Posts Tagged ‘professor’

‘I Can’t Take My Midterms, I Wanna Go Cry And Whine And Riot.’ The Dark Side Of The BUTTHURT Is Strong In These Liberal Padawan

November 11, 2016

It is Veterans Day, and decent Americans are honoring veterans who have protected their freedom.

But the problem is, too many liberals are NOT decent Americans and frankly aren’t even Americans at all.  So they are out rioting and burning the flag because they have no regard for democracy whatsoever and if these fascists don’t get their way, they riot.

We can put our reality into Star Wars-terms now: it’s the light side of the force against the dark side; the dark side being characterized by anger and hate and rage.  “The dark side of the force is strong in them.”  Only in this case the “force” is the toxic power of BUTTHURT.

We are vividly seeing which side is characterized by the dark side of the force today.

Take a look at two pictures which vividly display the pathologically hypocritical mutual self-contradiction that is liberalism:

trump-protest-riot

trump-protest-riot2

The people who say, “We’re the loving, tolerant folks” are in actual point-of-fact the HATEFUL, INTOLERANT folks.  And we’ve seen this all along: from the first moments where Democrat mobs began physically attacking Trump supporters to the discovery that a man who worked for Hillary’s campaign and who had visited the Obama White House nearly 400 times was orchestrating violence as a political tactic, to the despicable vicious political-racist attack by two black men against a white Trump voter while a mocking crowd yelled “You voted for Trump?  You gonna pay for that sh*t!” to now as we watch butthut liberals embrace the violence that they’ve actually been embracing ALL ALONG.

There is no question whatsoever which side is ACTUALLY the dark side, the side of hate and anger and rabid racist anti-democratic values.

Hey, I remember the feeling: back when Obama was elected in 2008 – and Obama was EVERY FREAKING BIT as absolutely unacceptable to me and to those who believed like me as Trump is to Democrats now – how I and my fellow Republicans started violent riots across America and…

Oh, wait.  NO WE DIDN’T.

Because unlike liberals, we are not pathologically rabid, vile, butthurt fascists.

But not so the left.

Portland, Oregon is only one of the many cities across America in flames as thousands of Democrats burn and destroy in “protest” of the United States and its Constitution and its free elections.  Los Angeles, Oakland, New York, it’s all over the place this fascist disease otherwise known as liberal progressivism.  How in the world will they get their “boot stamping on a human face, forever” future if people won’t VOTE for it? they whine.  And so they riot.

So we’ve got liberal puke professors excusing liberal puke college students from taking the midterms because they’re too whiny after Trump popped the bubble of their shallow world.

Cornell University staged a “cry-in” for their students because being a liberal means being a mentally-fragile, unhinged, pathetic little puke.

Other universities brought in therapy dogs because Democrat students are broken by reality.

Do you realize how pathetic these people are?

Oh, and they call for people to DIE.  A Hillary supporter told CNN this as she joined her fellow rioters against our entire democratic system:

“There will be casualties on both sides. There will be, because people have to die to make a change in this world.”

Just take a moment and imagine if Hillary Clinton had been elected and you had statements galore coming out from Trump supporters like that.  We would have been depicted by the mainstream media as people who needed to be mowed down with tanks by the thousands and crushed and killed.  But how is the media framing this?  You can’t say it’s ALL Democrats!  And how DARE you try to lay the blame on Hillary or Obama and liberals the way we would have surely lain the blame on Trump and conservatives.

And the hypocrite formulation for “racism” is beyond amazing.

These horrible, awful Democrats who regularly and ROUTINELY encourage blacks and Hispanics to vote as a race from a racial perspective on behalf of their race are so hypocrite BUTTHURT that white people would do the SAME DAMN THING they’ve done for thirty years that it’s unreal.

It’s wonderful that black people vote like black people and Hispanic people vote like Hispanic people because they vote for the part that worships the State.  But for white people to vote like white people?  That is as close to absolute EVIL as you can get!  Because to be a liberal is to be THE worst species of hypocrite who ever existed.

Even Michael Moore understands this where – just like Chris Matthews in a MSNBC panel I reported election night – Michael Moore was actually the sole voice of reason on an insane network:

Filmmaker Michael Moore pushed back today against the notion that Americans who voted for Donald Trump did so based on racism.

