Category: U.S. Politics

On Ron Paul as controlled opposition and why he would be best for President of the United States

I’ve taken flak for describing Ron Paul as controlled opposition. Here I’ll discuss his stance on money. I was pointed to the following overview of Ron Paul on the money issue to correct my alleged misrepresentation of his stances.

Ron Paul argues against more regulation [on the part of the government] and pitches for a free market economy by saying that the Fed should not be given more power, whereas giving the Fed more power means less regulation by the government as the Federal Reserve banks are fully private; the more power the Fed has, the greater the influence of the “free market.”

Ron Paul addresses the housing bubble by saying that Congress and the Fed encouraged the housing industry... finally the bubble burst and “we” [government] try to [pursue stupid policies] such as stimulating the housing market, cash for clunkers.... as a result “we” have no confidence in the market economy.

Reality check: the housing bubble and its busting was caused by the bankers a.k.a. the “free market”:

Boom: generously give out loans, which are funded out of nothing, to earn interest off of nothing...

Laughing all the way to the bank: make money by selling debt that can’t be paid off to investors, make money by selling insurance against the probability of defaults, make money by gambling on the probability of defaults...

Bust: loan less and cause a recession; acquire houses for pennies on the dollar.

Another reality check: The only money created by the government comprises of coins. Stimulating the housing market and cash for clunkers is just the bankers getting the government and hence the people more under debt.

Continued...

Posted by J Richards on Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 01:25 AM in Economics & Finance,  Libertarianism,  Political analysis,  U.S. Politics
Comments (81) | Tell-a-Friend

Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and Wikileaks

Many should know that wikileaks is a 100% kosher undertaking.  The leaks comprise of data that are easily falsified in part.  The leaks embarrass America or Arabs, not Israel.  The leaks are about relatively trivial matters but never serious issues such as central banks being private banks, not government banks.  The “whistleblowers” don’t just maintain official versions of major events such as 9/11 but ridicule dissent as nonsense that detracts from the “serious work” they’re doing with their exposes!  The U.S. ICE (Israeli Content Enforcement) agency of the Department of Homeland Security, which seizes domains willy nilly for copyright infringement, hasn’t bothered with wikileaks.  And so on… 

Some crucial leaks were said to have been provided by Private Bradley Manning to Julian Assange.  Both men look effeminate, and one would think they’re homos, which makes for bad PR.  So they put on a show where Assange was accused of raping two Swedish women, making him appear a macho man, and used the ruckus to attract attention to wiki leaks.  All this would be amusing if it weren’t for the plight of Bradley Manning, who’s been imprisoned in solitary confinement, cut off from friends and family.  Long-term incarceration in such circumstances is designed to break people down and make them confess to anything you want them to.

Manning’s trial is currently under way by Americans even though he is British, and there isn’t much that can be done to prevent him from being convicted of bogus charges, but you can help expose the sham to others and make it embarrassing for those working for the Israelis behind the wikileaks scam to be who they are. 

Useful links:

http://www.freebradley.org/english.html
http://blog.ukfriendsofbradleymanning.org/

Posted by R-news on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 10:50 PM in Activism,  Journalism,  Links,  Media,  Military Matters,  U.S. Politics,  War on Terror,  World Affairs
Comments (14) | Tell-a-Friend

Jeez, I luv Michele

Or 71% of her, anyway.

The Daily Telegraph has launched a VoteMatch application for the candidates in the 2012 Republican primaries (minus John Huntsman for some reason).

Mind you, it might not work.  Telegraph scribbler Tim Stanley took the test:

I’ll be honest and say that the answer I came up with was … Michele Bachmann. I’m surprised because I would have thought my views on foreign policy were unorthodox enough to put me in the Ron Paul camp. But I suspect that the part where I ranked my issues tilted the results towards the Minnesota Congresswoman. This election, it’s the economy, stupid.

For a person of my station, this is a humiliating result. I always did my best to stay a cut above the Middle American conservatives: did a fellowship at Harvard, went skiing in Aspen, made friends with a few of the richer Democrats, even donated a little money to reseed the golf club green. But, despite all this, the Daily Telegraph says that Michele Bachmann and me are ideological bedfellows. It seems this blue blood is a red neck after all.

And this Darwinian is a Creationist!

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, November 15, 2011 at 08:16 AM in U.S. Politics
Comments (7) | Tell-a-Friend

A dead cert

The trap we carefully left alone was talking about the accepted date, because this was the day the number was stamped on to the application making it into a certificate. If Obama was to have a file number higher than the Nordyke twins, the accepted date would have needed to be either the same day or later than the accepted date of the Nordyke twins. Ooooppppps.

From the current front page of the Birthers.org website, an article titled “Sequential Anomalies or Over My Dead Body”.

This anomaly appears to be the strongest evidence of a White House conspiracy, and the only evidence for which I have not yet seen some explanation, however weak.  The strategy appears to be for the White House to remain disdainfully aloof while the liberal media, even abroad, counters where it can but chiefly pronounces on the sanity of mind of those who persist with their questions.  But it will only take one unanswered and possibly unanswerable question like the one above to corrode what gains this can deliver.  And if that happens, the further entrenchment of opposition to this presidency is inevitable.  There will never be a full and final disclosure.  Congress will never impeach or investigate Obama.  But what odds his surviving to fight for a second-term?

But ... is this scenario good for white America?  What, going forward, would be the optimum operational circumstances for White Nationalism to advance?  An exposed and shamed non-American president and a chastened Establishment?  A resurgent Republican Party, powerfully informed by populist conservative instincts (but likely led by Mitt Romney)?  Really?  The experience of political nationalism in Europe strongly suggests that a second Obama term mired in public distrust and bitterness is a certain generator of division, and division eventually turns to radicalism.

I’m not an American, and I know I miss a lot of the finer points of American political life.  But even I know that one effective opposition, if only a conservative-libertarian opposition, has been grown in Obama’s America.  WNs who aren’t attracted to the gradualism of Hunter and Co should hope to keep the black guy in the White House.  Even if he was born in darkest Mombasa, and never came closer than a snowflake to an Hawaiian maternity ward.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, April 28, 2011 at 06:58 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (19) | Tell-a-Friend

A Slender Reid

Posted by Søren Renner on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 at 07:35 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (2) | Tell-a-Friend

Stealing European American Wealth & Incomes

by Donald Miller

The collapse of the Obama spending machine has a long way to go yet, especially with regard to pilfering the earnings and savings of European Americans. There are many ways Obama & Bernanke can confiscate your income and wealth to establish a multiracial nation.

GREAT GOLD CONFISCATION

To understand some of this, it may be necessary for you to review the history of the great gold confiscation of 1933:

The Gold Confiscation Of April 5, 1933
From: President of the United States Franklin Delano Roosevelt
To: The United States Congress
Dated: 5 April, 1933
Presidential Executive Order 6102

Forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended by Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, entitled

An Act to provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes~’,

in which amendatory Act Congress declared that a serious emergency exists,

I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, do declare that said national emergency still continues to exist and pursuant to said section to do hereby prohibit the hoarding gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States by individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations and hereby prescribe the following regulations for carrying out the purposes of the order:

Section 1. For the purpose of this regulation, the term ‘hoarding” means the withdrawal and withholding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates from the recognized and customary channels of trade. The term “person” means any individual, partnership, association or corporation.

Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933, except the following ...

RAPID INFLATION NOT SUITABLE

There are fundamentally only three ways to repay the Obama-Bernanke indebtedness—I disregard massive inflation because it would take too long to be effective and, if it happened too quickly, we’d begin to understand the Weimar Republic (1919-1933) really well and up close:

The Weimar Republic had some of the most serious economic problems ever experienced by any Western democracy in history. Rampant hyperinflation, massive unemployment and a large drop in living standards were primary factors. In 1923–1929 there was a short period of economic recovery, but the Great Depression of the 1930s led to a worldwide recession. Germany was particularly affected because it depended heavily on American loans. In 1926, about 2 million Germans were unemployed - this rose to around 6 million in 1932. Many blamed the Weimar Republic. This was made apparent when political parties on both right and left wanting to disband the Republic altogether made any democratic majority in Parliament impossible.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, June 6, 2009 at 06:29 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (9) | Tell-a-Friend

Governor of the Republic of Texas Remembers the 10th Amendment

Although this isn’t addressing the primary cause of the loss of legitimacy—immigration enforced on the states with integration enforced on citizens—this is a very positive development.  The primary danger here is that some “higher power”, such as a North American Union if not the United Nations, will attempt to disintermediate the relationship between the States and the Federal Government—using this crisis as an opportunity to increase the de facto centralization while, in effect, nullifying the US Constitution. 

In any case, the time is coming for action.

Posted by James Bowery on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 at 12:07 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (17) | Tell-a-Friend

Reich and Rangel reveal the new anti-white, anti-middle-class agenda

Thanks to Bo for this video of Robert Reich and Charles Rangel at an Economic Recovery Plan meeting on 7th January.

Today the $825 billion economic stimulus package was marked up by the House Ways & Means Committee.  It includes money for infrastructure, health care and education projects.  But little to none of it will be coming your way if you are white or middle-class.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, January 22, 2009 at 05:19 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (76) | Tell-a-Friend

A straw in the draft

Bo Sears sent me the link to an Antiwar.com post with a Fox News interview of Tony Blankley, an Englishman turned American turned lawyer turned journalist turned Jewish extended phenotype who denies he is a neocon.  But Blankley has a new book out titled American Grit in which he pans Obama’s ideas about national service and calls for “a full-on military draft”.

Now, it happens that Bo and the RD guys have already predicted the return of the draft:-

My colleagues and I have considered all kinds of situations in which a new president might need local community leaders to follow him blindly in some new foreign adventure.  The only one we can see that would be nation-shaking … the only one that would fit in the model of a black president and a dangerous military entanglement abroad, and which would give rise to the circumstance where lots of local support had to be brought behind him, would be the re-introduction of the draft.

So Blankley’s timely arrival with the self-same idea is not entirely unexpected.  The intriguing question is: Does a connected guy like Blankley think it up all by himself, or does he get fed it by a Nameless Other or two?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 at 07:01 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (14) | Tell-a-Friend

Why are Republicans so silent on the Obama eligibility question?

Fr. John sent me this WorldNetDaily link to an article on the Obama birth certificate embroglio.  WoldNetDaily is one of the small handful of slightly off-colour organisations that is campaigning to up-end Obama’s inauguration.

Eligibility issue to follow Obama into Oval Office
Supreme Court sets ‘natural born’ conference to follow inauguration

A legal challenge that alleges Barack Obama isn’t a “natural born” citizen and therefore constitutionally ineligible to be president of the United States will follow the Democrat into the Oval Office, with a U.S. Supreme Court conference on the dispute set after the Jan. 20 inauguration.

The court’s website today announced that a fourth case on the issue will be reviewed by justices Jan. 23.

The court previously heard two cases in conference – private meetings at which justices consider which cases to accept – and denied both Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio full hearings.

The court now has a conference scheduled Friday on a case raised by attorney Philip Berg, with another conference on a matter related to the same Berg case on Jan. 16. Then today the court website revealed the case Gail Lightfoot et al v. Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, will be heard in conference Jan. 23.

The case initially appeared at the Supreme Court Dec. 12 but was rejected. It then was submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts, and today’s notice confirmed it was distributed for the Jan. 23 conference.

Orly Taitz, the California attorney handling the case, said, “The timing of this decision by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is absolutely remarkable. On January 7, one day before the January 8 vote by Congress and Senate whether to approve or object to the electoral vote of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, as president of the United States, Chief Justice Roberts is sending a message to them: ‘Hold on, not so fast, there is value in this case, read it.’”

I really can’t see this or any similar effort disaccomodating the executive too much.  The latter will more than tough it out, quashing each legal challenge with utter disdain - a response licenced by the curious and studied indifference of the GOP as to whether the man elected to serve as America’s 44th president is eligible by birth for office.  At any other time we would see the defeated candidate’s party crawling all over something like this.  Heck, look how they pursued slick Willy for his paltry little indiscretion with “that woman”.  By comparison, Obama may be engaged in a staggeringly cynical electoral charade.  And it gets worse once he is sworn in:-

On Friday the justices will consider Philip J. Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

“This is a historic occasion that will impact the office of the president of the United States as never before. No one has ever brought an action against a president-elect candidate challenging his eligibility to serve based on the ‘natural born’ citizen requirement provided in the United States Constitution, Article II Section 1,” said a statement on Berg’s ObamaCrimes.com website.

Berg suggested if Obama “is allowed to be sworn in as president of the United States, there will be substantial and irrevocable harm to the stability of the United States of America and to its citizens.”

“Because Barack Obama is not a ‘natural born’ citizen as required by the United States Constitution, then all of his actions as president would be null and void,” Berg said.

Wrotnowski and Donofrio would very likely have triggered the “avoid” mechanism that serious politicians reserve for conspiracy theorists.  Lightfoot, a CA libertarian, seems more substantial, but still unlikely in the extreme to break the presidential mould.  But the Berg petition is said to be not at all frivolous, and is the one that requires the president elect’s elusive long form birth certificate to be produced.

So why are the Republicans to a man looking the other way?  Not wanting to appear ungracious losers?  Not wanting to show disloyalty to the Washington insiders and the wider political class?  Not wanting to associate with a bunch of oddball fringe activists?  Not wanting to gamble on bringing the house down on the Obama victory, only to find that the long form certificate does, in fact, contain the word “Hawaii”?  Not wanting to re-fight the presidential election?

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, January 9, 2009 at 06:07 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (20) | Tell-a-Friend

Ten wishes for an all-American New Year

1. That the off-script longeurs and foot-in-mouth bloomers we expect from president Obama waste no time in coming, and quickly sour his honeymoon with the white American voter.

2. That “change” is quickly revealed to mean blacks being “served” by white volunteerism in various forms, with whites supposedly gaining from “seeing through their own prejudice”.  And no, it doesn’t fly.  Not for an instant.

3. That white America will begin to suspect that mainstream political America as a whole has no use for it whatsoever beyond its votes and taxes, and its “contribution” to the ethnic spoils system.

4. That the economic rigours of the year ahead cause many more white Americans to question the value of the neoliberal system, of the banking system, of fiat money.

5. That Hollywood can’t make a buck out of its anti-white “entertainment”.

6. That the falling value of university endowments cuts into the best efforts of university faculty to damage and discriminate against White students.

7. That when white Americans think of Israel they remember the Gaza Strip, not “America’s best little buddy”.

8. That when White Nationalists speak of racial politics they remember they are being heard by intelligent and discerning fellow whites.

9. That more White Nationalists will reject the anti-political notion that all they need is less Jewish power and more white racial consciousness.

10. That White Nationalists will discover that freedom and justice, as much as love, are theirs, and theirs alone, to espouse.

Happy New Year to you all.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 at 08:56 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (21) | Tell-a-Friend

The Bear’s Lair: Coming economic policy disasters

Just time for one last blast before the US election - this one from Martin Hutchinson at Prudent Bear.
GW

The number of economically damaging policy ideas imposed on the United States has greatly increased in the last few months. However from the statements of the Presidential candidates, the next few years may turn this storm of bad ideas into a blizzard. Those with an emotional attachment to the US economy should brace themselves for trauma.

The new salience of bad economic ideas is not particularly surprising. The US economy is heading into an economic downturn that promises to be at least as severe as those of 1974 and 1980-82, whose memory is already fading a generation into the past. Additionally, the 2000-07 period was one in which US voters made very small if any income gains, with such gains arising only through refinancing of ever more gigantic home mortgages. Meanwhile the distant and dislikeable titans of Wall Street apparently scooped up all the money generated by the economy.

Now the housing bubble has burst, the average jaundiced voter naturally sees the free market system and the George W. Bush administration as responsible for the recent not-particularly-pleasant years and the economic horror that has followed. Claims by Republican politicians that the debacle was all the fault of the housing finance agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while partly true are wholly unconvincing.

With voters miserable and facing a disastrous economic position that they believe was caused by free market excesses, it is not surprising that they are looking favorably on statist nostrums. Both political candidates have propounded bad ideas; Obama more than McCain largely because he has more ideas in general. In addition, there are a few bad ideas that have embedded themselves into the system, accepted by both political candidates and the political class as a whole.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, November 3, 2008 at 09:04 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (12) | Tell-a-Friend

Biden’s warning of a nation-shaking event in the future

By Bo Sears

A mystery has revealed itself before our eyes.  It lies in the concluding portion of US Senator Joe Biden’s speech at a Seattle fund-raiser.  His unsettling prediction is that a test of the next president will be “manufactured“ early in his incumbency.  But, most oddly, it will require ordinary Democrat voters and Obama supporters to show solidarity with their man and use their “influence within the community”.

What kind of test can Biden mean?

Here is the text taken from Alexander Cockburn’s piece on CounterPunch posted this weekend.

“Mark my words,” Biden said solemnly at a Seattle fundraiser last Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden went on. He mentioned the Middle East and Russia. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

What exactly is Biden hinting at in that last sentence? From the context of that whole paragraph it’s clear enough to me he’s suggesting that despite hopes nourished by the sort of people at that Seattle fundraiser that post-Bush/Cheney America might backpeddle from hasty military confrontations, President Obama will stand tall and lose no time in going eyeball to eyeball with those who would test his resolve.

So let’s try to answer Cockburn’s question.  These are the key elements Biden provides.

1. “President Obama” is going to be tested early, as Kennedy was tested in Cuba in 1962.  Possibly by Russia.  Possibly in the Middle-East.

2. He will respond militarily, not diplomatically.  This response will appear flat-wrong to many Americans.  National unity itself will be at risk.  The same kind of belief and support that elected Obama to office will be required to keep him there.

My colleagues and I have considered all kinds of situations in which a new president might need local community leaders to follow him blindly in some new foreign adventure.  The only one we can see that would be nation-shaking … the only one that would fit in the model of a black president and a dangerous military entanglement abroad, and which would give rise to the circumstance where lots of local support had to be brought behind him, would be the re-introduction of the draft.

Young white Americans may not be willing to risk their lives for a black Commander-in-Chief.  For sure, it is hard to believe that present-day American college students are any more eager to be cut up, shot, and killed in 2009 than they were in Johnson’s Vietnam. 

The image this calls to mind is the draft-dodging of the Vietnam era.  But Canada has already signalled its willingness to reject young diverse white Americans fleeing from a draft (along with other young Americans).  So the easy escape is blocked:-

… there’s a catch for those who flee to Canada. In the era of the Vietnam war, American draft dodgers and deserters could easily take up residence in Canada, and stay as long as they liked.  Now, however, Canadian law has changed.

“Well, legally what’s changed is that there’s a general policy in Canada now that to apply here you must apply from outside the country. And that’s not really an option that American troops could do,” said Jeffrey House, a Vietnam veteran who fled to Canada. “Because they’re gonna be sent to Iraq next week or next month.”

I don’t expect we’ll see the rebellious young with flowers in their hair this time.  And their natural recourse won’t be the ideals of the radical left and won’t be black civil rights, because these are the values of the political Establishment today.

But have you got any other ideas of substantive policy initiatives that couldn’t be implemented with only the powers in the presidency and the Congress … initiatives that would require wide-ranging local public support?

Bo Sears is a director of ResistingDefamation

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, October 25, 2008 at 12:15 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (57) | Tell-a-Friend

Obama in Philly

The Philadelphia Daily News, a struggling tabloid owned by the Catholic, former Bush publicist Brian Tierney, has managed to inform its - as Bo and Stanley would say - diverse white American readership that they or their cousins are “crackers”.  Here’s the offending extract from John Baer’s column on Tuesday:-

I think McCain’s camp is banking on Pennsylvania’s “cracker factor.”

I think the campaign believes the Democratic view - expressed by Ed Rendell last winter and Jack Murtha last week (and James Carville 22 years ago) - that there are racist tendencies among Pennsylvania voters.

Think about it.

Rendell in February said, “There are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.”

He even put a point spread on it, saying that being black in Pennsylvania costs a candidate 5 percentage points.

Murtha, a veteran Johnstown congressman, last week said, “There’s no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area.”

He put the black penalty at 4 percentage points.

These guys are among the state’s most successful, longest- serving politicians: Rendell has been in office 22 years and is a former national party chairman; Murtha has been in Congress 34 years.

(Carville in 1986 famously said everything between Philly and Pittsburgh is “Alabama without black people,” which today insults Alabama; it has four times more black elected officials than Pennsylvania, according to U.S. Census data.)

So, if you take the most recent polling - an Allentown Morning Call poll Sunday is reflective of others and puts Obama 12 points up, 52-40 - I figure McCain’s folks figure, well, heck, that’s really only 7 points and since most polls have a 3-point margin of error, maybe just 4 points, and that puts us right in the game.

Meanwhile, McCain’s campaign, in TV ads and on the stump, is calling Obama’s tax- cut proposal a “government handout” and “welfare.” McCain yesterday said it’s “just another government giveaway.”

Whom do you think that’s aimed at?

Oh, I don’t know, maybe lower-income, less-educated white voters for whom “welfare” and “government giveaway” means black people?

So how did that go down?  Do Bo and Stanley have a point?  A considerable majority of the 294 comments says they do.  Here is a selection of the later ones:-

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 11:05 AM in U.S. Politics
Comments (10) | Tell-a-Friend

No apology.  No presidency.

By Stanley Womack

Over the course of the Democratic presidential primary a less than savoury pattern of behavior by US Senator Barack Hussein Obama II and those around him emerged.  Each time a racist-stereotypical remark slipped out of the candidate’s mouth it was met with a studied refusal to retract or walk away from it.  No guilt was acknowledged, no censure accepted.

This was the mirror image of the Great Macaca Scandal that helped to shoot down US Senator George Allen’s campaign when he ran for governor of Virginia in 2006.  Allen, you will remember, used the word “macaca” to describe an Indo-American spy sent in by his campaign opponent.  For this label, used in North African Jewish circles to describe North African indigenous workers, Allen was pilloried mercilessly.

Today, Allen’s humiliation is a source of high amusement for Obama supporters among the supposedly offended demographic.  Obama isn’t as obvious as Allen.  But he knows that he can play the race-card and he knows that he, unlike Allen, can get away with it every time.

He’s been doing it since before his election to the Senate.  For example, in his Keynote Address to the Democratic National Convention in November 2004 he offered this thought:-

“Go into any inner-city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.”

“Acting black” said by any white politician in any context would destroy his career, the immediate presumption being that it attributed negative behavior to blacks as a group.

Alright, when Obama says “acting white” he isn’t implying negative behavior in that same way.  But he is employing a common slur - in the mouth of a black, the “white” in “acting white” is not a friendly or respectful term.  Pretty close to “macaca”, actually.

Of course … no apology from Obama.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, August 31, 2008 at 07:56 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (32) | Tell-a-Friend

Obama: Catspaw of International Finance

By Dr K R Bolton

Now that Obama has won the Democratic nomination it becomes ever more relevant to explore the connections of his backers and advisers, as this will give an indication on the direction the USA will head should he win the presidency.

To consider this as primarily a racial matter, whether in terms of white racism or conversely of liberal anti-racism, is to obscure the role of the Money Power in seeking to control the USA and hence much of the world.

Obama seems to have arisen from virtually nowhere. Yet he was able to dominate the field with the assistance of bigger funding. A Reuters report carried in the Dominion Post (Obama raised $45 million, Feb. 22, 08) stated that Obama had raised just over $US36 million back in January, three times more than McCain; while Clinton had raised $US13.9 million.

There is much talk of “change”, of a “new direction”. It is the type of “populist” or even mildly “left-wing” rhetoric that serves as a façade for plutocracy while championing “The People”, just as the Bolsheviks were said to be fighting for the “proletariat” while receiving plutocratic largesse.  As Oswald Spengler observed early last Century, “there is no proletarian, not even a communist movement, that is not run in the interests and direction of Money”, to paraphrase from his Decline of the West. The same can be said for other movements of supposed reform, whether liberal, socialist or social democrat, in which we might include the Democrats.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 09:04 AM in U.S. Politics
Comments (32) | Tell-a-Friend

What did Howard Dean mean?

He said: “If you look at, er, folks, er-er, of color, er-e-a-e, even women, they’re more successful in the Democratic party than they are in the white, er, excuse me, in the, ha, Republican party ...”

Parapraxis, or the Freudian slip, is the escape of a repressed thought.  Given the well-known characteristics of the typical politician, it is safe to assume that a Freudian slip by a man like Dean constitutes a little moment of honesty in a lifetime of deceit and distortion.  So what truth did he let out of hiding here?

Not, I think, that the GOP is the white party.  Too boring, too obvious.

No, he is talking about the Democrats.  He is saying that the party itself, its values and its policies for America are for “people of color” and “even women”.  He is saying that if you are a white male American you are totally outside of the ministrations and ambitions of his party.  He is saying that as a party of “color and women” the Democratic Party does not like white male America, does not serve white male America, indeed exists to undermine the proverbial hegemony of white male America.  He is saying that the Democratic Party is as fixed and as singular in its antipathy to white male America as it is traditionally towards the GOP.  He is saying, frankly, the GOP can have white male America.

But, of course, it wasn’t meant to come out quite like that.

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, August 16, 2008 at 07:23 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (10) | Tell-a-Friend

Obama-speak

“Big Brother” - the king of reality shows - is, they say, coming to the end of the road.  But then along comes Obama to prove that our life as passive consumers of shallowness and narcissism is not over yet.

The 44th President of the United States, apparently, graced Britain with his presence on Friday - a busy schedule of private meetings and no more engagement with the public than the inevitable sight-seeing photo-calls and a quick appearance outside No.10 (the impudent demand to address both houses of Parliament having been rejected on grounds of protocol).  That left little opportunity for we Brits to guage the exact degree of “greatness” Obama is supposed to have about him, falling from his lips and his fingertips like so much fairy gold.  Just as well, really.  We are in a politically carnivorous mood, and probably not well dispositioned towards snake-oil salesmen.

But not so the 200,000 “people of Berlin“ who renounced critical thinking to stand for 45 minutes and listen to what, I suppose, the American media will sell as Obama’s JFK moment.

Because every Democrat candidate has to lay claim to something of Kennedy.  Jimmy Carter had his hairstyle.

Now, everyone should read Obama’s testimony to his own coming greatness and all-round magicality.  So I reproduce the speech in its entirety here:-

“A new generation ... common humanity ... the greatest danger of all ... my father ... give our children back their future ... the moment to stand as one ... listen to each other ... keep the promise of equality and opportunity ... banish the scourge of AIDS in our time ... the road ahead will be long ... the walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrant cannot stand ... learn from each other ... Christian and Muslim and Jew ... aspirations are bigger ...  America cannot turn inward ... will we welcome immigrants from different lands…  trust each other ... this is the moment ... shun discrimination ... our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom ... you too know that yearning ... live free from fear and free from want ... Berlin ... people of”

There.  I think I got it all.

Well, it flirts with a truckload of vacuity.  Can’t deny that.  Alright, there was some foreign policy substance: Obama wants to withdraw American forces from Iraq over a sixteen month period, though only to commit them to Afghanistan.  Or possibly the Horn of Africa because, you know, what‘s happening down Darfur way shames the world, and America cannot turn inward.  Etc.  But getting out of Iraq is certainly a positive.  And, though it wasn’t part of his speech, so is the left-Dem line on NAFTA that he has taken thusfar.  But beyond these and a few other scarcely detailed policy hints, everything but everything is 100-octane aspiration.  John Gast should be raised from the dead to paint it.

Now, obviously, it’s mighty tempting to swing a wrecking ball at anything that has 200,000 naïve Germans swooning over a junior American politician on a dais in Berlin.  But let’s set temptation aside, and also cease accusing this poor man of shallowness, narcissism and having unfortunate ears.  Instead, let’s consider what Obama-speak might portend for white America.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, July 27, 2008 at 07:30 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (45) | Tell-a-Friend

Obama’s Grandmother and related issues

By Bo Sears

Slurs that never happened

USA TODAY ran an article on 4/8/08 headlined “Obama’s grandmother set own trail”.  It shines a light on US Senator Barack Obama’s willingness to lie about his own grandmother using negative language about one panhandling African-American at a bus stop in Hawaii:

Obama and Soetoro-Ng lived with their grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, and later with their mother, Ann Dunham, in 1970s Honolulu, where white people were routinely the target of discrimination.

Sam Slom, a Bank of Hawaii economist then, who is now a Republican state senator in Hawaii, recalls that as a part of the white — or “haole” — minority in Hawaii, he would regularly see housing ads that made no effort to hide racial preferences. He says he remembers ads that read, “No haoles” or “AJAs (Americans of Japanese ancestry) Only” or “No Japanese.”

“That’s the way it was,” Slom said. “Did people talk about race? We had local jokes … like that ‘pake’ (Chinese) guy or the ‘yobo’ (Korean) who did this or that. I certainly got my share of haole jokes.”

Madelyn Dunham’s views on race came into play in a speech Obama gave March 18 in Philadelphia designed to both denounce and defend his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

In the speech, Obama linked Wright and his grandmother when he said, “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”

Obama’s campaign declined to make Dunham available for interviews or to say whether the Illinois senator alerted her before delivering the speech.

Dunham has repeatedly declined to comment to reporters, and Soetoro-Ng declined to comment on Obama’s speech about Wright or their grandmother’s attitudes on race.

Others who know Dunham were caught off guard by that mention in Obama’s speech.

“I was real surprised that he indicated that,” said Dennis Ching, who was a 23-year-old management trainee under Dunham beginning in 1966. “I never heard her say anything like that. I never heard her say anything negative about anything. And she never swore.”

“I never heard Madelyn say anything disparaging about people of African ancestry or Asian ancestry or anybody’s ancestry,” Slom said.

One of Obama’s two books describes his learning of his grandmother’s allegedly abusive language from his slacker grandfather who confided that alleged information to Obama. But Obama in neither of his books mentions any slurs toward any demographic said in his presence by his grandmother. The article referenced above states that there is no record and no witness to corroborate Obama’s remarks.  One witness even confirms that the grandmother never engaged in hateful speech. So Obama is not just involved in left-wing racialist politics and hate speech (“acting white,” “white resentment”), he appears willing to lie about his own grandmother (“a typical white person”) on that point. In contrast, his former pastor, Rev. Wright, made remarks in his recent PR binge this past week that he would never accept slurs against his own parents—apparently that lesson didn’t stick with Obama.

Haole and beatings

But the second thing to notice in the article is the matter-of-fact way in which the writer (Dan Nakaso) speaks of “haole” as an accepted name for the diverse white Hawaiians even back in the 1960s, and of rampant discrimination against them.

This is a cautionary tale that says, while we wait for the general awakening and the return of the freedoms of association and contract, we must act to resist defamation for our children’s sake, to preserve their right to a decent sense of self-respect. Although it is not mentioned in the article, it is well-known on the West Coast that the last day of school in Hawaii is what we have on May 1 in schools here in California, namely a “beat-up whitey” day. In California it is known in graffiti as “JWD” day, an acronym for “Jump Whitey Day.”

Yes, even though Resisting Defamation is limited to fighting slurs, hate caricatures, negative stereotypes, and white-baiting canards, it appears obvious that a second measure that will need to be taken will be the creation of self-defense voluntary units to protect young diverse white American and European students.  What can the white Hawaiian parents be thinking to allow their children to be targeted for slurs and beatings just because of the color of their skin?

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 06:17 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (9) | Tell-a-Friend

The mind of Obama

By Bo Sears

Most of us diverse white American people have had a hard time understanding US Senator Barack Obama’s mind. We now know about his policies toward European Americans (more LBJ-syle set-asides, affirmative action, and quotas), but he has also provided us with a window into his mind about how he views us.

Taking offence vs. analysing the speaker’s mind

The Hannity’s and Limbaugh’s and O’Reilly’s seem unable to discuss Obama’s willingness to label and describe us without getting tangled up in the concept of “giving offense.” Their lack of intellectual acuity doesn’t speak well for us.

Resisting Defamation has made it clear that slurs, slanders, names, labels, descriptions, and definitions don’t need to be offensive to us. They simply give us permission to look into the mind of the speaker to find out more about him. This is an important distinction—being “offended” is a highly specialized skill set, and most white American people do not realize that hours are spent in training in college dorms, human rights seminars, and minority-run segregated professional and occupational meetings to know when to shed one tear, two tears, or three tears for maximum impact; when to gasp in pain on hearing any of over 200 words that “give offense”; how to share with a left-wing racialist reporter one’s distress; and when to claim “I’m so afraid!” in public discourse.

Yes, dear reader, the “spontaneous” outbursts about offense are almost always fraudulent, but reporters who are in on the secret make a great to-do about minority claims of offense, frankly, as part of the campaign of defamation against the diverse European American peoples.

As sensible adults, we diverse white American peoples don’t claim offense, but we do find speech that denigrates, stereotypes, and uses code words or phrases worthy of analysis to determine the mind of the speaker.

So let’s take a look at Obama’s mind.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, March 22, 2008 at 07:32 AM in U.S. Politics
Comments (25) | Tell-a-Friend

Obama, because that’s who Zionists don’t trust

The manipulation of the American political machine is the sole privilege of Jews.  Everyone knows that.  Or rather, everyone in the American political machine knows that, of course.  But nobody else should, and no one needs to.  And really, what’s it to ordinary disempowered Americans where policy comes from?  Nothing whatsoever.

Brave little Israel they must know about, of course ... the Holocaust ... MLK ... white guilt.  That sort of thing.

But the Israel Lobby?  Are you nuts?

So here, from a couple of years ago, is Eliot Cohen in the Washington Post ritually demonising the Walt & Mearsheimer paper out of existence.  He hopes.

Inept, even kooky academic work, then, but is it anti-Semitic?  If by anti-Semitism one means obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews; if one accuses them of disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments; if one systematically selects everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group and equally systematically suppresses any exculpatory information—why, yes, this paper is anti-Semitic.

Trouble is, those three little words “The Israel Lobby” have escaped into the public consciousness and cannot so easily be recalled, especially while some dumb Jewish journalist can lose the plot as royally as Dana Milbank did.  Reporting for the Post on a public meeting last Monday called by a “group of Jewish leaders” to discuss the 2008 presidential election, he actually wrote:-

The Audacity of Chutzpah

... Daroff said he had “heard in the hallways here” that Obama “doesn’t see the U.S.-Israel relationship as much of the mainstream of the Senate or the Jewish community sees it.”

Kurtzer [supporter Obama - Ed] blamed such sentiment on “attack dogs” and writers of scurrilous e-mails. “He’s right within the mainstream of American society and Jewish community concerns.”

... Next question to Kurtzer: Obama’s assertion that he needn’t have a “Likud view”—that of Israel’s right-wing party—to be pro-Israel. Kurtzer explained that Obama wanted to see a “plurality of views.” Silence in the room.

To that, Lewis [supporting Hilary - Ed] retorted: “The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties.”  The audience members applauded.

So let’s run that thought-crime from Ann Lewis by once more.  Remember, this is a senior advisor to the Lizard Queen speaking.

“The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel.  It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties.”

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, March 21, 2008 at 06:12 AM in U.S. Politics
Comments (11) | Tell-a-Friend

The Immigration bill and racial diversity in public schools hit in one day.

The Senate delivered an apparently fatal blow on Thursday to President George W. Bush’s planned immigration overhaul and dashed the hopes of millions of immigrants seeking legal status.

In a crucial make or break vote that exposed deep lack of support among Bush’s own Republicans, the legislation fell 14 votes short of the 60 votes needed in the 100-member Senate to advance toward a final vote.

... The president was unable to overcome fierce opposition from fellow Republicans who said it was an amnesty for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country and would do little to stem illegal immigration.

Even the promise of an additional $4.4 billion to pay for more border security and enforcement did not quell Republican opposition.

The bill failed to garner even a simple majority. Only 46 senators—33 Democrats, 12 Republicans and 1 independent—voted to advance the bill. Some 15 Democrats joined 37 Republicans and 1 independent to block the legislation.

It was the second time in as many weeks the Senate tried to pass the legislation.

Senate leaders have said it would be difficult if not impossible to revive the bill again before the November 2008 presidential election. Immigration has already become an issue in the election campaign.

Reuter’s top story today.

And then there was this:-

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, June 28, 2007 at 01:00 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (29) | Tell-a-Friend

Driving the immigration wedge into the GOP

Let’s look at this article by Thomas F. Schaller, particularly the first page.

Before I get to the main point, two “diversions”, one lengthy and one brief.

First, I’d like to address Mr. Rosenberg, of whom we read:

“The Republican strategy on immigration has been one of the great failures of modern politics,” says Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network, which has organized a systematic outreach campaign to Hispanic voters. “What’s going on in the Republican Party is a debate between the strategists who want to win and a part of their base that is extremely xenophobic.”

I’m not surprised that someone with the surname “Rosenberg” has an agenda to promote Hispanic interests in what used to be the United States of America, but his comments are absurd on their face.  If the GOP cannot “win” without Hispanic voters, then they certainly cannot win without their base, which, by definition, constitutes the foundation of their electoral support.  One supposes that Rosenberg assumes that the base should remain passive and allow itself to be taken for granted – “automatic” votes for the GOP because “they have nowhere else to go.”  Thus, the base should support policies they loathe and believe are destructive, just so “their party” can “win.”  Again, it is not surprising that a “Rosenberg” would like to promote to white gentiles a “football game, rah-rah” version of “politics”, where “winning elections” is an end to itself.  However, to any triple-digit IQ individual, it is obvious that the ultimate purpose of “winning an election” is not as an end to itself, not as a way of saying “nyah, nyah…my boys won and your boys lost”, but instead as a tool to promote particular policies.  What price “victory” if the cost of “winning” is to have “your party” adopt the very policies you oppose and which have traditionally characterized “the opposition?”

In essence, Rosenberg and the GOP seem to want the Republican base to “reason “ as follows: “I support the GOP because that party promotes traditional American values, will preserve the traditional America, will oppose illegal immigration and cut down unassimilable legal immigration, and will oppose the pandering to minorities.  It is therefore important that the GOP win elections.  In order to win elections, the GOP needs more votes, and, hey, those Hispanics are good candidates!  Therefore, in order to win, the GOP should support illegal immigrant amnesty, support flooding America with more Third Worlders, pander to all sorts of minorities, and tear down the traditional America!  That’ll teach ‘dem Democrats a thing or two!”

What stupidity.  The problem is that this is exactly how the “base” has been “reasoning” for decades.  In order to “defeat” the “Democrats”, the “base” has essentially allowed “their party” to become a carbon copy of the opposition.  Is that “smart politics?”  And comments about a “20th century vs. 21st century party” are particularly offensive to the GOP base.  In other words, says Rosenberg, the GOP’s white base is “in the past” and “outdated” while all the growing and vibrant Hispanics are “the future” and representative of the “21st century.”

Hmmm….I don’t know.  Perhaps the base would not like to be contemptuously disregarded as “in the past” and, essentially, dead and buried?  Perhaps the base, which are the voters who actually contribute the most to the GOP’s “victories”, do not want to be taken for granted, and then have their interests disregarded as soon as the Republican candidate is elected?  Perhaps, just perhaps, the base has interests just as legitimate – or more so? – than all the hip and modernistic 21st century Hispanics?  Maybe Mr. Rosenberg should give similar advice to Israel: the idea of a “Jewish state” is an outdated 2oth century idea, while those dynamic Palestinians and their high birth rate are the harbingers of Israel’s bright, 21st century Arabic future.  How about that?

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Monday, June 11, 2007 at 05:54 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (75) | Tell-a-Friend

It won’t be 12 million.  It won’t ever be enough

On the White House lawn, a loyal Jew and faithful Mexican.  With George W Bush, to speak about ...

Leading U.S. senators reached an agreement on Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would fortify U.S. borders and grant lawful status to millions of illegal immigrants, a move that could lead to a major legislative victory for President George W. Bush.

The agreement sets the stage for what is expected to be a passionate Senate debate over the proposal, which would give an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants legal status, create a temporary worker program and establish a new merit-based system for future immigrants.

“The agreement we’ve just reached is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders, bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat who helped lead the bipartisan talks that included Sen. Jon Kyl and administration officials.

Source Reuters.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, May 17, 2007 at 05:33 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (44) | Tell-a-Friend

So Barrack Hussein’s boy makes his move for the VP

On the video the low, rich tessitura lights up the inevitable appeal to unity, Kenyan coffee on a cold, dull morning.  The easily thrilled contemplate the realisation of a dream of four decades of another young Democrat god in the White House ... and a

first

second black president after Bill Clinton.  Obama the Handled, the Manufactured has entered the race for the nomination.

He will divide America like no other, which I presume to be a good.  Should the nationalist American, then, hope that Hillary so scares the cattle he actually wins the nomination?  Should the hope even be that he strides to victory on November 4th next year over a prostrate John McCain (or Rudi Giuliani)?

Don’t ask me.  I come from a country that hasn’t yet so lost its sense it will contemplate a half-African, half-Moslem unknown in Number 10.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 06:34 PM in U.S. Politics
Comments (38) | Tell-a-Friend