen. Similarly examining the “rhetoric” found on signs at such demonstrations shows the TEA Party placards generally “staying on topic” and complaining about policies and events in comparison to left-wing activism (say in Wisconsin) as vitriolic and often aimed at personalities . . . which is diametrically opposed to the viewpoints expressed by mainstream pundits characterizing the two groups.  
The only “violence” ever seen by Rajjpuut at a TEA Party event was when someone tried to infiltrate a TEA Party group (with photographers in tow) bearing a racist reference to Obama. The young man was physically conducted off the premises by four athletic-looking young TEA Party men and his racist sign destroyed completely. The mainstream media didn’t cover that on the nightly news, however. That’s concludes our broad outline of who the TEA Party is . . . .
http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics_research2011.html
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2011/48_say_their_views_closer_to_tea_party_than_congress
           In the two surveys linked above, the pollsters zeroed in on some specific beliefs or specific impact of TEA Party conservatives compared to regular conservatives. The second link is to a recent Rasmussen Reports poll on the TEA Party which tracks the public perception of TEA Partiers very closely. The top link from Wiser Research really aimed to zoom in on a few areas where the TEA Party is claimed by the media to be “more extreme” than Republicans or other conservatives.
            Rasmussen leads off his poll with this comment: “In the ongoing budget-cutting debate in Washington, some congressional Democrats have accused their Republican opponents of being ‘held captive’ by the Tea Party movement, but voters identified with the Tea Party more than Congress. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters say when it comes to the major issues facing the country, their views are closer to the average Tea Party member as opposed to the average member of Congress. Just 22% say their views are closer to those of the average congressman. Even more (30%) aren’t sure.”
            Results of the Rasmussen polling added that 49% of likely voters see the TEA Party movement as “good for the country; while 26% see it as bad for the country; and 16% see the TEA Party as a neutral entity neither good nor bad. 78% of Republicans and 54% of Independents see the TEA Party as good for the country; while 48% of Democrats see it as bad for the country. 45% of likely voters believe the average TEA Party member has a better understanding of the problems (and their solutions?) facing the country than the average member of congress; while only 31% see the average member of congress having a better understanding.
            At present 22% of the populace claim they are part of the TEA Party movement; 12% say that someone close to them is a TEA Party Member; and 14% say they aren’t sure. 94% of the political-class have no ties to the TEA Party and 69% of the political class believe the TEA Party is a bad thing. (Over the years depending upon the economy, between 6-15% of voters identify themselves as part of the political class by their answers to three specific questions from Rasmussen pollers, while 54-70% respond to those same three questions in keeping with “mainstream” views. 59% of mainstream voters see the TEA Party as good for the country. 
The Rasmussen Reports poll concludes saying, “41% of all voters think the Tea Party will play a bigger role in the 2012 election campaigns than it did in 2010; 30% see the TEA Party’s role “about the same”; while 21% say they expect a smaller role in 2012. Voters see the words “Tea Party” a bit more positively as a political label these days, while the terms “liberal” and “progressive” have lost ground even among Democrats. “Conservative” remains the most popular description. While Rasmussen has earned a reputation for professionalism and accuracy and beaten all other polling groups in predicting the final vote percentages over the last three presidential election cycles . . . some have claimed that Rasmussen is “conservative-leaning.” For balance we’ll look at a recent poll on the TEA Party conducted by a supposedly independent and neutral survey group: Wiser Research . . . .
            In the Wiser Research the survey concluded that it appears that there is “an emerging split among conservatives” and asked “how will this affect Republicans in 2012?”   While admiring the polling’s ingenuity, Rajjpuut finds such conclusions, highly questionable largely because of the way the polling was conducted.   Wiser sought responses to opinion statements from regular conservatives and from TEA Party conservatives and then sought to assess the differences in response. Since Wiser was looking for differences, it’s not at all surprising that they found them. Rajjpuut’s totally different conclusions are found below; here are the Wiser opinion-generating statements:
A)        “Barack Obama is destroying the country.”
B)       “Obama is a socialist.”
C)        “I want to see Obama’s policies fail.”
D)        “Obama is a practicing Christian/Muslim.”
E)       “Obama does not have a U.S. birth certificate.”
As stated above, Wiser Research was looking for differences and found them. Except for the first three questions, however, they got a lot of “not sure” responses. Across the board the TEA Party members were more likely to agree with the statements and to believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim than regular conservatives were. First let’s look at those responses according to Wiser:
A)       “Barack Obama is destroying the country” elicited a huge difference between regular conservatives and the TEA Party. 6% of regular conservatives agreed with the statement while 71% of TEA Party Conservatives agreed.
B)       “Obama is a Socialist” showed another great divide, but not quite so marked this time: 75% of the TEA Party members believe Obama is a Socialist compared to 40% of regular conservatives.
C)        “I want to see Obama’s policies fail” was agreed to by 76% of TEA Partiers, but only by 32% of non-TEA Party conservatives.
D)       “Obama is a practicing Muslim” was agreed to by 27% of the TEA Party and 16% of other conservatives; and the corollary “Obama is a practicing Christian” was agreed to again by 27% of TEA Partiers; but 46% of other conservatives. Note: Among all voters various studies have shown that Obama is considered a Muslim by roughly 16% of the populace.
 
E)       “Obama does not have a U.S. birth certificate” garnered 26% agreement from the TEA Party but only 17% from other conservatives. Note: study after study have shown that 18-20% of all American voters believe the president cannot produce a legitimate American birth certificate and that independents are far more likely than Democrats and only slightly less likely than Republicans to believe this is true.
The “self-fulfilling prophecy” aspect of human affairs (and human polling) has been documented for at least the last eighty years  -- we tend to find what we expect to find and the truth be damned.  Rajjpuut sees these Wiser numbers, especially in response to the first statement, to be far, far out of line with reality as he or anyone he knows has experienced it. He’d daresay that it would be impossible to find any group of self-described conservatives anywhere who’d respond to the statement “Barack Obama is destroying the country” with less than 30% agreement. If the statement was rephrased, “The policies of Barack Obama are destroying the country,” than it’s doubtful that less than 60% agreement could be found among any group of self-described conservatives in America. What exactly is this “opinion” of Rajjpuut based upon? 
A)   Despite attempts to portray America as a racist nation, Barack Obama got more White votes than John Kerry or Al Gore. Almost 48% of White voters supported him. In contrast less than 5% of Black vote backed McCain . . . racism, seems to come from the other direction or should we call it Black backlash?
B)    Barack Obama got a huge benefit of the doubt after his election in 2008. 72% of Americans approved of his performance when polled on Inauguration Day including 45% who highly approved (in contrast only 15% of Americans highly disapproved of Obama’s performance at that time). Rajjpuut backed “the lesser of two evils” McCain-Palin ticket; but admits feeling good about the country electing a Black man as its president.  Unfortunately, that feeling was gone within six weeks . . . .
C)   Things have changed for Mr. Obama, his level of support has fallen dramatically. Mr. Obama didn’t somehow get “blacker” or otherwise racially objectional overnight; nor did White voters suddenly become more racist. Mr. Obama’s policies quite frankly and simply are hurting the country and the voters have noticed and become angry or at least disappointed about that.
As everyone knows, the honeymoon was over rather quickly.   Almost immediately Obama’s actions made it clear that the man practiced highly dubious politics, especially his economic actions and policies. By mid-March of 2009, the TEA Party had arisen out of nowhere in objection to government policies these individuals regarded as anti-American; socialistic; anti-common sense; anti-Constitutional and expansive. That Barack Obama was at the center of these policies was obvious to all . . . so once the political opposition arose, it’s natural that he, personally, would be the center of the debate. 
Again, if the statement “Barack Obama’s policies are destroying this country” had been used, it’s likely that very little rift would have been shown between conservatives. The TEA Party arose first against Mr. Obama’s policies while the entire nation didn’t think about repudiating them until a couple months before the last election. With eighteen extra months to crystallize their understanding, it’s natural that the TEA Party would be slightly more likely to see Obama as personally responsible.  Rajjpuut would prefer not to impugn the motives of Wiser Research, but clearly sloppy interview technique and dubious methodology seem to be involved.
            The task that Wiser Research took upon itself: to find major differences between TEA Party conservatives compared to all conservatives seems to have shown success. However, since in study after study . . . conservatives of all ilks regard protecting the Constitution and American Way of Life; growing the economy; stopping the growth in government; creating a balanced budget; dealing with the National Debt and unfunded liabilities; and ethics in government as the most important issues of our day -- and TEA Party conservatives have consistently shown themselves the most adamant in desiring the government to face up to these issues . . . .
The Wiser Research study’s final conclusions that a rift is developing between Republicans (notice their research was on self-identified “conservatives,” but their conclusion talks about Republicans) and the TEA Party may be of little import since currently fiscal-conservativism and Constitutional-conservativism seems to be the driving impetus of the broader electorate. IF such a wide rift actually exists it’s not likely to manifest itself when such a huge area of “easy” agreement lies before the two groups and the general voting public as well. Additionally, the central fallacy of the Wiser Research conclusion emerges from their polling technique in which clearly Barack Obama (and not his policies specifically; or progressive political policies in general) was the focal point. So long as the man’s policies are seen as antithetical to conservative values, no rift matters.
The one key finding of the Wiser study (that the TEA Party believes more strongly that “Obama is destroying the country” by a ratio of 71% to 6% over ordinary conservatives) puts their whole study in question in Rajjpuut’s mind until it can be replicated by a more respected polling organization. When it is further revealed that Wiser comes to this conclusion and another conclusion (from a different study) that the TEA Party harbors more racial resentment than other conservatives – something none of the other more accredited studies has ever shown . . . one cannot be blamed for suggesting that it looks likes Wiser went out of its way 1) to back the Obama administration’s “party line” about the largely “unsavory” nature of the TEA Party and 2) actually attempted to incite a rift amongs conservative voters which could only benefit Barack Obama. Rajjpuut would suggest that Rasmussen and other more respected polling outfits take up this Wiser study and conduct a similar one of their own. The numbers 71% and 6%, however, are so out of line with real life that, as mentioned, the whole Wiser study is made suspect.
 
 
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
 
 
 
Read more…

“If all you have is a hammer, the whole world starts to look like a nail. If all you have is ‘race-card guilt' from the era of slavery in the south, you spend an awful lot of time making senseless and false accusations of racism.” Rajjpuut

Pelosi’s “Swamp-Draining”

Has Racist Motives According to CBC



As Congress returns from break, in a refreshing change of pace America has learned that Black claims of racism can be aimed at liberal-Democrats too. Nevertheless, many Democrats are still blaming their present intramural infighting on GASP! the evil TEA Party and Republicans and other Conservatives, go figure . . . Anyway, accordingly the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), which has been condemning the enforcement of ethics rules as racist since Charlie Rangel was caught with all thirteen hands in thirteen different cookie jars, is now painting the Democratic Party which controls the ethics committee and all of the committees in both the House and Senate as unfriendly folks with a rope and, say, is that a burning cross in the background? Since the Democrats run the House, Black voters who hear the word “lynching” presumably have figured out that the lynchers in this instance are Democrats and the lynchees . . . well, hell, the lynchees are always Democrats.

As Maxine Waters, like Rangel squeals like an incensed pork-barreller and conflicter of interest, the CBC has stated that these trials “look like more than just coincidence”(implying that racism must be behind any and all investigation of any and all members of the Congressional Black Caucus) . . . interesting, no, Rajjpuut suggests that trials are not about appearances but rather about substance as Nancy Pelosi seeks to run the most ethical congress in history (Wake up, Nancy, you lost that battle about fifteen months ago!).

This is the first time in his personal history that Rajjpuut actually feels that Nancy Pelosi is on the right side of any issue. You see, Waters and Rangel both independently chose to “refer their cases” to the Ethics Committee. So had did this pretty little situation arise? The facts revealed so far suggest that both Waters and Rangel overstepped Congressional Ethics badly. Then rather than taking care of the issues in question directly and possibly receiving a meaningless Congressional “censure” both of them played the reverse racism card on Pelosi and are getting burned for it. They apparently took a chance that Pelosi would not risk the spectacle of the Democratic Party taking Black congressmen to trial. How’s that working out for you, Chuck? Maxie?