Moore, who warned fellow liberals that Trump was going to win the election, said Trump voters were motivated by economic pain and lost jobs more than anything else.

“You have to accept that millions of people who voted for Barack Obama – some of them once, some of them twice – changed their minds this time. They’re not racists. They twice voted for a man whose middle name is Hussein. That’s the America we live in,” said Moore, explaining that younger white voters turned out in record numbers for Barack Obama.

“But if you put people through another eight years [where] there’s no middle-class jobs, they’re struggling to get by, the basic things like the price of a box of cereal doubles … these are the things that are important to people because they’re living from paycheck to paycheck,” he said on MSNBC this morning.

These liberal college pukes in particular get in other people’s faces and decry their “white privilege.”  To the extent that the polls weren’t so damn wrong because liberals administered the polls and liberals are pathologically dishonest vermin, the polls were wrong because these little Nazis had so intimidated voters that they were afraid to say who they were going to vote for.  And the amazing thing about it is NOBODY IS MORE PRIVILEGED ON EARTH THAN THESE PAMPERED LITTLE BUTTHURT FASCIST COLLEGE PUKES.

As the cry-ins and the therapy dogs and the cancelled- and take-home midterms over Trump’s win proves.

We’ve got massive riots where people are literally protesting because they can’t understand why anyone other than them should get to vote for who leads this country.  They are burning cars because the American people elected Donald Trump.  They are smashing the windows of small businesses because the American people elected Donald Trump.  They are throwing bricks at police because the American people elected Donald Trump.  They are burning the American flag because the American people elected Donald Trump.

They want our system destroyed.  They want our Constitution destroyed.  They want our way of life destroyed.

And they don’t give a flying DAMN about democracy or the will of the people.

These are Democrats.  Which is another way of saying that these are the very lowest form of slime this country has.

I pointed out before the election that there are only one group that is employing violence as a political tactic.  And guess what?  It’s the same damn Democrats who are employing violence as a political tactic now.

Just imagine the damn headlines if Hillary had won and there was ONE protest by Trump supporters that turned even a LITTLE violent!!!  The papers would have breathlessly characterized it as a white, racist, misogynist KKK Nazi movement.  Remember the Tea Party that got viciously slandered and demonized by the media that never was responsible for one single act of violence but it didn’t even MATTER to the “journalists” making up lies?  And so of course it’s the same Democrat media covering the violence of their fellow fascist Democrats, so nothing to see here, folks!

 

Advertisements

Liberal Elitists Believe American People Need Their Wisdom; But THEY’RE The Stupid Ones

October 22, 2010

What is modern liberalism, a.k.a. progressivism?

It is the mindset that the unwashed masses are too stupid to govern themselves, and therefore need a nanny state to take care of them.

Given that understanding, it turns out that there is a nexus between Democrat Party liberals, liberal intellectuals and mainstream media liberals.  It is the idea that “They need us.  They need our superior understanding.  They need us to tell them what to think.”

That attitude has one serious flaw, however.

These people are even dumber in their own way than the very unwashed ignorant masses they seek to manipulate.  And whenever the culture becomes ignorant enough, or uncertain enough, that it begins to follow liberals, watch out; because the disaster of “dumb and dumber” is right around the corner.

Ronald Reagan put it best when he said, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”

Progressives are people who “know” all sorts of things about American history that simply aren’t true.  They “know” all sorts of things about our Constitution that simply aren’t true. They “know” all sorts of things about our economy that simply aren’t true.

From Flopping Aces:

Allegedly unintelligent Republicans make fools of Democrats
Posted by: DrJohn @ 11:35 am

It’s been quite the 24 hours.

Liberals just love trying to beat up on Sarah Palin. They repeatedly question her intelligence. And she just wipes the poop off the floor with them.

Mark Hemingway had a glorious article at the Washington Examiner and I am posting the whole thing:

So the Los Angeles Times reported on a recent Sarah Palin event:

Seeking to channel the sign-bearing, flag-waving enthusiasm of the “tea party” movement into ballot-box victories, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told hundreds of supporters Monday they couldn’t “party like it’s 1773″ until Washington was flooded with like-minded conservatives.

Immediately, Palin’s critics leapt into action. Here’s The Daily Kos himself on Twitter:

Sarah Palin to supporters: “Don’t party like it’s 1773 yet”. is.gd/g7rRb…. She’s so smart.

