I told you so.
Part of Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America is to not only marginalize the white race, but now it’s clear that he means to make whitey pay.
I wrote about it here
The Tea Party is a threat to national security, the GOP is a threat, the NRA is a threat, returning vets are a threat. And every one of them is racist. Just ask Eric Holder and Barack Obama. Thus it is critical to be sure they lose their voices in the electoral process in this country. Barack Obama will have then made good on his promise to fundamentally change the US.
and here.
Tom Perez is a liar. His view is that whites are not entitled to the same Constitutional protections as other races. His goals are to import millions of latinos, share your prosperity with them and marginalize the white race in this country. This is all part of the Obama Fundamental Transformation of the United States of America.
Obama is flooding the country with illegal aliens and blocking their deportation. Since 9-11, Muslim immigration has exploded. The FBI can’t keep up. Illegals are killing Americans routinely and we can’t get rid of them.
Now Obama plots to make the lives of Caucasians in America miserable.
Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.
This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.
Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online.
This information will serve as the fuel for endless litigation against white people in the US:
Count on a flood of private lawsuits to piggyback federal discrimination claims, as civil-rights lawyers use the new federal discipline data in their legal strategies against the supposedly racist US school system.
Even if no one has complained about discrimination, even if there is no other evidence of racism, the numbers themselves will “prove” that things are unfair.
Such databases have never before existed. Obama is presiding over the largest consolidation of personal data in US history. He is creating a diversity police state where government race cops and civil-rights lawyers will micromanage demographic outcomes in virtually every aspect of society.
The first black president, quite brilliantly, has built a quasi-reparations infrastructure perpetually fed by racial data that will outlast his administration.
Obama plainly said that he intended to “fundamentally transform” the United States. Without question it his goal to reduce Caucasians to a minority and sharply diminish their influence while wringing from them every bit of cash possible and elevating the presence of Islam in America. Allen West:
“This is my clear and succinct message to white Americans. How long will it be before ‘you people’ realize you have elevated someone to the office of president who abjectly despises you – not to mention his henchman Holder. Combined they are the most vile and disgusting racists – not you.”
See author page
Greg just described the process whereby someone is judged by their peers and then denies its judgement
Still waiting on that Marxist comparison
Considering your last it ought to be hilarious
“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That’s going to be very, very powerful. That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They’re going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can’t get around it. And he’s [President Obama] been very smart. It’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.” – REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA)
@Matt, #151:
The job of a jury is to determine whether the evidence and arguments presented during the trial support a finding that the defendant broke the law. Based on their conclusion, or verdict, a judgement on the defendant is made by the judge. What that person is called pretty much explains what that person does.
@Greg: That’s not correct Greg.
Are you saying that if the jury concludes he is ‘not guilty’ that the judge can still impose a sentence on him? I think not. Also, if defendant is guilty, the judge can’t find a ‘not guilty’ verdict. He can set aside the sentence and free him, but that’s not a ‘judgement’ it’s just a sentence. Now I can see why liberals don’t believe in ‘laws’.
Well Greg heres definition,
Gonna parse words with the dictionary now?
judg·ment
ˈjəjmənt/Submit
noun
noun: judgement
1.
the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.
“an error of judgment”
synonyms: discernment, acumen, shrewdness, astuteness, sense, common sense, perception, perspicacity, percipience, acuity, discrimination, reckoning, wisdom, wit, judiciousness, prudence, canniness, sharpness, sharp-wittedness, powers of reasoning, reason, logic; More
an opinion or conclusion.
“they make subjective judgments about children’s skills”
synonyms: assessment, evaluation, appraisal; More
a decision of a court or judge.
“the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal”
synonyms: verdict, decision, adjudication, ruling, pronouncement, decree, finding; sentence
“a court judgment”
@Redteam, #154:
He or she most certainly can. While a judge cannot overrule a jury’s acquittal, he or she can throw out a jury’s guilty verdict.
@Greg: Do you think repeating what I said makes you look brilliant? I said:
and then you repeated that.
@Redteam:
Greggie Goebbels is just parsing words. He thinks if he says “judgement” using different words, it changes the meaning. He is like every other progressive. He thinks he is so much smarter than everyone else he can change the meaning of word by how he explains the meaning of the word.
You know, like it all depends on what the meaning of IS is.
You know he’s a clown. I know he’s a clown. The fact that he’s a clown is only a secret Greggie doesn’t know.
@retire05: Maybe he’s trying to make the word ‘clown’ mean something different. But he won’t, he’ll still be just a ‘clown’.
@Redteam, #157:
Apparently I need to repeat it again: While a judge cannot overrule a jury’s acquittal, he or she can throw out a jury’s guilty verdict. That would be the opposite of what you stated. And correct, rather than incorrect.
@Greg:
Stop trying to weasel out of the fact that juries make judgments on other people every day of the week.
You’re still an idiot.
@Redteam: 154, I guess I need to step you thru this one letter at a time. 1+1= 2
anyhow, in 154 I said:
That sentence says, in English, that if a jury says the defendent is not guilty then the judge can not impose a sentence on him. Then I said:
This says, in plain English, that if a jury finds the defendent guilty, then the judge can not judge him to be ‘not guilty’, but he can set aside the verdict and not impose a sentence.
I tried to make that simple enough for a first grader, but if you need help, let us know. I’m not confident at all that you can interpret this.
@Greg: @Greg:
Where you’re wrong is: he or she can not ‘throw out the guilty verdict. They can set it aside or give the defendent no sentence, but that’s not a judgment, that’s a sentence. The jury makes the judgment. Even if he does ‘throw it out’ they have still made a judgment. So whether the court accepts the judgment of the jury has nothing to do with whether they made a ‘judgment’ or not.
and 2+2=4
I think you two need to round up a third stooge to complete your act.
@Redteam, #163:
That’s not going to work either.
A judge CAN issue a judgement of acquittal, even after the jury has delivered a guilty verdict. An acquittal IS a finding that the defendant is not guilty. That’s precisely what “acquittal” means. It means “not guilty.”
@Greg:
No he can’t. He can direct a verdict of Not Guilty, but that’s not a judgment. Only a political move.
but he’s not judged by the judge to be ‘not guilty’, it’s only a direct verdict. The jury decides the judgement if one is made. the judge can direct a verdict, but not a judgment (of course we’re talking about jury trials) I assume you know that but with you it’s not safe to ‘assume’.
We already found you.
@Greg:this got duplicated somehow
What a judge can issue—even overruling a jury’s prior guilty verdict—is a judgement of acquittal. The word “judgement” is actually part of the proper legal term for such a ruling. It would normally follow a motion for a judgement of acquittal filed by the defense, which can be made at any time before the judge has made the formal judgement of the court.
Judges judge. Not juries. Juries reach verdicts.
@Greg: .
and you make stupid statements.
@retire05: Nice to see involvement with childs education lest you get a detroit education
Hm… I feel as though data collection is a good thing. You can’t change what you can’t measure. If we had no data on schools, credit, mortgages and so forth, how would we know what’s working and what’s not?
The Tea Party, NRA and sections of the GOP have their ideological trappings just like any political affiliate. What is troubling is their stonewalling of any kind of social progress, and a belief the America is better off like it has been, with a normative, conservative power structure.
Maybe there isn’t a war on white America. Maybe there has been a war on women, gays and people of color for so long that national culture finally starting to right the ship.
Let’s look at ONE stat alone. Look at every Presidential Election since 1776 until 2012. If you look at every ballot through that time that listed a presidential and vice presidential candidate with the opportunity to assume leadership of the country, how many times did a person of color have that opportunity? TWICE (2). Obama in 2008 and 2012. How many times did a woman have the chance? ONCE (1). Sarah Palin in 2008.
How many times has a white, cisgender, able-bodied, heterosexual male had the opportunity to assume leadership as the president or vice president?
324
324 : 2 : 1
You’re right, there must be a war on white America. Yep, that’s what it is… White America is totally right, and Obama has lost sight of history. Clearly white men in America are the only sane, capable people to lead. We should stop entertaining the idea that minorities and women have the right to do anything. Forget those centuries of oppression because none of that created a shift in power dynamics in the US that lasted for generations of folks? Forget income inequality and that women get paid 78% what men in the same position get paid. No no no no… Blacks and women just need to open their eyes and understand that they’re just not as smart and don’t work as hard.
And sure, us whites have always been able to determine the fate of whether someone gets a job, a home, into the right schools and so forth… but that’s how it should be. Blacks have never actually been able to alter the fate of white America because they have no power–and for good reason. They’re not that capable and they’re lazy, am I right?? Obama is racist, bottom line. Most black people are racist actually, I’ve found. Never mind that racisim=power+privilege, and therefore if blacks hold no privileged identities and no systemic or institutional power across a normative white mainstream society, then they by definition cannot be racist… NEVER MIND all of that… I’m just going to call them racist because I don’t understand how my white identity shapes the way I interact with and navigate through the world. I’m ignorant to the fact that I’m ignorant of my identity; aka I’m not self-aware and it makes me happy.
Great article!!! 🙂