If all you have is a hammer, the whole world starts to look like a nail. If all you have is ‘race-card guilt' from the era of slavery in the south, you spend an awful lot of time making senseless and false accusations of racism. The embarrassment that the Congressional Black Caucus must be feeling now is palpable. Instead of a slap on the wrist, two of its most important members in their two most important states New York and California will now face a full and nationally-televised trial to rebut the charges against them. And, if found guilty as it appears they must be, loss of their seats is quite likely, possibly even imprisonment.

But, of course, some Dems are actually blaming the TEA Party for this bickering between Democrats. Jim Clyburn the House Whip and a Democratic Representative from South Carolina said that both Waters and Rangel have rights to a trial but said the real problem was not the ethics issues, but rather that TEA Party people “are making this a racial thing!” WOW! There has NOT been one peep out of anybody except Waters, Clyburn, Rangel and the CBC about race at all . . . oh, by the way, Clyburn is a Black and a member of the CBC, yet Clyburn insists that “Those TEA baggers never hesitate to racialize everything.” The TEA Party doesn’t control the House; Conservatives don’t control the House; Republicans + TEA Party members don’t control the house, the Democrats do.

Waters, facing only one conflict of interest charge but a very serious one, is just as adamant that the charges against her are racially-based. The Ethics Committee was compared to a “lynching,” not by the TEA Party but by the CBC, Rangel and Waters. Rangel in particular in this three-year long scandal surrounding him has continually blamed “anti-Black bias” and “anti-Black scrutiny” for his many troubles. Chaka Fattah, a Dem from Pennsylvania and member of the CBC called the investigations into Rangel and Waters “witch hunting” and said that “the Ethics Committee is going after us” presumably meaning attacking members of the CBC because those evil Ethics Committee Members are all racists and presumably closet TEA Partiers? It’s all so very confusing, you won’t be able to identify the racists without a scorecard. Rajjpuut believes somebody is getting hoisted with their own petard and goosed by their own gander . . . .


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Read more…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigford_v._Glickman

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/25/BAP01EIKK2.DTL

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/110/024/Is_There_More_to_Sherrods_Dismissal.html

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yahEapO99G8J:www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS20430.pdf+Pigford&hl=en&gl=us

Did Shirley Sherrod, Barack Obama

Lead $1.25 Billion Fraud?

There was once a thought that the 1997 legal case Pigford v. Glickman might someday rival the famous Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka as an example of institutional and systemic racial discrimination finally refuted by the courts. Indeed the junior Illinois senator, pushing the reincarnation of the case in 2007, was purportedly sure to get a big boost from the case in his run for the presidency . . . but today . . . matters seem a little bit murkier.

Discussing a recent high-profile instance of supposed “racism,” Black political blogger Willie Brown of the famous “Willie’s World,” blog apparently agrees with Rajjpuut’s assessment in a recent blog that Shirley Sherrod is a sewer, ‘er “suer” . . . Mr. Brown put it like this, “ . . . you don't fire someone without at least hearing their side of the story unless you want them gone in the first place. This woman has been a thorn in the side of the Agriculture Department for years. She was part of a class-action lawsuit against the department on behalf of black farmers in the South. For years, she has been operating a community activist organization not unlike ACORN. I think there were those in the Agriculture Department who objected to her being hired in the first place.”

Actually, Willy, “thorn in the side” doesn’t quite say it all: you see, Shirley Sherrod and her husband received the single largest payoff, $13 Million, in the Pigford v. Glickman lawsuit. She was definitely a leader among the claimants which won their suit against the Ag Dept. for racism shown by the department’s supposedly continual policy of denying loans and lines of credit to Black farmers. Eight years after Shirley’s big payday, the revival of Pigford v. Glickman by former ACORN lawyer, Barack Obama, resulted in 86,000 claims for a total of $1.25 Billion dollars in payouts an average of $14,500 per farmer. Only one problem, the census in 2000 showed far fewer than 40,000 Black farmers in the entire country.

That amounts to less than half the 86,000 claims in the class action suit. How likely is it that all 39,000 of them joined the suit and averaged 2 1/3 claims each against the Ag Dept . . . when you add in the fact that the case was settled quietly without the media even knowing about it and that monstrous $1.25 Billion settlement makes one wonder if the “fix was in,” Mr. Obama. Of course, Ms. Sherrod’s successful claim amounted to almost $1,000 times the size of the average claim so that just one of the 86,000 claimants received 1% of all the money awarded. Like so much in this administration, here’s just one more matter that begs to be investigated by an independent counsel . . . .

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Read more…

Posted by Rajjpuut's Folly on Sunday, August 08, 2010 12:54:47
Race-Baiting Obama and NAACP