And here’s PBS’s Gwen Ifill, moderator of presidential debates, also on Twitter:

Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! ummm,

Blogger Cuffy Meigs rounds up all kinds of similar “HAHAHAHAHA! She’s so stupid!” reactions to Palin’s reference to 1773. So what did happen in 1773? Oh, right.

That, ummm, would be the Boston Tea Party.

Moulitsas and Ifill were in such an orgasm to insult Palin they stuck their feet not only into their mouths but up where the Sun doesn’t shine as well. Idiots.

Nicely done, Sarah.

Then there’s Christine O’Donnell and her debate with Chris Coons:

WILMINGTON, Del.—Republican Christine O’Donnell challenged her Democratic rival Tuesday to show where the Constitution requires separation of church and state, drawing swift criticism from her opponent, laughter from her law school audience and a quick defense from prominent conservatives.

“Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” O’Donnell asked while Democrat Chris Coons, an attorney, sat a few feet away.

Coons responded that O’Donnell’s question “reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. … The First Amendment establishes a separation.”

But O’Donnell probed again.

She interrupted to say, “The First Amendment does? … So you’re telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase ’separation of church and state,’ is in the First Amendment?”

That’s pretty clear. And as any Constitutional scholar should know, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. O’Donnell was right, yet Ben Evans, the author of the piece, characterized the exchange as another controversy to “befall” O’Donnell.

Why is being right something that “befalls” someone? Because she’s a Republican?

Point, O’Donnell.

Then Coons tried again to school O’Donnell.

“He noted again the First Amendment’s ban on establishment of religion” reported Evans.

(There is no ban on the establishment of religion in the Constitution.)

O’DONNELL: “Let me just clarify, you’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

COONS: “‘Government shall make no establishment of religion’”

O’DONNELL: “That’s in the First Amendment?”

It’s not.

For the record, the First Amendment says:

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Point, O’Donnell.

Then a local law school professor chimed in:

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said, “She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise.”

This is something I despise about both academicians and reporters. Liberal bias.

It’s pretty obvious that O’Donnell was being literal and it’s painfully clear that she was right on both counts. O’Donnell was surprised that Coons, Daly, Evans and the rest of the smug twits in the audience could actually believe that the phrase “separation of church and state” resides in the Constitution and that the Constitution bans the establishment of religion.

Entirely unreported by Evans was O’Donnell’s challenge to Coons:

O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.

Game, set, match- O’Donnell.

Another report of the debate went this way:

Ms. O’Donnell likened Mr. Coons’s position on evolution to those of “our so-called leaders in Washington” who have rejected the “indispensible principles of our founding.”

When Mr. Coons interjected that “one of those indispensible principles is the separation of church and state,” Ms. O’Donnell demanded, “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”

The audience exploded in laughter

One would have to say that an awful lot of law students overpaid for their education and that some law professors are overpaid.

George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool.  And Thomas Sowell has pointed out that the record of 20th century intellectuals – precisely the period when liberals began to decide that only they properly qualified as “intellectuals” – was especially appalling in this regard.

Whenever a liberal talks – and frankly most of all when that liberal is an “intellectual” – you should listen very closely to whatever he or she says, and then believe the exact opposite.

The foolishness of liberals is literally biblical:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools — Romans 1:22

For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth — Romans 1:18

You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right — Psalm 52:3

But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2

In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God — 2 Corinthians 4:4

Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths — 2 Tim 4:3-4

.

 

 

Obama In The ‘We Don’t Mind ‘Cause You Don’t Matter’ Sub-50% Polling Range

July 25, 2009

One of the most readily understandable political calculus equations is the presidential poll: as long as a president is above 50% in the polls, he continues to hold a majority; but if he falls below 50%, he becomes increasingly irrelevant.  The nation is no longer behind him.  The lower he gets under 50, the more irrelevant he becomes.

Six months into the Obama presidency, Americans are already starting to say, “You see, Barry, it’s all a question of mind over matter.  We no longer mind because you no longer matter.”

For what it’s worth, the first time President Bush dipped below 50% according to Rasmussen was February 2004.  So Barry has to have set some kind of record for “sucking speed.”

Democrats and liberals feasted on George Bush like a herd of swine feasting on a trough full of carrots.  And in the case of the Barack Obama presidency, suppertime is coming very, very early.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Friday, July 24, 2009

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 30% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8 (see trends).

