The Obama Administration has critical information on the Fort Hood jihadist, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, that it is refusing to release to Congress despite repeated requests.
Why?
We can only speculate on some of the reasons. Interestingly and as noted below, Obama and many in his administration have refused to acknowledge the obvious including leaving it out of reports and speeches: that this was an act of Islamic terrorism.
This terrorist had a long history of pro-Islamic rants, actions and associations and even yelled “Allahu akbar” while murdering members of our military. All the evidence is irrefutable and incontrovertible.
Obama’s refusal to consider this an Islamic terrorist event, particularly given his position as President of this country, is of incalculable concern and places our country at immeasurable risk. We feel that this goes beyond blatant incompetence or truckling to Islam and “political correctness”.
Is this just another of myriad examples that Obama’s allegiance is not truly to America and its Judeo-Christian foundations and instead more toward Islam?
Given his history (including attending a Madrassa in Indonesia as a child; Muslim father and step father), statements (anti-American; anti Judeo-Christian and pro-Islam), actions (pro-Arab, anti-Allies including vehement hatred of our ally Israel, etc.), we firmly believe that this is the case.
It also begs the important question which has simmered in the public for a while: is Obama really a Muslim and not a “Christian” which he feigns to be?
Obama's Fort Hood Jihadist
Pamela Geller April 11, 2011
We have been hearing for years that the White House is withholding evidence on the Fort Hood jihadi, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Now comes direct confirmation of this from Hasan's own lawyer.
Major Hasan, also known as Soldier of Allah, according to his business card, mowed down thirteen U.S. soldiers while screaming Allahu akbar on the Fort Hood military base in Texas a year and a half ago, in November 2009. Yet his trial keeps on being postponed. On March 30, Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, the outgoing commanding general at Fort Hood, granted a request from John Galligan, Hasan's lawyer, to delay the trial until late April. Galligan, however, disclaims responsibility for all the delays, blaming them on none other than Barack Hussein Obama.
Rick, a reader of my website, AtlasShrugs.com, forwarded to me an email exchange he had with Galligan. Rick wrote to Galligan last Thursday: "The American people are getting pretty upset about all of these delays." On Friday, Galligan responded: "Delays are due to prosecution/White House refusal to disclose evidence. Blame them for the delays."
So where is justice? This Islamic supremacist should have been executed by now. What's the hold up? Galligan's blaming Obama is consistent with how the White House has behaved throughout this case. Back in November of 2010, I wrote at Atlas Shrugs that the Obama administration was "still covering up the motivation behind the attack."
Even worse, in October 2010, a soldier at Fort Hood who caught Hasan's jihad murders in two videos on his cell phone camera was ordered by his commanding officer to delete both videos.
This is unacceptable. An army officer ordered the destruction of evidence in a jihadist attack on American soldiers? The officer should be on trial for obstruction of justice.
And back in April 2010, Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) had to subpoena the Obama White House to get information it was withholding for a congressional investigation into the Fort Hood jihad massacre.
Meanwhile, the official government report on this jihad mass-murder doesn't mention jihad or Islam at all. Congressman John Carter (R-TX) said that "the Obama Administration continues to deny the Fort Hood attack was terrorism, failed to grant the casualties the same status as that given casualties from the 2001 Pentagon attack, conspicuously omitted even mention of the words 'radical Islamic terrorism' in the official DOD report on the shootings, and will not acknowledge the role of political-correctness in stifling whistleblower warnings of the impending attack."
Yet on the morning of Major Hasan's mass slaughter of U.S. troops at Fort Hood in the bloodiest act of war on a military base in U.S. history, he distributed Qur'ans and his card, calling infidels to convert to Islam before his jihad (as I reported at Atlas Shrugs on November 6, 2009 -- Major Hasan's Dawah before Jihad). Hasan screamed "Allahu Akbar!" as he mowed down U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood.
Also, a fellow psychiatrist recalled a lecture Hasan gave (a "grand round" is the term for it) when he was a medical resident at Walter Reed: "It freaked them out." Normally, a lecturer focuses on a particular disease or disorder and recent research or treatment options. Instead, Hasan reportedly harangued the doctors and staff about what the Qur'an teaches about non-believers going to hell, being scalded, beheaded, etc. A Muslim psychiatrist in the audience reportedly challenged Hasan about his interpretation of the Qur'an, but he would not back down (because he was right). Other sources said that several in the audience suggested afterward that Hasan might be a shooter someday.
Yet Obama has continued to withhold evidence in the Fort Hood jihadist attack and, as Galligan has just revealed, continues to shield the Muslim terrorist.
So crippled has our military (and other branches of government) become by this self-imposed Sharia (do not insult Islam!), that despite the staggering loss of U.S. soldiers in Hasan's Fort Hood massacre, the chief concern of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey, Jr. in the bloody aftermath of the Fort Hood jihad was that "speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers and what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here."