Worsen America’s Race Relations
The truth about our “post-racial” president, Barack Obama, is that rather than seeking to “bring us together” he is deliberately seeking to divide America along racial, class, age, gender and religious lines for his own advantage as he seeks to “fundamentally transform America.” Rajjpuut, who once in his college days beat up two much bigger (thankfully drunk) bullies in a Taco Bell restaurant in Greeley, Colorado, who were taunting three young Black girls with the N-word, is now becoming a racist . . . let us for clarity call Rajjpuut, a NEO-RACIST. The NEO-RACIST divides the world of men into the competent individualist and the incompetent collectivists . . . for separated along lines of intelligence, wisdom and courage: these are the only two races of men that matter. As far as conventional racial matters here in the United States, Obama has dramatically worsened them.
A NEO-RACIST like Rajjpuut is utterly prejudiced, utterly biased against those who advocate their various versions of utopian collectivism which canNOT stand under the light of sound economic principles nor human nature. The NEO-RACIST wants utter freedom for himself and for you . . . while the collectivists who fear him want all men shackled into unending personal sacrifice toward statism’s unachievable and evil and impossible utopian ends.
What are those utopian ends? Rajjpuut can’t say precisely because no logical and detailed picture has ever actually been outlined by the collectivist beyond the phrase “to each according to his needs; from each according to his abilities” . . . an undesirable and unreachable dream-objective requiring the altering of human nature toward mandated self-sacrifice, but dream world aside, Rajjpuut can easily point out the ugly realities. Real lands with real history: like the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact which both collapsed in the late ‘80’s after first murdering millions of people and creating untold misery. That Soviet utopia was so evil that they had to kill tens of thousands of people trying to leave it and imprison tens of thousands of others, in order that less courageous souls would be bound to their “utopia” by their fears and stay behind to work for the collective.
This NEO-RACISM started out slowly for Rajjpuut. While he voted Libertarian and did not support Mr. Obama, for a brief while he thought it might be great for the country having a Black president. And while that was potentially true in the theoretical sense, it has proven an unmitigated disaster for the country having Barack Obama as our president in every possible tangible sphere.
Almost immediately Obama and his administration and the usual suspects on the left began calling all in opposition to the unfolding Obama agenda “racists” and Rajjpuut found himself getting angry for, of course, he knew the charges were not only baseless lies aimed at the competent, (those clear thinkers who understand the evils that Obama’s unfettered collectivism threatened for our people and to our country and will continue to bring unless brought to a halt) and thoughtful opposition. Competent individuals realized that not only was Obama expanding government’s control over the individual in opposition to our Constitution, but also deliberately exploiting long-standing conceptual chains glorifying the STATE over the individual; and the statists over those who want all men to be free.
When these carte blanche “racism”accusations (zeroing in on all conservatives as “haters” and especially the TEA Party which in Rajjpuut’s not-so-humble opinion consists of the individual Americans that the rest must depend upon if the Obamanation that is now America is to be restored into the great and noble country we once knew) continued unabated, Rajjpuut found himself moving from angered to highly-angered. So Rajjpuut confesses, he is indeed highly prejudiced against leftists and other statists incompetents which means that on neo-racist lines alone he is prejudiced against “the race of incompetent men who unable to think for themselves willing choose to believe that freedom is slavery”: the collectivists.
Indeed, in opposition to collectivism, let us call NEO-RACISM instead NEO-CONSTITUTIONALISM, for there once was a race of men, our founding fathers who dared to breathe free air and to contemplate a land where mankind would forever be free so long as the Constitution, the rule of law, and more particularly the Bill of Rights within the rule of law, protected men’s freedoms and men were willing to keep their thoughts free and defend that freedom. Barack Obama, who once taught “Constitutional Law” while simultaneously teaching a course about Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” . . . a juxtaposition akin to preaching virtue in a brothel . . . clearly would use the United States Constitution for toilet paper.
By the way, the terms “freedom” and “liberty” are just meaningless words unless their underlying concepts are defined understood and fought for. Freedom means being free from the unwanted negative effects from the actions of other men and of government; and all other men likewise being free from the negative effects I, the individual, might bring them as well as from all other men and government. The natural state of a man alone without government and other men around is freedom. What exactly are the benefits of interacting with other men? While there are many, forced-collectivism has not pounded one nail, mastered fire, or grown one crop of corn. Free association with other men, on the other hand, brings us freely the benefits of all men’s efforts through the magic of free markets. The purpose of freedom, such as our Constitution guarantees us from our creator, is to maximize the blessings of interacting with other men and with government while minimizing the negatives of such interactions.
Let us talk about those negative effects we would avoid. Barack Obama, his administration and his radical supporters especially the labor unions are bankrupting this country . . . that is an undeniable fact, yet they would attempt denial. That bankrupting of, or biting of the hand that feeds them . . . as well as other more deliberate “Cloward-Piven” strategic moves . . . are illogical and counter-productive from the standpoint of normal rational self-interest.
Why would the collectivists act contrary to the good of individual men . . . because, out of the resulting chaos, they see their best chance to enslave us all and move into power. They do NOT own the personal competence to achieve but must gain their power by attacking those individuals that do . . . Rajjpuut as a NEO-RACIST/NEO-Constitutionalist, declares himself the enemy of all that race of incompetents who put their faith in a state-planned utopia of collectivist origin. In this movement, they deny their history. They deny the almost 150 million slaughtered souls that collectivists like Stalin, Mao** and Hitler bequeathed to 20th Century mankind. Yes, Hitler was a collectivists and more . . . Hitler was a National SOCIALIST, not a conservative at all, look at the goals of his party from 1933 through 1939 (the Third Reich’s glory years) and you’ll see reflections of the goals of Obama in 2009.
Hitler’s much ballyhooed attacks upon communism were not attacks upon the benighted left by the benighted right but rather part of a serious squabble between leftists. The left of Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, and Stalin seeks even today to enslave men in accord with the lying dictums of Marx and Engles. Hitler’s left sought to enslave men to a separate utopian lie based upon Teutonic racial purity. Both groups were leftists. Both groups were collectivists. Both groups were socialistic statists.
The lie that both Nazism and Obama-style communism espouse is that the tyranny of the masses is good for the individual and creates a more beneficial kind of state. By belonging to their “new wave” one unites with a vision greater than himself and becomes greater than one already is, HAH!
The BIG LIE that all who oppose Obama’s collectivist agenda are racists had been dragged into stark relief beneath the glaring light of recent history. Let’s get one thing straight, when it comes to Andrew Breitbart’s video which caused so much stir three weeks ago: Shirley Sherrod was never the story although a lot of people assumed she was. The real story was, and still is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Three things are very clear here . . . recently . . . .
A) The NAACP had just held a meeting in which a key speaker was allowed to praise a preacher and his thug friends who had just been arrested for beating up a Black entrepreneur selling “The audacity of DOPE” buttons. The man had made a fortune selling Obama buttons in 2008, but misjudged his audience when he began selling buttons showing Obama smoking a joint (marijuana cigarette, if you’ve been off the planet for half a century). The speaker was cheered loudly as he repeatedly called the victim “an Uncle Tom” and praised his assailants
B) Without one iota of proof, the NAACP has repeatedly joined the Democrats and Obama in calling the TEA Party a “racist” group. The NAACP has made its career over the last half century calling Whites racists devils and this happens despite the fact that in the face of claims that the “N-word” was used by TEA Partiers “at least fifteen” and “up to twenty-nine times” against Black congressmen on the day that the Obamacare bill passed. Breitbart has offered $100,000 to anyone who can show up with indisputable video proof that the N-word was used even at all, even once, that day.
So far despite all the cameras and video devices on site, no one has come forward to prove those sworn to nasty events happened. Of course, supposedly one Black congressman said he was “spat upon” but no video of that footage has occurred either, making critical minds think that spitting incident never happened either. Breitbart’s money is still in his bank account.
C) Now to the video itself, Sherrod herself was apparently a terrible victim in her youth when her father was, she said, killed by a White southern man and justice was never done. That was left out. Then later (in the 43-minute speech which the NAACP had recorded in its entirety) she talks about her epiphany that it “wasn’t about black and white at all” or at least not mainly about black and white but rather about helping the poor regardless of race. In other words her epiphany was that she learned how to do her job.
Part of that, a good part, was left out of the video. What was actually left in the video segment? What was left in was that while she was talking, the NAACP membership (which did NOT know where the speech and her story were going) was tittering and laughing and giving virtual “Hallelujah, Girl!” treatment to the speech as she was talking about a very uneasy interracial contact in her job with a White Man who “thought he was superior to me.” That in a nutshell was the story, the clearly racist NAACP reaction to the apparently racist story (early in her talk) was uniquely racist for an organization that claims to be seeking equal footing for all races.
The most clear and obvious statistics about racism in this country is that Democrat Barack Obama received more White votes and a larger percentage of White votes in 2008 than John Kerry did in 2004 or Al Gore did in 2000, roughly 48%, (roughly the same percentage that Bill Clinton received in being re-elected in 1996) meanwhile John Mc Cain in our recent election received around 4.4 % of Black votes. That single fact more than any other propelled Barack Obama into office with a 6-7 % edge in the popular vote. In other words, Whites in 2008 were roughly eleven times more likely to cross racial lines in casting their votes then Blacks were and that cemented Obama’s win.
Rajjpuut suggests that probably 90% of the White’s who voted against Obama and 100% of the Blacks who voted for Mc Cain in 2008 did so, as Rajjpuut did, for objective dislike of socialism, big spending and high taxes rather than racial reasons. Today, 55% of Americans now label Obama a “socialist,” yet despite his miserable performance as president, 25% of the people still strong approve of Obama’s performance as president, the same 25% of people that are calling all Obama’s opposition “racists.”
Who then are the real “racists?” Who are those who much use this emotionally-loaded way to disparage the compent free? Why then do so many cling to the collectivism that the Left and Barack Obama espouse? It is out of fear. They have bought into the “victim” lie of the Left so thoroughly, that they see themselves incapable of succeeding on their own and REQUIRING the state or the union or the collective to help them. Rajjpuut suggests that instead of a “false and noisy” black pride, gay pride, women’s pride, brown pride, etc. a quiet and calm HUMAN PRIDE be adopted by those who see themselves as downtrodden so they might then allow the spirit of our founding fathers’ courageous movement to infuse their every action.
To clear the air here, Rajjpuut, a Libertarian, similarly did NOT vote for Barack Obama because after reading “Dreams from My Father,” and listening to his speeches and going deep into research into his past voting and into the character of his mother Stanley Ann Dunham, grandfather Stanley Armour Dunham and Barak (no ‘c’) Hussein Obama, Sr. his Kenyan birth-father . . . Rajjpuut rightly decided that Obama was at least a highly-exuberant socialist but far more likely an abject communist.
The word “prejudice” refers to pre-judging a situation, person, etc. without having all the facts. When that prejudice is along the lines of race or color then the word “racist” is applicable. When the “prevailing direction” of race hatred is breached then reverse-racism occurs. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has today become what it fears: a group of racists, or more properly a group of reverse-racists. While some liberated Blacks talk about the NAACP as “becoming increasingly irrelevant,” the truth is that the NAACP has for several years now become a monstrous impediment on the road to better race relations. The biggest impediment on that road, however, is Barack Obama. Our “post-racial” president is either personally a racist or impersonally (for political advantage) the most highly visible race-baiter in America’s history . . . or most likely both.
Emphasizing specifics, the NAACP is a racist organization because unlike the great Martin Luther King, Jr., the NAACP judges Whites on their skin color not by the content of their caracter; and Barack Obama who seems to be doing the same thing is most likely judging voters on their stance for him or against him and using that prejudice as motivation for calling them “racists” to weaken, he hopes, the strength of their political opposition to him and the will of others to unite against him.
While throwing brickbats around, Shirley Sherrod is also a huge impediment to better race relations . . . a politically-incorrect fact that no one seems to be mentioning since the public-hijinks the other day by Shirley’s former employer the U.S. Department of agriculture. Ms. Sherrod, is also, outside of her being a racist, something called a ‘sewer’ or perhaps ‘suer,’ someone who likes to sue in the hopes of achieving monetary gain . . . she will be most likely suing the USDA for unlawful termination and should, if justice prevails, lose the suit, because her former employer has apologized publicly and publicly offered her a better job than she had earlier, but this is somewhat beside the point.
Ms. Sherrod, the NAACP and President Obama can all be lumped into the same boat, they are highly prejudiced against Whites who are not prejudiced for forced Black economic equality via redistribution of wealth. Read that again, if necessary, for it is a key truth, no one except a few Black TEA Party members seems to be talking about. Democrats as a whole (and the NAACP as a subset containing perhaps 95% Democrats) seem to come at the world of race seeing the Black as a victim and someone the government needs to throw money at . . . . hence programs such as “Affirmative Action” which are merely institutionalized reverse-discrimination. As Martin Luther King emphasized, equality of opportunity is the only opportunity that matters. Equality of everything else (a.k.a. socialism, Marxism) such as Mr. Obama wants to force down our throats might actually be forced upon us and in the end put all Blacks and all Whites and all others into uniform poverty at a level much, much lower than the average American Black now faces. Mr. Obama knows this for a fact and admitted as much several times. The poorest 5% of Americans are much better off than 90% of the worlds’ people thanks to the industry of free men and the magic of free markets. Mr. Obama has seemingly denied the importance of this fact over and over. For instance . . . .
During one of the candidate debates, the moderator gave an example of an economic fact and then asked Obama. “Since it’s been proved that anytime personal and business taxes on the highest earners goes above 28%, the nation is threatened with recession, should we ever raise these taxes above 28%?”
Without hesitating, Mr. Obama said, “I’m interested in ‘fairness’” as he went on to explain why he favored high taxes on the rich and upon business, small and large. There’s your blessed socialistic equality for you: everybody in the same sinking boat . . . this is why Mr. Obama has been working at cross-purposes to the economic best-interests of the American people . . . so that he can put everybody in the same leaky boat when we all know that the ‘rising tide lifts all boats’ and that’s where to put one’s economic emphasis: on making the country more prosperous as a whole. Those American’s living below the poverty line are wealthier than 96% of the world’s people . . . the key, then is to lift the poverty line by say 60% rather than dropping more Americans into much-ballyhooed equality far below the poverty line. Reverse-racism used as a political tool by the NAACP and Mr. Obama for political ends is counter-productive of all worthy goals along those lines and a divisive factor preventing Americans from working together. Faced with these grave challenges, only our Constitution and our courage can save us from Obama’s brave new world. AMEN
Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery
Rajjpuut
** Mao is the greatest mass murderer in history and yet Mao and another Leftist monster Che Guevara are huge T-shirt favorites right here in America, go figure! According to discoverthenetworks.org, on their searching for utopia, Leftists have ceaselessly “inflicted vast human suffering on their innocent countrymen, innocents in other lands, or both. Among the hallmarks of their ‘progressive’ regimes, which rank among the most oppressive on record, have been the attempt to implement the discredited economic theories of Karl Marx and the determination to create a new page in human history by purging their societies of the ‘reactionary’ ideas of the past and ultimately all dissent, and to do by any means necessary, including torture, murder, mass enslavement, and genocide. Their monstrous crimes were inspired and then justified by the quest for ‘social justice,’ an impossible task that would require the remaking of human beings themselves to accomplish. It is the attempt to remake humanity that produces the atrocities, as the gruesomely monotonous record of radicals in power shows.” Of course their website has only recently been considering that Hitler was a collectivist also, and he certainly ‘progressed’ well beyond the Constituion of the Weimar Republic even before becoming Germany’s full-fledged dictator.

Read more…

“Say, Betcha Didn’t Know . . . .”
the Story Behind a NY Times “Retraction”
After her excellent comparison of the courage exhibited by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer compared to our wimpy President’s non-efforts to protect the nation’s borders, perhaps Sarah Palin ought to be making statements about the New York Times publishers, editors, reporters, columnists, op-ed writers, bloggers (and everybody but the janitors) all combined . . . lacking the “cajones” of a one-celled protozoan . . . Let’s talk about one “retraction” in the Times . . . .
Some months ago, the liberal media was alive with a story about TEA Party members yelling the N-word fifteen times (or twenty-nine times in one paper) at Black members of congress as they walked up the capitol steps on that sunny day in March when Obamacare was passed. This was considered BIG . . . front-page news cussed and discussed in every liberal broadcast for weeks to come. Only one problem, it never happened. The $100,000 reward offered to anyone who can show “verifiable video footage,” showing one instance (not fifteen or twenty-nine) of the n-word being used has been offered lo, these several months and no one has offered documentary evidence, much less collected the reward. Similarly, no video footage of any Black congressman or any congress member being spat upon on that day has ever emerged.
Just the other day, (and this is August 5th) almost five months after it purportedly happened, the New York Times finally (having researched the story carefully – hah!) ran a retraction/correction . . . well, sort of . . . .
What they did actually was not even deign to draw attention to the retraction/correction by putting it off as a separate item at all. Instead they boldly went where few retractions/corrections have gone: they placed it inconspicuously at the bottom of another story. To wit:
“The Political Times column last Sunday, about a generational divide over racial attitudes, erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members.”
“All the News that’s Fit to Print?” Really???? Perhaps the Times ought to change their motto to “All the Gutless Lies Obama Would Prefer We Print.” First of all, that, whatever else it is, is neither a correction nor a retraction. There is NO “we got it wrong and we apologize” aspect to that piece of garbage by the piece of garbage Times.
1. Notice that the actual event is left muddy, there’s no mention of the n-word or Mr. Lewis’ race . . . nothing that could make the “apology” meaningful.
2. Notice that the retraction/correction was certainly NOT page-one news like the original story was . . . .
3. Notice the retraction/correction refers to “one example” . . . when the Times -- by March, 2010 – had already been printing such accusations about the TEA Party and conservatives virtually non-stop without basis for over a year . . . and meanwhile has continued to spout out this nonsense ceaselessly since March, 2010.
4. The retraction/correction is over four months late and it’s not actually either a retraction or a correction and it does not apologize . . . it just says, “There is no evidence . . . epithets . . . came from TEA Party members” which is, at best a half-truth since . . .
5. The retraction/correction does NOT say “There is NO EVIDENCE any epithets with n-words were hurled by anyone at all.
6. The retraction/correction says “While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements,” but doesn’t say for every two thousand such accusations (not connections, but “accusations”) perhaps one** is true.
7. The retraction/correction talks about “a generational divide over racial attitudes” . . . that, my friends, is what has been known as a “weasel phrase” or possibly “a (or an) euphemism” . . . but which is actually just an old-fashioned LIE, not a half-truth, a LIE. It’s acting like . . . a) some sort of generation-gap exists and b) the TEA party (with older members?) treats differences in race one way that’s presumably at least a bit racist and c) the Times and its readers knows better because they are elite, intelligent, etc. but . . . RACISM, you Times morons, is RACISM, and lies are lies, and p_ss-poor journalism is pi__-poor journalism.
8. The Times seems to have never gone to the “horse’s mouth” for final verification of the event’s truth or falsity. Since Representative Lewis, a Black Democrat, is reportedly one of the few congressmen of either party, any race, any gender, any age who has been repeatedly and fairly called “honorable.” Yet Mr. Lewis has repeatedly refused to corroborate the stories about being spat upon or having the N-word hurled at him. Perhaps the Times should have asked Mr. Lewis, if his silence itself on this matter was “honorable” (since the only probable reason for this silence was to NOT gainsay his fellow Democrats)?
9. The Times has continuously run as straight-news, each and every liberal’s or left-wing Democrat’s accusation of RACISM as undeniable fact for at least the last ten years IF DIRECTED at CONSERVATIVES . . . but which has never attributed the barely 4% of Black votes going to Mc Cain while Obama received more and a larger percentage of White votes (almost 48%) than Kerry or Gore as having any racial significance at all. Isn’t it strange that the Times, which regards itself as so urbane and sophisticated in oh, so many ways, is so gullible that after ten years it has never figured out that the unending refuge for progressive (wanting to “progress” beyond the outdated and faulty Constitution) scoundrels is labelling all their opposition as “RACISTS.” How sophisticated is that? Just so the Times understands Rajjpuut clearly, he is saying the Times is guilty of not only abetting reverse-racism, but also of continuously and consistently falsely charging and abetting false charges of racism by others against Conservatives and conservative groups.
10. a) The Times recently OMITTED publishing news about a speech being applauded by the NAACP wherein a Black preacher and a couple of thugs who helped him beat up a Black entrepreneur (the man made a fortune in 2008 selling Obama buttons, but tried to sell “The audacity of dope” buttons featuring the president with a joint between his lips) were defended and lauded. The speaker repeatedly praised the preacher and the other thugs and called the entrepreneur repeatedly “an Uncle Tom.” b) the Times has also NOT investigated the story about the Black Panther voter intimidation suit being dropped nor c) the story about Obama appointee Deputy Attorney General Julie Fernandez ordering a roomful of Department of Justice employees to “forget about investigating voter intimidation and racism cases where the victims are White and the perpetrators are Black and d) nor have they run the story about Ms. Fernandez ordering DOJ employees to forget about “investigating violations of the Motor Voter Act” that is, e) like Ms. Fernandez, the New York Times is acting like racism is just something that Whites do to minorities, it can never happen the other way around.
The Times which, (in keeping with the “all-non-progressive’s are racists theme”) has ceaselessly slandered FOX News . . . but, in fact, the Times isn’t worthy of one-ten-thousandth the esteem which FOX’s real journalists earn every minute of every day. Cowardly, cowardly, cowardly, cowardly, cowardly New York Times. Until such time as the same New York Times effort that’s gone into propagating these lies is shown for dispelling them and pointing out those who so blithely and continuously speak them, until that day . . . cowardly, cowardly New York Times.
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
**Rajjpuut who has attended three TEA Party events and never seen one instance of hate or racism does know of two instances worth mentioning since March, 2009 (a year before the Obamacare passage) . . . .

