Posts Tagged ‘black panthers’

Democrats Actually CONTINUE To Defend Cop Killer-Celebrator ‘Common’ Invite To White House

May 17, 2011

This is absolutely bizarre to me.

Barack and Michelle Obama had a poetry night at the White House.  Among the invited honorees was a rapper named “Common” who has actually celebrated two different CONVICTED cop murderers.

Again, not just ONE cop murderer, but TWO:

  • Assata Shakur, also known as Joanne Chesimard, was convicted for the 1973 slaying of Trooper Werner Foerster.  She escaped prison and fled to the communist nation Cuba, where “Common” actually went to visit her prior to his “A Song for Assata.”   
  • Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of the 1981  murder of Philadelphia Police Department Officer Daniel Faulkner.

Two murdered police officers.  Two convicted cop killers.  And the man who celebrated those cop killers was personally invited by the Obamas for a reading of his “poetry” in the White House.

The garbage excuses I have heard from Democrats are absolutely incredible.  As genuinely depraved as I believe Democrats are, they never cease to surprise me with their moral depravity.

The latest defense was offered by Jon Stewart – and of course immediately picked up as a talking point by the left.  I blocked someone as a lying vermin, and he posted back with – of course – Jon Stewart’s talking point.  Said talking point is that if you exclude “Common” for celebrating cop killers, you must also discard any invite of Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen and Bono.

What is interesting about this assortment of singers is that the above list consists of – in order from above – 1) a left wing radical; 2) a hard-core Democrat; and 3) a liberal.

Let’s take Bono – who apparently wrote a song called “Native Son” about an American Indian named Peltier who killed two FBI agents – first:

Bono fans fill Obama coffers
The presidential hopeful has found just what he’s looking for in U2 devotees as they swell his campaign reserves
Times, August 30, 2008
By: Colin Coyle

One is charismatic, plays to packed stadiums and wants to change the world. The other is Bono. Now a group of U2 fans, struck by the parallels between Barack Obama and the Irish rock star, have become one of the U.S. Democratic presidential nominee’s most enthusiastic band of supporters.

U2 fans for Obama, a collection of 103 U2 devotees, has raised almost $18,000 (EU12,200) for the presidential hopeful’s campaign and organised more than 600 events to date.

The group, whose website and blog are linked to the presidential candidate’s official homepage, believe that “since Bono can’t run for U.S. president, Obama is the next best thing”. Their blog declares that members “see in Obama a progressive Christian who embodies the ideas and sentiments…so compelling in U2’s music.”

The politician is already an avowed fan of the band, recently telling Rolling Stone magazine that U2 is on his iPod playlist. Bono attended the Democratic convention in Denver last week where he heard two U2 tracks, “City of Blinding Lights” and “Beautiful Day,” bookend Obama’s acceptance speech early on Friday. “Beautiful Day” was also the musical backdrop a night earlier when Obama introduced Senator Joe Biden, his nominee for vice-president, to the Denver crowd.

Oh, yeah, that one sure puts us conservative Republicans to shame.  He’s clearly one of our guys, right?  I mean, we’re responsible for this guy, right?

Oh, that’s right: WRONG!!!

I’m not going to bother to see if Bono was ever invited to attend anything during the Bush presidency, but if he was, I’ll bet you it was because of his humanitarian efforts, rather than because of his songs.

Then there’s Bruce Springsteen.  I don’t know what cop killer this turd eulogized, and I really don’t care.  But here’s the skinny on him:

‘The Boss’ would hire Obama for the top job
CAMPAIGN ’08: RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE
Rock star Bruce Springsteen endorses the Illinois Democrat. Clinton wins over salsa artist Willie Colon.
April 17, 2008|Johanna Neuman and Noam N. Levey | Times Staff Writers

Bruce Springsteen, the poetic rocker whose lyrics have chronicled the hardships of working-class Americans in struggling factory towns, on Wednesday endorsed Barack Obama for president.

The support that the music star known as “the Boss” threw behind the Illinois senator was a highlight of a relatively quiet day on the campaign trail, as Obama and rival Hillary Rodham Clinton prepared for Wednesday night’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia.

Okay, that’s two scratched off the list of three.

How about Bob Dylan?

Well, according to Democrat Underground:

“Joan Baez spoke of Dylan’s liberal political bend in “No Direction Home.” He was not a conservative.”

Then there’s such lines as this one from Dylan:

As Bob Dylan sang, “I’m liberal but to a degree. I want everybody to be free. But if you think I’m going to let Barry Goldwater move in next door to me and marry my daughter you must think I’m crazy . . .”

And Goldwater, of course, was the Republican nominee who was destroyed by the famous/infamous 1964 “Daisy” ad (you know, the ad by Vietnam warmonger Lyndon Johnson that implied Goldwater was a warmonger).

So Dylan was really just a garden variety liberal: he was the kind of hypocrite who was liberal, and therefore tolerant of everybody and everything but people he disagreed with like conservatives.  Then the intolerant hater burst out of his chest like that creature from Alien.

So I can draw two conclusions from this: 1) if you sing songs celebrating cop murders, YOU ARE A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.  And 2) Democrats are so insane that they actually justify Obama inviting a rapper who celebrates two cop murderers by citing three other liberals who also seem to have celebrated cop killers.

Only a Democrat is morally sick and psychologically irrational enough to see the reason in this defense.

Allow me to also point out that this black president who made sure we all understood that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” (conclusion determined after stating he didn’t know any of the actual facts) invited a black man who eulogized two Black Panthers who both murdered WHITE police officers.

Also allow me to point out that there is a direct link between Barack Obama and “Common”: both were members of Jeremiah Wright’s demonic racist and un-American church.

Here is Trooper Werner Foerster, who was MURDERED by Assata Shakur:

And here is Philadelphia Police Department Officer Daniel Faulkner, who was murdered by Mumia Abu-Jamar.

Take a good look at these two white men who were murdered by Black Panthers as they tried to do their duties maintaining the thin blue line between civilization and total anarchy and mayhem.  And tell me how you would feel about a president inviting a singer who wrote songs celebrating the murders of two BLACK police officers by two convicted white Ku Klux Klansmen who were nobly fighting for “white justice,” or “white power,” or “the cause,” or however the hell you want to phrase it to make it like “Common’s” eulogies.  Because THAT is EXACTLY what we have in the case of two Black Panthers murdering two white police officers.

