Posts Tagged ‘Jan Brewer’

Thin-Skinned Obama Who Walked Out On Gov. Jan Brewer Walks Out On Jeb Bush In Presence Of His President Father George H.W.

February 7, 2012

This is a turd who sinks to a deeper level of the toilet bowl of his presidency every single day:

Obama criticized for walking out on Jeb Bush
By BYRON TAU |
2/6/12 10:10 AM EST

Bloomberg’s Al Hunt has a long list of examples of what he calls the Obama team’s ‘hubris’ — including a recent anecdote where Obama left a fancy black tie dinner before former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush spoke:

Another illustration of presidential hubris involved the Bush family. The White House put out a picture of a private meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 27 that included former President George H.W. Bush and his son, Jeb, the former governor of Florida.

The Bushes were in town for the annual black tie dinner the next night at the Alfalfa Club, a gathering of business and political elites. The two featured speakers, both intended to be brief and humorous, were Obama and Jeb Bush. The president spoke to good reviews. He left before Bush spoke.

Obama hates such dinners. Some of his aides, in particular his political adviser David Plouffe, urged him not to spend an evening mingling with the 1 percent. Yet he chose to go, and attendees said it was the first time they could recall a speaker leaving before the other side had its fun. In addition, Obama’s 87-year-old predecessor was present.

Imagine the criticism five years ago if President George W. Bush had walked out on a dinner before Hillary Clinton spoke, with Bill Clinton in the audience.

Jan Brewer saw right through you, you pompous arrogant little weasel.

Hey, Obama, the next time you’ve got some self-righteous hypocrite speech about the need for Americans to be more “civil,” why don’t you just take your pair of teleprompters and shove them right up your piehole instead?

Advertisements

Obama, The Angry President Who Is Angry For All The Wrong Reasons And None Of The Right Ones

January 31, 2012

Recently Obama did an interview with ABC to manage the flap created by his run-in with Governor Jan Brewster of Arizona – which ended with Obama storming off with the governor in mid-sentence.

Instead of answering the direct question (which was basically, “Are you thin-skinned?”), Obama punted to this:

“I’m usually accused of not being intense enough, right,” he told ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, laughing. “Too relaxed.”

Well, let me assure you of something: I’VE sure never called Obama “too relaxed.”  I’VE sure never called him “No Drama Obama.”  In fact, the reason I write this blog is to try to document the incessant never-ending drama and histrionics that constitutes the Obama presidency.  Every day is a fresh, new outrage.

The man who is “the most polarizing president in American history” is hardly “too relaxed.”  You just don’t get to be “the most polarizing president in American history” by being “too relaxed.”

A partial list of reasons why I openly mock the “No Drama Obama” bullcrap of “I’m usually accused of not being intense enough” appears below:

Don’t you think we’re not keeping score, brother” – Chairman Obama
Bring it on”- Obama Regime to The American People.
Get ready for hand-to-hand combat with your fellow Americans” – Obama
I want all Americans to get in each others faces!” – Obama
You bring a knife to a fight pal, we’ll bring a gun” – Obama
Republicans are our enemies“–Obama
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
the Cambridge Police acted Stupidly” ” – Beer Summit Gaffe Leader

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/commenter?id=4d2ba389ccd1d58425050000#ixzz1l0CejqKX

So I thought it was interesting to learn a little more about this incredibly angry man who inhabits our White House rather like a Chicago thug.  And here’s a triad from the Orange County Register’s Mark Landsbaum:

Obama the Angry
January 25th, 2012, 3:49 pm · posted by Mark Landsbaum

During the State of the Union speech last night we had the TV turned up very loud so I could hear the speech while following along in the released transcript on my computer screen and taking notes at the keyboard while simultaneously roughing a draft of our editorial today.

Let him make this perfectly clear…

During the 65 minutes he spoke, I developed something of a headache.

It seemed to me the president virtually shouted his entire speech. I though that maybe it was the louder-than-normal TV volume. But all the same, it seemed as if the guy was, how should I put it? Angry.

Now, given what he had to work with, stupefying unemployment, a dead-in-the-water cap-and-trade scheme, a soon-to-be-ruled unconstitutional ObamaCare, an economy that’s doing an excellent imitation of a recession and the likelihood of losing not just his support in Congress, but his own job, I can understand why the president might be a bit on edge.