#1 In a specious incident, a fellow was shown on FOX News carrying a sign partially clouded over by their editorial staff that presumably said something like, "F_ck the N_ggers." In that 20 second-incident he was quickly confronted by about five male TEA Party members, an argument ensued, his sign was torn from his hands trampled upon, and he was physically escorted from their midst. FOX also showed coverage of three other networks' newcasts which just showed the man holding his sign with the word “nigg_rs” clearly visible in a still photograph.

#2 Within a supposed TEA Party splinter faction, (Rajjpuut has seen evidence that makes him believe it was used by Harry Reid in Nevada to choose his least capable opponent, Sharon Angle, to win the Republican nomination -- but who knows it could be a valid organization pursuing TEA Party goals) known as the TEA Party Express , there was an upper echelon official who is supposedly "a shock jock" who on his personal blogsite spouted hate attacks on Barack Obama and referred to Islam as having "a monkey god." After, what Rajjpuut believes was an inordinate length of time the shock-jock was forced to resign. In any case the TEA Party express has zero credibility with any of the TEA Party membership outside themselves.
Read more…

Though this blog is about the Big Lie and lies in general, Rajjpuut still believes that “the truth shall set you free.” In that vein he recommends the weirdest movie ever made about truth setting anyone free: “World’s Greatest Dad” starring Robin Williams. The key characters, Kyle Clayton and Lance Clayton, both remind Rajjpuut of Barrack Obama in so many very different ways.

Understanding the Democrats BIG LIES

and All those Smaller Supporting Lies

Two of the three names in Rajjpuut’s “Truman-Reagan-Kennedy Statesmen of the Month Award” belong to Democrats John F. Kennedy and Harry S (no middle name just the initial ‘S’) Truman. It is, however, very obvious that today’s typical Democrat is not only clearly NOT of Truman’s and Kennedy’s ilk, they are not true Democrats at all, but rather merely progressive sycophants of Barack Obama’s ultra-socialist agenda. The extreme left-wing of the party has pushed out all opposition. One of the surest things about today’s Democrats is their consistent and constant use of the propaganda device known as the Big Lie.

The idea behind the Big Lie, first stated in Chapter 10 of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” is that . . . .

“. . . In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

The final “magic” occurs when you audaciously tell your huge lie often enough . . . the sheer power of repetition . . . generally wins the day. The audacity of Barack Obama is so great that he has at least seven Big Lies (like balls he’s forever juggling) up in the air at once.

#1 Everyone opposed (who’s not in line with the beliefs, actions and goals of progressive Democrats and) to Barack Obama is a racist.

#2 The opposition are NOT patriots (nor have they any rational reasons for their abhorrence of Obama’s goals and policies) Ideas like fiscal conservativism, national security from terrorism, constitutional conservativism, and other ‘reasons’ are cover-ups for their hatred of a Black President.

#3 Barack Obama is an American patriot and statesman, who is accountable, honest, open, and wants the very best for all American people.

#4 Racism is White bigotry against Blacks and other minorities only, it can never be the other way around.

#5 Barack Obama is NOT a socialist, much less a communist.

#6 Barack Obama understands economics and has surrounded himself with great and wise people who likewise understand it.

#7 Barack Obama’s big goal is to unite all Americans.

#8. The TEA Party don’t get America and are just fringe lunatics and racists.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Read more…

Racism, Racism, Racism, Racism,

Racism, Racism . . .

Rajjpuut, who voted against Barack Obama was nonetheless ambivalent about the election of a black president in November, 2008. “Too bad it wasn’t someone with competence and experience who’s got a good head on his shoulders like Clarence Thomas, but this could be a great thing for the country.” How naïve can a Libertarian be? The candidate without proven business or government executive competence and the shortest experience resume with clearly a head full of mush has proven to be not only the worst president in our nation’s history (James Buchanan may have actually been worse overall but Obama’s first 18 months have made Buchanan look sensational so far) but also the most divisive president since Jimmy Carter and Buchanan.

Obama, the consumate expert in straight-faced lying, convinced those who voted for him that he would be efficient, super-competent, run the most open, accountable and honest administration in history; the first “post-racial” president; the most bi-partisan president in history and would “bring us together. Six amazing promises that have all earned him a grade of F-.

We have heard the word “racism” from Obama and his administration at least one-hundredfold as many times as it was heard by the Bush administration in its full eight years. He has played politics (both by invoking “racism” and by insulting the Republican party) at least fifty times more often than George Bush did in his entire two terms. How did this happen?

In a poll last week, 55% of Americans labeled Barack Obama “a socialist. Unfortunately that’s a realization they’ve arrived at 21 months too late and it’s only the tip of the iceberg. How did this realization escape voters? Barack Obama campaigned like a left-center version of Ronald Reagan and continually appealed to the best instincts of voters who, thanks to the liberal media protection of Obama (they never ever got close to truly vetting his background) never actually saw that Obama was the singlemost radical left-wing senator in American History . . . nor did they see items like this (linked immediately below) by his Kenyan birthfather, Barak (with no ‘c’) Hussein Obama, Sr. who discusses 100% tax on earnings and about six other sparkling communist desiderata:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html

Barak, Sr. was the subject of Barack, Jr.’s first autobiography “Dreams from My Father” and one reason 80% of those who voted for Obama know virtually nothing about his background is that his childhood, his mother’s and grandfather’s politics, and this book were never vetted. This man’s dreams were the “Dreams from My Father” that Obama, our president wrote about, lo these many years. 90% of Americans would never support a communist, but 54% of American voters did support a communist thanks to the liberal media’s great work in protecting him from scrutiny. Only FOX News did any kind of job vetting this man’s past.

When Obama’s own racism was exposed along with the racism of the good Reverend Jermiah Wright of “God damn, America” fame, the liberal media (or more correctly over 400 members of it plotting together via a 13-year old e-mail connection called “JournoList” (yes, with an ‘o’ in the center) conspired to barely cover the story and to set out calling key Republicans and other Conservatives, you guessed it: “racists” to detract attention.

http://dailycaller.com/buzz/journolist/

Now any time anyone opposes an Obama bill, program or initiative, not only does the Obama administration yell, “Racist, racist!” but often before the administration even knows it’s under attack, the liberal media is interviewing some Democrat who will call anybody who opposes any Obama idea as having racial motives. This is the man who’s promised to bring us together and now it’s quite obvious he has planned to advance his objectives by tearing us apart all along.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Read more…