That was the concern.
By Gd, what have they done? They have abandoned, by their own volition, the only weapon of survival -- they are practicing suspension of the mind, refusing to think.
Who is looking out for Americans? We know who is looking out for the jihad in America. John Galligan just reminded us.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-WI), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, has proposed massive, desperately need federal government spending cuts as well as tax rate reductions in his “Road to Prosperity”. Troves of empirical data support this approach – benefiting all except the demagogic Liberal politicians.
The vast majority of the Democrats still irrationally support continued unrestrained federal spending and high and increasing taxes, tax rates and fees. They never can have enough of other people’s money to spend. A larger, more controlling and intrusive government that knows best is their ideology. Control the masses, engender their dependency and buy votes by wealth transfer from those who work, particularly the higher wage earners.
Cal Vs. Krug
Investor’s Business Daily 04/11/2011
Taxes And Spending: House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's bold entitlement reform plan goes beyond taming spending. It recognizes that the history of cutting taxes vindicates Calvin Coolidge, not Paul Krugman.
Rep. Ryan has emerged as someone the country has been waiting for: a fearless, energetic politician with the guts to propose a detailed reform of the out-of-control, until-now-untouchable federal mandatory spending programs. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, with their annual automatic spending increases, now make up roughly 60% of outlays.
Some might find irony in Ryan ending up as spending hawk-in-chief, since back in the 1990s he was an aide to supply-side icons like Jack Kemp and Bob Kasten. Both were accused of caring too little about spending cuts as they fought for tax cuts to grow the economy and create millions of private jobs.
Today, after years of unchecked Democratic control of Congress and the White House, the problem of untamed government spending has become a runaway locomotive hurtling us toward a fiscal cliff.
The American public has reacted, spawning the populist Tea Party movement. And in this new environment, tax-cutting politicians are also spending-cutters.
But Ryan still recognizes, as did Kemp and Kasten, that low tax rates are key to restoring the greatness and vibrancy of the U.S. economy.
So when the New York Times' spending-addict columnist Paul Krugman launched his error-riddled attack on Ryan's plan last week, his first volley targeted not spending but Ryan's tax cuts. Ryan would bring both the individual top tax rate and the soon-to-be-highest-in-the-world U.S. corporate tax rate down to 25%.
According to Krugman, "Republicans have once again gone all in for voodoo economics — the claim, refuted by experience, that tax cuts pay for themselves" because they "would set off a gigantic boom."
It's so many years after Ronald Reagan's tax cuts produced the longest peacetime economic expansion in history — extending past the brief George H.W. Bush recession to the Internet revolution of the 1990s. One might have hoped that the losers of the tax-cut debate would, by now, have gone the way of the Berlin Wall.
But then, had history been heeded, the Krugmans actually would have been laughed off the political stage long before Reagan. John F. Kennedy knew when he bucked fiscal liberals in his party and pushed hard for cutting tax rates — including those on high incomes — that President Calvin Coolidge had proved tax cuts do exactly what Krugman says they don't: produce new jobs and fill government coffers with new revenues.
As Veronique de Rugy, senior research fellow at George Mason University's Mercatus Center, pointed out in a paper for the Cato Institute, "detailed Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s — including large cuts at the top end — resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes."
De Rugy found that as "the marginal tax rate on those high-income earners was cut sharply from 60% or more (to a maximum of 73%) to just 25%, taxes paid by that group soared from roughly $300 million to $700 million per year." From 1922 to 1929, real GNP grew 4.7% a year and unemployment fell from 6.7% to 3.2%.
What Krugman mocks as "trickle-down" was actually a tsunami of prosperity that expanded by 84% those making between $10,000 and $100,000 annually.
Taxes and spending can't be divorced. The Krugman way of big spending and high tax rates condemns future generations to never-ending government dependency.
Ryan's way not only reforms and saves entitlements. It saves us from the left's goal of a Europeanized American economy.
Obama is an enemy of the American middle class. This is not partisan rhetoric or a visceral reaction but instead a position by design.
By Obama himself.
Obama is an irrefutable socialist (and worse) who is quite comfortable surrounding himself with other socialists and communists (Van Jones, et al). Part of his ideological position is supporting and fighting for the underclass at the expense of the middle class.
This is a basic tenet of communism as elucidated below.
Of course, this is the antithesis of our capitalist free market system which is based on productive labor rather than wealth transfer facilitated by a monolithic omnipotent central government which is Obama’s ideal.
Obama's War on the Middle Class
Jeffrey Folks March 23, 2011
Whenever he is in campaign mode, President Obama goes to great lengths to remind voters that he is "struggling to defend the middle class." As he did in January 2010, Obama speaks of the middle class as "under assault" (by whom he does not specify). In his Labor Day radio address of 2010, he spoke of his "commitment to the middle class." As evidence of this commitment, Obama established a "Middle Class Task Force" early in his presidency chaired by Vice-President Biden. With Biden in charge, why worry?