Then this afternoon I clicked on to one of our favorite items, James Taranto’s Best of the Web column in the Wall Street Journal. And what did he have to say?

“This guy is angry.”

Maybe it wasn’t just the TV volume.

Considering that the SOTU speech essentially marks the beginning of Obama’s reelection campaign, what does this portend for the campaign trail as the president ratchets up his mood and voice another notch every time he is greeted with underwhelming response? He could be hoarse by June.

How about voters?

We don’t know about you, but there is little in politics that turned us off as did Al Gore’s pretentious and pompous tone, or Hillary’s fingernail-scraping shrillness. Little, that is, until we got 65 minutes of Obama’s screaming, ranting performance last night.

And:

Obama the Angry, part II
January 27th, 2012, 4:54 pm · posted by Mark Landsbaum

We normally don’t comment on blogs in the neighborhood, but this one was too sweet to ignore. Some fella named Prevatt over at some blog called TheLiberalOC.com took exception to our characterization of the angry fellow in the White House as being, well, angry.

Our post was titled “Obama the Angry,” for reasons pretty much apparent to anyone with ears to hear. But Mr. Prevatt said that we went on, “to promote the stereotype of the ‘angry black man’ to describe the president’s” State of the Union speech.

Stereotype of an angry black man?

We checked and sure enough, we didn’t identify the man in the White House by his race. Which means once again the Angry Left has jumped to the conclusion that any unflattering characterization of Obama must be rooted in something racial.

What we did, of course, was simply identify an angry man.

Perhaps “an angry black man” fits some stereotype of Barack Obama held by Mr. Prevatt. After all, it was he not we who drew the inference of stereotype.

For our part, we think Barack Obama is much different than any stereotype. We find him almost singularly aloof, pretentious, arrogant, inept, inexperienced and, well, angry. Particularly so for a president. In fact, he couldn’t in any way be described as stereotypical. We’ll give him that. He’s definitely one of a kind.

Let’s reiterate here, just in case someone other than Mr. Prevatt is reading this. It was Mr. Prevatt who invoked the “stereotype of the ‘angry black man’ to describe the president.” Not us.

As it happens, we also had alluded in that blog post and linked to the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto column, headlined “The State of the Union Is Angry.” Lo and behold, it was another characterization of the president as being angry during his speech. Taranto, like us, also didn’t mention race.

Have you noticed how often the Angry Left finds race and racism in, well, in just about everything? And have you noticed how we (and Mr. Taranto too) never seem to? Why is that?

But we digress. Taranto actually has written recently on this tendency of the Angry Left to see the world through racial lenses. Check here for a sample in his recent column, The Genetic Fallacy. In that column Taranto offers interesting insights into why the Left does what it does. It’s rooted in “a new kind of inequality that developed in the wake of the civil rights revolution, defined by Shelby Steele in his brilliant 2006 book, ‘White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era’.”

We put it another way. We call it projection, the defense mechanism in which a person transfers or projects his feelings onto another person. We think there’s a lot of this among the Angry Left.

Feelings of white guilt result in projection by Angry Leftists of their own failings and shortcomings onto their opponents.

Anyway. We found Mr. Prevatt’s blog transparently so. But what are you gonna do?

We’re not even going to complain that Mr. Prevatt referred to us by our first name, something we find just a tad presumptuous from a stranger, and for the record we can’t ever remember shaking the hand of anyone named Prevatt, let along being friends with one, although we wouldn’t rule that out, provided he stops projecting onto us.

And we aren’t going to make too much of Mr. Prevatt’s rather crude suggestion that “Mark, try … investing in a hearing aide,” or make a big deal about him misspelling it.

This Prevatt fellow may not even know that our otolaryngologist diagnosed yours truly to have substantial hearing loss in both ears, so Mr. Prevatt probably didn’t mean to be crude or rude. That may just be the way he is.

But to clarify, the reason we turned up the TV volume to listen to the president’s speech had nothing to do with our somewhat impaired hearing, which actually doesn’t require a hearing aid. It was because we were typing at the keyboard in THE NEXT ROOM.

We don’t doubt that even Mr. Prevatt may strain when it comes to listening to a television from another room.

But be all that as it may, let’s deal briefly with whether Taranto and we correctly identify the president as an angry person, whatever color he may be. Google for yourself the words “angry” and “Obama.”

Here is just a sampling with our emphases:

“Obama’s gracious tone has diminished almost by the hour since his election. He snipes at the American people for not being smart enough to get how smart his plans for them are. He blames others for his failings. Bush, Congress, rich people, even poor people.”

The Washington Post’s headline Friday: “Obama exchange with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer reveals his testy side.” Oh those stereotyping guys at the Post.

Writes Michelle Malkin: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said, “He was a little disturbed about my book.” Then “In the shadow of Air Force One, Obama complained that Brewer hadn’t “treated him cordially,” and then stalked off while she was responding mid-sentence.”

Recall this one? “Angry Obama walks out on debt-limit talks” By S.A. MILLER, New York Post Correspondent.

And this account: “…Cantor explained, the president became ‘very agitated’ and said he had ‘sat here long enough’… Before walking out of the room, Cantor said, the president told him: ‘Eric, don’t call my bluff. I’m going to the American people with this.’ He then ‘shoved back’ and said ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’.”

Then there was this Washington Post account last week by David Nakamura and Rachel Weiner, not exactly card-carrying Tea Partiers: “AURORA, Colo. — President Obama’s raw exchange with the governor of Arizona on an airport tarmac this week did more than overshadow his carefully stage-managed road trip to trumpet his State of the Union goals. The discussion revealed a testy side of the president’s personality that is at odds with his public image as ‘no-drama Obama,’ reviving criticism that he is unwilling to be second-guessed — or to even entertain another point of view.”

Testy” was the reporters’ characterization. Reporters from the left-leaning Post.

Brewer later told reporters “He was somewhat thin-skinned and a little tense to say the least.”

Oh we could go on. And on. But that would be sort of like, well, piling on. And we don’t want to make him angry, so we’ll let it go at that.

But testy. Angry. Yelling his speeches?

These are signs of a guy who is frustrated and can’t seem to make things work the way that he wants them to. That’s because things don’t work that way. He’s not organizing the illiterate unemployed in Chicago slums. He’s trying to deal with some of the most argumentative and experienced political animals on the planet.

Did we mention inexperience and ineptness?

When others complain, he has no solution but to figuratively stomp his feet and blame them for not getting it. On a couple of levels he’s right. They don’t get the money that used to belong to them but thanks to Obama redistribution logic now is handed to someone else.

They also don’t get how that’s supposed to benefit anyone except the cronies who walk off with the dough.

Such a degree of frustration with people who don’t get it is enough to make any singularly aloof, pretentious, arrogant, inept, inexperienced person angry. Whatever color he may be.

And:

Obama the Angry, part III
January 30th, 2012, 1:51 pm · posted by Mark Landsbaum

Nah, he’s not an angry guy. Not much.

We no sooner observe how the Hothead in Chief gets snippy at the slightest provocation than another incident comes to the fore to verify that this president is out of his league. Criticisms and things that don’t go his way seem to have a disproportionate effect. The guy loses his cool. And we had such hope. Oh well, another change unanticipated.

According to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, after the Gulf oil spill the president visited.

“He grabs me by the arm, takes me aside,” Jindal said, “Here’s the strange thing … I thought he’d be angry about the oil spill, the lack of resources; I thought he’d get down there and say, look governor, we’re going to do everything we can to work together. Instead, he was upset he was going to look bad; he was worried about some routine letter we had already sent to his administration, nothing important.”

The reaction shocked Jindal.

“I was amazed at two things: one, that he was mad about the wrong things, and two, that he was so thin-skinned.” In a time of crisis, Jindal said the last thing he wanted or expected was for the president to stage what was “clearly a media stunt. I wanted him to be the president of the country, and instead he was playing political theatrics.”

Why’s this guy so angry? Why’s his threshold so low?

It’s because he’s been in over his head from Day 1. He’s never managed anything more robust than a political campaign, and even then not all that many of them.

The only reason you’ve kept hearing about “No Drama Obama” is because the mainstream media is the most dishonest since Joseph Goebbels and TASS were in business.

Obama Continues To Reveal He Is The Lowest Form Of Demagogue

April 20, 2011

CBS News had the story:

President Obama invoked the 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35-W bridge in Minneapolis while criticizing cuts to infrastructure in the Republican budget plan at a town hall meeting on Tuesday.

“According to the Republican budget that was passed, for example, we would have to eliminate transportation funding by a third,” he said. “…You remember when that bridge in Minnesota collapsed with all those people on it and there was a big hue and cry, how could this happen in America?”

Obama pointed at the Republican agenda to reign in the utterly out-of-control federal spending that will be absolutely 100% guaranteed to implode America’s economy unless that spending is reigned in, and then demonized the Republicans for a previous bridge collapse.

But as happens far too often in the mainstream media propaganda that often gets to pass for “news,” CBS didn’t fully report the facts.

You see, Obama lied.  Because that’s what he does.  And that collapsed bridge he demagogues to demonize Republicans for – claiming that their budget cuts would eliminate maintenance – didn’t actually have anything whatsoever to do with maintenance:

NTSB: Design errors caused Minn. bridge collapse

WASHINGTON (AP) — The deadly collapse of a Minneapolis bridge last year began at steel plates in a main truss, attributable to a design flaw and not corrosion, federal safety investigators said Thursday.

National Transportation Safety Board investigators said the bridge collapse was unavoidable once U-10 steel gusset plates failed at the U-10 connection, near the center of the bridge. Investigators also ruled out any pre-existing cracking as a factor in the accident.

A hearing into the collapse quickly focused on the U-10 gusset plates on the Interstate 35W bridge. The safety board as far back as January had identified design flaws in the plates as a critical factor in the collapse.

CNS actually does a little investigation and reports the facts in an article entitled, “Obama Misstates Cause of Minn. Bridge Collapse–Falsely Blames Insufficient Federal Spending“:

Contrary to Obama’s townhall speeech, the bridge did not collapse because of “deteriorating” infrastructure. According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the collapse was due to a design flaw, not to a lack of maintenance.

“The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was the inadequate load capacity, due to a design error,” the NTSB states in its 2008 report on the incident.

In fact, the NTSB reported that on the day of the collapse, the bridge was in the process of being refurbished, further contradicting Obama’s claim that the collapse was evidence of a lack of infrastructure spending.

“On the day of the collapse, roadway work was underway on the I35W bridge, and four of the eight travel lanes (two outside lanes northbound and two inside lanes southbound) were closed to traffic,” reads the NTSB report.

If Obama were a halfway honest man, he would apologize for his vicious demonization that is entirely based on a lie.  But he’s not a halfway honest man.  And so he will count on the fact that the mainstream media will report his lies and not bother to correct them.  Because they are leftwing ideologue propagandists, and that’s how they roll.

You want to know something else I don’t understand?  It’s why we still need so much money for mainstenance projects.  Remember Obams’s so-called “stimulus” and how it was all going to go to such “shovel-ready projects”?  According to the CBO, Obama’s stimulus will cost $3.27 TRILLION.

Where did that money go, Barry Hussein?  Why is it that if Republicans cut so much as a dime, bridges across America will collapse?

Then there’s Obama’s demagogic remarks about border security and immigration:

“The question is going to be, are we going to be able to find some Republicans who can partner with me and others to get this done once and for all instead of
using it as a political football?”

But Obama had total Democrat control of Congress for TWO YEARS.  And he utterly failed to make any kind of serious bipartisan overture whatsoever on immigration reform during a period when Republicans had little chance of stopping much of anything.  He is simply lying and blaming Republicans for his own failure.  Which is to say, the only one using this issue as a “political football” is the guy demonizing others for doing what he himself is clearly doing.

You can again see just how utterly and vindictively partisan and demagogic Obama is in this exchange over the fact that Obama had a major meeting on immigration reform, and refused to invite so much as a single governor from one of the border states:

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Did you hear what is  going on in Washington? President Obama is talking about immigration reform. The president held a meeting  today at the White House to discuss the broken immigration system. He met with a  bipartisan group. Guess what, he didn’t invite any governors from border states.  Why not?

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer joins us live from  Phoenix. Governor, did you miss your invitation? Did you decline your  invitation? Why weren’t you here at the White House to talk about immigration  reform?

GOV. JAN BREWER, R-ARIZ.: I wish I would have been  invited. No, I do not — I did not get an invite. You would have thought one of  the governors would have been invited since we are on the frontlines fighting  for security there. It was a little bit of a snub, if you will. I think that on  behalf of myself, I think I could have added insight to the situation that  Arizona certainly is facing.

VAN SUSTEREN: I looked at the White House press release. Of  the people who were invited — the category of those — it says stakeholders  expected to attend. I looked up stakeholders to see whether you might be a  stakeholder or Governor Rick Perry. It says a person or group that has  investment share or interest in something as in the business or industry. I  guess it is someone who has a strong interest in the topic. He must think you  don’t have any interest in the issue or you would have been invited.