Obama's Radical Reliance upon R-Word #1's
REQUIRED Because
R-Word #2 is Barack's Goal
Readers of the tales of Arthur Conan Doyle’s masterfully-drawn detective Sherlock Holmes realize that “after all the impossibilities have been eliminated, what’s left, however, improbable must be the right answer.” The burning question left us since roughly 1965 is this: why has the radical left-wing of the Democratic Party, now in TOTAL charge of that party, relied so thoroughly upon the single word: RACISM?” The easy answer is “because it works for them.” The question begged is “Why?”
Racism or “R-word #1,” is a fact, a piece of evidence, which is crystallizing before us and the more we examine the history of this crime, (and it is a crime that the largest and most influential of our nation’s political parties has become the handmaiden of the least principled of persons and their perverted interests) and its ubiquitous presence definitely implies the existence of “R-Word #2, nay, REQUIRES R-wod #2 to be revealed later in the blog.
Rajjpuut suggests that as facts and history pile up ever higher one atop the other . . . and as all of the far more “preferable” and at first more likely answers are eliminated . . . only one highly improbable answer remains: “R-word #2. It is indeed a puzzler . . . .
If in solving the puzzle, we are repeatedly and ceaselessly confronted by the single inglorius word “RACISM” at every turn . . . “IF RACISM IS KEY TO THE ANSWER, (in other words, if use of the word “racism” willy-nilly at every key juncture is the METHOD) WHAT MUST BE THE QUESTION (in other words what is R-word #2, a.k.a. the GOAL)??
As always those who deny or refuse to learn their history are compelled to suffer its consequences. 1965 should have seen the halcyon days for the United States of America. The Civil Rights Act had just been passed. At last, the Civil War, also known as the “War of Nothern Agression” in some parts of the South, was successfully concluded. But the enemy within saw their opportunity and they hijacked the word “RACISM,” R-word #1 from the Civil Rights movement and therein lies our tale.
The country as a whole refused to acknowledge their presence and that made it easy for the enemy soon to come to nearly dominate the leftwing politics of the day. They have been able to disguise themselves, their nature and their goals right up till today. Yesterday so to speak, however, they began to be noticed finally. In a recent poll, 55% of Americans said that the word “Socialist” was a fitting description of Barack Obama, thank God! But at first and until very recently only they were able to make things appear to be quite different on the surface than the reality beneath where they were operating.
They – you are now aware enough to call them “Socialists,” but Rajjpuut has long known them as “Communists” since the first time he read Saul Alinksy’s “Rules for Radicals” or studied the “Cloward-Piven Strategy’s role in the bankruptcy of New York State in 1975-- were helped by the fact that when the first true battles in the Civil Right Movement were engaged after World War II, the Democratic Party was split asunder by the conflict and the smaller splinter group was a tempestuous group of Southern Whites known as the Dixiecrats who ran on a platform of thinly-disguised Confederacy (circa 1860). In fact, it was that single fact, that a highly concentrated group of racists that the rest of the United States came to hate actually existed and actually held the Confederate States of 1860 as an ideal that made the Communist’s takeover a plottable and possible outcome . . . and today that outcome is nearly a fait accompli. And that takeover is our R-word #2: Revolution or “Fundamental Transformation.” Here’s how it all came to be . . . .
It all began to come to a head in late 1945. Among the heroes returning from the South Pacific and Europe at the end of World War II were a large contingent of Black soldiers, 85-90% of them from the south. They were not always regarded as heroes when they got home. The president at that time was Harry S (no period, no middle name, just the initial) Truman, the greatest president of the 20th
In those days all Blacks, 100%, voted Republican, the Party of Lincoln. And the "Solid South" was the Democratic stronghold just as it had been before the Civil War. And the country was much more uniform and far less urban than it is today.
Century though he served less than two full terms. Truman was raised as a Missouri segregationist, so it must have been a tough battle for him. Rajjpuut thinks of Harry S. Truman as the inspiration for the founders of today's TEA Party movement.
Whatever else Truman might have felt about Blacks, Truman was himself a war hero from World War I and when hundreds of the returning Black soldiers were lynched across the south (one poor fellow with his battle ribbons still on display trampled into the ground beneath his corpse) in 1945 and 1946 he would not stand for it. He and the Republican Party and moderates of his own Democratic party quickly passed federal anti-lynching laws and Truman sent U.S. Marshalls into the south to enforce them. He also, by presidential edict, integrated the armed forces. Blacks in the navy, for example, had only been allowed to be cooks and stewards, and in the army had fought in entirely Black units. All the key segregationists of the day such as Harry Byrd, Strom Thurmond, Henry Wallace, Jesse Helms and George Wallace were outraged . . . to their mind another hated Reconstruction period was in the offing brought about by another War of Northern Aggression. They were actually right. This time the civil war took about eighteen years to fight, it was far less bloody but no less intense.
In effect the segregationists of the south, had once again fired upon Fort Sumter (lynchings) and once again the Union had regarded the act as an act of war and responded righteously (the anti-lynching laws and the presence of the U.S. Marshalls and integrating the armed services).
One fringe group needs to be mentioned: the Ku Klux Klan had been a huge power in the country since the earlier groups of Blacks had returned from World War I, and they’d been very popular in the early 20’s, not only in the south, but also dominating politics in some urban east and mideast states and around Rajjpuut’s home, Colorado. But the KKK’s power had been waning since several incidents in 1925 and 1926 had brought their patriotic-sounding rhetoric into obvious conflict with their goonish and sub-human true nature. There would be a resurgence of KKK activity during the next eighteen years but a large percentage of the southern populace and virtually all the rest of the country had moved well-beyond these thugs. Later as the undeniable courage of the Freedom Marchers of the ‘60’s led by Martin Luther King, Jr’s Gandhiesque non-violence surfaced into crystal-clear focus, more and more southern Whites came to appreciate the Black situation and the basic unfairness and injustice of segregation.
When Hubert Humphrey of the Democratic Party at their presidential nominating convention of 1948 introduced an “integration plank” to the delegates, Thurmond, Helms, Byrd and both Wallaces and their ilk walked out of the convention. Soon, calling themselves the States’ Rights Democrats or Dixiecrats they immediately created a third party and nominated Thurmond as their presidential candidate. It was considered only a small gamble. The split of the Democratic Party in ’48 was seen as virtually guaranteeing Truman’s defeat and the election of Republican Thomas Dewey, if Truman didn’t “come to his senses.” Despite all this, Truman continued to campaign vigorously along populist lines while Dewey, with supposedly 55% of the popular vote and 60% of the electoral vote coming his way according to the polls, gloried in the disintegration of the Democratic Party and espoused positions that appealed only to the plutocrats in both parties.
The Dixiecrats were almost as equally smug and reasoned that 1) after they defeated Truman, unless, of course, he invited them back in ’48, their power would be obvious and things would go back to normal or 2) after they won enough southern states to send the election to the House of Representatives, the south would basically control the selection of the President (certainly NOT Truman) and again their power woud be obvious.
What they didn’t foresee was that about 60% of the few Black voters; and the vast majority of other minority voters; and many of the urban white Republican voters and other White voters all across the nation changed their allegiance almost immediately, voters admired Truman and didn’t connect with Dewey and now that the segregationists were out of the Democratic Party many of the most independent felt comfortable voting that way. This was the natural birth of the TEA Party movement, which acted like one huge Independent voter hopping from party to party over the next few years until the communist undercover movement clearly took over the leftwing of the Democratic Party by say 1992.
Unhampered by this decidedly foreign presence in the Democratic party this respect for integrity and progress within tradition represented by the TEA Party would have likely changed the history of the country dramatically. They were the naturally center-right Independents of the country and controlled things from 1948-1960.
Meanwhile, in ‘48 Truman despite being consistently defeated by the Gallup polls defeated Dewey soundly and suddenly those Dixiecrats were a cause without a viable party. The Republicans, Party of Lincoln and far more interested in northern and eastern and urban concerns than in the south, had less room for them then the Democrats did. In presidential politics they were party-less until 1964.
The success of the Civil Rights Movement largely on the back of and inspired by the non-violence of King and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, was the ultimate straw as far as the Dixiecrats were concerned, not only that, but the Republican presidential candidate that year was a conservative named Barry Goldwater and one of the few good things about the Dixiecrats was their respect for traditional values. Unfortunately, “racism” was a traditional value for them too. So now the Old Racists were aligned with the Republican Party in November, 1964, a fact the Democrats haven’t stopped shouting about even since racism went out of style under Ronald Reagan and beyond. It’s ever necessary to keep the Black’s in their place (under the Democrat’s flag) and to remind Independents of what is no longer true. Anytime, in short, that a Democrat candidate is in trouble, the “Racism-Ploy” is appropriate. R-word #1 will never go out of style.
Remember that R-word #2? Revolution! Meanwhile, our enemies had flourished. Lyndon Johnson’s ill-conceived “Great Society” dove-tailed with their plans nicely. Saul Alinksy’s book was their Old Testament and in ’64 two communist Columbia University (NYC) sociology professors Richard Cloward and Frances Piven suggested that implementing Alinsky’s ideas on a large scale could quickly bring about the “fundamental transformation” they were seeking. They suggested the natural “vehicle” for their ascendancy was the Democratic Party of the United States and its weakness for complicated social programs outside the traditional American value structure. With Alinsky as True North they published their ideas now known as Cloward-Piven Strategy, which some have called “forced change through crisis” or “overloading the system.” Then they set about making their goal of a guaranteed national income come true. They aligned with George Wiley, a militant Black chemist and Civil Rights Activist to create an Alinsky-type battle plan.http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1769
Together they created Wiley’s NWRO (National Welfare “Rights” Organization) and set about first putting many more people on the state of New York’s welfare rolls, large quantities in NYC. While doing that they set about using these urban poor as their shock troops disrupting the welfare landscape with angry but well-coordinated street uprisings (really orchestrated demonstrations) until by 1968 they’d grown the welfare rolls of the state by 8 million. By 1975, NYC was bankrupt and NY state almost bankrupt . . . the broader welfare crisis they sought to provoke across the nation never materialized and the guaranteed national income was never seriously contemplated except by the extreme left of the Democratic Party. Nevertheless a huge success was, they believed, achieved, and while bragging about their efforts in print, they suggested the next two areas to advance the Popular Front (Communist Movement) should probably be voter registration and housing. Wiley set about creating ACORN.
You know most of the rest, probably, but Rajjpuut will summarize it here:
C-P defiles the housing market and ballot box
The U.S. had the highest home ownership in the world 62-64% depending upon the economic conditions, but Jimmy Carter and the Democrats passed the Community Reinvestment Act in ’77 forcing lenders to make bad loans (it was a mortgage-guarantee program) to people who could not afford to repay them. This program was expanded in ’92 to include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and George Bush I did NOT veto it. Under Bill Clinton it was expanded three more times (twice in 1995 and the steroid version in ’98).
By ’93, ACORN had begun perfecting its Alinsky techniques. From ‘95-’97 they found out that using lawyers like Barack Obama to shake-down the mortgage lenders and getting free publicity from PBS and network television was their ticket. Between ’99 and 2007, ACORN had it down to a science so that people without IDs, without jobs, without rental history, with horrendous credit ratings and even illegal immigrants could expect to receive forced loans from cowed mortgage companies and bankers . . . often far larger and more expensive homes than typical middle-class Americans owned.
If anything, ACORN’s involvement with the voting process has even been more corrupt. As far as the general election 32 ACORN operatives were convicted of fraudulent activities (the tip of the iceberg). But earlier was when the real problems arose:
ACORN and the Black Panthers helped Barack Obama steal the nomination of the Democratic Party from Hillary Clinton by allowing him to shakedown the system and win thirteen of the fourteen caucus states although being well-beaten overall in other states. Bussing, intimidation, dirty tricks and fraud were the featured activities.
More recently Obama’s Department of Justice in the person of a Deputy Attorney General assigned to head the DOJ, Julie Fernandez, has played politics by dropping a Philadelphia voter-intimidation case for the general election in 2008 against the New Black Panthers which the Bush administration had won with strong video evidence. Only one handslap was given out to a man seen in other videos calling for the killing “of crackers and their cracker babies.” And the aformentioned Ms. Fernandez let a roomful of DOJ employees know there was “no interest in prosecuting or investigating cases with White victims and Black perpetrators; or in investigations along Motor Voter Act.” Richard Cloward and Frances Piven are standing directly behind Bill Clinton in the phots as he signs the Motor Voter Act which has been called “a license for voter fraud.” Now Ms. Fernandez says that even the ultra-weak Motor Voter Act will not be enforced “because it might hurt turnout.” What??? Turnout of dead voters and moved voters will be down; duplicate votes will not occur, other voter irregularities will be culled . . . and Ms. Fernandez doesn't want that happening?
Today, by hook and by crook and by underhanded, under the table activitites, the Constitution of the United States is being shredded before our eyes. Our free-market system is being enslaved to bureaucracy on a dozen fronts, our present economy is being castrated and our children and grand children are being enslaved by Barack Obama’s fundamental transformation. His next target: the ballot box in November, 2010.
Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut

Read more…

Obama and NAACP Deliberately

Counter-Productive to Race Harmony?

Let’s get one thing straight, when it comes to Andrew Breitbart’s recently released video: Shirley Sherrod was never the story although a lot of people assumed she was. The real story was, and still is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Three things are very clear here . . . recently . . . .

A) The NAACP had just held a meeting in which a key speaker was allowed to praise a preacher and his thug friends who had just been arrested for beating up a Black entrepreneur selling “The audacity of DOPE” buttons. The man had made a fortune selling Obama buttons in 2008, but misjudged his audience when he began selling buttons showing Obama smoking a joint (marijuana cigarette, if you’ve been off the planet for half a century). The speaker was cheered loudly as he repeatedly called the victim “an Uncle Tom” and praised his assailants.

B) Without one iota of proof, the NAACP has once again

joined the Democrats and Obama for the umpteenth time in calling the TEA Party a “racist” group. The NAACP has made its career over the last half century calling Whites “racists devils” and this latest charge happened despite the fact that in the face of claims that the “N-word” was used by TEA Partiers “up to twenty-three times” against Black congressmen on the day that the Obamacare bill passed, it never happened. Breitbart has offered $100,000 to anyone who can show up with indisputable video proof that the N-word was used at all, even once that day. So far despite all the cameras and video devices on site, no one has come forward to prove the event happened. Of course, supposedly one Black congressman said he was “spat upon” but no video of that footage has occurred either, making critical minds think that spitting incident never happened either. Breitbart’s money is still in his bank account.