It should be obvious that Obama and the left wing of the Democratic Party are not struggling to defend the middle class. Most of the time they are struggling to disenfranchise it by ignoring the basic rights of human liberty and of property that are guaranteed under our Constitution.
The 18% real rate of unemployment during Obama's first two years in office has not done much for the middle class. At the same time, there has been an enormous transfer of wealth from the middle class to the underclass. ObamaCare, financial services reform, mortgage reform, education reform, tax reform: in all of these areas, the administration's efforts have been to create and expand services for the poor at the expense of the middle class.
Whether it is the free health care promised to tens of millions of new Medicaid recipients or mortgage principle reductions ("cramdowns") promoted at every turn by his Justice Department, Obama acts like a political general in the class war -- the war of the government services-dependent poor and unionized public sector against the middle class. Among the first acts of his administration were the expansion "making work pay" and child credit benefits: welfare of the sort that had been trimmed by the GOP Congresses of the 1990s.
Whether it is benefits for the underclass or more power for public sector unions, Obama is intent on cementing power based on the loyal support of the underclass and unionized labor. But to complete the task, he must deceive the middle classes for a bit longer by appearing to move to the center. The independent middle class voter, the very class of citizen that is most endangered by his presidency, is key to his reelection. In order to win reelection, he needs to convince them that he is safe.
But nothing Obama has done has benefited the middle class. That much should be clear just from what is happening with consumers' pocketbooks.
The recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report on consumer prices is a telling indication of the effects of Obama's policies on the middle class. During the past 12 months, gas prices are up nearly 20%. While global markets largely determine oil prices, Obama's assault on drilling and his weak-dollar policy have not helped things. Had the President pursued a pro-drilling policy and defended the dollar, gas prices would have been substantially lower. Even at this late date, if the administration were to signal support for expanded drilling, world energy markets would respond by lowering the price of oil, thus lowering the price the middle class pays at the pump.
Gas prices hit the middle class disproportionately hard. Bill Gates spends an infinitesimal portion of his earnings on energy bills, and the urban underclass pay little. But the middle class, most of whom commute some distance to work, are shelling out a great deal more each month. The same for food prices, which are up substantially above the "core rate" of inflation. The underclass benefit from increased food stamp subsidies; Gates has probably never shopped. It is the middle class that bears all the burdens under Obama.
The passage of ObamaCare was supposed to lower the cost of health care for practically all Americans. This, in fact, was one of the main rationales for its adoption. Again and again, Obama promised that his health care reform bill would lower the cost of health care -- by $100 billion (he likes big round numbers, for some reason), by $200 billion, by $500 billion over the next ten years.
But since ObamaCare was passed, health care costs for the middle class are way up. Over the past 12 months the cost of private medical insurance, where it can be purchased at all, is up by as much as 59%. Hospital costs are up 6%, nearly three times the rate of core inflation. The cost of the most widely prescribed drugs has increased well above the rate of inflation, driven up by the prospect of future government regulation. None of this has helped the middle class. It is, in fact, part and parcel of a calculated transfer of wealth from the middle class to the underclass.
It's not just energy and health care. Other prices that are influenced by government policy have gone up disproportionately to those in the less regulated market. Educational expenses are up 4%, twice the rate of core inflation. Again, it is the middle class that has been hit. College tuition, private school tuition, and child care -- these costs impact the middle class, not the Warren Buffets of the world, and not the underclass who receive full "need based" scholarships, magnet school preferences, and subsidized child care.
It does not help that, as announced Monday, sales of previously owned homes fell in February to their worst level in nine years. Middle-class homeowners who are now under water on their loans will have to wait a bit longer to break even. Boomers eyeing a place in the sun are going to have a hard time selling their current home before moving.
As Obama understands all too well, one of the hallmarks of all socialist countries is the absence of an independent middle class. From the Bolshevik experiment in Russia to socialist Venezuela today, it is necessary for communist leaders to eliminate that class of citizens who are not dependent on government for their welfare.
Political theorists from Aristotle to Locke understood that a truly independent and prosperous middle class was essential to the collective well-being of any society. The middle class has always, in every society, been characterized by qualities of social restraint and economic realism -- a shrewd and skeptical conservatism that serves to restrain the grandiose plans of utopian revolutionaries and embittered reactionaries alike.
Throughout its history American society in particular has been the beneficiary of an aspiring middle class whose efforts have created the world's greatest democracy. It is an ominous sign that the political left, with the loyal support of more than a third of our population, is intent on its destruction.
