Majorityrights Central > Category: U.S. Politics

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?

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?

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.

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.

READ MORE...

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

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:-

READ MORE...

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.

READ MORE...

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.

READ MORE...