C) Now to the video itself, Sherrod herself was apparently a terrible victim in her youth when her father was, she said, killed by a White southern man and justice was never done. That was left out. Then later (in the 43-minute speech which the NAACP had recorded in its entirety) she talks about her epiphany that it “wasn’t about black and white at all” or at least not mainly about black and white but rather about helping the poor regardless of race. In other words her epiphany was that she learned how to do her job. Part of that was left out. What was actually left in the video segment? What was left in was while she was talking, the NAACP membership (which did NOT know where the speech and her story were going) was tittering and laughing and giving virtual “Hallelujah, Girl!” treatment to the speech as she was talking about a very uneasy interracial contact in her job with a White man who “thought he was superior to me.” That in a nutshell was the story, the NAACP reaction to the apparently racist story (early in her talk) was uniquely racist for an organization that claims to be seeking equal footing for all races. Notice the parallels between the NAACP reaction in paragraph A above and this paragraph. In the rest of the 43-minute speech, not revealed by Breitbart, were ten minutes of rants against Bush, Republicans and TEA Party members for racism without giving any evidence to back up her charges revealed Ms. Sherrod and her NAACP audience to be absolute reverse-racists.

The most clear and obvious statistics about racism in this country are that 1) Democrat Barack Obama received more White votes and a larger percentage of White votes in 2008 than John Kerry did in 2004 or Al Gore did in 2000, roughly 48%, meanwhile 2) John Mc Cain, the Republican nominee, received only around 4.4 % of Black votes. Those single facts more than any other propelled Barack Obama into office with a 7% edge in the popular vote. In other words, 3) Whites in 2008 were roughly eleven times more likely to cross racial lines in casting their votes then Blacks were.

Rajjpuut suggests that presumably 90-95% of the Whites who voted against Obama and 100% of the Blacks who voted for Mc Cain in 2008 did so for objective dislike of socialism, big spending and high taxes rather than for racial reasons. Today, 55% of Americans now label Obama a “socialist,” yet despite his miserable performance as president, 84% of Blacks still support Barack Obama. Without that support from Blacks, Obama’s overall positive job performance would stand around 36%. Who then are the racists?

To clear the air, here are some side-facts you might be interested in: Rajjpuut, a Libertarian, did NOT vote for Barack Obama because after reading “Dreams from My Father,” and listening to his speeches and going deep into research into his past voting; into the character of his mother Stanley Ann Dunham; grandfather Stanley Armour Dunham; and Barak (no ‘c’) Hussein Obama, Sr. his Kenyan birth-father . . . after that research, Rajjpuut rightly decided that Obama was at least a highly-exuberant socialist but far more likely an abject communist.

The word “prejudice” refers to pre-judging a situation, person, etc. without having all the facts (without doing your homework or research). When that prejudice is along the lines of race or color then the word “racist” is applicable. When the so-called “prevailing direction” of race hatred is breached then “reverse-racism” occurs.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has today become what it says it fears: a group of racists, or more properly a group of reverse-racists. While some liberated Blacks talk about the NAACP as “becoming increasingly irrelevant,” the truth is that the NAACP has for several years now has become a monstrous impediment on the road to better race relations. The biggest impediment on that road, however, is Barack Obama. Our “post-racial” president is either personally a racist or impersonally (for political advantage) the most highly visible race-baiter in America’s history . . . or most likely both.

Emphasizing specifics, the NAACP is a racist organization because unlike the great Martin Luther King, Jr., the NAACP judges Whites on their skin color not by the content of their character; and Barack Obama who seems to be doing the same thing is most likely judging voters on their stance for him or against him and using that prejudice as motivation for calling them “racists” to weaken, he hopes, the strength of their political opposition to him and the will of others to unite against him.

While Rajjpuut throws brickbats around, Shirley Sherrod is also a huge impediment to better race relations . . . a politically-incorrect fact that no one seems to be mentioning since the public-hijinks the other day by Shirley’s former employer the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Ms. Sherrod, is also, outside of her being a reverse-racist (she has labeled all Republicans and the TEA Party as racists much like Obama has, something called a ‘sewer’ or perhaps ‘suer,’ someone who likes to sue in the hopes of achieving monetary gain . . . she will be most likely suing the USDA for unlawful termination (her second big suit) and has called Breitbart “someone I’d like to get even with.” She should, if justice prevails, lose the suits, because her former employer has apologized publicly and publicly offered her a better job than she had earlier, but this is somewhat beside the point.

Ms. Sherrod, the NAACP and President Obama can all be lumped into the same boat, they are prejudiced against Whites who are not prejudiced for forced Black equality. Read that again, if necessary, for it is a key truth, no one except a few Black TEA Party members seems to be talking about. Democrats as a whole (and the NAACP as a subset of perhaps 95% of Democrats) seem to come at the world of race seeing the Black as a victim and someone the government needs to throw money at . . . . hence programs such as “Affirmative Action” which are merely institutionalized reverse-discrimination. As Martin Luther King, Jr. emphasized, equality of opportunity is the only opportunity that matters. Equality of everything (socialism, Marxism) such as Mr. Obama wants to force down our throats might actually work, to put all Blacks and all Whites and all others into uniform poverty at a level much, much lower than the average American Black now faces. Mr. Obama knows this for a fact and admitted as much several times.

During one of the candidate debates, the moderator gave an example of an economic fact and then asked Obama. “Since it’s been proved that anytime personal and business taxes on the highest earners goes above 28%, the nation is then threatened with recession, should we raise these taxes above 28%?”

Without hesitating, Mr. Obama said, “I’m interested in ‘fairness.’” There’s your blessed socialistic equality for you: everybody in the same leaky boat . . . this is why Mr. Obama has been working at cross-purposes to the economic best-interests of the American people . . . so that he can put everybody in the same leaky boat when we all know that the ‘rising tide lifts all boats’ and that’s where to put one’s economic emphasis: on making the country more prosperous as a whole. America’s poorest are wealthier than roughly 86% of the world’s people. Americans, Black or White, living below the poverty line are wealthier than 93% of the world’s people . . . the key, then is to lift the poverty line by say 60% rather than dropping more Americans into much-ballyhooed equality below that old poverty line. Racism used as a political tool by the NAACP and Mr. Obama for political ends is counter-productive of all worthy goals along those lines and a divisive factor preventing Americans from working together.

Martin Luther King, Jr. led the breakthrough for Blacks and all minorities back in the early 60’s, risking his very life and the lives of his followers to do so. It’s time for Blacks to stop playing the racism cards and the victim cards. It’s time for Whites to stop playing the guilt card against other Whites. It’s time for folks to follow that old Chinese encouragement and gung ho . . . “work together” for the betterment of themselves and their families and their country. Folks like Clarence Thomas and the TEA Party's Blacks and Hispanics are doing far more for race relations than virtually anyone since Martin Luther King, Jr.

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Read more…

Author: Brian D. Hill

Source: USWGO Alternative News

Note: The tactic is the same as the ones used by players on Big Brother TV Show where people build alliances to get father in the gameto back stab those not in the alliance and then betray the alliance totry to win a million dollars.

It is scary how Obama backed by Globalists is using the NAACP, and pretty much every month the Obama Administration is using racismto force his agenda against all Americans. Racism is a good way todivide and conquer and pit us off against each other.

According to a Resolution passed in the NAACP by those that are ignorantly supporting the Globalist Regime including Obama, the TeaParty Movement is declared a racist movement and that the NAACP seems tobegun it's war against the Tea Party Movement. Could the real reasonbe why is because the Tea Party may actually become another PoliticalParty which will knock off the Democrat Republican Monopoly which willset back the globalist plans for dissolving America and turning it into athird world cesspit. If this is all true will they rebuild up Americaagain as a communist regime where free speech is silenced and protestscause our Government to roll in the Big Tanks and crackdowns just likeduring the 1989 Tiananmen Square protest massacre.

The very reason Obama is using racism to divide us up is also to help build a huge alliance much like a gang that believes so many lies fromthe Pentagon that they will kill anybody that speaks against thePresident. That's also why Obama talked about having a private securityforce that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded. IfObama wants to become a dictator like Hitler and have his ownNazi-style forces, aka an Obamanation Alliance he has to spread outlies and racism to gather soldiers for his private security force toget ready to fight and kill the opposition. Already foreign troops are training on American soil to take on tea parties and confiscate guns. Also because of Obama's falling approval ratings a Top Clinton official stated that Obama needs a Terrorist attack to save his approval ratings.

So according to the NAACP's incorrect assumption that the Tea Parties are only dominated by one race and no other race can join in, and thatthey only dislike Obama's policies for only one reason, cause of hiscolor of skin. That's a total lie because I know for a fact that legalimmigrants have a problem with illegal immigrants are coming into ourcountry so it isn't racism like the movie Machete makes it out to be, Iknow for a fact that the Tea Parties actually have all of the humanrace and that they are not racist while the media lies and snips outcertain parts to make out like it's a racial cult to demonize the TeaParties.

The media always just like buzzards pick and choose what footage is left for the little people to salvage. They eat the footage where allpeople come together to fight corrupt Government no matter what gender,no matter what color, everybody comes together to say they had enoughof Big Government telling them what to do all the time, and instead themedia buzzards leave the footage to use against them and makes outlike the Tea Parties are racist in order to jumpstart the Presidentsfalling approval ratings.

In fact to further debunk the racism allegations by the NAACP we found that Lloyd Marcus a Tea Party spokesperson spoke against the NAACP Resolution that the entire Tea Party Political group was racist.

LloydMarcusWhiteFormalHeadShot_15TWO

In fact Lloyd Marcus said this is his song "They try to call you racist, because you disagree! It's just another one of their dirtytricks to silence you and me"

I agree with him that the Obama Administration is using racism because they want to silence the American dream and disagree with theTea parties, just as the Bush Administration was using mainly Terrorismbecause he disagreed with the Constitutionalists.

So I welcome anybody that will stand up against propaganda by the Federal Government and the Pentagon.

Lloyd Marcus, Orly Taitz, Alex Jones, all good tea party members, Bill Randall, Dale Robertson, and many others are working hard to debunk the propaganda that thecurrent Administration aka the Obama Administration is bringing forthagainst the Opposition.

I have interviewed many and all thinks that the race card or demonization of the Tea party is simply to build a power base. Hitlerand the Nazis used propaganda to build their regime and the same will beplayed by Obama to build up America as a Police State for the NewWorld Order.