Hey, how about if your next president invites a singer who soulfully and spiritually eulogizes James Earl Ray – the “so-called” but actually innocent man convicted of the murder of Martin Luther King???  Here’s an article from – you guessed it, Democratic Underground – saying James Earl Ray is innocent.  Hey, why not celebrate him as some kind of hero?!?!?!

If you are a Democrat, and you are not personally ashamed of your Disgrace-in-Chief, you are simply a cockroach masquerading as a human being.

Advertisements

Katie Couric Demonstrates How Moral Idiot Left Will Surrender America To Sharia

January 6, 2011

Glenn Beck (and yes, I know I’ve already lost most liberals, who believe that no matter how factually true something is, if it comes from Fox News or a Glenn Beck, it can be demonized and disregarded) had the following to say about renowned profoundly progressive journalist Walter Lippmann from his book Phantom Public:

In fact, the media is engaged in open propaganda for this administration. Not merely bias — what are you, nuts? They’re following a proud heritage of propagandists before them that began, as you might expect, if you’re a regular watcher of the show, around the time of — oh, I don’t know — what is his name? Woodrow Wilson.

One of Wilson’s close advisors was this guy, Walter Lippmann. He is a journalist who considered himself an icon among the liberal media, and the liberal media agrees. His methods and ideas are taught in college to our journalism students to this today.

You should read some of his books. I wonder if the people in his college that love him so much have actually read — oh, I don’t know — this is an original. This one is “Phantom Public.” You should read it. Spooky!

But what they teach in college is public opinion. These are things that these journalists are taught as a good thing. Quote, “News and truth are not the same thing.”

And quote, “The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality.”

In other words, you’re just too stupid. You don’t know it’s bad for you so we need a group of guys like this. Who has a big head and he can explain everything so we know it’s all for our own good.

Thank you very much. In fact, he believes that most citizens — and you’re going to love this, quote, “are mentally children.” Did you say that? Or barbarians. I can’t imagine why the journalists don’t just think this is guy is awful.

Things are starting to make sense now, aren’t they, about why you see journalists report the things that they do and treat the American people the way they do. Yes, they needed to be guided by intellectuals such as Walter Lippmann.

And hence the origin of the mainstream media class of journalistic snobbery; they’re better than you, they’re liberal as hell (and hellish as liberals), and whatever they think is right merely because they think it.  And of course they’re better than the 80% of the country who don’t share their values.

Katie Couric And Mo Rocca Show Us Why We’re Going To Lose Our Freedom To Sharia
Posted on January 1, 2011 by John L. Work

With thanks to Doug Powers over at Michelle Malkin’s site Hey.  Want to know why we’re headed toward losing this War against the forces of Islam – the same ones that declared eternal war on the World of Infidels way back in the 7th Century?  Watch this CBS video clip, featuring Katie Couric as the host, with Mo Rocca as a guest, in a discussion on the alleged terrible bigotry and hate that Katie says America has exhibited toward Muslims (I removed their stuttering in my transcription):

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/31/katie-couric-maybe-we-need-a-muslim-version-of-the-cosby-show/

KC:  I also think sort of the chasm between, or the bigotry expressed against Muslims in this country has been one of the most disturbing stories to surface this year.  Of course, a lot of noise was made about the Islamic center – mosque down near the World Trade Center.  But I think there wasn’t enough sort of careful evaluation of where this bigotry toward one point five billion Muslims world-wide, and how this seething hatred many people feel for all Muslims, which I think is so misdirected and so wrong, and so disappointing.

MR:  And you know one thing, I don’t know about you or either of you guys, but I’m pretty smart, and I cannot tell you…

KC:  (interrupts) We’ll be the judge of that, Mo.

MR:  …I mean I went to really fancy schools.  I cannot tell you five things about Islam.  I know almost nothing about a major world religion that sits at the intersection of so many issues that are undeniably relevant to all of us.  And I’m embarrassed.  I mean I know nothing about Islam.

KC:  Maybe we need a Muslim version of The Cosby Show.

MR:  Interesting.

KC:  I know that sounds crazy, but the Cosby Show did so much to change attitudes about African Americans in this country and I think sometimes people are afraid of things they don’t understand.  Like you, Mo.  You know, you’re saying you don’t know that much, your not afraid of it, but that you’re sort of, don’t have enough knowledge about it, but maybe if it became more part of the popular (inaudible)…

MR:  (interrupts)  Well, I think that religion should just be taught as an academic subject in public schools…

KC:  (interrupts)  I totally agree with you.

MR:  …much more.  The fear of it, it’s so misguided and the interpretation of separation between church and state

KC:  Alright.  Let’s change the subject in something a little less heavy.

End of clip

I rest my case.  For years this is what we’ve been force-fed by our media and by our elected officials about Islam.  Mindless apologist pabulum.  Ignorance.  Abject denial of reality.  Obstinate refusal to do a little homework and study.  If these so-called media icons had any real grip on the actual doctrines and practice of Sharia in Muslim states, they’d be damned afraid of it taking over here in the U.S.A.

Better to die free than to submit to Sharia.

It doesn’t really matter what the issue is; the mainstream media is waaaayy to the left of the rest of the nation’s values in its “reporting.”

So, for example, we can take the very issue that Katie Couric is lecturing America on – the Ground Zero mosque – and we can take her own CBS network’s polling.

From CBS:

NEW YORK (CBS 2) – Most Americans are against building a controversial mosque near Ground Zero, a CBS news poll has found.

According to the poll results,  only 22 percent of Americans surveyed think it’s appropriate to build the mosque and cultural center two blocks away, on Park Place.

On the other hand, 71 percent who responded said they think it’s not appropriate for the facility to go up so close to the World Trade Center site.