In the following essay, Victor Davis Hanson sees Obama as a modern day Prince Hamlet. He is faced with a lot of information, ambiguities and often no simple solution much like Shakespeare’s Hamlet and therefore can’t seem to make a decision. Or is it, he just doesn’t want to be involved in making a decision?
Davis notes that now with Obama being President and needing to make choices, his “thinking out every possible side of a question can mean never acting on any of them — a sort of Shakespearean "prison" where "there is nothing either good or bad.""
This imputes too much intelligence and good in Obama - so we disagree with this part of the premise. However, we strongly believe that a compounding factor in Obama’s indecisiveness, lack of leadership and his abhorrent performance as “president” is related to the complete absence of any significant decision making in his past. He was not even a manager at McDonald’s!
Obama is completely inexperienced and unprepared to be President!
Add to this his radical, anti-American, racist upbringing along with pathological narcissism and hedonistic proclivities … and that is precisely why we have BIG PROBLEMS NOW.
Obama: To Be Or Not To Be A Real Leader
Victor Davis Hanson 03/17/2011
More than 400 years ago, William Shakespeare wrote a riveting tragedy about a young, charismatic Danish prince who vowed to do the right thing in avenging his murdered father.
That soon proved easier said than done. As a result, Hamlet couldn't quite ever act in time — given all the ambiguities that such a sensitive prince first had to sort out. In the meantime, a lot of bodies piled up through his indecision and hesitancy.
President Obama wanted to give us all universal health care. But then he discovered that the country was broke and that most people did not like his massive federal takeover. So we got both his health care and so far more than 1,000 exemptions from his landmark plan for unions, corporations and entire states.
The president wished to please his liberal supporters with more government redistributive programs and higher taxes on the wealthy.
But such entitlements cost lots of money — more than $4 trillion in new borrowing in just three years — and scare to death the job-creating private sector.
So the president not only borrows at record levels, but also sets up a commission to warn us that his borrowing will soon bankrupt the country. He damns the "fat cat bankers" and the rich who "at some point" have made enough money, even as he courts them for campaign donations and begs their companies to start hiring new employees.
Droning On
Obama warned us that we could not drill our way out of the ongoing gas crisis and needed instead to develop new green energy. As proof, he borrowed billions to promote wind and solar power, and stopped most new leases for fossil fuel exploration in Alaska, the West and offshore.
But it turned out that we still need lots of oil as gas nears $4 a gallon. So the president brags that America is now pumping more oil under his green administration than ever before — but neglects to mention that it's true only because Presidents Clinton and Bush long ago approved the sort of oil leases that Obama had rejected.
President Obama wanted so much to discontinue George W. Bush's war on terror that he banned the phrase "war on terror" altogether. He apologized to the Muslim world, promised to "reset" our foreign policy and vowed to close Guantanamo Bay and stop the other nasty Bush anti-terrorism protocols.
But our "to be or not to be" Hamlet also wanted to continue to keep the country safe from another 9/11-style terrorist attack, so he kept Guantanamo open, quadrupled the number of Predator drone attacks and either preserved or expanded all the Bush protocols that he had once derided.
Abroad, a new multilateral Obama wished to act only in concert with the United Nations and our allies. He vowed to respect the sovereignty of other countries and not "meddle" in their affairs by imposing American values.
Shortage Of Details
And yet the president also embraced eternal and universal human rights and wanted the United States to be on the right side of history. So he criticized our intervention to foster democracy in Iraq even as his vice president praised it. We surged in Afghanistan even as we posted deadlines to leave. We promised not to meddle to support Iranian protesters, and to meddle to support Egyptian protesters.
Hosni Mubarak was a dictator and was not a dictator, who had to leave yesterday, today or maybe tomorrow. The situation in Libya is deemed "unacceptable," but how exactly it could be made acceptable is never spelled out. Intervening there to support rebels is said to be good; but apparently so is supporting Saudi troops intervening in Bahrain to put down rebels and protect the status quo.
Middle East strongmen, the president tells us, are cruel and must leave, but the why and how of it all are also never stated. Are they supposed to flee only when protests reach a critical mass? In Egypt and Tunisia, but not in Saudi Arabia, Syria or Iran?
President Obama has spent most of his life either in, or teaching, school — or making laws that he was not responsible for enforcing.
His hope-and-change speeches were as moving in spirit as they were lacking in details.
But now Obama is chief executive, and learning, as did Prince Hamlet, that thinking out every possible side of a question can mean never acting on any of them — a sort of Shakespearean "prison" where "there is nothing either good or bad." Worrying about pleasing everyone ensures pleasing no one. Once again such "conscious does make cowards of us all."
Hamlets, past and present, are as admirable in theory as they are fickle — and often dangerous — in fact.