Read more…

Black Panthers and NAACP are Pots
Pointing Fingers at Black Kettles
In psychiatry and psychology, the term “projection” refers to someone who sees their own weaknesses, failings and sins in everybody else. People who “project” are not a new phenomenon; the Bible suggests something like “First rid yourself of the stick in your own eye before complaining about the speck in your brother’s eye.” We’re all guilty of projection at one time or another . . . some of us, however, are much more deeply guilty of much more serious projection . . . there is a saying now in popular use that first arose in the Black community in the Reconstruction South about 1870 about “the pot calling the kettle black.”
Certainly New Black Panther members who intimidated White voters; the Black Panther baton carrier from that incident who called for “killing crackers and killing their cracker babies”; the old National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) that praised the Black minister and other Black thugs arrested for beating up a Black entrepreneur selling “The Audacity of Dope” buttons (he made a killing in 2008 selling pro-Obama buttons) and who called that Black victim an “Uncle Tom” at a widely viewed NAACP meeting; that same NAACP who called the TEA Party “racists”; and a good deal of the 96% of Black voters who supported Barack Obama’s presidency with their vote . . . all these are great examples of truly racist Blacks calling everybody else racists when it is they with the stick in their eyes calling everybody else Uncle Toms and Oreos (Black on the outside, white on the inside) . . . an obvious case of pots and kettles.
Calling himself “an unshackled Black man,” a TEA Party member named Rujon Williams, said it better than Ol’ Rajjpuut could ever have expressed it in an open letter to Black citizens:
“A few confused Black groups tell you ‘the white man is our enemy’ when it is a small befuddled part of the Black community. These confused Black organizations have no power, if they were really honest, they would tell you they get their money from the same table they so hate, the table the white man dines at as well.
“For years these small groups of loud mouth and confused Blacks have labeled anyone that did not believe the way they did, and spoke out against them calling their victims ‘Uncle Toms’, when in fact, they are the real ‘Uncle Toms’! Instead of leading their community to a better and richer life they are driving Black people onto the slave master’s high-rise plantations.
“The ‘Sell Outs’, quietly take and cannot stand on their own without the support of the white man’s money. They are the Oreo’s desiring to have the power of the white man. They hate achievement; it goes against their agenda.
“In the world of these ‘Sell Outs’ everyone is on welfare, lives in the project and eats government cheese. There is no need for education because the government will tell everyone what they need to know. There will be no need to work because the government will take care of everything . . . .
“The truth be told, the modern NAACP is nothing but a sock-puppet for those who drive the agenda of new slavery. This new slavery is without chains, but the Black community will be shackled never the less.
“Those who fall victim will be shackled to the hopeless society the progressives** seek to create.
“Truth comes in every color and unfortunately the New Black Panther Party does not hide their truth, and it is hatred for white people and Jews. They openly speak against what the freedoms the United States offers, using these same freedoms to advance their hideous agenda.
“It is time to expose the true agenda of these confused and bewildered Black groups. Some preach their confusion in boots and black military uniforms, while other preach in Brooks Brother’s suits, but their message is the same.
“These confused ‘Uncle Toms’ have sold the Black community out for less than 30 pieces of silver. They are nothing more than prostitutes and cheap ones at that.
“If these confused souls will sell themselves to the lowest bidder, they will surely sell you out as well.
Rujon Williams
Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
Progressives stopped calling themselves “progressives” starting about 1925. For over 80 years they preferred the label “liberals” but when people started tying “tax and spend” to the now pejorative term “liberal” they began referring to themselves as “progressives.” That term “progressive” is now increasingly being aligned with another buzzword “socialism,” among the Republican leadership but “progressive” is still largely a positive term in the lexicon of most voters even though a recent Pew Research Center survey showed that “socialism” was the second most “negatively regarded” political buzzword behind only the term “militia” in the link immediately above. Socialism was regarded as positive by only 29% of voters while 59% of them regarded “Socialism” as a negative. And today James Carville released a survey
with information showing that 55% of Americans believe Obama is a socialist. Rajjpuut begs to differ, here are the facts: Obama is a dyed-in-the-wool Communist. He wrote his first autobiography “Dreams from My Father” based upon this dream from his Kenyan birth-father which includes “100% taxation,” seizing private land and foreign businesses in Kenya, redistribution of wealth from Kenya’s Asian and White citizens to its Black ones, communal ownership of land, and central government planning of the economy and possible ownership of the means of production :
Read more…

Obama's Political-Correctness Manifesto

Gets Hangnail,

but P-C Death Far, Far, Far Away

The nasty little euphemism “politically-correct” was first aired to the world when Hillary Clinton and her hubby Bill came to Washington in 1993. Rajjpuut wishes to be absolutely and 100% transparently clear here . . . political-correctness is just a term covering up a savage lie. Political-correctness assumes that whatever is best for the progressives in this country is “best” for America and that is clearly the biggest most-damaging lie in American history.

Today, in commenting upon the Al Qaeda bomb strikes upon two groups of Ugandan citizens gathered together to watch (three bombs were actually involved, one was apparently a dud) the World Cup final game between Spain and Holland, Mr. Obama used a politically incorrect term, saying, “. . . Islamic Radicals were no respecter of the life of African Blacks,” a very unusual statement, why not say “human life?” Since the 86-page report on the Ft. Hood shooting totally avoided mentioning the words “Muslim” or “Islam” or even once named the shooter (Major Nidal Halik Hasan); and Attorney General Eric Holder has gone into utter contortions in Congress to avoid saying the words “Islamic terrorism” or “radical Islamic terrorists” this is indeed “a change,” but what kind of change exactly?

Certainly Nancy Pelosi is NOT on board. She today called White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs “politically inept” after Gibbs said enough house seats were in play in November to allow “the Republicans to win the house.” An obvious fact canNOT be stated because it’s politically-incorrect? The Speaker of the House openly buys into the political-correctness doctrine. Remember how, when talking about Obamacare, she openly said, “we should call it the ‘consumer option’ not the ‘public option’ . . .”

Political-correctness has always been about lies, half-truths, evasions and euphemisms and “right-seeming propaganda” and doing the popular thing rather than the honest and upright action. Political-correctness has almost always been about changing history itself. It began with the first Democratic Progressive Woodrow Wilson. Before Wilson, the first actually progressive president, Teddy Roosevelt a Republican, was guilty of overstepping his bounds (National Parks, Panama Canal) without allowing congress or the people to have a say on his agenda . . . kind of a “might makes right” statement. Wilson, a Princeton educator actually wrote a book changing the story of the Founding Fathers and the creation of the nation.

Wilson**, the first to actually call himself a “progressive,” allowed D.W. Griffith’s racist masterpiece “The Birth of a Nation” to premier at the White House. “The Birth of a Nation” depicts the Ku Klux Klan as the savior of American civilization. Wilson was the first to openly disparage the Constitution and suggest that it was a document that Americans needed to “progress beyond” and used the terms “inadequate” and “outdated.”

Obama’s and Gibbs’ recent remarks definitely do NOT mark the oncoming death of political-correctness but rather merely showing a splinter beneath the skin of the progressive Leviathan. Denying their own racism while labeling all political opponents racists is the progressive stock in trade. Black racism is clearly so politically incorrect that the mainstream media has never been known to make a habit of showing it. Consider the horrific and ugly Black racism of the New Black Panthers which the Department of Justice refused to prosecute; or the racism of the NAACP seen in yesterday’s headlines; or the almost 96% of Blacks that voted for Obama; or the widespread tendency of Blacks to label non-Democrats “Uncle Toms” -- just as they deny Woodrow Wilson’s racism (he and FDR are their big heroes) Black’s canNOT be racists against Whites, they just canNOT be, it wouldn’t be politically-correct, now would it?

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

** Wilson proved so unpopular in his day, that after Wilson's depression was solved by Harding cutting taxes and spending both over 45% ended it and it became known as the "Invisible Depression," progressives stopped calling themselves progressives and adopted the word "liberal" which served them well for more than 80 years.

Read more…

Wright’s Racism and Hate Speech History

Not Just Some Recent Aberration

For the naïve among you who somehow believe that Barack Obama is an honorable man and a statesman . . . and who still believe that Barack Obama is NOT a racist . . .

Obama, in his speech in mid 2008, disavowing Wright in Philadelphia, said you'll remember, “Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect.” Yes, and Adolf Hitler wasn't a national socialist and never said anything against Jews, Gypsies and so-called "November Criminals, either . . . But Wright did give Louis Farrakhan an award which seemed bothersome, since Farrakhan is a much-discussed antisemite. Obama, defending Wright, claimed Farrakhan’s work with ex-prisoners had been the inspiration for the award. But neither the award citation nor Wright’s own description made any mention of ex-prisoners. Instead the award citation explicitly was given for Farrakhan’s “lifetime achievements” whatever they might have been . . . .

Wright and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, you see, have a long history of being "great minds running in similar racist ruts." Farrakhan can't seem to avoid making anti-Semitic and anti-white comments, regularly documented by the (Jewish) Anti-Defamation League’s website; and Wright himself is one of the Anti-Defamation League's favorite love-to-hate-him personalities. Wright has often dissed black leaders for avoiding mention of Farrakhan’s name.

During the 20+ years Obama listened to Wright's sermons, hate speech was Wright’s main stock in trade. America, he said, created the AIDS virus to kill off blacks. His church’s website and newsletters throughout the period of Obama's membership have featured numerous anti-semitic rants. After the "God damn America!" sermon, Wright eventually was disavowed by Obama. But speakin of Wright in Philadelphia, Obama lied about his self-described longtime friend and adviser, to deflect attacks on his own judgment and patriotism, “Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms . . . " etc., etc. ad nauseum and the mainstream media declined to chase down the story and the truth. Obama also claimed that Wright had grown up "in the ghettoes in the 60's with memories of doubt, fear and humiliation," but actually Wright had lived a privileged youth, another Obama lie which again the media didn't choose to track down.

Obama often uses Adolf Hitler's famous propaganda technique "the big lie" and surely everything Obama's said about Jeremiah Wright qualifies as a monster lie so outrageous that no one would think anyone would have the temerity to speak it, were it not true. From his first autobiography, "Dreams From My Father" (the title of his second autobiography "The Audacity of Hope" came from the title of a Jeremiah Wright sermon; the fatherlike role of Wright is amazing in Obama's life even though the reality of Rev. Wright is clearly 100% the opposite of every myth Barak, Jr. has built up and the mythical persona he's made himself appear to be) to virtually every statement about his past to all his public statements, Obama has carried on a string of fantastic lies unchallenged by the mainstream media . . . only one thing is obvious the "Devil we know," Jeremiah Wright, is not one-hundredth as dangerous as the man who lies about him and for him . . . Barack Obama . . . indeed, Rajjpuut has found only one "important" statement that Obama's ever made that was not a lie: "I am NOT a socialist, I'm not." No he isn't a socialist, Barack Obama is a dyed-in-the-wool communist** and listening to Jeremiah Wright's "Black-Liberation Theology" (which is based entirely upon the teachings of Karl Marx) must have been a great comfort to him.

Ya'll live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut

** in "Dreams From My Father" Obama never mentioned that his grandfather Stanley Armour Dunham and his mother Stanley Ann Dunham were communists and his birth father Barak (no 'c') Hussein Obama, Sr. was also a communist as shown here:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html
You'll remember from reading "Dreams From My Father" that Obama Senior's dream or lifetime love for Kenya was socialism and "fairness" but here we find out that it wasactually "scientific socialism inter alia communism." And we learn more about what's really going on when we see him in this essay discussing the advisability of 100% taxes upon the rich; takeover via nationalization of foreign businesses; and out and out transfer of wealth from Kenya's European and Asian citizens to its black ones.

Read more…

When will Obama denounce racism by Blacks?

Civil Rights “Always about Becoming White,”

Sez Jeremiah Wright

It’s a real shame that the mainstream media has continually refused to do simple “fact checks” on the jet-stream of lies spouting from Barack Obama’s lips. Being raised by a radical mother might have contributed something to that, but apparently, Obama learned a lot at Jeremiah Wright’s knee. The pattern he’s shown in the last seventeen months is always the same (nothing about real government and real leadership, but rather) a continual campaign-mode attack upon his opponents’ perceived motives as stated by Obama (and NO actual discussion of issues with facts ever). Wright himself has been attacking the “White establishment” for at least twenty-five years which wouldn’t be that bad (there are problems), but like Obama, he just comes up with attacks on motives never with facts relevant to any purported issues involved.

A couple days after Reverend Jeremiah Wright first came to the attention of most Americans by preaching, “. . . not ‘God Bless America’ but God Damn America,” Barack Obama said he’d never heard anything objectionable from Wright during the twenty years he attended Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. After ten days heat from the media, Obama denounced Wright for his “inflammatory rhetoric.” Eventually, Obama left Wright’s church to still the outcry. Strange that Obama hadn’t heard anything “nasty” from Wright before . . . because since then Wright’s been making headlines for the same old crap roughly every 20-25 days.

For Ol’ Rajjpuut, who believes that the worst racism in this country comes in from those calling everybody else racist (only 5% of the Black voters voted for McCain, for example, while Obama got almost 48% of the White vote which is more than either Gore or Kerry received) the Reverend Wright’s latest outrages seem to back up Rajjpuut’s thinking . . . . one wonders if this wouldn’t be a great time for Barack Obama to again distance himself from Wright and to GASP! actually criticize Black racism. Now wouldn’t that be something?

Wright has truly outdone himself this month already. Former Obama mentor, Reverend Wright, infamous for numerous anti-semitic statements has twice just recently re-affirmed his belief that “Jews are running this country” and while “educating” folks at a theological gathering he didn't pull any punches in other areas either . . . .

A. At a recent Chicago seminar, Wright claimed that there was little real difference in race issues between the United States today and South Africa during its apartheid years.

B. Claimed that the civil rights movement was a joke whose only purpose was to help Black people in “becoming White.”

C. Told his seminar audience, “you will NEVER be a brother to white folk,” because racial divisions in this country are forever too deeply entrenched. Rajjpuut wonders who might be doing the entrenching, eh?

D. Added that “White folk done took this country, you’re in their home and they’re always gonna let you know up about it.” He said this control over blacks was created by a poorly designed American education system that was “by malignant intent” not educating Black students.

