Obama’s Election:

Little Jack Horner
Sat in the corner
Eating a Christmas Pie;
He put in his thumb,
And pulled out a plum,
And said, What a good boy am I

Little Barack Obama
Cursed by his mama’s drama
Given the Affirmative Action pie
He admired himself and learned to lie
He won the election plum
I can win, no matter how dumb

A Wartime President’s Confusion:

I’m the king of the castle,
Get down you dirty rascal.
I don’t care if there is a war
I’m so busy, and generals are a boor
I’ve won a Nobel Peace Prize
What’s war to me, but excuses and lies

Yankee Doodle

Yankee Doodle came to town
Riding on a pony
He stuck a father in his cap
And called it macaroni

Before the American Revolution, the British troops ridiculed the American colonials for their country ways and dress. The Americans had a habit of wearing a feather in their hats and their hair was often unruly. The British troops were required to keep their hair tied at the back in a small pony tail, this pony tail was referred to as macaroni and thus the British regular considered it far superior to an American’s typical hairstyle. Thus the song was written by British troops to embarrass the colonials with their rustic hairstyle and appearance.

At the Cornwallis surrender, the American band played Yankee Doodle while the British soldiers surrendered their rifles, in an effort to add insult to injury.

Barack Obama came to DC town
Riding a train like a foolish clown
Pretending he was Lincoln
Right then, I stopped believe’n

Ring Around The Rosie

Ring-a-round the rosies
A pocketful of posies
Ashes, Ashes
We all fall down

This was a game devised by children to make light of people dieing of the Black Plague, in the early 17th century, during the time while Shakespeare was putting on his plays in the Globe Theater. People who contracted the disease would fall ill suddenly, the first indication was an appearance of red rings with pustules in the center, the person would then become dizzy and walk in a circle and fall over dead. To combat the disease, people carried posies and ashes, if these failed, death at least came very quickly. The streets of London were littered with so many dead that special wagons were hired to haul away the bodies. Children will be children and the game is still played today, but without the ghoulish knowledge of the past.

Ring Around Rosie

Obama leads us on a fool’s game
Trust in me, George, he was so lame
I’ve got him to lay all the blame
With lemmings and fools I play, tis all the same

It’s ring around the Marxist
And you be racist if you resist
now we hold hands and sing Obama’s creed
And if you want to be rich or have a need
You can now be a Socialist indeed

Ring around the rosie
Ashes, ashes and we all fall down

Queen of Hearts:

The Queen of Hearts
She made some tarts
All on a summer’s day;
The knave of Hearts
He stole the tarts,
And took them clean away.

Queen of Hearts, Revised:

Our Queen of Hearts
Came to DC to get a head start
Her husband so wily and dull
Can rewrite history in minute detail
Especially if Bill Ayers ain’t in jail
Stand aside, let a woman throw the bull

Anyone who has read Thomas Sowell’s Black Rednecks and White Liberals, knows that Garofalo’s statement is either demonstrably false, or just plain racist.

Sowell, a fellow at The Hoover Institution and a prolific author (who happens to be black himself) actually documents the origins and evolution of the redneck culture. He makes the excellent, and unchallenged point that the inner-city culture celebrated by many blacks today is, in fact, derived directly from the redneck culture – which had its origins in England.

People migrating to America’s south from the largely fringe areas of England, the Scottish Highlands and Ireland brought with them certain cultural values: Proneness to violence, aversion to work, neglect of education, sexual promiscuity, improvidence, drunkenness, lack of entrepreneurship, lively music and dance, style of religious oratory, touchy pride, boastful self-dramatization and vanity. These traits describe what came to be known as the redneck culture, and the people who exhibited these traits were labeled rednecks or crackers.

During the civil war era, 90% of blacks in America lived in the south. They adopted many of the traits associated with this ‘redneck culture,’ which they then spread across America as they migrated after the civil war.  As Dr. Sowell so persuasively argues, these cultural differences were the actual basis of what we today label racism. Originally, what we now consider racism was an objection to cultural differences, not skin color.

Fast forward to the 1960’s. Along came the liberals. Social do-gooders who ushered in the welfare state and altered the criminal justice system to conform to their own version of social justice. This allowed many of these counter-productive cultural traits to flourish. Among both blacks and whites.

Many of the traits that are associated with the redneck culture have since died out in England, and many parts of the south. But many of the black Americans who chose to follow the media anointed spokespersons for blacks, Revs. $harpton and Jackson, have kept the redneck culture alive in many parts of America’s inner-cities and ghettos. They mistakenly believe they are celebrating their own African-American culture.

Anyone who dares object to these negative cultural traits is routinely accused of racism. Which is apparently a worse offense than allowing and fostering generations of blacks to adopt racism against all whites. (As author David Horowitz outlines so well in his book, Hating Whitey.)

So Janeane, for the sake of the social justice you so ardently advocate, I expect you should publicly apologize to all blacks for calling them rednecks. You were not just dissing conservatives, you were dissing millions of black Americans, many of whom were among the tea-party protestors. As this video clearly shows.

Three very public mea culpas should be sufficient. As atonement, we suggest you attend Hillsdale College for a full semester. Being one of the only two colleges in America that accept no federal funds, you will be exposed to courses on American History, the glories of Western Civilization and the value of capitalism. And a refreshing lack of liberal orthodoxy.