The following scathing commentary by Lloyd Marcus, a fairly well known conservative and a spokesperson for the Tea Party who happens to be black, rebukes Obama on his unwarranted and irresponsible racist vitriol and overt divisiveness. The “president’s” relentless race based commentary is fomenting racial strife and antipathy, further dividing our nation. Whether this is being done partly to advance his socialist agenda is not entirely clear.
Regardless, this speaks volumes of a man who has shown himself to be evil, racist, criminal, tyrannical and narcissistic (and much more or is that less?).
Obama Calling Tea Party Racist Reveals A Far More Disturbing Reality
Lloyd Marcus March 10, 2011
Please consider the validity of what I am about to say rather than having a knee jerk reaction dismissing it as being "over the top." Folks, we have an irresponsible egocentric evil man occupying the Oval Office.
The Democrats and the liberal mainstream media sold the American people on Obama, "the man." Despite Obama's zero experience at running anything, they said a leader with his spirit and heart was "what we have been waiting for".
Fearful of criticizing our first black president, politicians politely say, "President Obama's policies have been unfruitful," while ignoring the huge elephant in America's living room.
The elephant of which I speak and America's major problem is "Obama, the man"; socialist, divisive and evil.
My dad says a snake can stay under water a very long time just like a fish. But eventually, it must come up for air. Why? Because, it is not a fish. It is a snake. Obama continues to come up for air revealing his true self.
President Obama said the Tea Party is racist. That's the unmistakable meaning of his statement that race is a "key component" of Tea Party protests. The liberal media, NAACP and Democrats have been relentlessly promoting this same baseless allegation. When final confirmation comes down from the highest office in the land, the Oval Office, that the Tea Party is racist; the allegation becomes "official" in the minds of millions. President Obama is slandering millions of decent hard working Americans who simply disagree with his progressive/socialist agenda.
Think of the repercussions. Obama's indictment of the Tea Party will birth tremendous racial discord across America in schools, churches, and civic life. Obama's proclamation will cause Americans to double down on their already extreme caution when criticizing our black president. Sadly, I suspect such intimidation is a part of Obama's plan; anything to empower his mission to "fundamentally transform America."
Make no mistake about it, Obama and company have successfully intimidated many white Americans into not dissing the black president in public.
I stopped in a fast food restaurant for a burger. Around fifteen white seniors were having lunch. I overheard them ranting about Obama's overreaches and socialist policies. Upon seeing me, a black man, they became silent. I was tempted to say, "Please continue, I whole-heartedly agree with you!" Too bad they did not notice my Tea Party Express t-shirt.
Barack Hussein Obama received more votes than any other presidential candidate in American history. So Obama alleging millions of Tea Party patriots are simply upset because America elected a black president is disingenuous, absurd and manipulative.
Obama is exploiting his race and sacrificing national race relations solely to implement his progressive/socialist agenda. Callously and strategically, the President of the United States is pitting millions of black and white Americans against each other. Lord help us, that is pure evil.
Quoting deceased make-up legend, Mary Kay, "Leadership spreads from the top down."
A fine black young adult whom I have known for years has always appeared to be racially color blind. He idolizes Obama. Suddenly, I have noticed this kid beginning to view everything through a racial lens. His latest absurd statement, "Friends" is a racist TV show because there are no black cast members."
While I admit this example is anecdotal, I suspect Obama's divisiveness is inspiring millions of Americans to choose sides along racial lines.
Before knowing the facts, Obama immediately assumed the white police officer was guilty of racial profiling in the Professor Gates case. This suggests Obama has racial emotional baggage. Such a luxury cannot be afforded the president of "all Americans."
Obama is not who most Americans thought he was and is exactly who the liberal mainstream media hoped he would be: their Great Black Hope for implementing their progressive/socialist agenda.
They will do whatever it takes to protect Obama; ignoring his character flaws, lawlessness, deceptions and lies. If Obama says two plus two equals five, the liberal media will defend it as being the "New Math." We cannot trust the liberal media to tell us the truth regarding Obama.
Obama's inauguration brought tears to the eyes of millions of Americans. Blacks are only 12% of our nation's population, which means it took many million white votes to put Obama in the Oval Office. Thus, most of the American tears of joy were white.
President Obama is fully aware of this truth.
Obama willfully dividing Americans by exploiting his race for political gain is a despicable betrayal of the whites who elected him. But even more disturbing, it reveals the true character of the man running our country. America deserves much, much better.
"One Million People To Defeat Barack Obama 2012". Please join us!
Please sign and encourage your friends to sign this petition at www.ipetitions.com/petition/1milliontodefeatbarackobama
LloydMarcus.com
Spokesperson & Entertainer of Tea Party Movement & Tea Party Express.
The American Tea Party Anthem cd/album.