Just 25% believe that the economic stimulus package has helped the economy.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter.

Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Today marks the first time his overall approval rating has ever fallen below 50% among Likely Voters nationwide. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Democrats continue to approve of the President’s performance while 80% of Republicans disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 37% offer a positive assessment. The President earns approval from 51% of women and 47% of men.

These updates are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. Most of the interviews for today’s update were completed before the President’s nationally televised press conference on Wednesday night. The first update based entirely upon interviews conducted after the press conference will be released on Sunday.

Zogby has Barry Hussein at 48%.

Now, the last paragraph of the article becomes interesting because this means the poll does not take into account Obama’s truly suck performance at his July 22 press conference or the subsequent flap over his racially biased and frankly incredibly stupid comment about the Cambridge police “acting stupidly” in arresting an emotionally out-of-control African-American Studies professor.

So the easy money is betting that Sunday we’re going to see Obama down even more.  And then more.

Hot Air has a couple of insightful paragraphs describing the poll’s nuances on just why Obama is starting to poll as badly as he is:

It marks the first time that Obama has gone underwater since he started his remarkable run for the presidency in early 2007.  Undoubtedly, voters have now put the responsibility for the economy squarely on Obama’s shoulders after six months of worsening indicators.  The steep decline in support for his health-care bill represents in part a lack of confidence in his ability to deliver after the failure of the massive stimulus package, which he promised would put America back to work.

Even the Democratic gender gap has mostly been wiped out for Obama.  Although crosstabs are not available on daily tracking reports, Rasmussen’s poll shows an approval rating of 51% among women, just two points above the overall average.  If Obama had hoped to maintain the traditional Democratic inroads with women with his focus on health care, that appears to have backfired, as the survey on that issue earlier in the week showed women opposing it by a 50%-46% edge, with men more clearly in opposition at 53%-44%.  Why? Pluralities among both genders believe that their personal coverage will get worse under ObamaCare.

Unemployment is at 9.5% – and is expected to rise to 10% and beyond by the end of the year.  That sure isn’t going to help Obama become “Mr. Popular.”  And if that isn’t bad enough for him – and for the country he’s misleading – a new employment forecast by Obama’s own Federal Reserve foresees high unemployment numbers for at least the next five years.

But wait, as they say: there’s more.  Respected Wall Street analyst Meredith Whitney predicts that unemployment will rise to 13% or higher.  She’s the analyst with the nickname, “The woman who called Wall Street’s meltdown,” so right now I’m giving her more credibility than Obama’s people who said that if their stimulus passed unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8%.

And there’s yet even more.  We don’t calculate unemployment the way we used to.  We used to calculate unemployment based on the number of people who would like to have a full time job but don’t have one.  Bill Clinton changed the way unemployment was tabulated.  But if this were in the 1980s, we would be reading about 16.5% unemployment.  And if THAT number doesn’t frighten you enough, how about the possibility of 20% by the end of the year?

Remember all the talk about Barack Obama being compared to FDR?

Time_Obama-cover

Now we’ll get to celebrate Obama-as-FDR right – with Great Depression levels of unemployment, which will likely lead us into another Great Depression.  The first FDR didn’t fare so well with the first Great Depression; and I think the second FDR will do an even lousier job.

It will be fun watching Barry “ride the slide” to political hell.

It won’t be so much fun watching the Late Great U.S.A. sliding into economic hell right along with him.

Who ‘Acted Stupidly’? The Cop, The Professor, Or The President?

July 24, 2009

We have a situation in which a police officer placed a man who turned out to be a Harvard professor of African-American Studies under arrest for disorderly conduct.  And then we have a situation in which the President of the United States of America decides to directly involve himself in his role as Racial-Arbiter-in-Chief.

The best place to begin is with the facts.  A neighbor saw two men attempting to force their way into a home that had already sustained an attempted break-in previously that week.  The police arrived.

And then, from excerpts of the police report (the full actual report is available in PDF format here):

On Thursday July 16, 2009, Henry Gates, Jr. – -, of Ware Street, Cambridge, MA) was placed under arrest at Ware Street, after being observed exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place, directed at a uniformed police officer who was present investigating a report of a crime in progress. These actions on the behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed.

When I arrived at Ware Street I radioed ECC and asked that they have the caller meet me at the front door to this residence. I was told that the caller was already outside. As I was getting this information, I climbed the porch stairs toward the front door. As I reached the door, a female voice called out to me. I looked in the direction of the voice and observed a white female, later identified {} who was standing on the sidewalk in front of the residence, held a wireless telephone in her hand arid told me that it was she who called. She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of• Ware Street. She told me that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry. Since I was the only police officer on location and had my back to the front door as I spoke with her, I asked that she wait for other responding officers while I investigated further.

As I turned and faced the door, I could see an older black male standing in the foyer of {} Ware Street. I made this observation through the glass paned front door. As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would step out onto the porch and speak with me. He replied “no I will not”. He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was “Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police” and that I was “investigating a report of a break in progress” at the residence. While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed “why, because I’m a black man in America?”.   I then asked Gates if there was anyone else in the residence. While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer. I assured Gates that I was responding to a citizen’s call to the Cambridge Police and that the caller was outside as we spoke. Gates seemed to ignore me and picked up a cordless telephone and dialed an unknown telephone number. As he did so, I radioed on channel I that I was off in the residence with someone who appeared to be a resident but very uncooperative. I then overheard Gates asking the person on the other end of his telephone call to “get the chief’ and “what’s the chiefs name?’.   Gates was telling the person on the other end of the call that he was dealing with a racist police officer in his home.  Gates then turned to me and told me that I had no idea who I was “messing” with and that I had not heard the last of it.  While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me.  I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card. Upon learning that Gates was affiliated with Harvard, I radioed and requested the presence of the Harvard University Police.

With the Harvard University identification in hand, I radioed my findings to ECC on channel two and prepared to leave. Gates again asked for my name which I began to provide. Gates began to yell over my spoken words by accusing me of being a racist police officer and leveling threats that he wasn’t someone to mess with. At some point during this exchange, I became aware that Off. Carlos Figueroa was standing behind me. When Gates asked a third time for my name, I explained to him that I had provided it at his request two separate times. Gates continued to yell at me. I told Gates that I was leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak with him outside of the residence.

As I began walking through the foyer toward the front door, I could hear Gates again demanding my name. I again told Gates that I would speak with him outside. My reason for wanting to leave the residence was that Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics of the kitchen and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit pertinent information to ECC or other responding units. His reply was “ya, I’ll speak with your mama outside”. When I left the residence, I noted that there were several Cambridge and Harvard University police officers assembled on the sidewalk in front of the residence. Additionally, the caller, Ms. Walen and at least seven unidentified passers-by were looking in the direction of Gates, who had followed me outside of the residence.

As I descended the stairs to the sidewalk, Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him. Due to the tumultuous manner Gates had exhibited in his residence as well as his continued tumultuous behavior outside the residence, in view of the public, I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly. Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell, which drew the attention of both the police officers and citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed by Gates’s outburst. For a second time I warned Gates to calm down while I withdrew my department issued handcuffs from their carrying case. Gates again ignored my warning and continued to yell at me. It was at this time that I informed Gates that he was under arrest. I then stepped up the stairs, onto the porch and attempted to place handcuffs on Gates. Gates initially resisted my attempt to handcuff him, yelling that he was “disabled” and would fall without his cane. After the handcuffs were property applied, Gates complained that they were too tight. I ordered Off. Ivey, who was among the responding officers, to handcuff Gates with his arms in front of him for his comfort while I secured a cane for Gates from within the residence. I then asked Gates if he would like an officer to take possession of his house key and secure his front door, which he left wide open. Gates told me that the door was unsecurable due to a previous break attempt at the residence. Shortly thereafter, a Harvard University maintenance person arrived on scene and appeared familiar with Gates. I asked Gates if he was comfortable with this Harvard University maintenance person securing his residence. He told me that he was.

And then there’s the President of the United States, feeling the need to directly involve himself in a report of a break-in and a disorderly conduct arrest:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Recently, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I — I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.

I don’t know all the facts. What’s been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place.

So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into — well, I guess this is my house now, so — (laughter) — it probably wouldn’t happen.

(Chuckling.) But let’s say my old house in Chicago — (laughter) — here I’d get shot. (Laughter.) But so far, so good. They’re — they’re — they’re reporting. The police are doing what they should. There’s a call. They go investigate. What happens?

My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I’m sure there’s some exchange of words. But my understanding is — is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.