We won’t hold our breaths. Most conservatives remain grounded in facts and reality. The same  reality the left continually redefines to suit their own purposes. We know that as long as one is a vocal supporter of leftist ideology, no explanations, facts, or mea culpas are required. Almost makes me want to be a liberal.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which represented the imams, said the settlement is “a victory for civil rights.”

“The six imams are pleased,” Hooper said. “Their rights were maintained by the settlement.”

This is no victory for civil rights. These imams gave reasonable cause for alarm, based as much upon behavioral profiling as much as religious and ethnic profiling. The settlement sends a message that favors stupidity over safety:

That lawsuit has now been settled out of court for an undisclosed amount — which might serve the defendants’ short-term interests but carries a long-term price for air safety.

Consider what the pilot and police knew, or thought they knew, at the time: Passengers reported the men had been praying loudly in the terminal, chanting “Allah, Allah” and cursing U.S. policies in Iraq. Once on board, the men took separate seats in the cabin’s front, middle and back. Two imams asked for seat belt extenders, which include a heavy metal buckle that could be used as a weapon, but left them on the floor. The pilot was told that three of the men had one-way tickets. A passenger who spoke Arabic said one imam expressed fundamentalist views. All told, the imams’ actions appeared to be either intentionally provocative or clueless as to how others might perceive them in the aftermath of 9/11.

Yet, after a federal judge ruled in July that the defendants could be liable for civil damages and authorities lacked probable cause to detain the imams, the airline and airport operators settled the case last week, without admitting any wrongdoing.

While the settlement spared them the uncertainly and expense of a trial, it could have a chilling effect on the ability of airline crews and officials to protect passengers from a perceived threat. Pilots have to make quick, tough judgment calls: Take off with frightening suspicions unresolved or err on the side of caution. The only way to determine whether a real threat existed was to remove the clerics from the plane and investigate.

In this case, some of the initial suspicions proved unfounded. It turned out that the imams, who had been attending a religious conference in Minneapolis, didn’t have one-way tickets and hadn’t changed their seat assignments, as first thought. They denied making remarks about Saddam Hussein or U.S. involvement in Iraq. Even so, that was the information available to the captain when he had to make a “go/no go” decision. Airlines and airport authorities need flexibility to act in the interest of safety without worrying about being sued.

This case was especially troubling because the imams initially attempted to drag into their lawsuit an unknown number of passengers and airline employees who had raised concerns. They were dismissed as potential defendants just before Congress enacted a law to give immunity to people who report suspicious behavior.

Ethnic profiling is wrong and violates American values. “Flying while Muslim” is no more an offense than “driving while black,” the common complaint of African Americans pulled over without credible cause. In this case, though, it was primarily the imams’ behavior that led to their detention.

I would disagree that ethnic profiling is “the big evil” that it is made out to be. I think we’ve become overly sensitive on matters of race. There is a certain logic to racial, religious, and national profiling- to all types of profiling- that have nothing to do with racism, religious bigotry, or national prejudice.

If there were a terror cult whose immediate, recognizably identifiable trait was a love for wearing white t-shirts and an addiction to sporting Casio F91W watches, then it would make sense to pay attention to those wearing white t’s and Casio F91Ws. It doesn’t mean you believe every frikkin’ person on planet earth wearing white t-shirts and a particular brand of watch is part of the terror cult; you’d even concede that the majority of people wearing white T’s and those Casios are not terrorists. But they are a part of the list of traits you have every reason to be looking for in a member of the cult. It warrants further investigation.

I do however, agree with the conclusion of the article post:

It would be sad if this settlement prompted others to act out in hopes of cashing in. And it could be tragic if it prevented passengers from speaking up, or airline crews from acting, when they have reasonable suspicions.

And I also agree with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser:

countering Islamism and combating Islamist terrorism should be a greater public responsibility for the organized American Muslim community than the obsession with civil rights and victimization in which current Islamist organizations like CAIR engage, and says the credibility of the Muslim community suffers because groups such as CAIR, ISNA, and the North American Imams Federation deny the interplay between Islamism and terrorism

Case in point, Chris Good and his little diddy at The Atlantic, “It’s Not (overtly) About Race”.

Centerpiece to the headline, and content of his op-ed, is James Carville and Stanley Greenberg’s polling/strategy/research firm, Democracy Corps, and it’s 18 pg study, “The Very Separate World of Conservative Republicans: Why Republican Leaders will have Trouble Speaking to the Rest of America” released Oct 16th, 2009.

Here the disconnect between Good’s op-ed, and the actual content of the study begin. Good has chosen to focus on race and racism… and dances around the study’s finding that the discontent of “weak” partisans… Republican and Independents… appears to have nothing to do with race.

From the Carville groups research document:

Race: Get Over It

In the wake of Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst during the president’s joint session health care address and other strident personal and political attacks against President Obama, many in the media and Democratic circles advanced an explanation that this virulent opposition is rooted in racism and reactions to President Obama as an African American president. With this possibility in mind, we allowed for extended open ended discussion on Obama (including visuals of him speaking) among voters – older, non-college, white, and conservative – who were most race conscious and score highest on scales measuring racial prejudice.

Race was barely raised, certainly not what was bothering them about President Obama. In fact, some of these voters talked about feeling some pride at his election.

They were conscious of the charge that opposition to Obama is racially motivated and that bothered conservative Republicans and independents alike. They basically could not let it go and returned to this issue again and again throughout our conversations across myriad topics.

You can’t openly criticize Obama. If you do, you’ll be labeled as a racist.

Whatever we say about Obama, no matter what we say about him, it is a racial comment so you know, we can’t say anything, we personally do not like him. I don’t care if he is purple, but whatever we say we’re racist.

As far as a person goes, I don’t want to say I hate him. I don’t like what he stands for… and I don’t like what he is doing and the choices he is making, but I mean I don’t know him as a gentleman so… You would be called a racist. You would not like him because he is black. That is what the media is saying.

They see this as a personal rights issue because the racism charge is being used to prevent them from fulfilling their duty to stand up to Obama and his agenda. They see no difference in the opposition Obama faces and the opposition other liberals have faced, because they believe it is based in the same unwavering, bedrock conservative principles that have always led them to oppose liberal policies. The only factor that has changed is the race of the leader being criticized.

Indeed, in the summary introduction from a very liberal/progressive based firm, they discounted racism as the foundation for Obama discontent.

Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters’ beliefs – but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson’s incendiary comments at the president’s joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion – but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.

Bad juju for the devout community organizers, masquerading as reporters or journalists, in these times. To them, removing the ability to label opposition “racist” to advance their agenda is akin to sending a soldier out on the field armed with a water pistol.

So Chris Good leaps in on behalf of the O’faithful to start reinterpreting what staunch members of his own political bent have wrought. And he lays out his game plan in his headline by inserting the word, “overtly”.

This does not mean, conclusively, that racism is absent from anti-Obama politics. Asserting that’s the case means taking up a patently false assumption about racism: that it’s always overt. Democracy Corps’ report seems to walk that line, even if it doesn’t cross it.

Racism is about complex systems of recognition, categorization, and association. If you ask someone what they think about Obama, and they don’t say, “I dislike him because he’s black,” it’s not quite safe to check the “not racist” box and move on. Quiet conclusions are often made–and they can be just as racist as the ones spoken aloud.

So the fact that no one brought up race doesn’t necessarily force a conclusion on the matter.

Yowza… do you think Mr. Good is lobbying for a slot on the Norway Nobel Peace Prize committee? (i.e. “intent” and not “actions”) It’s not conclusive because racism isn’t always “overt”??

Or perhaps Mr. Good elevates himself to a more pious position as a deity, assuming that he… or others… can gaze into a soul and pronounce them “racists” despite any attitude or evidence to the contrary, merely because those feelings may not be “overt”.

Serious chutzpah. But even more laughable is the … if I may so say myself… *overt* desperation to backpeddle on a popular O’faithful weapon of words.

That’s all the time I intend to give to a perhaps-less-than-*overt*-potential-racist. But I will say the rest of the study conducted by Democracy Corps was downright interesting, tho not surprising.

I would anticipate the next twisting of results to center not in Good’s desperate attempt to resurrect racism, but to use it to cast the O’discontent as mildly conspiratorial…. an attempt that may prove difficult in light of Obama’s own track record (now that he *has* one).

Naturally, the first to jump on the “conspiracy” bandwagon is MSNBC

Yeah… what a surprise…. But now to the source of the spin. The study itself.

The study breaks the avenues of disagreement under “pillars”, “…driven by doubt and fear over his agenda and methods”:

Pillar #1 – Deception and a Hidden Agenda (pg 5 of 18)

Pillar #2 – Speed (pg 7 of 18)

Pillar #3 – Driving Government to the Brink and Total Control (pg 7 of 18)

Pillar #4 – The Ultimate Goal: Socialism and End to Liberties (pg 8 of 18)

Rather than place extensive blockquotes for each of these pillars, I urge you to read the study in full…. aka RTFA. But I will summarize, merely for discussion purposes.

Pillar #1 reveals these participants believe as Rush Limbaugh originally said… they are rooting for the failure to implement Obama’s policies because they do not believe them to be in the nation’s best interest. Most genuinely believe Obama’s own promise to “remake” America, and see his policies designed to thwart the very foundations of our country.

There is also distrust of Obama’s associations – which he has, in his own words, invited us to scrutinize. They are speaking specifically of those that have guided and directed Obama to the highest position in the nation.

The below, however, is a worthy quote from this “deception” pillar:

These conservative Republican base voters were not just shooting off half-cocked theories about conspiracies. They actively believe President Obama is purposely lying about his plans for the country and what his policies would do, and that he is exaggerating the threats America faces in order to create support for his policies. A key component to this deception is a pattern of always telling people what they want to hear, regardless of the truth.

Pillar #2 essentially substantiates Pillar #1… the speed with which Obama pressures Congress to push thru legislation in a willy nilly fashion, and sans debate and scrutiny not only in the chambers, but among the populus.

Pillar #3 is the belief that Obama’s accomplishments of the preceding pillars is the concerted effort to induce a greater reliance on government in all facets of our lives. Such dependence, accomplished by driving the country almost impossibly deep into debt, would result in the loss of liberties merely for economic survival. 92% believe Obama is a big spender, and only 17% believed he had good plans for the economy.