Confessions of a Black Conservative, written by Lloyd Marcus & foreword by Michelle Malkin
President, NAACPC (National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of ALL Colors)
Join Lloyd Marcus Facebook Page
As part of the Obama Administration's Green Plan, an extremely high price of gas was one goal. They have stated in the past that $5 a gallon or even $8 a gallon is just fine. It will reduce the consumption of gas and therefore help preserve the environment and will also make alternative forms of energy more competitive. Thus, by blocking nearly all drilling, the supply of oil is limited and the price increases.
This ideology and position should surprise no one as he has stated this myriad times in the past.
With the insidious infusion of affirmative action and victimization ideology into government policy and law and then collaterally into many areas of the private sector, a rampant state of oppression and discrimination has manifested itself. And it continues to noxiously grow.
What are we talking about?
It is discrimination against the white male of the heterosexual variety.
Big time!
Over time there has been a plethora of discriminating set asides, quotas and other diversity preferences for jobs, schooling, loans, housing, etc.: first for blacks, then other minorities; then women; followed by gay and lesbians and then transgendered. The only group left out of these unconstitutional preferences and the one bearing the full brunt of these institutionalized practices is the straight white male.
This is a reprehensible situation that should not be allowed to persist or exist. It is far more pervasive and discriminatory than most people realize.
The costs of these policies are extremely high, both to the victims and to society. Ultimately we all benefit when the person selected for a position, job or admissions to school is the best one and not the one of politically correct color, religion, sex or sexual preference.
The White Man's Burden
Robin of Berkeley March 09, 2011
I was just filling out an application to be a provider for an insurance panel. And one of the questions they ask is, "Are you a GLBT-owned business?"
GLBT means gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered. I rolled my eyes when I saw this. I thought, "So, if I share my bed with a woman, I would be a superior therapist, a more desirable member of your insurance panel?"
Of course, the questionnaire also asked whether I were a minority- or female-owned business. Apparently, if I were an Asian woman who sleeps with other women, I would be a Most Valuable Player in the psychotherapy world.
What also occurred to me while filling out the application is that every special category exists aside from that of a white, straight male. If someone is gay or a woman or a person of color, the welcome mat is laid out. But what about an ordinary Joe, a working-class stiff from Toledo?
How does he get into college when all the recruitment efforts are aimed at others? And if he does get in, how does he afford it -- especially now, with Obama at the helm?
I heard a while back that ObamaCare snuck a backdoor scheme into ObamaCare, for the government to make student loans, not the banks. If this happens, you better believe that the money will be shelled out based on "social and economic justice."
Some young men turn to the military as a way of accessing needed funds for college. What are the consequences?
They are, in fact, grave: white, working class men are at much higher risk of being mortally wounded in the battleground than their privileged counterparts. And while the working class risk their lives, the snooty elite go to college on daddy's dime.
So let's put the pieces together here: everyone aside from a white, straight guy can obtain all sorts of special help in the form of jobs, financial aid, and college enrollment. On top of this, there are scholarships and grants galore for most people, aside from white males. (There are even college scholarships for illegals.)
But a white guy -- even one with who is broke -- gets very little. He may choose to join the Army instead, and possibly be seriously injured.
What is wrong with this picture?
Of course, I really shouldn't talk since I helped create the mess we're in. As a feminist, I spent much of my youth marching for women's rights. I have expended countless hours complaining about inequities toward women.
But I have seen the light. I now realize that we've created a monster with so many people wailing about sexism and racism and all the other "isms."
After decades of grievances, we haven't turned into a fairer nation; we're simply an angrier one. In the age of Obama, aggrieved groups have joined together to demand their rights, endeavoring to put the white man under their thumb.
Now men are marginalized and demonized. They are given the demoralizing message that they are unnecessary. Of course, this message is fallacious.
The United States would cease to operate if conservative white males went on strike tomorrow (not necessarily a bad idea, by the way). We'd do just fine shorn of most of the metrosexual crowd -- the college professors and the activists. But we'd crash and burn without the manly man. It's he who does the essential work that others cannot, like patrol our streets, extinguish fires, and drive tractors.
As a former progressive, I know how tempting it is to blame others for our own problems. It's easier to implicate the "system" or the Man than to take a good and hard look in the mirror.
But this life is not about "getting mine;" it's about what we have to offer the world. It's about living with dignity and honor, not a thirst for revenge.
Life is not fair; it is not supposed to be fair. Someone, somewhere will always have more, while others will have less. Disappointment is hard-wired into this human realm; and this is just as true for the white man as the person of color.
The Buddha put it this way, that life is composed of the "l0,000 joys and the l0,000 sorrows." We grow old, we get sick, and, one day, we and our bodies will perish.
And when that day happens, we won't take anything with us except for our character -- or lack of it. And there are no amount of laws or affirmative action programs that can change the way the world works.
A frequent American Thinker contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley.