BREWER: That is very unfortunate if that’s what he believes.  I feel Arizona, I believe I and Rick Perry and certainly the governors on the  border have been leading the fight. We’ve been bringing the message to America.  And I think that we should have been afforded that opportunity to be at the  table to help him understand the situation that we want straightened out.

VAN SUSTEREN: Let me tell you who he did think was a  stakeholder and has a huge interest in this partial list — Mayor Bloomberg, who  of course is the mayor who sent investigators down to Arizona to investigate you  about guns, your state, the former police chief of New York Bill Brown,  Secretary Michael Chertoff, former secretary of Homeland Security.

Then he invited Senator Mel Martinez, former United States senator. Here’s  another interesting one, Greg Page chairman and CEO of Cargill. I thought that’s  an odd one. I understand why, because Cargill was raided in 2007 by immigration  and ice for violations having to do with immigration. They probably have the  inside scoop on that one.

Al Sharpton was invited. The CEO of Facebook, another one. Arnold  Schwarzenegger, the former governor of California not the current governor, and  Richard Trumka, who is AFL-CIO union leader. Those are some of the people that  the president thinks has a greater interest than you do.

BREWER: That’s an unfortunate list as far as I’m concerned.  I didn’t know he had extended the invitation that this meeting was going to take  place.

But it seems by the list and what has been reported back to me this afternoon,  it is people that looking at that wonderful word “comprehensive immigration  reform.” It has nothing to do with what we really need to have done, and that is  to get our borders secured.

I think they are looking to try to talk about amnesty and all these other  issues and the dream act. None of these things in my opinion are going to take  place until we get our borders secured. I don’t think the American people want  to address anything until we feel secure. Our citizens need to feel secure in  their homes. It just continues to grow with the issue of people coming across  our borders illegal, the drug cartels.

VAN SUSTEREN: I may disagree with you a little bit. I would  like a solution that is complete and which protects our borders, protects  Americans and handles all the issues. I would like to see it put behind us. I to  the president’s speech at American university last summer to hear it. I did want  to hear what he said he was going to do.

We haven’t heard anything. He a Democratic house and Senate we don’t hear  anything until now as he gets ready to launch his campaign. And now things have  changed. Now we are hearing it again. I’m deeply disturbed. I think this is  talk. I think his guest list supports that because this is not bringing people  to the table who have real interests in this.

BREWER: I absolutely agree with you. The bottom line is that  he has a different agenda than what the American people have. Unfortunately, we  keep talking and we keep contacting him with our concerns, really no response,  no concern. Of course now we are in the election period so we now he’s going to  be standing up and talking about he’s going to do this and that. He’s had two  years to deliver what he promised two years ago and hasn’t delivered.

So we want our borders secured. I truly believe that the majority of us are  not going to discuss anything else in regards to what his agenda is, until we  get satisfaction with security at our borders.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/border-governors-not-invited-white-house-meeting-immigration-reform#ixzz1K3EvMeaH

This is beyond ridiculous.  If you have any intention whatsoever of coming to some kind of agreement, you invite the major decision makers.  But Obama doesn’t want solutions; he wants to prevent solutions and then blame Republicans for the well that Obama personally poisoned.

Last week Obama gave a hateful speech in which he blasted Republicans as the party that wanted to kill old people and children with autism.  During a point in the health care debate, when Obama needed to appear bi-partisan, Obama said:

We’re not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, ‘Well, you know, that’s — the other party’s being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z.”

And then he proceeded to do the very thing that he himself had said would undermine and poison the process.  Rep. Paul Ryan said correctly:

“What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.”

And, again, Obama doesn’t WANT to fix problems.  Obama wants to demonize and demagogue and lie and accuse and blame.

We can and should go back to 2006 remarks made by Obama when he personally demonized George Bush for raising the debt celing.  Obama demagogued:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

Now the same weaselly demagogue is saying that anyone who acted like Obama himself acted would be an un-American traitor.

It just never ends with this guy.

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.

Poll: If You Oppose Arizona Immigration Law, You’re A Leftwing Loon

April 27, 2010

From Rasmussen:

Nationally, 60% Favor Letting Local Police Stop and Verify Immigration Status
Monday, April 26, 2010

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer last week signed a new law into effect that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 60% of voters nationwide favor such a law, while 31% are opposed.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans support the law along with 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Democratic voters are evenly divided on the measure.

I wonder how many likely voters favor the president of the United States playing racially-prejudiced identity politics as he demagogues the Arizona law and other issues:

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

As for you white and Asian males, just shut the hell up.  You SUCK!!!

Still, 60% of Americans.  Who would have guessed that 3/5ths of America was composed of white and Asian males?

Somewhere between thirty and forty percent of the country would cheer Obama even if he were to lead us down to the level of Kim Jong Il and North Korea.

But pretty much everybody else supports Arizona and its illegal immigration policy against Obama and the federal government.

Update, April 29:

Let’s see, a few days ago seven police officers were murdered in Juarez, Mexico.  Just yesterday, eight men were shot in the back and killed outside a nightclub in Juarez, MexicoFifteen people were murdered in 11 hours in Juarez.  And at least 300 people were murdered just this month in that hellhole.

In Pinal County, Arizona, a sheriff’s deputy was shot with an AK-47 by a group of illegal immigrants and left for dead.  And that just today.

This is the kind of crap that is going on every single day in Mexico.  But liberals demand that Arizona and other border states just grin and bear it.

Also, when Janet Napolitano was governor of Arizona, she “implored Congress to fix the nation’s broken immigration system.” Governor Napolitano also demanded that the federal government pay her state $350 million every year for the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrant Mexican nationals.  She said that the cost of doing the federal government’s job “could pay for all-day kindergarten for every 5-year-old in the state.”  But now she’s part of the Obama administration, part of the problem, and suddenly everything is just fine.

Let me say this again: If you think Arizona is “racist” for trying to deal with a nightmarish problem that the federal government is utterly failing to even begin to TRY to deal with, you are a leftwing loon.

The Real Issues Behind Arizona’s New Illegal Immigration Law

April 26, 2010

George Will, on ABC’s “This Week,” hit the nail right on the head regarding Arizona’s new illegal immigration policy, just signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer:

“Reasonable suspicion” that the person is an alien. What does that mean, George?

WILL: Well, the Fourth Amendment says there should be no unreasonable searches and seizures, and we’ve generated volumes of case law trying to sort out what that means over the last century or so. So it’s not clear what that means. Let’s say this about Arizona. They have 460,000, an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants there. So before Washington lectures Arizonans on irresponsibility, perhaps Washington ought to attend to the central attribute of national sovereignty which is to control the borders. We are the only developed nation in the world with a 2,000 mile border with an undeveloped country and we have a magnet of a welfare state to the north.

So this is not Arizona’s fault. Beyond that, this should be said however. Reasonable suspicion is going to put upon the police of Arizona a terribly difficult job. This is what the governor said. “We must enforce the law evenly and without regard to skin color, accent or social status.” I don’t know how do you that. […]

WILL: Again, in defense of Arizona, large majority of Arizonans support this bill and a large majority of Arizonans are not, by definition, the fringe of the state. They are temperate, decent people with a huge problem.

What the Arizona law does is make a state crime out of something that already is a crime, a federal crime. Now, the Arizona police — and I’ve spent time with the Phoenix Police Department — these are not bad people. These are professionals who are used to making the kind of difficult judgments. Suspicion of intoxicated driving, all kinds of judgments are constantly made by policemen. And I wouldn’t despair altogether their ability to do this in a professional way. […]

GLICK: So put the 3,000 troops on the border as McCain suggests.

WILL: Build a fence, do what McCain suggests, and you’ll find that the American people are not xenophobic, they are not irrational on the subject, but they do want this essential attribute of national sovereignty asserted.

TUCKER: And where does the money come from for that, George?

WILL: It’s a rounding error on the GM bailout.

A number of major points come out of George Will’s remarks:

1) This is NOT Arizona’s fault; it’s the federal government’s fault.  The first order of business for any government of any nation-state is to protect their borders from invasion; and the U.S. government has utterly failed to perform that function.  Worse, up to this point, they have even perversely prevented the states from acting to save themselves.

2) Arizona’s illegal immigration policy is NOT some “racist” or “extreme” agenda; it is supported by an overwhelming majority of Arizonans:

The Arizona legislature has now passed the toughest measure against illegal immigration in the country, authorizing local police to stop and check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it.

These are reasonable people put into an unreasonable position by a bunch of extremists who are running our government and who are leading racist organizations such as La Raza (which literally means “the race” – and how racist can you get?).

The “racist extremists are on the other side from the decent Arizona people:

Whenever I’m asked about media treatment of the Tea Parties, I ask myself a simple question: What do you suppose the media would say if tea partiers were biting off people’s fingers?

A new question for today: What would they be saying if even a small group of Tea Partiers physically attacked the police at a rally?

Witnesses say a group protesting against SB1070 (Arizona’s harsh new immigration law) began to fight with a man who was for the controversial immigration bill.

Police tried escorting that man away from the scene, fearing for his safety, when they too came under attack by people throwing items, including water bottles.

And, yes, the police are under more than just rock and bottle attacks from protesters who want to prevent Arizona from keeping illegal immigrants outside their borders:

(CNSNews.com) – Law enforcement officials from the Arizona counties hardest hit by illegal immigration say they want U.S. troops to help secure the border, to prevent the deaths of more officers at the hands of criminals who enter the country illegally.

“We’ve had numerous officers that have been killed by illegal immigrants in Arizona,” Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said Monday at a Capitol Hill news conference. “And that shouldn’t happen one time.”

Babeu said the violence in Arizona has reached “epidemic proportions” and must be stopped. “In just one patrol area, we’ve had 64 pursuits — failure to yield for an officer — in one month,” Babeu said. “That’s out of control.”

I have seen a number of occasions in which a situation went way too far one way, which ultimately led to it swinging way too far the other way.  I believe that the Democrats under Obama have done that very thing on virtually every issue under the sun.  I would say the following: don’t act like a bunch of rabid leftwing extremists, and then cry when conservatives start acting like a bunch of rabid rightwing extremists.

3) Given the fact that the federal government – aided by a powerful special interest lobby, and aided even further by judicial activists who refuse to make a distinction between citizens and illegal immigrants – have refused to protect our borders, Arizona decided to do the job the federal government has refused to do.  That means that Arizona police officers are going to have to step up and do a tough job.

Being a police officer means making judgment calls, and balancing peoples’ rights with enforcing laws every single day.

Bottom line: if you think police can’t make a reasonable determination whether someone is here illegally, I hope you don’t think law enforcement can make any other reasonable judgments (such as whether I’m driving drunk), either.

4) Finally, if we just built the damn wall like Bush tried to do, we wouldn’t be in this stupid mess to begin with.  And the people who screamed about that wall have no right to complain with Arizona’s new policy now.  They BEGGED for the tough new Arizona law.

The shrill cry of the leftwing was that a border wall was identical to the Iron Curtain.  The only thing wrong with that is that it is beyond ignorant; the Iron Curtain was created to keep citizens from escaping to freedom; a border wall would protect out citizens by keeping illegal immigrants who have no right to be here out.

Liberals also cite the Posse Comitatus Act as preventing the powers of the federal government from using the military for law enforcement.  But that begs the question: just how is protecting our borders from foreign invasion “law enforcement”?  This is a clear situation in which our national security is at issue.  The soldiers on the border would not be arresting American citizens; they would be detaining foreign invaders.

The Chinese built the Great Wall of China to keep the Mongols out; and it worked.  And I’m just guessing that a people who put a man on the moon can build a damn wall that does the job.

Bottom line, I think the Arizona law probably ultimately goes too far.  But like I said, pro-illegal immigration forces DEMANDED a law that went too far by steadfastly refusing any form of reasonable policy.

There is no reason whatsoever that citizenship should not be checked along with identity and residence, under the same conditions and situations in which it is reasonable to ascertain identity and residence.  And if you are here illegally, your ass should be on the next bus out of the country – after serving jail time for violating our borders and breaking our laws.  And the wall that we build should make sure you don’t come back.

Checking citizenship (or immigration status) at every arrest, or at every reasonable situation in which police check for identity, would take away the “racist” profiling issues.

Because, yes, I’m just as ticked off at the illegal immigrant Canadian or Irishman as I am at the illegal immigrant Mexican.

At the same time, building a wall to protect what is yours should be familiar to any child who has ever walked down the sidewalks of his or her own neighborhood.  I’m not “racist” for building a wall; and it is frankly racist to suggest that I am.  It amounts to basic common sense.  And combined with a military patrol that would be able to identify and apprehend anyone climbing over that wall, it would make the issues surrounding “border enforcement” moot.

You can disrespect America’s borders as much as you want – so long as you remain on the other side of them.