E. Most incredibly of all, Wright assailed the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. for advocating nonviolence. “We probably have more African-Americans who’ve been brainwashed than there were brainwashed South Africans,” Wright said. Think about that . . . Wright is now comparing nonviolence in South Africa as advocated by both Mohandas Gandhi and (during the nonviolent demonstrations across the segregated American south as advocated by) Martin Luther King, Jr. . . . compared them and their actions to brainwashing. Didn’t a fellow called Yeshua or Jesus or something also advocate “turning the other cheek”?????? Indeed, isn’t Wright a pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ?

The fact is that TRUTH is the biggest casualty every time Obama or Wright speaks. This seems to be something the media is totally UNinterested in. All they do is air attacks from the perpetually crusading/campaigning twosome and never carry out the most basic of journalistic duties and do checks on their so-called facts that are spouted. With friends like the mainstream media, Americans don’t need enemies like Wright and Obama.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Read more…

Slick Obama Sells Israel Down the River
This article will sound highly critical of Barack Obama and highly supportive of the Israeli naval blockade. And so, it clearly is and should be. However, Rajjpuut is NO friend of Israel. That revelation is important to his search for truth and to the readers'. Rajjpuut has written several blogs clearly outlining the outrageous history of how the United Nations gave away Muslim Arab land owned by those Arabs for almost nineteen hundred consecutive years to the Jews in 1948 in atonement for European and American guilt over the Holocaust. Rajjpuut has repeatedly agreed with Muslim viewpoints that World War II was NOT a Muslim-caused war and that the Arabs and Muslims played NO role in the Holocaust and owed the Jews NOTHING. Similarly, Rajjpuut holds no animosity nor does he find anything to criticize about the Israeli Jews, in their place he'd have done exactly what they did: that is, carve a Jewish state out of the only land they could find. In fact given the Democratic leanings and capitalist expression found in Israel, Rajjpuut finds much to praise. (Almost everything but their highly socialistic economic system, as a matter of fact.)
All that being said, facts are facts are facts and since the Jewish nation^^ was NOT carved out of Nazi Germany and Nazi Austria (where by all rights it clearly SHOULD have been) . . . it, Israel (like the abortion laws in the United States) is a fact of life and like all facts of life must be dealt with honestly, intelligently, courageously and justly . . . hence this blog . . . .
Barack Obama might not have any guts or integrity, but once again, Israel showed it has plenty of each when it continued to honor its blockade of military shipping to Gaza. The administration of “Nobel-Peace-Prize” recipient Obama has joined “the world” in condemning Israel for its “aggression” in enforcing that nation’s naval blockade of Hamas, conveniently overlooking six key facts . . . .
1. Not only Israel but also Egypt is currently enforcing a naval blockade against arms and support for Hamas, the present governing body of the Palestinians in the Gaza strip. Egypt is a Muslim country and if they wished the violent Hamas regime to have weapons it would be a simple matter for Egypt to allow transport overland into Gaza. Naval blockades are a completely legal way (under U.N. rules) for a country to deal with a belligerent neighbor such as Gaza has proven itself since Hamas came to power there.
2. The three-year old blockade was originally brought about because of thousands of small arms, mortar, rocket and artillery attacks from Gaza into Israel since Hamas came into power. Those attacks have shockingly virtually ceased since the blockade went into effect.
3. The Hamas charter states that elimination of Israel from the face of the earth is their goal. Their earlier attacks underlined their commitment to that end. Every nation has a right to defend itself or to prevent enemy nations from obtaining armament, hence Israel's naval blockade of Gaza.
4. The recent attempt by a “humanitarian peace coalition” to run the Israeli blockade which resulted in nine blockade-runners being killed was created by the Turkish ship
A. Attempting to run the legal blockade and
B. When the Israelis boarded the ship, by a stunning display of violence from those on board the Turkish ship. The media worldwide (other than in Israel and on Fox News) has condemned the deaths but not shown the video footage which shows that passengers on the Turk ship instigated ALL the violence and that two Israelis were badly injured before the Israelis decided to return violence with more principled and lethal violence. Calling yourself a “peace mission” means nothing when you attack a legitimate boarding party with metal pipes conveniently cut to the length of a baseball bat.
5. Before setting sail, several of the passengers aboard the Turkish vessel had written wills and letters to their next of kin indicating that they expected to become martyrs and thus it’s obvious they had staged the whole incident in hopes of breaking the blockade either at that moment or helping end it in the future. Several of the passengers were already on the international warning list as violent jihadists.
6. Unlike Mr. Obama who is parading around the world humbling himself and our nation to every third-rate dictator he can find, Israel recognizes clearly the need for strength to ensure peace. Amazingly “Peace Prize” recipient Obama is as ignorant of that fact as he is of economics, business, and our own nation’s traditions and Constitution (although purportedly he taught Constitutional Law while simultaneously teaching Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” in Chicago).
Naturally, the gutless Barack Obama, who spent parts of five years as a “prize student” at a Muslim private school in Jakarta, Indonesia (where they now have a statue of him as a ten-year old with a butterfly** balanced upon his thumb) aligned himself with asinine (given the obvious five facts listed above) public opinion in condemning the Israeli action. When Israel attacks Iran, as they soon must to eliminate that belligerent country’s nuclear capability, Obama will likewise condemn that action . . . when that happens, Rajjpuut will applaud mightily. Every nation has the right and duty to protect itself. Israel represents everything Obama hates: Jews, a Republic, a democracy, and successful capitalist nation. And let’s go further and make things clearer . . . .
Isn’t it amazing that all the while Obama's Left is accusing peaceful Conservatives in our country of racism, anti-semitism and Nazism . . . they’ve apparently forgotten that the term “Nazi” is short for “National-Socialist.” Socialism@@ routinely and consistently across history has attacked the Jewish people because of their renowned tendency (being denied the right to own land in many countries) to operate profitable businesses – to succeed as captalists. Like all socialists and communists throughout history Obama is an anti-semite (Karl Marx was a self-hating Lutheran-born child whose parents converted him and themselves to Judaism, who later became an atheist who repeatedly disparaged Jews and called them all, “puppets and puppeteers of capitalism” and quoted Feuerbach, calling the Jewish god Yaweh "nothing but the personified selfishness of the Israelitish (sic) people” but then expanded his own diatribe to outshine his hallowed mentor in vitriol: “Money,” he wrote, "is the jealous god of Israel, beside which no other god may exist . . . . What is the real Jew? What is the profane basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Hucksterism. What is his worldly god? Money."
And Barack (whose birth-father Barak, with no ‘c’ Obama, wrote a scathing editorial commentary calling for “scientific socialism, i.e. communism$$” for Kenya while discussing the merits of 100% taxes on the rich and takeover of foreign business and spreading the wealth of Kenyans into Black Kenyan hands and out of Asian- and White-Kenyan control) Obama? He is the real Nazi, the real National-Socialist who’d love nothing better than to see Israel and its troublesome Jews wiped off the face of the earth. Heil Slick Barack, Heil!
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
^^
Like Rajjpuut said, the anti-Nazi nation in question should have been carved out of the Nazi homeland in Germany and Austria. And why not make it a homeland for all the people the Nazis persecuted and attempted genocide upon? That is Jehovah's Witnesses, Gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally-retarded, nobility, the intelligentsia, political dissidents, and those suffering from physical birth-defects, for example, all deserved a homeland every bit as much as the Jews did. Hitler saw to the killing of 13 million people and less than half of them were Jews.
By the way, socialism in the forms found in the USSR-Russia; Red China and Nazi Germanyeasily deliberately and directly killed at least 91 million (presumably more) civilian people during the 20th Century. Even, the one socialist hero found on so many ignorant people's t-shirts, Che Guevara, reputedly bragged he personally killed almost 200 people and clearly oversaw the deaths and imprisonment of many, many more . . . exactly what is it about socialism that is so attractive? And why is it that the mainstream media wish to protect Barack Obama from all criticism?

@@ and if you in ignorance say, "Come now, the Nazis weren't real socialists," then you in your inexperience haven't examined the platforms of those National Socialists Nazis. They wanted pretty much what Barack Obama wants, including hurting their political enemies.

$$ Here's Barak Hussein Obama, Sr.'s essay: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html

Read more…

The Liberal distortion of equality.

I have been doing some real thinking on how this nation and it's political parties see liberty. After hearing certain people on this site declaring they believe in it's core values and what the TeaParty is all about, I have come to the conclusion they only seek to discredit our cause. The left is so terrified of us that they have sunk to the level of divisions in society. They know all to well what it means to label a group our a person racist. They have no respect for free speech or the people who truly fight for it. Like when Janeane Garofalo called the TeaPartiers " Racist redkneck tea baggers". How are those words not racist? She doesn't know every TeaPartier personally, she can show no proof of racist bigoted behaviour, she has never actually spent any time talking with anyone in the TeaParty nor has she giving any credible reason for calling them "racist redkneck tea baggers", other then the sole fact they are mostly white. So who is the real racist?

So where is the racism coming from? good question. Let's look at some names being tossed around and there source. "Oreo" was used to label black teapartiers who are trying to keep their freedoms. Why are they being called "oreo's"? because the left is trying to call them traitors for not supporting a black president's agenda. Meaning they are black on the outside but white on the inside. Wow, and we are the racist? Now how about redkneck? that term is used to label dumb uneducated white's who because are uneducated they have to be racist. Interesting, considering the education level within the TeaParty is actually higher then the nation as a whole. Which is why they behave with respect for others and their political and racial background. And "tea baggers", this term can not be used for any other definition then a sexual act of immorality. And all this racist double standard B.S. is coming straight from the left!! Hmm..... it can't be? their for civil liberties and individual freedoms. Right?

Civility has also become a tactic of the left. They describe the TeaParty as behaving in an uncivil protest. Really? And how many buildings or businesses have the TeaParty attacked or vandalized? None. How many credible threats have come from the Teaparty Protest? None. How many civilians have been harmed in the TeaParty protest so far? None. So once again, how is this uncivil? But wait, let's see how civil the protest are coming from the left. How many buildings have the left attacked or vandalized?15. How many threats have been from the left? All. How many civilians have been harmed from the left? All. So this uncivil behaviour seems to only come from the left. With threats to shoot police officers by the left protesters in Arizona. with the threats to attack white Americans with axes and shovels by those calling the TeaParty racist, the left. With white students being unable to wear their nations flag to school because of those on the left. Or how about the black principle up north who told his white students they could not go on his field trip that allowed all blacks. Again from the left!! And where is our President who promised us civility in government? Well, he is from the left. He has done nothing while in office to unite the American people. He has only been able to call the American people uncivil, misguided extremist from the right.

Here is what is going to happen. The left will continue to label the TeaParty "Racist redkneck tea baggers" in every approach because they are unable to find an actual cause to target or discredit us. We will continue to fight for real freedoms and real liberties that the left is so terrified of. And we will still protest with dignity and civility that the left has been unable to proclaim in their speeches, arguements, ideals and laws. So continue your assualt on us because we will neither fall or surrender!! We will not give you our freedoms without a fight!! The rule of law will prevail with real equal justice and real civil liberties!! God Bless all those who oppose tyranny and fight for Liberty!! I love all of you!!

Read more…

An obvious reason why the Left resorts to accusations is because they cannot debate on facts. They lose every time. So many of the Tea Partiers have lived through a few recessions, and have learned that entitlements are the main cause, in one way or another. The Left does not want to hear this, so they attack the truth tellers with name calling. The media has gone so far left, they are complicit in perpetuating the lies.

The Real Reason Liberals Accuse Tea Partiers of Racism

http://bit.ly/9jGuPX

Read more…

Now that the Democratic Party is back in power, it's beginning to feel like the 1960's all over again. Depending on which side of the fence you resided at the time, free love or responsibility, there is one outcome worth noting -- it turned the tide on respect.

WHY LEFT TALKS ABOUT "WHITE" TEA PARTIERS

We will see what the Left most fears: blacks and Hispanics at tea parties

http://bit.ly/byaCFN

Read more…