Jesse Jackson, Jr. is a chip off the old liberal demagogue block. His father should be proud.
The rest of America, that is, the one that is working hard to support themselves and their families should be outraged once again.
This is a plea for more of the big government liberal agenda to further burden the overtaxed taxpayer into having more of their paycheck vaporized in support of those who are largely irresponsible and indolent.
More government sanctioned wealth/income transfer.
The following editorial examines the true racist nature of the Obama Administration which had touted itself as post-racial and forward looking. What we have been encumbered with is a nightmare conflation of liberal bean counting and black liberation theology promoting black dominance, unequal rights, retribution, race wealth transfer to minorities and naked demagoguery and contemptuousness.
All with the blessings of the “man” who was to bring us into a new age.
The View from Crackerland
Robert T. Smith March 07, 2011
Certainly the recent vexation expressed by Eric Holder over being questioned regarding the New Black Panther voter intimidation case -- i.e., his defense of "my people" -- depicts a new low in race relations here in America. The liberal media and many politicians are curiously not outraged at what is an arguably race-based federal civil rights case.
We were told of a post-racial era that all Americans would enjoy as the outcome of the election of America's first African-American president. As so eloquently described by one of Mr. Holder's people, this post-racial era is not so evident in the view from here in Crackerland.
Post-election of President Obama, the only racial agreement apparent to those of us who reside in Crackerland was Eric Holder's admonition that we are cowards to not discuss awkward racial issues here in America. Here, then, is an offering to contribute to the discussion.
Here in Crackerland, there was some consternation when we noticed then-presidential candidate Obama's unique past and the unusual relationships he had throughout his life. There seemed to be an underlying racial anger and confusion as a mixed-race person in his autobiography Dreams from My Father. An example is Mr. Obama's being so moved by the notion that "white folks' greed runs a world in need."
Mr. Obama's long-term black liberation theology minister and mentor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, represents many other African-American religious leaders. These leaders have perspectives and sermons that seem to be a whole lot more about justifying their racism than supporting Christian theology itself. There is an apparent seemless link between black liberation theology and the racist, bigoted radicals in the Nation of Islam and among the New Black Panthers. Our view from Crackerland was of Mr. Obama as a relatively unknown politician infused with an adult life of racist relationships and thoughts.
Here in Crackerland, we noticed an almost 100% voting rate for Mr. Obama from the African-American community. Difficult to miss were the many formerly non-Democrat African-American persons who stated their support for Mr. Obama based solely on his color -- a clearly racist vote.
As viewed from Crackerland, this affiliation between the Democratic Party and the African-American community appears to be based on the promise that the Democrat politicians will provide for the living conditions desired by the African-American community. The individualism of Crackerland recognizes these government-supplied conditions as dehumanizing, reducing people to veritable chattel of the government. Human chattel of the government is not a condition we crackers wish upon any person, irrespective of race.
Here in Crackerland, we took note that Mr. Obama was elected by both cracker and non-cracker alike. However, it didn't take long for the signs of racism to appear in association with our new president.
The invocation by Reverend Lowery at Mr. Obama's swearing in ceremony seemed a bit inappropriate for such an auspicious, racially historic occasion. The Reverend Lowery was intent on bringing racial issues to the forefront, and he used the occasion and captive audience to vent his lingering racism by means of a recitation of hopes for the various non-white races while admonishing those who are white to embrace what is right. This appeared here in Crackerland to imply that whites somehow had prevented and/or are preventing the other races from achieving their desired hopes -- a racist lie.
The history of America we learned here in Crackerland included hundreds of thousands of dead crackers in the Civil War, decades of cracker-led civil rights struggles, an altering of the very foundation of America's Constitution and laws facilitated by the crackers, and billions and probably trillions of cracker dollars poured into the non-cracker communities -- all of which was only incidental in the Reverend Lowery's mind to doing what is right. Arguably, the view from Crackerland was that the Reverend Lowery outed himself as a racist and perhaps a bigot while serving as an integral part of Mr. Obama's historic day for race relations in America.
Here in Crackerland, we pursue happiness for ourselves and our families' benefit, because self and family are the basic building blocks of society. In Crackerland, we set a lofty ideal in our founding documents and celebrate unalienable rights for all men, endowed by our Creator and not arbitrarily assigned by government officials based on race. We inhabitants of Crackerland don't wake up thinking about how to stick it to other Americans, cracker or non-cracker; we work for ours and expect you to work for yours.
We crackers see our pursuit of happiness realized as the property, money, land, and all other possessions we work hard for, and not as community property to be confiscated by government officials and dispensed to others based on racial status and conditions. The relationship between redistributive socialism and black liberation theology in which President Obama has been steeped and which he has embraced in his policy decisions is viewed by us here in Crackerland as both racist and the antithesis of Americanism.
The racism we see from Crackerland in our current Obama administration, those surrounding the administration, and those who support it looks a whole lot more like retribution than like a brave discourse on race relations here in America. We were told of a post-racial era that all Americans would enjoy as the outcome of the election of America's first African-American president, but that is not so evident to many of us here in Crackerland.
Cowards, as Mr. Holder so ineloquently characterized them, should step aside so that this discussion will not have to be absurdly carried on into posterity. With slavery and civil rights issues distant in the rearview mirror of America's history, the changes in our social structure over time, and the integration of all Americans into all portions of our society regardless of race, this black/white race discussion is now bizarre within the context of racial reparations. It can be viewed now only as a purely political power play.
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) will shortly begin hearings on the radicalization of Muslims. The White House is already in the appeasement and defensive mode which has been its modus operandi for 2 years. It clearly either does not understand the problem, is ideologically blind to the issue or is actually protecting and supporting Islam (a little affinity, perhaps?) by not stating the obvious. For example, despite the German gunman who was identified as a Muslim and who yelled "Allah Akbar" prior to murdering two US soldiers in cold blood, Obama couldn't bring himself to mention an association with Islam or even terrorism.
Whatever Obama's motivation, which we believe is largely nefarious, his inactions and avoidance of labeling these terrorist acts what they truly are, only further encourages more violence.
As an example of the incompetence, egregious ignorance and head in the sand approach, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough stated that a mosque is a "typically American place" and said it reminded him of his Catholic parish where he grew up in Minnesota."
Yeah, right! We don't think that they were brainwashing and radicalizing little Catholic children in his parish to blow off the heads of non-believers and try to take over the whole world in violent fashion.
Irrefutably, Islam is a religion of hate and the radicalization is just the more extreme element of an intolerant, hateful, misogynistic polity or cult which calls itself a religion.
White House praises Muslims ahead of House hearing
By Eileen Sullivan and Lolita C. Baldor March 6, 2011
Associated Press
STERLING, Va. (AP) -- Muslim Americans are not part of the terrorism problem facing the U.S. - they are part of the solution, a top White House official said Sunday at a Washington-area mosque.
Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough set the Obama administration's tone for discussions as tensions escalate before the first in a series of congressional hearings on Islamic radicalization. The hearings, chaired by New York Republican Peter King, will focus on the level of cooperation from the Muslim community to help law enforcement combat radicalization.
The majority of the recent terror plots and attempts against the U.S. have involved people espousing a radical and violent view of Islam. Just a few weeks ago a college student from Saudi Arabia who studied chemical engineering in Texas was arrested after he bought explosive chemicals online. It was part of a plan to hide bomb materials inside dolls and baby carriages and blow up dams, nuclear plants or the Dallas home of former President George W. Bush.
King said the Muslim community could and should do more to work with law enforcement to stop its members from radicalizing and recruiting others to commit violence.
"I don't believe there is sufficient cooperation" by American Muslims with law enforcement, King said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "Certainly my dealings with the police in New York and FBI and others say they do not believe they get the same - they do not give the level of cooperation that they need."
In New York City on Sunday, about 300 protestors gathered in Times Square to speak out against King's hearing, criticizing it as xenophobic and saying that singling out Muslims, rather than extremists, is unfair.
McDonough said that instead of condemning whole communities, the U.S. needs to protect them from intimidation.
McDonough spoke to an interfaith forum at a Northern Virginia mosque known for its longtime relationship and cooperation with the FBI. The executive director of the center, Imam Mohamed Magid, also spoke, as did speakers from a local synagogue and a Presbyterian church.
The administration has tried to strike a balance on the thorny issue, working to go after homegrown Islamic extremists without appearing to be at war with the Muslim world. There has been an effort to build stronger relationships with Muslims - internationally and in the United States.
During his remarks Sunday, McDonough called the mosque a "typically American place" and said it reminded him of his Catholic parish where he grew up in Minnesota.
"Being religious is never un-American. Being religious is quintessentially American," he said.
He commended the mosque's members for taking "an unequivocal stand against terrorism."
"You've sent a message that those who perpetrate such horrific attacks do not represent you or your faith, and that they will not succeed in pitting believers of different faiths against one another," McDonough said.
The White House is close to finalizing a strategy for countering violent extremism. McDonough leads a working group of 13 federal agencies and offices - including the National Counterterrorism Center and the departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice and State - focused on finding ways to confront the problem.
On Sunday, McDonough said the strategy would involve continuing efforts to understand the process of radicalization, as well as further outreach to Islamic communities in the United States. He also promised further efforts to dispel "misperceptions about our fellow Americans who are Muslim."
"No community can be expected to meet a challenge as complex as this alone," McDonough said. "No one community can be expected to become experts in terrorist organizations, how they are evolving, how they are using new tools and technology to reach our young people."
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments