Oct 4
A continued flow of evidence regarding the Dept. of Justice and the New Black Panther Party case reveals egregious violations of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act as a consequence of unequal treatment and rights of Americans based on ethnicity. That is, the top on down mandate was to throw out any discrimination cases brought against minority defendants, especially blacks yet vigorously investigate the converse.
Many heads in the department should roll including Attorney Eric Holder and possibly even Obama. Their racist, depraved actions warrant their expeditious firings.
Travesty Of The Justice Department
Investor’s Business Daily 09/27/2010
Justice: Those who thought hope and change meant equal enforcement of the law were wrong. A top DOJ official testifies about a deliberate policy of not prosecuting minorities or protecting the rights of anybody else.
So much for post-racial justice. First, documents were unearthed showing the Department of Justice lied when it insisted that dropping the New Black Panther Party voter-intimidation case was a decision made by career attorneys, not by political appointees trying to avoid offending a key administration constituency.
Now we have the explosive testimony last Friday of Christopher Coates, former voting chief of the Civil Rights Division, before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.
Coates said the Panther decision was "the result of their deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities and for the protection of white voters who have been discriminated against."
Coates' testimony supported earlier accusations made by J. Christian Adams, formerly one of those career lawyers in the Voting Section.
Adams had told the commission that DOJ officials "over and over and over" showed "hostility" to prosecution of voter-intimidation cases involving "black defendants and white victims."
Adams testified that Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, a political appointee, himself overruled a unanimous recommendation for continued prosecution by Adams and his associates of voter intimidation of white voters by members of The New Black Panthers at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008.
Adams had also testified that Julie Fernandes, a deputy assistant general in the Civil Rights Division in charge of voting matters, told Voting Section leadership that the Obama administration would not file election-related cases against minority defendants — no matter what the alleged violation of the law.
Coates verified Adams' testimony about Fernandes, and also said he had been "specifically instructed" by Loretta King, acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, "not to ask any other applicants whether they would be willing to, in effect, race-neutrally enforce the VRA (Voting Rights Act)."
Coates said he had started asking applicants about race-neutrality in voting cases after he noticed internal harassment directed at lawyers and paralegals who in 2005 had helped prosecute the voter intimidation case of Ike Brown, a twice-convicted felon and political activist who ran the Democratic Party in Noxubee County, Mississippi. Like the Panthers, Brown is black.
When the head of the Civil Rights Division, Thomas Perez, testified before both Congress and the commission that the Panther case was dropped because it was considered legally and factually defective, and that the decision was made by career attorneys, not political appointees, he lied.
In fact, the case is perhaps the most provable case of voter intimidation ever.
Black Panther members were videotaped standing outside a Philadelphia polling place brandishing clubs and, according to witness testimony, uttering racial slurs.
If they were members of the KKK or the Tea Party, would the case have been dropped? We think not.
Dropping the new Black Panther Party case, Coates said in his testimony, "was intended to send a direct message to people inside and outside the civil rights division. That message is that the filing of voting cases like the Ike Brown and the NBPP cases would not continue in the Obama administration."
If Fernandes and King indeed have these views, and if political appointees such as Thomas Perrelli and Thomas Perez made the decision to dismiss the Black Panther case for any reason other than the merits of the case, and then lied about it, they should all be fired.
And so should Attorney General Eric Holder.
Holder's tenure as head of the Justice Department has been a disaster. From the closing of Gitmo to civilian trials of Khalid Sheik Muhammed to instantly Mirandizing the Christmas bomber, Holder and his department have displayed an indifference, even hostility, to equal justice and protecting the rights and lives of the American people. All of them.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/548574/201009271900/Travesty-Of-The-Justice-Department.htm
http://www.investors.com/image/ISS1_0928_ph100927.jpg.cms
Posted in Attorney General Eric Holder Constitution Corruption Fourteenth Amendment New Black Panther Party Obama Racism Reverse Racism with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Sep 28
The Justice Dept’s dropping of the egregious case of voter intimidation perpetrated by the New Black Panther Party reeked of corruption and racism, both well worn actions of the Obama Administration as evidenced by innumerable examples in the past. We most recently covered this issue in Justice Dept. To Investigate Its Civil Rights Division for Racially Discriminatory Actions And Positions Against Whites .