Now, I’ve — I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.

And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportion ately. That’s just a fact.

As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.

That doesn’t lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that’s been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us.

And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and oftentime for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that’s why I think the more that we’re working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we’re eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody’s going to be.

We find out in addition that the police officer, Sgt. James Crowley, actually teaches courses on racial profiling at Lowell Police Acadamy, and has been teaching the course there for five years.  We find out that Sgt. Crowley receives no pay for teaching the class, and that he drives from Cambridge to Middlesex Community College in Lowell.  And we find out that he is an incredibly well-respected police officer.

Okay.  So here’s your test: WHO was “acting stupidly”?

For the record, it is black men like Henry Louis Gates who make the charge “racist” utterly meaningless to me.  Because the only way I could be any more racist than Gates is if I went to weekly meetings wearing a white robe and a pointy hat.

Personally, I have to give a tie to Professor Henry Louis Gates and President Barack Obama.  Gates is clearly an arrogant hard-core racist jerk who deserved to be seriously beaten with a baton, let alone arrested.  And Barack Obama is clearly an arrogant, hard-core fool who should have kept his stupid mouth shut rather than join Gates in throwing around charges of racism.

Mouthing off to police officers is a bad idea, and Henry Louis Gates officially disqualified himself from the roles of reasonable and intelligent people for having so remarkably mouthed off with so little provocation.  And Harvard University is clearly an inferior academic institution for having such pathetic, angry, bitter, nasty, racist psychos on its payroll as “faculty.”

I am a law-abiding citizen, yet I have had several similar encounters with the police.  On one occasion, I was ordered off my motorcycle (back when I had one), and ordered to interlock my fingers behind my neck and drop to my knees on the side of a highway.  I hadn’t mouthed off in any way, or given any cause to believe that I was a threat when the black police officer gave me the order.  And the officer’s tone had been, “Do it now or I will shoot you.”  He inspected me for weapons and inspected my bags, before clearing me to stand up.  When I asked why he had treated me this way, the officer curtly answered, “You matched the general description of a robbery suspect.”  No, “Gee, I’m really sorry.  It must have been kind of embarrassing kneeling on the side of the road with your arms over your head like that and all them cars driving by.”

I thought the officer was a complete jerk.  But it never even occurred to me to think that this black authority figure was a racist out to get even with whitey.  Primarily because I’d already had three earlier unfortunate wrong-place-wrong-time situations with rude police officers who were white.  Once I’d been loudly cursed at by a police officer who was manning a perimeter check point when I tried to tell him I’d just seen the man they were probably looking for and noted the direction he was running.  Another time I was ordered out of my car at literal gunpoint out in the desert.  I had gone out there to walk my Rottweiler, and the officer was treating the situation as a possible stolen car incident.

It’s partially because police officers are always potentially about to be shot at, and partially because law enforcement just too often attracts men and women who get off exercising authority, that civilians often feel like they are being treated rudely.

In the particular case of Sgt. James Crowley and Professor Henry Louis Gates, it seems clear to me that Crowley was in the former category of “potentially about to be shot at,” while Gates was in the latter category of “get off exercising authority.”

Blacks often talk about racism being about an unequal power relationship.  Well, the racists in this particular situation are the powerful men in society: a privileged Harvard University professor, and a President of the United States.  And the victim of racism is an honest, blue collar working man.

How dare you accuse such a man of racism, Professor Gates?  How dare you, President Obama?  You were the two men who acted stupidly, and you are the two men who should feel ashamed of yourselves.

Is Barack Obama a racist? As far as I’m concerned, he’s now got three strikes.  Strike one was belonging to a thoroughly racist church under Jeremiah Wright for 23 years.  Strike two was his appointment of a “wise Latina judge” who had imposed a racist ruling penalizing white firefighters just for being white.  And strike three is standing up for a racist bigot like Gates – who apparently becomes the next thoroughly racist extremist bigot Obama would no more disown than his own white grandmother – and associating Sgt. Crowley with racism and racial profiling when he didn’t know the facts of the case by his own admission is strike three.

It’s not the police officer who should be defending himself against allegations of racism.  It’s Henry Louis Gates.  And it’s Barack Obama.  Obama should be asked every single day, “How dare you defend the kind of racist behavior your good friend Henry Gates exhibited toward that poor white police officer who was just trying to do his job?”