But, don’t you see?  “Most Americans” are QUOTE “mentally children,” and  so your beliefs and values can be disregarded.  And if the Katie Courics of the world simply have to flat-out lie to you, well, you’re too freaking stupid to understand the truth anyway.  And, as the great progressive big government bureaucrat Pontius Pilate famously asked, “What is truth?” (John 18:38), anyway?*

And public opinion needs to be managed by that “specialized class” of liberal elites.  Because, after all, liberal progressives have replaced God with themselves and with their superior ideas.  Just ask them.

Fellow progressive elitest “god-complexer” Bill Maher put the mindset well:

MAHER: Right, right. Uh, but, yeah, I mean, you know, they’re talking about 60 votes they need. Forget this stuff, 60…. You can’t get Americans to agree on anything 60 percent. Sixty percent of people don’t believe in evolution in this country.

He just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said, they’re stupid. Just drag them to this.  Get health care done, you know, with or without them. Make the Gang of Six an offer they can’t refuse. This Max Baucus guy? He needs to wake up tomorrow with an intern’s head in his bed.

That’s the amazing thing about liberals.  They are totally fascists; but they are such complete moral idiots that they don’t KNOW they’re fascists.

It would actually be funny, if these people weren’t so dangerous, and hadn’t amassed so much power and control which has enabled them to decide who wins and who loses.

And so they constantly lecture the right even as they do the above, and even as they try repeatedly to impose their oxymoronically-named “Fairness Doctrine,” and even as they now impose their again oxymoronically-named “Net Neutrality” to gain control over the internet.

But getting back to Sharia: it’s not that the left hates religion (atheism itself is a religion, you know, and “state atheism” is the religion of communism); it’s that the left despises Judeo-Christianity and everything it stands for.  And the left agrees with radical Islam that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  Hence the left is all but openly aligning itself with radical Islam and sheltering the movement by demonizing anyone who would criticize it.  Why?  Because Islam becomes another device by which the left can demonize their more hated enemy, Judeo-Christianity, by depicting it as “intolerant” and “hateful.”   And after Christianity is undermined, liberals believe (naively and stupidly) that they can somehow reason with or appease the Islamists.

Which, again, is something only a true moral idiot would think.

I’m certainly not the only one who has perceived a liberal love affair with radical Islam; and I’m not the only one who has seen a liberal-Muslim axis.  And while liberals are too morally moronic to see themselves in this violent power-worshiping movement, all I have to do is say things like “Weather Underground,” “Black Panthers,” “Students for a Democratic Society,” all I have to do is name liberal icons such as “Che Guevara” or Charles Manson (as I once demonstrated to a particularly rabid liberal jerk once).

The fact of the matter is that liberals love violent revolutionary movements.

It’s funny.  General Eisenhower very prominently used the term “Crusade” – that came right out of Christendom – to describe the Allies’ war with and defeat of the evil forces of socialism (Nazi = National Socialist German Workers Party).  The fact of the matter is that Christendom has been the backbone that has allowed the West to stand up and fight its enemies since the first Crusade.

Which is to say that the day “progressivism” supposedly “wins” in its war on Judeo-Christianity, it will lose itself and all the values such as individual liberty that it never deserved in the first place.  And then progressives will get the totalitarian-tyrant they have always truly deserved.

As I’ve pointed out before, the beast is coming.

NAACP That Only Cares About Advancing Colored People Calls Tea Party Racist

July 13, 2010

In a move that demonstrates blue-whale-testicle-sized chutzpah, the NAACP – an organization that singlemindedly works only to advance the concerns of black people – is calling the Tea Party “racist.”

From the LA Times:

Reporting from Washington —

The NAACP is expected to approve a resolution at its annual convention condemning the “tea party” movement for harboring “racist elements that are a threat to our democracy,” a spokeswoman for the civil rights organization said Monday.

The proposed resolution states that the “movement is not just about higher taxes and limited government but something that could evolve and become more dangerous,” NAACP spokeswoman Leila McDowell said. Delegates gathering in Kansas City, Mo., will consider the resolution as early as Tuesday.

Which is another way of saying that they think the Tea Party is so racist that it may one day actually rename itself, “The National Association for the Advancement of Non-Colored People.”  Then they’d be almost as racist as the people who are accusing them of racism.

The mainstream media loves to call the NAACP a “civil rights” group.  “Civil wrongs” would be much more accurate.

Recently the NAACP showed its true “colors” in terms of being “colored” when it showed up to try to publicly lynch a black man because he didn’t share their liberal Democrat political ideology:

CAUGHT ON TAPE—- Racist NAACP Leader Says “Kenneth Gladney Not Black Enough” to Protect – He’s an “Uncle Tom” (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, July 8, 2010, 6:13 AM

On May 5th, 2010 The Missouri NAACP hosted a press conference and rally on behalf of Perry Molens and Elston McCowan, demanding the county prosecutor drop assault charges stemming from an attack outside Russ Carnahan’s townhall in South St. Louis County on Health Care last August. Molens and McCowan were arrested after the staged Carnahan event in August after they beat, kicked and stomped on black vendor Kenneth Gladney. The two Russ Carnahan supporters and SEIU members also called Kenneth the n-word as they bashed him into the cement.

This press conference in May was intended to drum up political pressure to prevent the jury trial of the two SEIU staff members arrested for attacking Kenneth Gladney in the presence of three witnesses.

Video of the entire press conference was posted online in eight parts and includes speeches by Harold Crumpton (NAACP national board member and president, St Louis City branch), Mary Ratliff, (NAACP state president, Missouri), progressive blogger Adam Shriver (cited as their legal expert), Elston McCowan, Perry Molens, and emceed by Zaki Abruti, UAPO. Also attending the event were a host of self-defined socialist agitators and a self-proclaimed Huffington Post reporter, Jeanine Molloff.

Here is the unbelievable video of the racist NAACP event. The two men accused of attacking Gladney go on trial this month. Elston McCowan, the man standing next to the speaker, can be seen laughing when the speaker says Gladney is not a brother.

Following is the transcript:

Back in the day, we used to call someone like that, and I want to remind you, uh, when this incident occurred, I was really struck by a front page picture of this guy, which we called, a Negro, i mean that we call him a Negro in the fact that he works for not for our people but against our people. In the old days, we call him an Uncle Tom. I just gotta say that. Here it is, the day after a young brother, a young man, I didn’t mean to call him a brother, but on the front page of the Post Dispatch, ironically, he’s sitting in a wheelchair, being kissed on the forehead, by a European. Now just imagine that as a poster child picture, not working for our people.

UNREAL.

Ironically, Gladney reached out to the NAACP after the assault, but was mocked by their local president for not filing a claim. 11 months later, the same organization is out in public claiming Gladney isn’t black enough to protect and calling him an “Uncle Tom” for getting his a$$ kicked by SEIU thugs after a Carnahan town hall. And remember- Perry Molens, the SEIU staff member caught on video coming up behind Gladney and throwing him to the ground, is white.

This is outrageous.
Has the NAACP has become a radical racist, leftist group of thugs that promotes public beatings?

It looks like it.

Kenneth Gladney was publicly beaten down to the street and kicked by a gang of thugs that included at least two SEIU staff members.

So maybe the NAACP should consider changing their name to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored THUGS.  Although they will bless the beatdown of a non-liberal black man by white liberal thugs, too.

I’m just so fed up that the most nakedly racist people and groups in America do the most denouncing about other people’s so-called racism.  I could walk into an NAACP meeting wearing a blind fold and have a good chance of picking ten members (out of ten choices) who are more racist than the Tea Party people they are attacking.

In a recent survey, significantly fewer Tea Party supporters viewed racism as a major problem in America than the nation as a whole (58% of Tea Party versus 75% of Americans overall).  Which is to say that the Tea Party organizations simply aren’t worrying about issues of race.  Had the survey surveyed the NAACP, I don’t have a doubt in my mind that 100% of those who only care about “advancing colored people” would see racism everywhere.  Probably because they see racism every single day when they look in the mirror.

You want to see racism that the NAACP would deal with if it weren’t a racist organization?  See and read about it here:

SAMIR SHABAZZ:  I hate white people.  All of them!  Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him!  You want freedom? You’re going to have to kill some crackers! You’re going to have kill some of their babies.

For the NAACP to come out and denounce as racist the Tea Party after the cesspool of racism is seen in one of the NAACP’s cousin organizations just goes to show that the only racism that the NAACP should be dealing with is its own.

Obama’s Dismissal of Civil Rights Violator Shabazz Case Continues Racist Democrat Policies

July 7, 2010

This case of voter rights abuse was already won, and all that remained was the sentencing.  And then suddenly – at the last moment – someone under Obama-appointed Attorney General Eric Holder came in and dropped all charges.

New Black Panther leader Samir Shabazz stood outside the door of a voting location clad in a threatening uniform and bearing a police-style baton.  Several witnesses testified that he made a number of threatening racially-charged references.

He’s not guilty in Obama’s hopey-changey America.  Because overt acts of racism are fine, as long as the perpetrator is black and the victims are white.

Here’s the current hero of liberalism:

Here’s the new political correctness:

SHABAZZ:  I hate white people.  All of them!  Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him!  You want freedom? You’re going to have to kill some crackers! You’re going to have kill some of their babies.

That certainly isn’t all that the guy Obama wanted to protect said:

Samir: We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.

Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”

“I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”

“We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”

That’s pretty much what the Democrat Party stands for under the Barack Hussein regime.

That’s what Shabazz says outside the voter site.  What did he say inside? According to several witnesses:

Witnesses described an ugly scene: Two members of the New Black Panther Party threatening white voters the day Barack Obama was elected president, flinging insults like “white devil” and “you’re about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

Like I said; that was why the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department had this guy so dead to rights.  Until the Obama administration – due to political partisanship, leftist ideology, and racism of its own – dismissed the case.

Not that it’s just Barry Hussein.  We’ve got the racism of Bill Clinton who said of black man Obama, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”  And clearly wishing for those good old days, so that his wife could win the Democrat nomination.  More recently, Bill Clinton – the former leader of the Democrat Party – said of former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle and “pillar of the Senate”, said:

“They mention that he once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, and what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means,” Clinton said. “He was a country boy from the hills and hollows of West Virginia. He was trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done…”

Byrd wasn’t a “fleeting member” of the Ku Klux Klan any more than Kobe Bryant is a “fleeting member” of the Los Angeles Lakers.  Former Exalted Cyclops and Kleagle Byrd wrote:

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

He wrote:

“The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation.”

He personally filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act on behalf of the Klan when he was nearing fifty years old.

So why was it that Democrat Senator Robert Byrd was “MAYBE” wrong for being a member of the Klan? The answer is as simple as it is frightening: because it’s always been okay for the Democrat Party to use racism and race-baiting and racial segregation in order to drive their agenda home.  And that is just as true today when the Democrats buy off blacks through welfare so they will act as the human shields of the Democrat Party as it was when the Democrat-created Ku Klux Klan was riding around with torches.

The Democrat Party is the historic proponent of racism in this country (see also my comment here).  Oh, they changed their tactics from threats to bribes, but they never abandoned their racist “progressive” values.

Well, just thank God that the Obama administration which looks down so magnanimously on hard-core black against white racism is so on the ball when it comes to attacking the decent citizens of Arizona.

Obama didn’t need to know any of the facts to know that the white cop was to blame in arresting the black Harvard professor bigot.  Just as his administration didn’t have to have actually read the Arizona law to know that it was racist.  Everyone in the Obama administration today knows that white males are to blame even when proven otherwise.

So it’s a slam dunk for Democrats to demagogue white people in Arizona, and simply assume that white cops will act stupidly there, too.  Their skins are white, ergo sum they are racist and evil; what more evidence do you need?

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s comments can be dismissed.  After all, she is what Obama-supporter in good standing Samir Shabazz describes as a “white, dirty cracker whore”:

“It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels,” Brewer said in a written statement. “Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice. Today’s filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds.”

[Note: I supplied the above link to illustrate the sheer insanity that Arizona faces from the most racist and most demagogic administration in American history].  I mean, maybe you can go back to President Andrew Jackson and his vicious genocidal Trail of Tears.  But Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, too.  Or you could go back to President Woodrow Wilson who literally fired all the blacks in federal government and RE-segregated the military.  But you guessed it – Democrat.  We can go back to January 26, 1922, when Democrat Senators filibustered a Republican bill that had passed in the GOP-controlled House to make lynching a federal crime.  Or we could mention the vile and evil political party that had a national convention in 1924 that was so dominated by the Ku Klux Klan that it is today known as “Klanbake.”  But, oops.  That was the 1924 DEMOCRAT PARTY CONVENTION.  Or we could consider that President Franklin Delanor Roosevelt was a bigger racist for put American Japanese citizens in camps for nothing beyond racism.  Or for allowing the infamous Tuskegee experiment to begin under his presidency.  Or allowing his New Deal program to be used to help Democrat-supporting labor unions hurt black people and shut them out of economic success.  But, well, you know…

So when you hear Democrats today like Patrick Kennedy comparing the Arizona with the Trail of Tears, note that they’re merely trying to pass the buck for their own Democrat historic racism to innocent Republicans.  I mean, what Patrick Kennedy did was analogous to Osama bin Laden saying, “You Americans are the terrorists, just like the murderers who attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center!”  But wait a minute, Osama – YOU’RE THE ONE WHO DID THAT!!!

Obama has joined with Mexico in waging legal war on an American state of the union.  For what act of racism?  Arizona had the gall to write a law identical to the federal law so that they could make what was already a federal crime a state crime.  If that isn’t racism, I don’t know what is.

I notice that the White House lawsuit against Arizona never ONCE mentions racial discrimination, civil rights violations, profiling, or anything else they had falsely attacked Arizona over.  They demonized and demagogued honest people, but when it was time to actually put their money where their mouths were, they had nothing.

When they had massive evidence of black-on-white, leftwing racism, they did nothing.

That’s why I can call Obama the “Racist-in-Chief” and be completely accurate.

Barack Obama is a “Jeremiah Wright Democrat.”  Which means he is a racist bigot who has always undermined REAL civil rights reform by real civil rights leaders such as Frederic Douglas and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

As Jeremiah Wright said of Dr. King’s message:

“It was always about becoming white . . . to master what [they] do.”

I’m a believer in the message of Dr. Martin Luther King, and to the message of Frederic Douglas.  Which is why I’m so dead-set opposed to the Democrat Party and the pseudo “civil rights” movement they fabricated.

Question For Jimmy Carter: If We Despise Obama Because Of Racism, Why Is It That We Despised You?

September 17, 2009

Well, you can count on Democrats accusing conservatives of racism the way you can count on the sun to rise in the morning.

In remarks decried by Republicans, former president Jimmy Carter told NBC’s Brian Williams in an interview Tuesday that he believes race is at the core of much of the opposition to President Obama.”I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African American,” Carter said. “I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way, and I’ve seen the rest of the country that shared the South’s attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans”

Continued Carter, who is famously from Georgia: “And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.”

I wonder if you’ve looked in a mirror lately, Jimmy.  Maybe you’ve figured out that most of America despises you on account of the color of YOUR skin.

But it was never about your melatonin level, Jimmy.  It was about the fact that you were an incompetent nincompoop who ran the country into the ground.

Same as Barack Obama is doing now.

Allow me to provide you with a smattering of articles that I have written over the past months to demonstrate how desperately wrong you truly are:

Messiah Obama Really IS The Second Coming… Of Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter Addresses Barak Obama’s Convention: How Appropriate

Carter-era Economist Sees Deja Vu In Barack Obama

The Obama ‘Crisis In Confidence: Welcome Back, Carter’

So you see, Jimmy, you incompetent and morally-blind disgrace, the reason we despise Obama isn’t because he’s black and therefore not qualified to lead.  We despise Obama becuase he’s like YOU and therefore unqualified to lead.

And just how did Barack Obama ever get elected in the first place if people really thought the way you now demonically accuse them of thinking, anyway?

Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly disagree with your view, just as they came to overwhelmingly agree that your entire presidency was a pathetic joke:

The suggestion that race is behind criticism of Obama has been made by New York Gov. David Paterson and Reps. Charlie Rangel of New York, Diane Watson of California and Hank Johnson of Georgia, among others.

But a poll released Wednesday by Rasmussen Reports showed that just 12 percent of voters believe that most opponents of Obama’s health care reform plan are racist. The survey of 1,000 likely voters, taken Monday and Tuesday, found that 67 percent disagree with that contention, while 21 percent are not sure. The survey had a margin of error of 3 percent.

Rush Limbaugh boldly predicted that an Obama presidency would make race relations worse.  In a call from an Obama voter who said he voted for Obama BECAUSE of his race, Rush Limbaugh responded:

RUSH:  I said — you must have missed it — this is what I want to ask you about.  Well, no.  Several occasions I had people who were very hopeful, as you expressed you were hopeful, that the election of the first African-American president would end or really crimp racial strife in the country.  People asked me if I thought this and I said no.  It’s going to exacerbate it.  It is going to make it worse.  We are going to have more race related problems in this country than we have ever had.  Did you hear that and not believe me?

CALLER:  Well, I did hear that.  I took it into consideration.  But I also had the possibility of McCain getting in as president, and all he’s done is trash Republicans his whole life, so I didn’t feel we were gaining much.  It might just be a slower —

RUSH:  No, no.  I understand that, but I mean you were hoping, this is a pretty big reason to vote for Obama.  You were hoping —

CALLER:  Yes.

RUSH:  — that the elephant in the room that’s dividing this country along racial lines would be obliterated.  That’s the primary reason for voting for him, at least as you said.

CALLER:  Correct.

RUSH:  You heard me say that that would not happen.  You must have doubted me.

And, yep, he was right, as a CNN poll revealed:

During the 2008 election, 38 percent of blacks surveyed thought racial discrimination was a serious problem. In the new survey, 55 percent of blacks surveyed believed it was a serious problem, which is about the same level as it was in 2000.

Candidate Barack Obama was discovered to have sat for 23 years in a hard core racist and anti-American church under the ranting of Jeremiah Wright, and offered a patronizing speech to cover for what should have disqualified him from the presidency in the minds of voters.

During the campaign, we had key Obama surrogate John Lewis unleash a vicious dose of race hatred:

“I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign,” said Lewis, an Obama supporter, civil rights icon and Georgia Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“What I am seeing today reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse,” he said.

We had the media literally inventing incidences of Republican racism, and Obama jumping on the lies to deal another race card.  Just as he dealt the race card when he gave his famous “And did I mention he’s black?” line.  Obama said Republicans would use race when HE was the one using race.

In February, Rep. James Clyburn decreed that any opposition to Obama’s ultra-leftist and frankly socialist agenda was actually racism:

COLUMBIA, S.C. – The highest-ranking black congressman said Thursday that opposition to the federal stimulus package by southern GOP governors is “a slap in the face of African-Americans.”

And of course, that’s the new line from the “post-partisan” Democrat Party.  The Democrats who used to butcher Thomas Jefferson by citing him as the source of “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism,” are now accusing that “Dissent is the lowest form of racism.”

When corrupt scumbag Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich selected a scandal-tainted Roland Burris to fill Obama’s Senate seat, former Black Panther Rep. Bobby Rush issued a racial declaration when he said:

“I — my prayers have been answered because I prayed fervently that the governor would continue the legacy established by President-elect Obama and that the governor would appoint an African-American to complete the term of President Obama.”

And in a blatant display of racism, Rush warned white Democrats who didn’t want to see Blagojevich pick ANYONE to fill Obama’s seat:

“I will ask you not to hang and lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer.”

And then Roland Burris proves that he is such a naked ideologue that he “voted for ACORN” – a “community organization” that is so blatantly evil that it has been caught on tape repeatedly (at least five times now, with promises of more to come) trying to help a pimp and prostitute cheat on their taxes and buy a house so they can import over a dozen 13-15-year-old illegal immigrant girls and use them to set up a brothel.

I could go on.  The blatant racism from Democrats has been amazing.

Obama attacking a white police officer as “acting stupidly” for doing his job and then holding his patronizing “beer summit.”

And now we’re at the sorry and pathetic state where the words “You lie!” are classified as “racism” from the PARTY OF RACISM:

Making an obvious reference to the Ku Klux Klan, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said Tuesday that people will be putting on “white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside” if emerging racist attitudes, which he says were subtly supported by Wilson, are not rebuked.  He said Wilson must be disciplined as an example.

But lest we forget, it was the Democrat Party that literally went to war with a Republican President to keep the institution of slavery.   And it is a rather ironic historical fact that the Ku Klux Klan was created by Democrats to thwart the rise of the Party of Lincoln in the South.  And that it was the Democratic National Convention of 1924 that was so dominated by the Klan that it went down in infamy as “the Klanbake.”

Just a little trip down memory lane, for those who want to understand why we are more racially polarized under the presidency of Barack Obama than ever.

And of course, Barack Obama all the while gets to position himself as being loftily above such petty things while his demonic surrogates unleash their racist hell.

Maybe a little less racist demagoguery, and a lot more shutting the hell up would help.

I am now completely immunized against any charges of racism by a party that has used race as a club to advance their ideology in the most grotesque mockery of genuine racism.  If anyone wants to accuse me of being a racist, my simple retort is, “What a racist thing of you to say, you racist bigot.”

Obama’s Cloward-Piven Redistributionism Shaping The Future Collapse

August 28, 2009

There is a bizarre conspiracy afoot that most Americans are simply unwilling to comprehend, much less believe.

Obama and ‘Redistributive Change’
Forget the recession and the “uninsured.” Obama has bigger fish to fry.

By Victor Davis Hanson

The first seven months of the Obama administration seemingly make no sense. Why squander public approval by running up astronomical deficits in a time of pre-existing staggering national debt?

Why polarize opponents after promising bipartisan transcendence?

Why create vast new programs when the efficacy of big government is already seen as dubious?

But that is exactly the wrong way to look at these first seven months of Obamist policy-making.

Take increased federal spending and the growing government absorption of GDP.  Given the resiliency of the U.S. economy, it would have been easy to ride out the recession.  In that case we would still have had to deal with a burgeoning and unsustainable annual federal deficit that would have approached $1 trillion.

Instead, Obama may nearly double that amount of annual indebtedness with more federal stimuli and bailouts, newly envisioned cap-and-trade legislation, and a variety of fresh entitlements. Was that fiscally irresponsible? Yes, of course.

But I think the key was not so much the spending excess or new entitlements. The point instead was the consequence of the resulting deficits, which will require radically new taxation for generations. If on April 15 the federal and state governments, local entities, the Social Security system, and the new health-care programs can claim 70 percent of the income of the top 5 percent of taxpayers, then that is considered a public good — every bit as valuable as funding new programs, and one worth risking insolvency.

Individual compensation is now seen as arbitrary and, by extension, inherently unfair. A high income is now rationalized as having less to do with market-driven needs, acquired skills, a higher level of education, innate intelligence, inheritance, hard work, or accepting risk. Rather income is seen more as luck-driven, cruelly capricious, unfair — even immoral, in that some are rewarded arbitrarily on the basis of race, class, and gender advantages, others for their overweening greed and ambition, and still more for their quasi-criminality.

“Patriotic” federal healers must then step in to “spread the wealth.” Through redistributive tax rates, they can “treat” the illness that the private sector has caused. After all, there is no intrinsic reason why an auto fabricator makes $60 in hourly wages and benefits, while a young investment banker finagles $500.

Or, in the president’s own language, the government must equalize the circumstances of the “waitress” with those of the “lucky.” It is thus a fitting and proper role of the new federal government to rectify imbalances of compensation — at least for those outside the anointed Guardian class. In a 2001 interview Obama in fact outlined the desirable political circumstances that would lead government to enforce equality of results when he elaborated on what he called an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

Still, why would intelligent politicians try to ram through, in mere weeks, a thousand pages of health-care gibberish — its details outsourced to far-left elements in the Congress (and their staffers) — that few in the cabinet had ever read or even knew much about?

Once again, I don’t think health care per se was ever really the issue. When pressed, no one in the administration seemed to know whether illegal aliens were covered. Few cared why young people do not divert some of their entertainment expenditures to a modest investment in private catastrophic coverage.

Warnings that Canadians already have their health care rationed, wait in long lines, and are denied timely and critical procedures also did not seem to matter. And no attention was paid to statistics suggesting that, if we exclude homicides and auto accidents, Americans live as long on average as anyone in the industrial world, and have better chances of surviving longer with heart disease and cancer. That the average American did not wish to radically alter his existing plan, and that he understood that the uninsured really did have access to health care, albeit in a wasteful manner at the emergency room, was likewise of no concern.

The issue again was larger, and involved a vast reinterpretation of how America receives health care.  Whether more or fewer Americans would get better or worse access and cheaper or more expensive care, or whether the government can or cannot afford such new entitlements, oddly seemed largely secondary to the crux of the debate.

Instead, the notion that the state will assume control, in Canada-like fashion, and level the health-care playing field was the real concern. “They” (the few) will now have the same care as “we” (the many). Whether the result is worse or better for everyone involved is extraneous, since sameness is the overarching principle.

We can discern this same mandated egalitarianism beneath many of the administration’s recent policy initiatives. Obama is not a pragmatist, as he insisted, nor even a liberal, as charged.

Rather, he is a statist. The president believes that a select group of affluent, highly educated technocrats — cosmopolitan, noble-minded, and properly progressive — supported by a phalanx of whiz-kids fresh out of blue-chip universities with little or no experience in the marketplace, can direct our lives far better than we can ourselves. By “better” I do not mean in a fashion that, measured by disinterested criteria, makes us necessarily wealthier, happier, more productive, or freer.

Instead, “better” means “fairer,” or more “equal.” We may “make” different amounts of money, but we will end up with more or less similar net incomes. We may know friendly doctors, be aware of the latest procedures, and have the capital to buy blue-chip health insurance, but no matter. Now we will all alike queue up with our government-issued insurance cards to wait our turn at the ubiquitous corner clinic.

None of this equality-of-results thinking is new.

When radical leaders over the last 2,500 years have sought to enforce equality of results, their prescriptions were usually predictable: redistribution of property; cancellation of debts; incentives to bring out the vote and increase political participation among the poor; stigmatizing of the wealthy, whether through the extreme measure of ostracism or the more mundane forced liturgies; use of the court system to even the playing field by targeting the more prominent citizens; radical growth in government and government employment; the use of state employees as defenders of the egalitarian faith; bread-and-circus entitlements; inflation of the currency and greater national debt to lessen the power of accumulated capital; and radical sloganeering about reactionary enemies of the new state.

The modern versions of much of the above already seem to be guiding the Obama administration — evident each time we hear of another proposal to make it easier to renounce personal debt; federal action to curtail property or water rights; efforts to make voter registration and vote casting easier; radically higher taxes on the top 5 percent; takeover of private business; expansion of the federal government and an increase in government employees; or massive inflationary borrowing. The current class-warfare “them/us” rhetoric was predictable.

Usually such ideologies do not take hold in America, given its tradition of liberty, frontier self-reliance, and emphasis on personal freedom rather than mandated fraternity and egalitarianism. At times, however, the stars line up, when a national catastrophe, like war or depression, coincides with the appearance of an unusually gifted, highly polished, and eloquent populist. But the anointed one must be savvy enough to run first as a centrist in order later to govern as a statist.

Given the September 2008 financial meltdown, the unhappiness over the war, the ongoing recession, and Barack Obama’s postracial claims and singular hope-and-change rhetoric, we found ourselves in just such a situation. For one of the rare times in American history, statism could take hold, and the country could be pushed far to the left.

That goal is the touchstone that explains the seemingly inexplicable — and explains also why, when Obama is losing independents, conservative Democrats, and moderate Republicans, his anxious base nevertheless keeps pushing him to become even more partisan, more left-wing, angrier, and more in a hurry to rush things through. They understand the unpopularity of the agenda and the brief shelf life of the president’s charm. One term may be enough to establish lasting institutional change.

Obama and his supporters at times are quite candid about such a radical spread-the-wealth agenda, voiced best by Rahm Emanuel — “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid” — or more casually by Obama himself — “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

So we move at breakneck speed in order not to miss this rare opportunity when the radical leadership of the Congress and the White House for a brief moment clinch the reins of power. By the time a shell-shocked public wakes up and realizes that the prescribed chemotherapy is far worse than the existing illness, it should be too late to revive the old-style American patient.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

The term, “Cloward-Piven strategy” resounds in Hanson’s article without having ever once been used:

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

An American Thinker article provides flesh to the concept:

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation’s wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of “crisis” they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

  1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
  2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
  3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Nobody wants to believe that a large and influential group of our leaders would want to create a catastrophe as a means of having an opportunity to impose their will upon an ensuing “super-government” that would necessarily have to arise from the ashes.  The concept strikes many as madness.

Only it’s happened too many times in just this century to label as “madness.”  It is, in fact, the goal of virtually every revolutionary movement.  You have to tear down the old in order to create the new.

Consider the fact that the leftist organizers of the 1960s – like Barack Obama’s friend and mentor William Ayers, who was instrumental in Obama’s early career and his run in politics – are very much still around and still profoundly shaping the leftist agenda.  Take Ayers’ Weather Underground co-founder Jeff Jones, whose Apollo Alliance wrote a big chunk of Obama’s stimulus package.  Take Tom Hayden (who endorsed Obama), leader of the leftist group Students for a Democratic Society.  He proclaimed in a landmark 1962 speech that the youth must wrest control of society from their elders, and that to that end universities had to be transformed into incubators of revolutionary “social action.”  And his calls to use any means necessary to achieve that “social action” – certainly including violence and force – colored and in fact defined the entire 60s leftist radicalism.  Hayden was one of the writers of the “Berkeley Liberation Program.”  Some highlights: “destroy the university, unless it serves the people”; “all oppressed people in jail are political prisoners and must be set free”; “create a soulful socialism”; “students must destroy the senile dictatorship of adult teachers.”  And his “community outreach” fomented horrific race riots.

These people are still dictating the agenda of the left today.  They were trying to fundamentally transform society then, and they are trying to fundamentally transform society today.  Only their tactics have changed; the goal remains the same.

You don’t think Barack Obama – who was in turn mentored by communist Frank Marshall Davis, by radical organizer Saul Alinsky, by terrorist William Ayers – (the link is to a CNN story demonstrating that Obama’s relationship to Ayers was MUCH deeper than Obama claimed) – doesn’t value these people and share their values?  Then, to put it very bluntly, you are a fool.  The words of our current president:

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.  The foreign students.  The Chicanos.  The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.  We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets.  At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy.  When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints.  We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure.  We were alienated.”

But of course, Obama really wasn’t alienated, by his own statement.  He was a member of a community–a community of far-far-leftist radicals.

Also, of course “the more politically active black students” were the violent, racist, and criminal Black Panthers.

Obama was always about “change.”

You may not believe me now.  I understand that.  But hear this: it is my contention that things are going to get seriously bad in this country.  And that there are liberals, progressives, socialists (as Obama’s climate czar Carol Browner is), communists (as Obama’s ‘Green jobs czar’ Van Jones describes himself) – or whatever the hell these people want to call themselves – who are manipulating and riding the current times in order to take advantage of the future collapse.

Things didn’t have to get as bad as they’re going to get.  It certainly won’t be George Bush’s fault (all of Obama’s efforts to turn him into the current version of Emmanuel Goldstein to the contrary).  It is not George Bush’s fault that Barack Obama’s budget accumulated so far in 2009 exceeds all eight years of Bush’s combined deficits.  It’s not George Bush’s fault that we have seen historic and completely unsustainable levels of red ink under Barack Obama.  It’s not George Bush’s fault that Barack Obama is essentially truing to nationalize wide swaths of our economy, such as health care and energy.  It’s all on Obama.

Obama’s massive debt is creating serious worries about the future of the U.S. dollar.  We are forecasted to be paying a trillion dollars a year just in interest on the debt by 2019; and it will very likely be a lot more a lot sooner.

What’s going to happen then?

Well, let me tell you what the Cloward-Piven proponents believe will happen: they think the coming complete crash of our economic system will result in the complete takeover of the economy and the society by the state.  They think that as panicked and hungry people look around at the disaster big government created, they will have no choice but to turn to government for help.  They think that they will finally have the socialist utopia they always dreamed of but American independence and self-reliance would never allow.

If by some miracle in defiance of all the laws of economics Obama’s economic policy actually doesn’t kill our economy, Obama and Democrats will win big.  If, far more likely, Obama’s economic policy causes a crash of the entire system, liberals believe that Democrats will ultimately STILL win big.

You can call me crazy if you like.  But mark my words.

As you see things getting worse, and liberals using the complete and catastrophic failure of big government to justify even MORE and even BIGGER big government, what might seem crazy to you now will make a lot more sense.

Philadelphia: Liberal Judge Removes GOP Poll Watchers While lack Black Panthers Intimidate Voters

November 4, 2008

Philadelphia was the birthplace of freedom in this nation, given that the Declaration of Independence was signed there.  But things have a way of coming full circle when one reads history, and it is happening again:  the birthplace of freedom is proving to be the dying place, as well.

We can start with a liberal judge removing GOP Election Board members from “at least” half a dozen polling locations.  As Amanda Carpenter reports, “A Pennsylvania judge previously ruled that court-appointed poll watchers could be NOT removed from their boards by an on-site election judge, but that is exactly what is happening, according to sources on the ground.”

Denying access to the minority (in this case Republican) poll watchers and inspectors is a violation of Pennsylvania state law. Those who violate the law can be punished with a misdemeanor and subjected to a fine of $1,000 and sent to prison between one month and two years.

But in this case, that would only happen if one liberal judge put another one in jail.  Don’t hold your breath.

What is most frightening of all was the judge’s justification for removing Republicans:

A liberal judge previously ruled that court-appointed Republican poll watchers could be removed from their boards by an on-site election judge, citing their “minority” status as cause.

This along with the fact that the Democratic Ohio Secretary of State had to be ordered to verify voter registrations after huge numbers of falsified registrations turned up in the process.  Rather than do her duty, and basically do her job, Jennifer Brunner instead found a “better judge” to overturn the ruling of the first.

The official corruption, the court orders that enable voter fraud, the looking the other so the mice can play, is truly frightening.

ACORN (which is deemed “non partisan” when it comes to getting $126 MILLION in government funding but is as partisan as hell when it comes to putting itself behind Democrats) is being investigated for voter fraud in at least 22 states.  And, strangely, all the states in which fraud keeps being found are all battleground states, where a few thousand votes (or even just a few votes) could decide the election.

Our judges are corrupt.  They are using their power to open the field for Democratic corruption.  That is a truly terrifying thing.  Given the corruption of our judges and of our media, it is “GAME OVER” for our democracy.

Meanwhile, while all this corruption is going on, while judges allow liberals to commandeer the premises in vital polling places so that Democrats can start running bogus ballots through the machines, we’ve also got this:

BLACK PANTHERS WITH NIGHT STICKS BLOCK POLLING PLACE IN PHILLY

Two black panthers were blocking the doorway at a polling place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Rick Levanthal of Fox News is reporting live.

One of the panthers said “the black man was going to win the White House no matter what.”

Brandishing a night stick, and swinging it menacingly, the police were called – one of the black panthers and his night stick were moved.

Do you think little old white ladies would want to walk past the black panther with a night stick?

That story continues:

Leventhal interviewed a Republican poll observer who offered details of how he approached the entrance to the polling location — what appeared to be a multi-family apartment building — only to see the men “close ranks” in an attempt to stop him from entering.  Describing himself as an Army veteran, he said he was not afraid of the nightstick-wielding men and proceeded to walk between them and into the polling place to talk with officials inside.

A few minutes later, he said, he exited through the same doorway, was confronted by the men with the nightsticks and told them he wasn’t going to get into a fist fight with them.  After walking away, he called police and they ordered the most aggressive man to leave the polling location.

It’s at least getting a little bit of legitimate news coverage (youtube video).  A man with a camera and a couple of questions confronted the uniformed, billy-club weilding black panthers (youtube video).

In this world-turned-upside-down, it’s okay to be a member of a radical leftist organization with a violent past standing in front of a polling location intimidating voters; it is NOT okay to be a Republican poll watcher conducting lawful obversation and trying to keep the process honest.

This nation is heading for a disaster.  It is only a matter of time.