Updates on this situation reveal that this decision was also a political one: the Obama Administration didn’t want to rattle its staunchest supporter: the “black community”. This finding alone is an outrage and an action that is both despicably depraved and constitutionally illegal (Fourteenth Amendment).
But then again, Obama is concerned with neither … but we MUST be.
Voting in November will be one of OUR constructive responses. We must also exert pressure to have the abominably incompetent, racist and corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder FIRED.
Black Panthergate
Investor’s Business Daily 09/21/2010
Justice: Despite administration denials under oath, documents obtained by a watchdog group indicate that the decision not to pursue a clear-cut case of voter intimidation was indeed a political decision.
It was perhaps the most clear-cut case of voter intimidation ever. On Election Day 2008, New Black Panther Party members King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were videotaped intimidating voters as they stood, dressed in military garb, outside a Philadelphia polling place.
Their conduct was so egregious that the Justice Department of President Bush charged the three thugs with violations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act through intimidation, threats and coercion. When none of the defendants filed a response or showed up at a subsequent hearing, you'd have thought the Justice Department would have won its suit by default.
But a new administration brought a new, and somewhat jaundiced, perspective. Instead, the Justice Department of President Obama essentially dropped the case in May 2009, letting two of the three walk and issuing a weak injunction against King Shabazz. He was forbidden from showing up at another Philadelphia polling place with another nightstick and intimidating other voters for the next three years, an action that was already illegal. He is presumably free to do the same thing in, say, New Jersey in 2012.
The U.S. Civil Rights Commission wanted to know why the case wasn't pursued and if political considerations were involved. On May 14, Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, testified that there was no "political leadership involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case any further than it was" and it was only "a case of career people disagreeing with career people."
The DOJ stonewalled, claiming that all documents involved in the case were "privileged information," that there was nothing to see and we should all move along. The watchdog group Judicial Watch pursued the case, and a court ordered the DOJ to provide it with withheld documents and an explanation of each privilege asserted.
The information that was unearthed reveals that several political appointees were involved in the decision not to pursue the New Black Panther Party. Of particular note was a list of 58 e-mails to or from Deputy Associate Attorney General Sam Hirsch, formerly election attorney for the National Democratic Party.
Christian Adams, the DOJ attorney who resigned to protest the New Black Panther Party decision, describes Hirsch as "a former Democratic Party operative" who, among other activities, "led efforts to impose racial divisions on Hawaii by creating native classifications and powers." Hirsch is a fierce partisan with experience in racial politics.
In testimony before the Civil Rights Commission that he says his bosses tried to block, Adams said Attorney General Eric Holder's department refused to prosecute what he has called "the clearest case of voter intimidation that I've seen since practicing law."
A dozen or so e-mails went up the chain of political command to Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli. Deputy Attorney General David Ogden was also in on the political deliberations, contributing, according to the e-mails, his "current thoughts" on the matter.
Adams told the commission that DOJ officials "over and over and over" showed "hostility" to prosecution of voter-intimidation cases involving "black defendants and white victims." Adams says Perrelli, a political appointee, himself overruled a unanimous recommendation for continued prosecution by Adams and his associates.
So when Perez testified that the decision was made only by career attorneys, not political operatives and appointees, he was not telling the truth about the machinations of the most transparent administration in history.
The decision not to prosecute the New Black Panther Party was clearly a political decision designed not to offend a key constituency of the Democratic Party and one of the few bastions of support this administration and the Democrats have left.
The New Black Panther Party should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. At least one member of this administration is on shaky legal ground as well.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/548003/201009211903/Black-Panthergate.htm
Posted in Attorney General Eric Holder Corruption Fourteenth Amendment New Black Panther Party Obama Racism Reverse Racism with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Sep 16
The Obama Administration has shown a patent bias for minorities, especially for blacks, in many of its comments, actions and legislation. One of the most egregious was the inexplicable dismissal of the voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party (who also happened to be prominently showcased on Obama’s website while campaigning for the Presidency).
Finally, investigative actions are being taken to determine if there are any civil rights violations/discrimination being perpetrated or countenanced by the Obama Administration. The Justice Department now is looking into such issues involving its civil rights division.
There has been an irrefutable pattern which leads to orders emanating from the very top: Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.
They should be held accountable for their actions.
Probe in New Black Panther case
Jerry Markon September 14, 2010
The Justice Department's internal watchdog is investigating allegations that its civil rights division enforced voting laws in a racially discriminatory manner, officials said Monday.
The review by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine is an outgrowth of the political controversy over a 2008 voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. Some conservative lawyers, politicians and commentators have said that the civil rights division improperly narrowed that case, part of their broader allegations that the Obama Justice Department has failed to protect the civil rights of white voters.
The department's Office of Professional Responsibility is looking into the matter, and two Republican congressmen, Frank R. Wolf (Va.) and Lamar Smith (Tex.) asked Fine to also investigate the department's handling of the case, according to letters the congressmen sent Fine over the summer.
Fine, in a letter Monday to the congressmen, wrote that his office will not investigate the New Black Panther case specifically but is initiating a broader review of how the Justice Department enforces voting rights laws.
The letter, released by both congressional offices, said the review will focus on what types of cases the civil rights division's voting section brings and whether it enforces the law "in a non-discriminatory manner."
Smith said Monday he is "pleased" that Fine "has decided to take up a review of possible discriminatory practices by attorneys in the Civil Rights Division. Recent allegations of politicization within the Justice Department raise serious concerns."
Wolf added that the investigation is "very positive."
Xochitl Hinojosa, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the department "makes enforcement decisions based on the evidence and the merits. We are committed to the evenhanded enforcement of the many statutes in the jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Division's Voting Section." She referred questions about the investigation to Fine's office.
A spokeswoman for Fine confirmed that the review is in its very early stages but would not comment further.
The investigation presents another challenge for the Civil Rights Division, which was strained by employee departures and allegations of politicization during the Bush administration but has been stepping up enforcement. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is a former civil rights lawyer who has vowed to make the division the department's "crown jewel."
But conservatives contend that the Obama administration has itself become politicized, and they have focused their ire on the New Black Panther case. Filed weeks before the Obama administration took office, it focused on two of the party's members who stood in front of a polling place in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008, one carrying a nightstick and identifying himself as "security." The men were captured on video and accused of trying to discourage some people from voting.
Conservatives took issue with the Justice Department's decision last year to narrow the case, dropping the party and one of the men, and to focus only on the nightstick bearer. Department officials say they did not have sufficient evidence to pursue the case against the other defendants. Justice officials from the Bush administration called the decision political.
Former Justice Department lawyer J. Christian Adams recently told the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which held a series of hearings on the matter, that he believed the case had been narrowed because some in the civil rights division were interested in protecting only minorities.
That allegation was among those cited by Wolf and Smith in their letters to Fine, which triggered the inspector general's review.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/13/AR2010091306427.html
Posted in Attorney General Eric Holder New Black Panther Party Obama Racism Reverse Racism with 2 Comments
More:
Print This Post
Sep 13
We have always and vehemently opposed affirmative action or contrived racial diversity for innumerable reasons. It is irrefutably racism – though liberals and Progressives would discount this by stating that it is “only against the oppressive majority” (read: White).
Some call it reverse racism or reverse discrimination but whatever the appellation, it is still discrimination. Technically, it should also be considered to be a violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees equal rights and protection.
Unfortunately, liberals and Progressives don’t see the noxious ramifications of their actions to all parties involved nor to the negative global effects on society. Such imposed policies have clearly identifiable, permanent and significant impacts some of which are outlined in the editorial below.
Racial demagoguery must cease and affirmative action policies abrogated.
Racial Stupidity and Malevolence
Walter Williams 9/7/2010
The white liberal's agenda, coupled with that of black race hustlers, has had and continues to have a devastating impact on ordinary black people. Perhaps the most debilitating aspect of this liberal malevolence is in the area of education.
Recently, I spoke with a Midwestern university engineering professor who was trying to help an inner-city black student who was admitted to the university's electrical engineering program. The student was sure that he was well prepared for an engineering curriculum; his high school had convinced him of that and the university recruiters supported that notion. His poor performance on the university's math placement exam required that he take remedial math courses. He's failed them and is now on academic probation after two semesters of earning less than a 2.0 grade point average.
The young man and his parents were sure of his preparedness. After all, he had good high school grades, but those grades only meant that he was well behaved. The college recruiters probably knew this youngster didn't have the academic preparation for an electrical engineering curriculum. They were more concerned with racial diversity.
This young man's background is far from unique. Public schools give most black students fraudulent diplomas that certify a 12th-grade achievement level. According to a report by Abigail Thernstrom, "The Racial Gap in Academic Achievement," black students in 12th grade dealt with scientific problems at the level of whites in the sixth grade; they wrote about as well as whites in the eighth grade. The average black high school senior had math skills on a par with a typical white student in the middle of ninth grade. The average 17-year-old black student could only read as well as the typical white child who had not yet reached age 13.
Black youngsters who take the SAT exam earn an average score that's 70 to 80 percent of the score of white students, and keep in mind, the achievement level of white students is nothing to write home about. Under misguided diversity pressures, colleges recruit many black students who are academically ill equipped. Very often, these students become quickly disillusioned, embarrassed and flunk out, or they're steered into curricula that have little or no academic content, or professors practice affirmative-action grading. In any case, the 12 years of poor academic preparation is not repaired in four or five years of college. This is seen by the huge performance gap between blacks and whites on exams for graduate school admittance such as the GRE, MCAT and LSAT.
Is poor academic performance among blacks something immutable or pre-ordained? There is no evidence for such a claim. Let's sample some evidence from earlier periods. In "Assumptions Versus History in Ethnic Education," in Teachers College Record (1981), Dr. Thomas Sowell reports on academic achievement in some of New York city's public schools. He compares test scores for sixth graders in Harlem schools with those in the predominantly white Lower East Side for April 1941 and December 1941.
In paragraph and word meaning, Harlem students, compared to Lower East Side students, scored equally or higher. In 1947 and 1951, Harlem third-graders in paragraph and word meaning, and arithmetic reasoning and computation scored about the same as -- and in some cases, slightly higher, and in others, slightly lower than -- their white Lower East Side counterparts.
Going back to an earlier era, Washington, D.C.'s Dunbar High School's black students scored higher in citywide tests than any of the city's white schools. In fact, from its founding in 1870 to 1955, most of Dunbar's graduates went off to college.
Let's return to the tale of the youngster at the Midwestern college. Recruiting this youngster to be a failure is cruel, psychologically damaging and an embarrassment for his family. But the campus hustlers might come to the aid of the student by convincing him that his academic failure is a result of white racism and Eurocentric values.
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/09/08/racial_stupidity_and_malevolence/page/full/
Posted in Affirmative action Diversity policies Fourteenth Amendment Ideology Liberal Progressives Racism Reverse Racism with 2 Comments
More:
Print This Post
Sep 6
The following scathing, trenchant editorial effectively challenges the validity of the trait that the far-left news media and Progressives have imputed to Obama: “brilliance”.
There is nothing Obama has done of any significance during his 19 months in office that would warrant this characterization.
Well, maybe.
He has so galvanized America against his radical, ineffectual and anti-American policies and actions that what would have been thought to be impossible at the time of his election now is a strong possibility: a Republican landslide in November and retaking of both houses of Congress.
We can think of a few appropriate terms that describe Obama well:
Arrogant.
Elitist.
Condescending.
Narcissistic.
Incompetent.
Anti-American.
Divisive.
Racist.
Hedonsitic.
Detached.
Ideologically radical.
Corrupt.
Dishonest.
Delusions of Grandeur.
Each of these alone should disqualify one from becoming President.
We definitely have a disaster for a President!
How 'Brilliant' Can President Obama Be?
Jeffrey S. Howard 08/27/2010
Every person, newscaster and commentator always prefaces any, even the mildest criticism, of President Obama's policies with some statement about how dazzlingly brilliant the man is. Liberals, conservatives, independents — it never changes. Why is this? And most important of all, is it true?
What and where is the proof that Obama is such a sharp fellow? The recorded evidence is unavailable since his academic records, and test scores from three universities are sealed at his demand. Sure, he graduated from Harvard, but so did George Bush, who earned an MBA but is still pilloried by some as dumber than dirt.
We shall have to examine Obama's performance and make our own assumptions based on observations.
Obama selected advisers and Cabinet heads who have basically no experience in the private sector. He relies heavily on them to tell him what to do about the sick economy. Their knee-jerk responses are Keynesian (borrow and spend), based on a dubious theory popular 70 years ago, and proved unworkable in the past.
They sold us the stimulus ("porkulus") package of spending.The result? Rising unemployment and falling home sales prove that "recovery summer" is going down the tube without touching the sides. The president retains his economic Rasputins. Is loyalty to failure a sign of a great mind?
Obama farmed out the stimulus, omnibus budget, financial reform, cap-and-tax and health care bills to Congress — allowing it free rein. He did not exercise leadership and instead abdicated to the whims of Nancy Pelosi, David Obey, Harry Reid and Chris Dodd.
Trillions are borrowed and spent on the public sector while real jobs evaporate. Banks invest in bonds instead of businesses.
Impending and threatened mandates, regulation and tax increases choke off entrepreneurial ambitions. Does this activity indicate a high level of intelligence, or just managerial ineptitude?
The president is unable to string a cogent sentence together without a pair of Teleprompters working perfectly. He can deliver a mesmerizing speech but can't even remember who is standing beside him when the tape runs off the tracks. His most often used extemporaneous word is "um."
This may be a clue as to why he has granted fewer press conferences than any president in memory. Can such performances be equated to "brilliance"? Not in my book.
Stepping in the political equivalent of a doggie dumpling seems to bring out the worst in Obama. Why and how could he pop off with everything from "The Cambridge Police acted stupidly" to flip-flops on the New York mosque issue, and everything in between? His inane mumblings about the skivvy shorts bomber, the public trial of the 9/11 plotters, the fanatic major who gunned down 13 soldiers, the Arizona immigration law and "saving or creating" jobs belies any vast reservoir of intelligence.
Sharp presidents do not dive into lose/lose situations with such gusto.
How is Obama's foreign policy working out? The U.S. needs strong allies to defeat monstrous enemies. Dissing the British, scolding Israel, canceling the missile shield in Eastern Europe and groveling to foreign royalty do not bode well. Our enemies, from Iran to Venezuela, smell weakness and timidity. Ignoring cold reality and dreaming that personal charisma is the solution to international tensions is probably on the daft side of the intelligence continuum.
The "4 million green jobs" mantra espoused by the president is a canard when examined closely. Renewable energy technology exists only due to huge government subsidies. Ethanol is inefficient, raising the prices of gasoline and corn. Wind farms produce intermittent power that flummoxes the grid and requires conventional power plants to run continuously as backup. The net carbon reduction is miniscule.
Both schemes are massive misallocations of resources better used elsewhere. An astute president would inform himself on both sides of the issue rather than blatantly parrot a load of poppycock from the Van Jones crowd.
A Republican president who parties far more than he works would be trashed by every media outlet in the land. But Obama is a Democrat who enjoys the media's deep support. He escapes any serious questions about his busy golf schedule, multiple vacations, endless fundraising and campaigning, constant banquets and concerts in the White House, and his obvious detachment from the people he supposedly leads.
He appears more of a dilettante than a leader. A smart fellow would move to de-emphasize his privileged lifestyle instead of flaunting it in front of a nation mired in a recession.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe Obama is smart. Then again, Jimmy Carter was intelligent but proved to be the worst president of our lifetimes — up to now.
Howard, a Redmond, Wash.-based real estate developer, appeared on this page Aug. 20 with an "Open Letter To President Obama."
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/545302/201008271806/How-Brilliant-Can-President-Obama-Be-.aspx
Posted in Anti-American Arrogance Ideology Incompetence Leadership Obama Racism with 1 Comment
More:
Print This Post
Aug 13
Liberals and demagogues steadfastly claim that under-representation of chosen minority groups in selected high profile, income or powerful positions or even the job de jour, can only be possible because of discrimination. There can be and is not any other rational or acceptable explanation so they claim. This is the ideology that Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and their ilk subscribe to and which has become entrenched in our government’s policies.
Unfortunately, this specious explanation results in unwarranted quotas and reverse discrimination and engenders reactive racism, cynicism and frustration. Those who would have been most qualified, deserving and productive and contributed far greater to the welfare of society as a whole have been denied the opportunity because of bean counting. Thus, in the end, we all pay a price for this unfounded, pernicious demagoguery.
Juvenile Jabs Don't Deserve Standing O's
Thomas Sowell 08/09/2010
A graduating senior at Hunter College High School in New York gave a speech that brought a standing ovation from his teachers and got his picture in the New York Times. I hope it doesn't go to his head, because what he said was so illogical that it was an indictment of the mush that is being taught at even our elite educational institutions.
Young Justin Hudson, described as "black and Hispanic," opened by saying how much he appreciated reaching his graduation day at this very select public high school. Then he said, "I don't deserve any of this. And neither do you."
The reason? He and his classmates were there because of "luck and circumstances."
Since Hunter College High School selects its applicants from the whole city on the basis of their test scores, "luck" seems a strange way to characterize why some students are admitted and many others are not. If you can't tell the difference between luck and performance, what has your education given you, except the rhetoric to conceal your confusion from others and perhaps from yourself?
Young Mr. Hudson's concern, apparently, is about what he referred to as the "demographics" of the school — 41% white and 47% Asian, with blacks, Hispanics and others obviously far behind.
"I refuse to accept" that "the distribution of intelligence in this city" varies by neighborhood, he said.
Native intelligence may indeed not vary by neighborhood but actual performance — whether in schools, on the job or elsewhere — involves far more than native intelligence. Wasted intelligence does nothing for an individual or society.
The reason a surgeon can operate on your heart, while someone of equal intelligence who is not a surgeon cannot, is because of what different people actually did with their intelligence. That has always varied, not only from individual to individual but from group to group — and not only in this country, but in countries around the world and across the centuries of human history.
One of the biggest fallacies of our time is the notion that, if all groups are not proportionally represented in institutions, professions or income levels, that shows something wrong with society. The very possibility that people make their own choices, and that those choices have consequences — for themselves and for others — is ignored. Society is the universal scapegoat.
If "luck" is involved, it is the luck to be born into families and communities whose values and choices turn out to be productive for themselves and for others who benefit from the skills they acquire. Observers who blame tests or other criteria for the demographic imbalances which are the rule — not the exception — around the world, are blaming whatever conveys differences for creating those differences.
They blame the messenger who brings bad news.
If test scores are not the same for people from different backgrounds, that is no proof that there is something wrong with the tests. Tests do not exist to show what your potential was when you entered the world but to measure what you have actually accomplished since then, as a guide to what you are likely to continue to do in the future. Tests convey a difference that tests did not create.
But the messenger gets blamed for the bad news.
Similarly, if prices are higher in high-crime neighborhoods, that is often blamed on those who charge those prices, rather than on those who create the higher costs of higher rates of shoplifting, robbery, vandalism and riots, which are passed on to those who shop in those neighborhoods.
The prices convey a reality that the prices did not create. If these prices represent simply "greed" for higher profits, then why do most profit-seeking businesses avoid high-crime neighborhoods like the plague?
It is painful that people with lower incomes often have to pay higher prices, even though most people are not criminals, even in a high-crime neighborhood. But misconstruing the reasons is not going to help anybody, except race hustlers and politicians.
One of the many disservices done to young people by our schools and colleges is giving them the puffed-up notion that they are in a position to pass sweeping judgments on a world that they have barely begun to experience. A standing ovation for childish remarks may produce "self-esteem" but promoting presumptuousness is unlikely to benefit either this student or society.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/543075/201008091843/Juvenile-Jabs-Dont-Deserve-Standing-Os.aspx
Posted in Affirmative action Diversity policies Ideology Liberal Racism Reverse Racism Thomas Sowell with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Jul 24
For those who voted for Obama ... well you screwed all of us! We don't thing the "changes" that Obama has made were what you were expecting.
Now you have the opportunity to facilitate a change - in November. Vote out the arrogant, elitist, freedom and rights robbing Democrats in the upcoming elections.
Posted in Arrogance Democrat New Black Panther Party Political Cartoon Racism with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
24
The following trenchant editorial by the pre-eminent philosopher/ columnist/ economist Thomas Sowell bluntly states his assessment of Obama’s racial stance: there is nothing post-racial about him. This should come as no surprise to those who have followed his positions and commentary on racial issues during his Presidency.
For those who have researched his past, you would have discovered a very racist and arrogant individual who feels comfortable associating with and reveres some of the most anti-White, intolerant, anti-American blacks who fervently subscribe to Black Nationalism philosophies. The names are quite familiar: Rev. Jeremiah Wright (20 years listening to incendiary speeches), Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, Van Jones – to name but a few.
Those Obama voters who were unaware of his past and his associations were most probably deceived by his dissembling rhetoric. They expected someone who would transcend race and relegate racial issues to the past. Instead what they got was someone who is among the most racially polarizing Presidents this country has ever had. Compounding the Obama problem is that his deceptions are not limited to racial issues - they are ubiquitous and myriad in all areas.
Sowell concisely sums up Obama’s influence on race by stating that:
There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything post-racial about Barack Obama, except for the people who voted for him in the mistaken belief that he shared their desire to be post-racial. When he leaves office, especially if it is after one term, he will leave this country more racially polarized than before.
Nothing Post-Racial About Barack Obama
Thomas Sowell 07/20/2010
Credit card fraud is a serious problem. But race card fraud is an even bigger problem.
Playing the race card takes many forms. Judge Charles Pickering, a federal judge in Mississippi who defended the civil rights of blacks for years and defied the Ku Klux Klan back when that was dangerous, was depicted as a racist when he was nominated for a federal appellate judgeship.
No one even mistakenly thought he was a racist. The point was simply to discredit him for political reasons — and it worked.
This year's target is the Tea Party. When leading Democrats, led by a smirking Nancy Pelosi, made their triumphant walk on Capitol Hill, celebrating their passage of a bill in defiance of public opinion, Tea Party members on the scene protested.
All this was captured on camera and the scene was played on television. What was not captured on any of the cameras and other recording devices on the scene was anybody using racist language, as has been charged by those playing the race card.
When you realize how many media people were there, and how many ordinary citizens carry around recording devices of one sort or another, it is remarkable — indeed, unbelievable — that racist remarks were made and yet were not captured by anybody.
The latest attack on the Tea Party movement, by Ben Jealous of the NAACP, has once again played the race card. Like the proverbial lawyer who knows his case is weak, he shouts louder.
This is not the first time that an organization with an honorable and historic mission has eventually degenerated into a tawdry racket. But that an organization like the NAACP, after years of fighting against genuine racism, should now be playing the game of race card fraud is especially painful to see.
Some critics of the Tea Party have seized upon banners carried at one of its rallies that compared Obama with Hitler and Stalin. Extreme? Yes. But there was nothing racist about it, since extreme comparisons have been made about politicians of every race, color, creed, nationality, ideology and sexual preference.
Some Obama supporters have long regarded any criticism of him as racism. But that they should have to resort to such a banner to bolster their case shows how desperate they are for any evidence.
Among people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, those who are likely to be most disappointed are those who thought they were voting for a new post-racial era. There was absolutely nothing in Obama's past to lead to any such expectation, and much to suggest the exact opposite. But the man's rhetoric and demeanor during the election campaign enabled this and many other illusions to flourish.
Still, it was an honest mistake of the kind that decent people have often made when dealing with people whose agendas are not constrained by decency, but only by what they think they can get away with.
On race, as on other issues, different people have radically different views of Barack Obama, depending on whether they judge him by what he says or by what he does. As Obama's own books point out, he has for years cultivated a talent for saying things that people will find congenial.
You want bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington? He will say that he wants bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington. Then he will shut Republicans out of the decision-making process and respond to their suggestions by reminding them that he won the election. A famous writer — Ring Lardner, I believe — once wrote: "'Shut up,' he explained."
You want a government that is open instead of secretive? He will say that. He will promise to post proposed legislation on the Internet long enough for everyone to read it and know what is in it before there is a vote. In practice, however, he has rushed massive bills through Congress too fast for anybody — even the members of Congress — to know what was in those bills.
Racial issues are more of the same. You want a government where all citizens are treated alike, regardless of race or ethnicity? Obama will say that. Then he will advocate appointing judges with "empathy" for particular segments of the population, such as racial minorities. "Empathy" is just a pretty word for the ugly reality of bias.
Obama's first nomination of a Supreme Court justice was a classic example of someone with "empathy" for some racial groups, but not others. As a Circuit Court judge, Sonia Sotomayor voted to dismiss a case involving white firefighters who had been denied the promotions for which they qualified, because not enough blacks or Hispanics passed the same test that they did.
A fellow Hispanic judge protested the way the white firefighters' case was dismissed, rather than adjudicated. The Supreme Court not only took the case, but also ruled in favor of the firefighters.
Obama's injecting himself into a local police matter in Massachusetts, despite admitting he didn't know the facts, to say a white policeman was in the wrong in arresting a black professor who was a friend of Obama, was more of the same. So is Obama's Justice Department overlooking blatant voter intimidation by thugs who happen to be black.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything post-racial about Barack Obama, except for the people who voted for him in the mistaken belief that he shared their desire to be post-racial. When he leaves office, especially if it is after one term, he will leave this country more racially polarized than before.
Hopefully, he may also leave the voters wiser, though sadder, after they learn from painful experience that you can't judge politicians by their rhetoric, or ignore their past because of your hopes for the future. Voters may even wise up to race card fraud.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/540936/201007201820/Nothing-Post-Racial-About-Barack-Obama.aspx
Posted in Black nationalism Obama Racism Thomas Sowell with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Jul 20
A few examples of demagogic racist groups and individuals who glibly but falsely claim racism when they want special treatment or don't like unrelated circumstances. Except for the Black Panthers, they are also sought out by the media as spokespersons and experts for an entire race:
NAACP
Congressional Black Caucus
The New Black Panther Party
Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, Jay-Z
University Depts. of Black Studies - akin to Mosques with Imams preaching hatred. (See Professor Henry Jones of Obama/Cambridge Police Dept. fame)
The TEA Parties are comprised of normal everyday people of all persuasions and ethnic backgrounds who just want their freedoms, rights and government back.
Posted in Ideology Racism Reverse Racism Tea Parties with No Comments
More:
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments