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.
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.”
@Pete: and Pete, you have to say this to someone that would gladly say that “all lives matter”.. even tho they clearly don’t believe it.
Allied with those who hate blacks? Perhaps you should speak with the black parents of the infant I spent the last 2 weeks trying to save, and whom I stayed with, prayed with, and cried together with when she just died.
In my 25 years in the army, I was privileged to work with amazing people of all races, and nobody was worried about the color of anyone’s skin, only the green of their uniform, and the red of the blood spilled in service to our country.
When I see accomplished men like Clarence Thomas, Allen West, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain, and Dr. Ben Carson, or women like Condoleezza Rice, it is not the melanin content of their skin that makes them admirable, but their strength of character and the accomplishments of their lives. I do not have to agree with everything these folks believe, but I would hope you agree they are to be respected and admired for the thoughtfulness of their positions, and their contributions to our nation.
Opposition to Obama’s policies has nothing to do with his skin color, and everything to do with his ideology. If it were not so, then how do you explain the very same opposition to Hillary, Reid, and Pelosi, who espouse the same ideology as Obama?
I came from a lower middle class family. My parents divorced. There was no money for me to go to college, and I had no athletic ability to earn scholarships. I am not sure how enlisting as an infantry private, then working for an ROTC scholarship, and serving as a cavalry officer before going to medical school paid for by serving for years as an army doctor equates to “white privilege”. I also have no idea to what statements from Perry or Paul you are referring as a justification for your “white privilege” claims.
What I see, from a historical standpoint, is how democrat-enacted policies have engendered government dependency in far too many Americans of all skin colors. What I see, from watching my own children go through the public education system, is a distict dumbing down of educational requirements, and an alarming trend of pushing collectivist ideology as positive, while negatively portraying any sense of individualism. I see schools focused on teaching WHAT to think, rather than HOW to think. I see a condemnation of the ideals that made the US the greatest nation on earth, replaced with a narrow-minded, ideologically warped characterization seemingly designed to divide and balkanize our nation to foment fighting along racial lines.
This is certainly not the path that MLK, flawed as he was (and who among us isn’t), supported in his “I Have A Dream” speech. Does racism exist? Certainly, as demonstrated by the vicious, evil thug, Dylan Roof. But the idea that someone is successful because of “white privilege” is, as I said before, just as racist as saying that a black person is only successful because of affirmative action.
One should treat others with dignity based on their HUMANITY and their behavior, not the color of their skin, which frankly is as stupid as harboring animosity towards someone based on their blood type, or their eye color.
Finally, classifying opposition to Obama’s harmful leftist policies as due to his skin color is a sign of intellectual weakness or dishonesty, given the same exact opposition to these same policies when perpetrated by white leftists. Or to look at it another way, how is it rational to claim that opposition to Obama’s policies is racist, but opposition to Justice Thomas’ rulings by the left is not?
Roe vs. Wade established a woman’s Constitutionally protected right to choose 42 years ago. How long does it take people to accept that?
SCOTUS also ruled in 1857 (Dred Scott) that escaped slaves had to be returned to their slave owners.
And in Plessy vs Ferguson, circa 1896, SCOTUS said that it was constitutional to keep blacks segregated from whites in separate schools.
Using your leftist logic, once SCOTUS declares something, citizens should just shut up and except the ruling, regardless of the moral implications, right?
@Pete:So many statements that are so true. The ‘dumbing down’ of children in public schools is one of the aims of the socialists. They want to actively promote dependence on the government so that they can control them. The unfortunate thing is that people elect people to serve in Congress, then those elected people immediately forget what they were elected to do and set about serving themselves.
I grew very alarmed with regard to my children’s education when I discovered they were not using textbooks for the majority of their classes, but were given short lessons on a couple of sheets of paper that generally amounted to 5 minutes of useless busy work, but did not allow the concepts to take hold. I became very actively involved in making sure my kids learned historical truths when my high school aged son came home with the despicable Zinn’s “People’s History of the United States” assigned as his text for US History class.
Just as antebellum slave owners made it illegal to teach blacks to read, knowing that it is easier to control the ignorant uneducated than someone with a mind influenced by knowledge, the modern left prefers keeping the masses incapable of rational, critical thought but totally distracted by emotional ‘feelgoodism’. It is so much easier to feed the masses ridiculous propaganda when they have such desultory analytical capabilities. How else to get people to willingly hand over more and more of their freedoms, than to strangle cognition in favor of pathos at the earliest stage of mental development, thus making it easier to believe 2+2=5?
What, exactly, IS that Constitutional right, Greg?
Planned Parenthood could be up-front and above-board and up-front with the taxpayer dollars utilized in their enterprise by having separate clinics for the abortion mills and for other services. But, they don’t do that. And, as you yourself show, sorting out tax dollars to go to this specific purpose or that is impossible, so how is it possible for Planned Parenthood to assure that, all under one roof, sharing the same electricity, gas and telephone, NO tax dollars make their way into the abortions operations? It isn’t. Tax dollars are used to fund abortions (while Planned Parenthood makes millions in profits) in violation of the law.
Good points, Bill.
1/4 of PP’s income is US tax dollars.
What I find egregious is that women might come in a few days after they’ve missed their 1st period, sure they are pregnant and wanting an abortion.
These women might be at three, four or maybe five weeks when they come to PP for their procedure.
At that point a D&C could do the trick but no viable body parts would be developed yet.
So, PP uses every ploy to keep the woman hanging until she reaches that 17 week mark where the parts are most useful for sale.
17 weeks is 4 and 1/4 months!
PP stalls these mothers for months just so they can make a sale afterward.
And they are doing it on our dime since all their money is fungible.
@Greg: Does that equate to the right of PP to sell unborn baby parts for profit??
Pete, you need to become involved in what text books, learning materials and “extra” learning materials are being used in your local public schools. Texas has a list of history books approved by the SBOE and Zinn’s book is not one of them. So, let’s say you are in Texas and you find a local high school is using an unapproved text book in Social Studies, here is what you can do:
you can take it before your locally elected school board and insist that they immediately remove the SBOE unapproved book and instruct the teacher that no material from that book can be used. If the school board refuses, you can file a complaint with the SBOE, who are also elected. You have great influence when it comes to ISDs that use non-approved text books.
Where you don’t have influence, and where the SBOE has failed, is in the area of “extra” learning material that is chosen by teachers. SBOE rules require that all extra learning materials are to be approved by the local school board, but many times the local school board fails in that duty and materials, that most parents would find objective, slip by unnoticed.
Prior to the start of any semester, you, as a parent, and taxpayer, has the right to request ALL learning material that will be used in your child’s upcoming class. If you object to the learning material, i.e. Zinn’s text book, the school district is required to provide your child with an alternative that you are allowed to review PRIOR to the alternative being given to your child. You can also request that your child not be present during the time when the objectionable text book is being used, nor be tested on the material from that text book.
Another thing; you, and other parents, can form a committee that examines all text books to be used in the class room prior to the school district making that purchase. Since those text books are approved by the school board, they have a list of proposed purchases. Get the book first. If it is objectionable, demand the purchase not be made.
Get a list from the Tx SBOE of all text books that are approved by the SBOE. You have a SBOE representative that was elected for your district. Work with them.
I protested the use of “extra” learning material that was used in a high school freshman class for Geography. The book contained written pornography (and the voyeurism of an 8 year old) and I went through all 3 Grievance Levels. In the end, the school board voted to keep the material in the class. Now parents know not to allow their child to take that class. So many kids were pulled out of the class that it has now been discontinued.
Social Studies seems to be the worst offender. Many of the teachers in Texas have come from liberal universities and they are passing that liberalism on to their students. But you have rights as a parent to object to any material used in a class room by a) having that material removed or b) insisting that your child be placed in another class that doesn’t use that material.
Also, and especially when it comes to Social Studies, request a syllabus PRIOR to the beginning of the semester. Some teachers will try to drag their feet telling you they don’t have one yet, but they are required to provide a syllabus to the principal, to be turned over to the ISD superintendent, prior to the start of school. Anything on that syllabus you object to (like the use of Zinn’s book) you can exempt your child from.
Of course, all of this applies only if you have a child in a Texas public school.
I would have thought you would have looked into that.
The relevant statement can be found in the 14th Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
It follows that a state cannot dictate that a woman will continue an unwanted pregnancy and give birth. It’s her body, her most personal business, and her private decision. The state may not deprive a woman of sovereign control over her own body.
While that is pretty loose and broad to apply to human life (regardless of when you define it beginning), but it would pretty definitely apply to someone that simply chooses not to serve someone else, FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY MIGHT CHOOSE. Right?
No law can abridge the privilege to decide who to bake a cake for or for what event and would not affect any immunities from prosecution for any such refusal.
Or, does this only cut one way?
The cake didn’t matter. What mattered was the precedent that it could set, and what could follow if it had gone unchallenged. It could get us back to “WHITE ONLY” signs in places of business. A business owner can deny service to individuals. A business owner can’t deny service to individuals as representatives of groups based soley on race, color, creed, or sexual orientation. That was what the business owners in question clearly stated they were doing.
A state that makes a law designed to justify such group discrimination will likely have a problem with the same part of the 14th Amendment.
@Greg: Yet, if a person has a religious objection to providing a service to a particular event, do they not get the same rights accorded as someone that has a religious (or any other, actually) objection to serving, even in a non-lethal capacity, in the military?
There is no such law… ANYWHERE. Yet, currently, the LGBT crowd harasses, threatens, sues and ruins those who have such objections. It would appear, in some cases (as they suit you) you agree with their view.
That idea has home only in that vast void that resides between your ears.
So you envision thousands of businesses with signs in their windows that say “Heterosexuals Only.” I would be interested in your concept on how a business owner would know someone is gay? Obviously you think that they can be identified on sight. So tell us, what does a gay person look like?
A business owner has a right to refuse to participate in any activity they think violates their religious beliefs. Having to bake a cake that would require delivery and set up, is demanding that the bakers participate in that event.
What the baker should have done was say “Well, we’ll bake a cake that looks like a wedding cake, but we won’t deliver it, we won’t set it up and we won’t put two women on top of it and you will be billed for a tiered layer cake.”
The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa have a right to their religious beliefs as guaranteed by the First Amendment. There is no guaranteed right in the Constitution to be gay or to demand the services of others.
If your religious beliefs turn you into a bigot, perhaps you should more closely examine your religious beliefs. Jesus had no problem sitting down to eat with the guests at Levi’s banquet.
If you think that one group has the right to violate the First Amendment rights of another group, then you need to find a government more to your liking; perhaps North Korea or Russia.
He ate with them in a social setting, he wasn’t forced to cater the meal and he didn’t sleep with them.
“I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
Jesus considered them sinners.
Odd that you, a leftist, would want to drag Jesus into the debate since the crowd at the last DNC convention wanted all references to God removed from their platform.
Still waiting for you to tell me how a business owner would know a customer was gay. Surely, you have an answer for that, or are your running away from your own words again?
Yes, you’re an idiot.
Jesus would probably run present-day republicans out of the temple.
Interesting point in light of the facts, Greg.
A Democrat convention shouts down TWO Democrats seeking the nomination for President of the USA.
And for what?
For saying ALL lives matter.
Only black lives seem to be important to O’Malley’s and Sanders’ so-called constituents.
And, lest we forget, Hillary said the exact same thing in an AMC Church not more than one month ago.
Have all three apologized for their lack of racism? Have all three apologized for their crime of being whites?
In a ”Pride” event non-gay cross dressers and ”trannys” are being banned because their non-gay status offends the gay cross dressers and “trannys”
Whose inclusive now?
OTOH, when conservatives include gays, blacks, Hispanics, women, and all the rest what does the Left do? It attacks those people as ”self-hating.”
Liberals are the most racist and hateful of any of the ideologies in America today.
Liberals use the race/wealth card every chance they get because that’s the way their minds work and how they justify creating unequal treatment of our citizens IE
Taxes are paid unequally with one group paying the brunt and the low end actually getting more than they pay into them
Where women get preferential court treatment w free legal follow ups on divorce child support… But men if the woman refuses visitation has to hire his own attorney
Just to name a few
If you really don’t believe that listen to any liberal political speech and when they say right wing/conservative/tea party or wealthy just substitute Jew and then see who they sound like
That says it all
I apologize for not being more clear. I discovered the use of the Zinn garbage history book when I was stationed in Washington. I insisted my son be allowed to use “A Patriot’s History of the US” instead, and surprisingly, the high school teacher allowed it. I have not, thankfully, had any other children given Zinn’s class warfare propaganda trash for their history classes, especially not since moving back home to Texas.
So she can pay for her own private decision with her own money, rather than coercing payment via tax dollars from those whose 1st Amendment protected religious beliefs consider abortion to be murder.
So you think Jesus would be on the side that supports the killing of babies in their mother’s womb, the forced redistribution of wealth and the normalization of sodomy?
You are delusional.
Parents in Texas, more than any other state I think, stay on top of the materials used in the class rooms. Every now and then some rogue teacher goes off and does something stupid, but then that teacher’s job is short lived.
I am currently working with a member of the SBOE, and a State Rep, to pass legislation requiring all parents be sent syllabuses at least two weeks before school starts. This is an easy thing to do; the teacher presents the syllabus to the Superintendent’s office and the staff send them out to the parents. Yeah, it will make them work (school district staffer jobs are notoriously low work load) but that is what they are paid for.
Our own school district claims it doesn’t utilize Common Core (not allowed in Texas public schools) but the ISD web site links to the Khan Academy which is joined at the hip with Common Core. Bill Gates, who supports Common Core, gives lots and lots of money to the Khan Academy.
Frankly, if my kids were school age, I would home school now.
It’s interesting that you think Jesus would take a side. My imperfect understanding is that it’s the place of human beings to either hear what he’s saying or not.
You show how little you really know. Christ took many sides. But one of them was NOT supporting providing for the poor by removing the wealth of others at the point of a Roman sword (i.e. the redistribution of wealth)
Which means what? More psychobabble on your part?
What do you know of Jesus’ standards?
When he saw a group of men about to stone a woman to death for adultery he stood up against her would-be executioners.
Do you really think he’s stand still for people murdering babies still in their mothers’ wombs?
What crime had they committed?
No crime at all.
good points Retire05.
Jesus poured out Holy Spirit on Paul, anointing him to become the 12th Apostle.
Paul wrote to the congregation at Thessalonica this:
@Greg: What about the right to the life of the baby? Can a state make a law saying it’s ok to kill your babies if you don’t want them? What age does that start?
Whoa….. you mean only black lives that are over 9 months old. Those with harvestable body parts only matter for profit….
@Nanny G, #128:
I think the context is Paul admonishing the first members of the church in Thessalonia not to mooch off the community that they’re attempting to spread the message to. It’s not a proclamation that the poor should not be fed unless they work to earn their meal.
@Greg: It was/is an admonition for ALL Christians not to expect to be able to mooch off of anyone and be accepted in their congregations.
It is really sad when people claim to be Christians then ignore what their own Apostles told them.
The only widows who were to be given charity (according to the Apostles) were older, with no family and incapable of making on their own, especially to be NOT given charity (by the congregation) were younger widows who could make it on their own and/or re-marry.
No you don’t. You emote. You are just like any other far left progressive. You have no use for religion unless you can twist it to suit your own agenda.
You noticed, I’m sure, that Scriptures talk about idleness. How long do you think people would remain idle if their welfare was cut off? If they had to really starve and not just leech off productive citizens? Studies have proven that people find work once they run out of unemployment benefits. Any job is better than no job. Any money coming in is better than no money.
You’re very quick to condemn others for living off the efforts of others. What happened to Judge not, lest ye be judged? You complain vehemently about the poor being subsidized. I wonder how long you would remain idle if your Social Security were cut? That would be the height of injustice. What about people who live off their investments? They’re living off the work of others. Money doesn’t “work for you.” Money doesn’t actually work at all. What about Christ’s admonishment about how difficult it is for the rich to enter heaven? How does that square with the worship of money?
I find few things more distasteful that some self-righteous prig pronouncing judgement on others.
Here Greg goes again
Social Security yep we all have the option to opt out right, nope we all mandatorily have to contribute and since when you retire it’s a fixed income then every time some president starts printing money it devalues the dollar making everything more expensive
See anyone on the left complaining about how their stealing the value of retirees incomes?
You gonna be the first Greg?
Investments are risk capital which means that money you have worked for is being risked not some fictitious fairy money
And as far as living off the fruits of others labor remember it was the investment which created their job in the first place
Money doesn’t work for you?
Money doesn’t work at all?
WTF does that mean
Judge lest ye be judged another BS comparison
Judging doesn’t come into more like getting the monkey off the taxpayers back
Everyone knows if you pay someone to sit on their butt they will continue to sit on their butt
That’s why statistically people start to look for work two weeks before their unemployment runs out
That’s not judgement that’s reality
Also your referring to a Muslim phrase not a parable by Jesus when referring to your rich comment
If you look historically at rich people they generally make huge legacy contributions to charities causes and institutions they deem worthy before and after their deaths
What the left can’t stand is that they can’t buy votes with that money
Your the self righteous one Gregor taking offense at the reality you don’t want to acknowledge as you vilify the productive people and ennoble those that make bad life decisions as you judge those that have been successful as being evil or greedy
The biggest greed I see that causes more grief is political greed
@Matt: Greg is a hopeless liberal. He thinks the government ‘gives’ people Social Security. I fully paid for every cent I get from SS. I paid the maximum every year from 1954 thru 2002. Had that money been invested at a normal rate, I would never run out of a return on investment. But libs think the government ‘gives’ me that. But I think most rich libs take full advantage of all tax breaks, same as Repubs.
Of course they take the tax breaks
Nobody said they were stupid
Liberals just assume their constituents are
@Greg: if someone is “idle” and living off of taxpayer funded subsistence, that’s sort or a reality; not a judgement.
Obviously, your comprehension of Biblical doctrine is weak and uninformed. To use your “judge not, lest ye be judged” would prevent anyone from sitting on a jury that most certainly requires one to judge another..
Scriptures tell us not to be idle. Being idle (lazy) goes against Christ’s teachings. Yet you have no problem contributing to the idleness of others (with other people’s money, of course) which is no different than driving the get-away car for a bank robber. Contributing to the laziness of others is the same as contributing to any other thing they do that is not acceptable. If it is wrong to facilitate a person’s ability to steal, why is it not wrong to facilitate a person’s ability to be lazy?
You, once again, and as you have before, compare Social Security, a system that a worker is required to pay into for future use, to welfare where the recipient does not pay into that system. Apples and oranges that you cannot seem to understand.
If my Social Security was cut tomorrow, so what? It would only mean that once again, the federal government confiscated my earnings. Because, stupid Greggie, I paid for that Social Security. And will have to live a long, long time before I ever break even.
Wrong. Because to be able to invest money into any business or endeavor, you first have to earn it. It is then taxed when you earn it. I.e. I give you my already taxed earnings to invest (buy into) a business you are starting. I am letting you use my money and you have to pay it back, with interest. As long as I continue to let you use my money (in the form of shares of your business) hopefully you continue to pay the interest on my lending you that money (the dividends you will pay me). You are totally clueless about anything having to do with Economics.
Money is nothing more than a tool. Just like a chain saw is a tool. You cannot have firewood if you don’t use a tool to obtain it. Not unless you are a beaver, then you don’t need firewood. Money works for a person just like a chain saw works for a person. You are trying to personalize an inanimate object.
Difficult, not impossible. There is a difference that liberals like you cannot comprehend.
You’re an idiot.
The duty a jury member performs is not the sort of judging that was being spoken of. What is being cautioned against is presuming to judge another human being as God would judge.
You should think about this. You seem to focus on passing judgement concerning the value or worthiness of others far more than considering the meaning of what they’re saying.
@retire05: I can not understand why liberals think Social Security/Medicare is ‘welfare’. I guess it is just inbred into their genes. (another one of those gene deficiencies that libs like to blame for all kinds of things.)
Do you understand that the Social Security benefit computation involves a weighted formula intended to provide a greater degree of income security to lower-income workers?
So again if someone decides to piss his check away drinking beer and donating to liberals all of us who saved or worked extra hours have to pay more money so they can have a better existence but, we get to have a worse one
Sounds again like the productive end up being sharecroppers for the boss govt and their legion of entitled
I can see how Donald Trump remains in the spotlight.
Donald’s a liberal it’s what they crave
@Greg: What? are you implying that some people are on welfare, that they are being supported by taxpayers? Perish the thought.
Really? And that little caveat about not being applicable when called on to judge the criminality of another person’s actions can be found where in Scriptures?
You want to rephrase that since what you said (above) makes no sense. Who is saying what? Are you saying that you cannot determine worthiness in what a person says or are you saying that pool people say things that do not determine their worthiness? Clear, concise English is your friend.
No one has the right to the labor of others. I do not have the right to demand you labor for me to benefit me and be a detriment you. You hold the Marxist view that income should be redistributed equally, no matter the amount of labor.
What kind of soap do you use to remove the slime you exude?
Marxism in full view.
Hey Greg though you would deny it why don’t you list the differences between a liberal and a Marxist
Be specific and remember us conservatives have actually looked into what Marx wrote
So c’mon Greg let’s hear your insightfullness in demonstrating your not a communist
If it were about that sort of judging, no one could sit on a jury and reach a conclusion without disregarding the admonition.
A jury isn’t supposed to pass judgement on a person. A jury is supposed to evaluate the evidence and decide whether it supports the conclusion that a person is guilty of violating the law in question. Good people can be guilty. Bad people can be innocent.
We can’t even agree on politics. Arguing about theology is totally pointless.