Key to the beliefs was the deep aversion to government control…. or as the study wanted to put it, fear of two things… government *and* control.

Fear of government control is at the heart of virtually all of the concerns raised by these voters about Obama’s agenda, and it is literally a fear of two things – government and control. They see government as inefficient, ineffective, and corrupt and believe it preys on the middle class and ‘hard-working Americans.’

~~~

Even more concerning than the waste and corruption of government for these voters is the inexorable movement of government toward controlling an ever increasing share of our economic marketplace, as well as our individual lives.

The beliefs of the first three pillars… an agenda of deception, the speed and secrecy of that agenda, an aversion to being controlled by an inefficient and wasteful government… bring the participants to Pillar #4 – the natural conclusion that ultimate government control will result in a socialized America.

They exhaustively cite examples of this strategy at work, starting with the bank bailouts, the takeovers of Chrysler and GM, and foreclosure assistance making homeowners dependent on government for their homes. Another example repeatedly raised by conservative Republicans that undoubtedly reflects the power of FOX News and conservative commentators among these voters was their concern over President Obama’s policy ‘czars’ wielding power over every issue with no accountability.

~~~

The final, and in many ways most important, piece of evidence they cite is the planned government takeover of health care. The notion that Obama’s health care reforms represent a government takeover of all aspects of health care is an article of faith; they reject as laughable the suggestion that it might not, pointing to his arguments to the contrary as further proof of his determination to lie and deceive to fulfill his ultimate agenda. Even after a description of the health care reform plan in our recent polling, these conservative Republican base voters reject it by a 59-point margin, with nearly two-thirds (64 percent) strongly opposed to reform (77 percent total opposed).

Also buried in Pillar #4 (pg 9) is notables about non-partisan independents expressing similar concerns as the Republican, such as the speed, the spending, and the lack of a clear plan on the economy and jobs. Some of the differences lie in beliefs that Obama would work in a bipartisan fashion, and see him as a strong (if not correct and defined) leader.

Guaranteed to bring liberal disdain is pg 11, where the participants state they believe they are better informed than most Americans.

Several of the women particularly talked about becoming a sort of truth police, spending a great deal of their personal time and energy watching FOX to get the real stories, then turning to CNN, MSNBC, and the networks to document their failure to cover the “real truth.” It was unclear what they did with this information once gathered, other than share it with others within this group.

When it came to the media, only Beck received adulation… most especially among the women. Limbaugh came in with mixed reviews:

Beyond FOX News in general, they have mixed feelings about conservative media figures, but they are grateful for talk radio as the only major outlet, other than FOX, where conservative voices can be heard. Rush Limbaugh, in particular, was greeted with mixed reviews. On the one hand, they recognize his role as a pioneer of sorts and view him as a principled conservative who is willing to speak his mind regardless of the consequences.

~~~

On the other hand, they believe his sensationalism and arrogance can obscure the power of the ideas he champions. They clearly embrace the message more than the messenger.

DOH! Someone better tell the liberals that Rush has lost his de facto “head of the Republican Party” to the Independent Glenn Beck… LOL

It’s also noted that the disappointment in the Republican Party is prevalent throughout the study.

Conservative Republicans in our groups could not have been more negative in discussing their own party. They see the Republican Party as ineffective and rudderless, controlled by a class of political professionals who have lost touch with not only the people but the conservative values that should guide them.

~~~

The disconnect these partisans see between the party leadership and the party faithful is at the root of their discontent. They have no intention of leaving the party per se – they still believe it is the best and only means of opposing Obama and the Democratic Congress – but they also have little confidence in its current direction or leadership, and there is an emotional distance that can be damaging.

Yes… one interesting study. And I have to applaud the heart of capitalism. I mean, someone actually paid for these guys to interview and write up viewpoints that anyone can read for free on any conservative blog… ahem, like Flopping Aces?

But I find it refreshing that Carville/Greenberg and their research finally led them to some truths… that this is *not* about race. It’s about questioning the less than honest and (dare I say it…) *overt* agenda, the speed of that agenda, the debt creating massive government dependence, and the lack of honesty about the end game.

And these are all legitimate issues that I believe most Americans have no qualms in discussing.

In the Age of Obama, racism has no place in America. Therefore, if a white girl wins a beauty pageant at a historically all-black university, it will be celebrated as a historic first; or, not made a big deal of at all, since she would have been judged upon the merits of her beauty, regardless of the color of her skin. As the previous pageant winner, Patrece Parson, expresses it, she was

‘very shocked’ at the judge’s choice of a white woman, adding: ‘We’ve never had one before’.

Hmmm….I wonder if she had the same “very shocked” reaction at the election of Barack Obama to the highest office in the land, as “we’ve never had one before” [i.e., a "black" president].

In Kinston North Carolina, in Barack’s America, comes news of the following:

Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department’s ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” – identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.

Ok, not only is this condescending toward black voters, not only is it politically partisan, but it is also absolutely a racist position and attitude for the Justice Department to hold. It’s an outrage! So if most black politicians happen to be in the Democratic Party, voters need to be made aware that the skin color of who they elect is important, as well as party affiliation? What about an individual candidate’s ideas and policy position?

It is a myth that the Republican Party has a greater history of racism. And given the race-baiting, race-profiteering, and racial identity politics that are perpetuated by the Democratic Party, I’d say the Democrats to this day are the ones with a prevalence of racist attitudes. And it is also based upon holding onto political power:

“it is a plain fact of American political life today that Democrats are completely dependent on black votes. The day African Americans stop casting 80 to 95 percent of their votes for Democrats is the day Democrats stop winning elections.”- Mona Charen, Do-Gooders

Whites can migrate from party to party; but blacks are required to register themselves on the Democrat plantation? And if an American town votes to do away with party affiliation in local elections, blacks are basically too dumb not to vote for the candidate who they can identify with ideologically and policy-wise? They have to know who is a Democrat? How condescendingly racist.

Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department’s decision “racial as well as partisan.”

“On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election,” he said. “That is un-American.”

The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.

In interviews in sleepy downtown Kinston – a place best known as a road sign on the way to the Carolina beaches – residents said partisan voting is largely unimportant because people are personally acquainted with their elected officials and are familiar with their views.

“To begin with, ‘nonpartisan elections’ is a misconceived and deceiving statement because even though no party affiliation shows up on a ballot form, candidates still adhere to certain ideologies and people understand that, and are going to identify with who they feel has their best interest at heart,” said William Cooke, president of the Kinston/Lenoir County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Mr. Cooke said his group does not take a position on this issue and would not disclose his personal stance, but expressed skepticism about the Justice Department’s involvement.

Others noted the absurdity of partisan elections since Kinston is essentially a one-party city anyway; no one among more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was able to recall a Republican winning office here.

Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on “what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction” and how it affects blacks’ ability to elect the candidates they favor.

“The determination of who is a ‘candidate of choice’ for any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a particular jurisdiction,” he said.

Critics on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are not so sure. “The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism,” said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. “There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates.”

So now instead of being “locked out because of racism”, they are being “locked in”, on account of racism and a desire on the part of Democrats to retain political power over “the black vote”.

Welcome to Barack’s post-racial America: An Obamanation, indeed.

Maybe they were right….racism still is a big problem:

A university student has provoked a race storm after she was crowned as the first white winner of a beauty pageant at a predominantly black university.

Nikole Churchill claimed she was subjected to racial abuse after she won the pageant at Hampton University in Virginia.

She was so outraged that she wrote to U.S. President Barack Obama complaining of her treatment, saying: ‘I feel as though you could relate to my situation’.

~~~

Hampton University is one of around 80 ‘black’ universities in the U.S., initially founded to promote diversity and education among minorities.

~~~

The five judges crowned her over the nine other contestants – all of whom were black. She was the first white woman to win the title at the university.

But the backlash began almost immediately, with some of the audience walking out of the auditorium as the announcement was made. In a traditional winners’ photograph, two of the black runners-up are seen scowling into the camera.

The next day Ms Churchill was heckled at a university football game. Previous winner Patrece Parson said she was ‘very shocked’ at the judge’s choice of a white woman, adding: ‘We’ve never had one before’.

Ya think the Sharpton’s and Jackson’s would of been in front of the nations camera’s if the roles had been reversed?

White’s walking out of a auditorium because a black woman won the contest…..oh boy, I could just hear the shrill cries of racism.

But no big deal when it’s a white person being the victim.

Racism exists and will exist until the human race is no more. But to deny, or minimize, the racism that occurs by some races, while over-emphasizing some others, does nothing to help get rid of the problem.

This is racism, plain and simple. And what do the blacks do at the college? Explain it away.

If this did take place in the U.S., I hope someone contacted Child Protective Services. There's nothing "cute" or "harmless" about this at all. Kids imitating adult behavior like this is one level of wrongness; adults actually encouraging the kids takes it to the next level of abuse and criminality.

Yadilsa Jesus:

So many parents complain about what kids are being taught in school but what about what they are learning with family members at parties?

And we express shock when children rape other children and engage in adult crimes.

Every adult present at this birthday party should have their parental rights revoked. Absolutely depraved and sickening....

Yeah, turns out she’s a fan of Chairman Mao….yep, that Chairman Mao.

Exit question: How can anyone be a fan of Chairman Mao…the guy who killed upwards of 70 million people?

h/t – Missy in the comments.

The David Letterman Show scored its highest ratings yet as he aired his sexual proclivities in public under the guise of apologizing to his wife for betraying her with a variety of casual sexual partners. Partners, who, by the way, could have lost their jobs on Letterman’s whim if they somehow displeased him. Or if Letterman ran out of Viagra.

Under the new rules implemented by self anointed elites, if a person is a celebrity, the normal rules of decent conduct are suspended. Unless, of course, the celebrity is a conservative. If only former Senator “wide stance” Craig was a Democrat, he’d have an honorary key to the White House intern’s restroom. And probably his own personal peephole to boot.

Instead, as a member of the left, Letterman is accorded membership in the most valued and largest growing group in America. He is now an official ‘victim.’ And shame on those little tarts who used him in order to advance their own careers or merely to scratch a transient sexual itch.

Letterman’s only sin appears to be his timing. He should have waited another week or so before stealing the headlines from pedophile rapist Roman Polanski. Whoppi Goldberg was right in the middle of convincing America that rape isn’t rape and Hollywood had already garnered over 100 celebrity signatures calling for his release before Letterman rudely shifted the national conversation to his own sexual peccadilloes. Poor Roman.

The groundswell of elite support in favor of excusing Polanski for drugging and raping a 13 year-old girl 30 years ago could very well have resulted in freeing Polanski. Now, the fickleness and short attention spans of elite leftists may mean that Polanski may actually have to face the consequences of his past actions, instead of just getting his own star on Warsaw’s ‘walk of fame.’ Life just isn’t fair.

Former Boy President Bill Clinton can attest to that. After all, even though he was re-elected President after he made his historic seminal deposit on intern Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress, he knows in his heart that the all the fuss was merely the result of a vast right wing conspiracy. The same right wing conspiracy that is now demanding that Roman Polanski be held accountable for the crime of which he was convicted. What meanies!

The vast right wing conspiracy just doesn’t get it. Sex, anywhere, anytime, and with anyone, is now defined as ‘empowerment.’ Parading naked through the streets of San Francisco as cops stand idly by is considered a right. A right exclusive to gay men, but a right, nonetheless.

Pesky conservatives are only showing their ignorance when they object to the public swapping of spit between two men, or the sexual harassment of sweet young things by powerful men. And dirty old men have the right to express themselves sexually and publicly, without censure. As long as they continue to parrot the leftist agenda, that is.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama’s advisors are currently suggesting that he engage in sex with a subordinate. After all, that would immediately shift the nation’s attention to the left’s favorite topic instead of focusing on why Obama is ignoring our young fighting men in Afghanistan. But maybe, just maybe, Obama is more scared of Michelle than he is of the vast right wing conspiracy and the Taliban. Ya think?

L-R: Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy, President Rev. Patrick Mahoney, of the Christian Defense Coalition and Father James Heyd hold a prayer service in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington. Today the high court will hear oral arguments in a case on involving the building of a memorial with a cross by the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in a remote area within what is now a federal preserve.
Mark Wilson-Getty Images

Is anyone really damaged by seeing the 10 Commandments displayed on a government building? Are any of you offended when you see a Christmas tree in a public square? When the White House hosts an Easter egg hunt each year, as well as iftar dinner and menorah lighting? Are your feelings hurt because we have national holidays that are Christian?

Why?

Religious expression is part of this nation’s history. The jihadist crusade of the ACLU and militant secular extremists is beyond reason in its successful attacks over the last several decades against public expression of Christian traditions and national heritage that has been a part of this country’s 200-plus year history.

Today, the Supreme Court began deliberations over the Mojave Desert Cross:

At issue was a cross that sits atop Sunrise Rock in a remote part of the Mojave National Preserve. Since 1934, the cross has existed, in one form or another, as a war memorial. Different court documents refer to it as 5 to 8 feet tall.

A decade ago, it came under legal attack from a former park service employee who, though a Catholic, thought it was inappropriate to favor one religion over another in the preserve. The National Park Service had turned down a request to have a Buddhist symbol erected nearby.

A federal judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the stand-alone display of the cross in the national preserve was unconstitutional and, further, Congress’ move to transfer it to the private VFW did not solve the problem.

The Obama administration, joining with the VFW, urged the high court to uphold the display of the cross now that it is in private hands.

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan said that the “sensible action by Congress” to give the VFW control of the cross and the land under it solved the 1st Amendment problem. The cross is no longer on government land and under government control, she said.

“It’s VFW’s choice” how to preserve it and maintain it now, she said.

Not all of the justices sounded convinced. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens noted that the Mojave cross was designated as a national memorial and that Congress said it must be preserved as a cross to honor America’s war dead. If not, the land and the cross would revert to government control, they said.

Eliasberg argued that the transfer was an obvious ploy to maintain the cross after it had been declared unconstitutional by a federal court.

He agreed that crosses in a national cemetery would not pose a constitutional problem because other religious symbols, such as a Star of David for Jewish soldiers, are included as well.

By the end of the hour, it was not clear what issue the justices would decide. They could decide whether the transfer of the cross to the VFW solved the legal problem. Or they could go further back and decide whether it was constitutional to erect the cross on public land.

Some lawyers thought the justices could focus on whether the original plaintiff, former park service employee Frank Buono, had legal standing to object to the cross. But that issue was hardly mentioned in the court Wednesday.

It will probably be several months before the court hands down a decision in the case of Salazar vs. Buono.

More here.

Who does this piece of art remind you of?

Would it surprise you to know that it currently hangs in the White House?

No, I wasn’t surprised either.

Frail and dignified at 88, the man leaned on his cane and smiled as the story of his immigration in 1936 flashed behind him on a museum wall. Like tens of thousands of others who managed to come to the United States from China during a 60-year period when the law singled them out for exclusion, the man, Tun Funn Hom, had entered as a “paper son,” with false identity papers that claimed his father was a native citizen.

For years, it was a shameful family secret. But Mr. Hom, a New York laundry worker who helped build battleships in World War II and put three children through college, outlived the stigma of an earlier era’s immigration fraud.

A narrow legalization program let him reclaim his true name in the 1950s. His life story is now on permanent display at the Museum of Chinese in America, which reopened last week at 215 Centre Street. And it illuminates an almost forgotten chapter in American history, one that historians say has new relevance in the current crackdown on illegal immigration.

“When we think about illegal immigration, we think about Mexican immigrants, whereas in fact illegal immigration cuts across all immigrant groups,” said Erika Lee, the author of “At America’s Gate: Chinese Immigration During the Exclusion Era, 1882-1943.”

We think about Mexican ILLEGAL immigrants in large part because we share a border with Mexico, a country who can’t provide stability and prosperity for a vast number of its citizens. Consequently, around 70% of the illegal immigrants are coming from our southern borders.

That said, there’s also this worrisome thing known as “Islamic terrorism”? It’d be nice if we could at least keep the Islamic crazies who enter this country down to at least the bare minimum of those who do so legally; is that too much, too unreasonable to ask for?

No, opposing illegal immigration has nothing to do with racism.

Long after exclusion laws were repealed by Congress in 1943, after China became a World War II ally, that vast power over noncitizens was deployed in raids against immigrants of various ethnic groups whose politics were considered suspect.

And rightly so. (The dangers of espionage and sabotage within our own borders by aliens and descendants of Axis nations was real- this includes but was not exclusive to, those of Japanese-American ancestry- read Michelle Malkin’s In Defense of Internment).

In the 1950s, Mr. Hom and his relatives, like many Chinese New Yorkers, suddenly faced the exposure of their false papers in just such an operation. The government was tipped off by an informer in Hong Kong as part of a cold war effort to stop illegal immigration.

“We were very scared,” said Mrs. Hom, who worked at the family’s laundry, first in the Bronx, then in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. “Everybody was very worried on account maybe they all be sent back to China.”

But in a government “confession program,” Mr. Hom and some of his relatives admitted their illegal entry; because Mr. Hom had served in the military, he received citizenship papers within months.

As someone who never made it to high school, he now beams over his children’s professional successes and his six multiethnic grandchildren. His son, Tom, is a dentist in Manhattan; his daughter Mary is a physician in the Syracuse area, and Dorothy, an interior designer, works with her husband, Michael Strauss, a principal with Vanguard Construction, which recently completed DBGB Kitchen and Bar, Daniel Boulud’s latest restaurant.

At a time when debates about immigration often include the claim that “my relatives came the legal way,” referring to a period when there were few restrictions on any immigrants except the Chinese, the Hom family has a different perspective.

“One’s status being legal or illegal, it’s two seconds apart at any point,” Dorothy said. “For some, the process is more difficult than others.”

It’s great that Mr. Hom served this country and became a productive member of our society, and not a dreg. However, his anecdotal should not be used as justification for opening our borders, making American citizenship devoid of meaning and value. For every Hom story, there is a counter-story of an illegal immigrant victimizing our society through rape, murder, and robbery. In my opinion, both anecdotal versions are marginal to the argument. (Those opposed to illegal immigrants in this country sometimes point to illegals who commit serious crimes, as though it means an epidemic of majority illegals committing rape, murder, and mayhem; however, it remains that legal residents and American citizens are just as capable of engaging in crime and patriotism as are illegals).

The fact remains that there should be a standard for achieving American citizenship status and it should be done through legal channels. We simply do not have the resources to take in the entire world, all at once. Such absorbtion would make it nigh impossible to achieve assimilation. That may make the multiculturalists scratch their heads and ask “so what?” But assimilation is absolutely essential to maintaining the values and traditions of our country and not have us dissolve into a land of many mini-nations.

Also, please consider the following:

the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonpartisan think tank, has found that the immigration wave is the primary reason poverty persists in the United States. Poverty among native-born Americans has shown consistent, linear decline since the 1960s. Were the country not accepting such large numbers of immigrants, American poverty might be nearly bested by now.

Subtract for immigrants, and the gap between native-born middle and wealthy Americans is shrinking, not widening. Most complaints about rising income inequality in the United States come from the political left, which would be utterly horrified if immigration were restricted. If open borders are to continue, then we must accept slower income gains in the middle.

Remember this one?

Creeped out yet?

It is 2009, and a black man has reached the most powerful position in this country. How does this fact change race relations in America? What is being done differently among both races in this country? Sadly, very little. Unfortunately race is still very much an issue in this country, but not in the way a liberal might think. Enter Congressman Hank Johnson and race bating Maxine Waters asking the media to investigate “birthers and the tea baggers” at rallies for their “racist views.” So now any opposition to Socialism and out of control spending is labeled racist by the libs.

One of the most fundamental right of a democracy is the right to criticize your leaders. And these attempt by the Democratic Party to eradicate this and make Obama unable to be criticized is a very dangerous concept at best. Taken to it’s logical conclusion, then the only politician or group of people open to criticism will be white men. And at that point, not only will free speech be threatened, but Democracy will also be in danger. The reason why liberals are okay with this is the same reason why liberals embraced Chavez and for the same reason they embraced Stalin in the 30’s and 40’s. They believe in socialism and care more about that then in free speech or the welfare of their country.

Most of the rest of America understands the danger in this course of action and will refuse to cower. Race relations thus, in the next three years, will go downhill. For you cannot have it both ways. You cannot expect to end racism and then practice it by reminding people of your race when it is politically convenient and expect a double standard to be accepted without resentment. You cannot claim to want to have a colorblind society when you refuse to be colorblind yourself. This also extrapolates to our culture at large, as affirmative action, the BET, and King’s vision are on opposite sides of the spectrum of this debate. Are there two sets of standards of justice? Absolutely, especially in the media. Notice the different coverage of the Philadelphia swim club and the Marshall attack at Firestone Stadium. Without a doubt there is white racism and that is reprehensible. But a failure to treat all racism by the same moral code will only ensure our society is never colorblind.

The truth is, there is no end game for the race peddlers like Sharpton and Jackson and their ilk in the NAACP, and that should lead to some troubling questions. For instance:

Should a ethnic group with who now holds the highest office in the country still need their own institutional racism in the name of their own network, magazine, month, and institutionalized reverse discrimination called affirmative action? And how does reverse discrimination help to heal the racial divide among this country? By their very nature, I believe these groups contribute to the very problem they claim they were created to prevent. When you start off by doing (discriminating, in this case against whites by affirmative action) what you claim to be opposing (discrimination) you do nothing to solve your problem in the long term. You can’t have it both ways, it is either bad to discriminate or it isn’t. This is the same logic that makes liberals more outraged when a white guy beats up a black then when a black kills a black. This is the same logic that allows N.O.W. to march for the rights to kill babies and for gay rights but stays silent on actual abuses in the Muslim world. This is the same logic that allows liberals to march to support a relatively minor event (Jena) when their own young are being killed by the tens of thousands every year in our inner cities. Which event hurts the black community more? But that is black on black, so Sharpton does not care. It only matters if race plays a part, for there are no political points to gain on black on black crimes. And this my friends, is why liberals never fix anything and often are more destructive then any white bigot to the black community. They won’t confront any real problem that violates their simple, politically correct view of the world.

Race peddlers like Sharpton are silent on the issues of the death of the black family, the devaluation of education in the urban community, and the negative influence of gang culture. Sure, racism exists and it is a problem, but it is not just race guys. Racism was a lot worse decades ago and blacks were not killing each other by the thousands and they most likely had a dad in their family. And they were not incarcerated at the present rate. And don’t talk about slavery, because that was a lot closer to the age of slavery and again, the black on black killings, and the incarceration was a lot lower and more families had fathers. But don’t look for Sharpton to say much on that subject. Until the groups like the NAACP find the courage to fight the root causes of the plight of urban community, the current start of the black family is unlikely to get any better.

The double standard of race will, in the end, not only fail to fix the problem, but in the end will hurt blacks as it will weaken the term as many whites will tire of the race card being played when it is politically convenient. Freeman is right. The obsession with black and white are obstacles to overcoming racism. Obviously there are levels, and not all actions are equal, as Black history month is nowhere near morally equivalent to the destructive actions by some of the racists in the KKK, but I still believe it divides America nevertheless. For the simple truth is that if you stop calling a black person black, he suddenly becomes a person. And as long as either side is allowed to discriminate freely, as long as the standard of right and wrong is influenced on both sides by the color of the skin, it just sows the seeds of hate for a different generation. Dr. King had it right. People should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. This is the only thing that will end racism. And for both sides it remains a dream.

Banda Aceh, Indonesia – Adulterers can be stoned to death and homosexuality is punishable by steep prison terms under a new law passed unanimously in Indonesia’s devoutly Muslim province of Aceh on Monday.

Aceh’s regional parliament adopted the bill despite strong objections from human rights groups and the province’s deputy governor, who said the legislation needed more careful consideration because it imposed a new form of capital punishment.

The chairman of the 69-seat house asked whether the bill could be passed into law and members answered in unison: “Yes, it can.” [I wonder what that was inspired from?- wordsmith] Some members of the moderate Democrat Party had voiced reservations, but none of them voted against the bill.

The law, which reinforces the province’s already strict Islamic laws, is to take effect within 30 days. Its passage comes two weeks before a new assembly led by the moderate Aceh Party is to be sworn in after the defeat of conservative Muslim parties in local elections.

Aceh, where Islam first arrived in Indonesia from Saudi Arabia centuries ago, enjoys some autonomy from the central government.

A long-running Islamic insurgency in the province ended in 2005, after the Indian Ocean tsunami in December 2004 killed more than 100,000 people there. [A message from Allah, perhaps?- wordsmith]

A version of Islamic law, or Sharia, introduced in Aceh in 2001 bans gambling and alcohol, and makes it compulsory for women to wear head scarves. Dozens of public canings have been carried out by police against those who violate the law.

The majority of Indonesia’s Muslims practice a moderate form of the faith, and surveys suggest they do not support such hard-line interpretations of the Koran, the Muslim holy book.

The new Indonesian law also imposes tough sentences and fines, to be paid in gold, for rape and pedophilia, but the most hotly disputed focus was on adultery. The law states that offending married couples can be punished by a minimum of 100 lashings and a maximum of stoning to death. [Note to Clinton, Edwards, and Sanford: Vacation elsewhere. - wordsmith]

It also imposes severe prison terms for other behavior considered morally unacceptable, including homosexuality, which will be punishable by public lashings and more than eight years in prison.

Aceh Vice Gov. Muhammad Nazar said that even though his office opposed the clause on stoning to death, it had no legal power to block the legislation.

“Whatever law is passed we have to enforce it,” he said.

I love my country. I love being an American. God bless the USA!