Racists Guiding the Obama Agenda?

The following article was written by Ed Lasky at American Thinker:

“Senator Obama, circa 2004 (tellingly on a stage):

There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.

But President Obama and his allies in Congress see America through racially-tinged lenses. Racial preferences are proliferating, belying the clam that Barack Obama would heal our racial divisions and be our first post-racial President. We should have known that his ideology did not match his inspiring rhetoric – his mentor and moral compass was , after all, was Jeremiah Wright, who preached anti-Americanism and racism in equal measure. Now we see the ideology transformed into policy, as this Washington Post article makes clear:

…many of his appointees have nonetheless been aggressive in pushing a decidedly un-colorblind agenda. For example, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood last year sent a letter to all 50 governors, pressuring them to ensure that federal contracting money be distributed with an eye on race, ethnicity and sex. This year, the Justice Department filed an amicus brief that aggressively defended the University of Texas’ use of racial and ethnic preferences in its undergraduate admissions. (That case is being argued this week.) More recently, evidence has surfaced that the administration weighed race in deciding which car dealerships to close.

The administration also has declared that it will be aggressive in filing “disparate impact” complaints. Under this theory, actions that are nondiscriminatory by their terms, in their intent and in their execution are nonetheless challenged if they lead to politically incorrect numbers. Thus, for example, the administration has challenged a physical test for prison guards because, in its view, it was too difficult for women to pass; it likewise has warned schools that their discipline policies will be scrutinized for racial imbalances. Such an approach guarantees the implementation of surreptitious quotas.

[...]

But Congress is much worse. Racially preferential provisions are included routinely in all kinds of legislation, usually with little fanfare. For example, the two highest-profile bills passed in the past year – reforming health care and the regulation of financial institutions – both included extensive racial-preference provisions.

And the Democrats have the audacity to look at many Americans as being bigots and racist.”

Comment:  Disingenuous, duplicitous, dishonest…….and more of the such, describes the 44 the American president.  

What is Obama and the Left up to Regarding Hiroshima Bombing in 1945?

For the very first time, the US ambas sador to Japan has been ordered to attend the annual ceremony at Hiro shima commemorating those who died when the Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb there 65 years ago.

A State Department spokesman was quick to say the ambassador wouldn’t be offering an official apology for dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended World War II. But he didn’t have to. The simple presence of a US official at this ceremony was a powerful symbolic act, even if no one actually said “We’re sorry.”

Yet Americans shouldn’t feel sorry for ending the most violent and brutal war in history, and toppling one of the most bloodthirsty regimes of the 20th century. Where is the ceremony where Japanese officials commemorate the deaths caused by imperial Japan’s rampage through Asia, including a genocidal war that claimed some 13 million Chinese?

Sadly, it is the myths about Hiroshima and Nagasaki that dominate the White House’s moral calculus, not the actual facts.

Those myths are that the dropping of the bomb on Japan was an overt act of racism by an American government that saw the Asians who’d be killed as inferior and therefore expendable; and that in building the atomic bomb, America created a weapon so terrible and barbaric that its presence poses a constant threat to civilization and the planet — which is why nuclear disarmament must be not only a strategic, but a moral imperative.

The first myth distorts historical truth. The second may doom us to a permanently perilous world. Both also ignore certain ineluctable facts.

First, the Manhattan Project developed the atomic bomb for use on the Germans, not the Japanese. It was pure accident that the Third Reich collapsed before the bomb could be dropped in Europe, and became available to use on Japan instead.

Second, the number of Japanese who died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings — some 300,000 in all — would have been dwarfed by the 2 million or so who’d have perished in a full-scale invasion of Japan — along with the 1 million Americans GIs, Marines, sailors and airmen whom US military planners calculated would also be killed or wounded in that assault.

Thus, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings saved Japanese lives, as well as untold tens of thousands of other Asians in China, Thailand and Malaysia who’d have died if the war had dragged on for another year — or even two.

Yet equating Hiroshima with racism is doubly insidious.

America is now trying to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The most urgent argument for halting Iran’s nuclear program is to stop Tehran from carrying through its threat to attack Israel and triggering a second Holocaust. But by implying that the United States once committed its own version of the Holocaust at Hiroshima, we knock away the moral underpinnings of our own argument.

Far from cleansing the record, we are telling the world our government has occupied the same barbarous ethical plane as the mullahs in Tehran or the Nazis — and all in defiance of historical truth.

One more misconception is leading us astray here. It was not the terrible, almost unimaginable suffering at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that forced Japan to surrender. Rather, the implied threat that the United States was ready to drop more atomic bombs finally forced the Japanese government to believe it faced a stark choice: surrender or oblivion.

Inducing that fear is the heart of nuclear deterrence — whether we are talking about imperial Japan, Stalin’s Soviet Union or Islamicist Iran. It’s why the United States has kept an overwhelming nuclear arsenal ever since.

That implied threat kept Western Europe free from being overrun by Stalin in the early days of the Cold War — and prevented later regional conflicts like Korea, Vietnam and the Yom Kippur War from spinning out of control into full-scale clashes between the superpowers.

America’s status as the world’s pre-eminent nuclear power has been the one fixed anchor in international relations since World War II. And far from undermining the push to stop Iran from going nuclear, it gives our effort gravity and credibility.

In short, what happened at Hiroshima 65 years ago made the world a safer place, not a more dangerous one. By distorting the historical and moral truths about what happened that day, President Obama is pointing us in the opposite direction.”

Arthur Herman, author of “Gandhi and Churchill,” is finishing a book on the arse nal of democracy in World War II.

Mrs. Obama’s $375,000 plus Vacation to Spain

John Hinderaker notes a thing or two about the nearly half a million dollar vacation the Mrs. Obama is taking to Spain:

“News reports indicate that, because Michelle Obama polls better than her husband, the Democrats are planning to use her in the current election cycle to support candidates who may not want to be associated with the President. That being the case, her Spanish vacation with 40 close personal friends and her younger daughter seems doubly odd.

There is nothing wrong with expensive vacations, of course, especially when many of the costs are being picked up by the Obamas and their guests. But the taxpayers’ share of the trip is costly too, and the level of well-publicized luxury being enjoyed by Mrs. Obama and her entourage resulted in a New York Daily News columnist likening her to Marie Antoinette. Whether fair or not, it should come as no surprise that news accounts of the fabulous vacation, complete with photos of police shutting off a section of beach so that Michelle and her party can frolic in isolation, rub some the wrong way.

Which caused Roger Simon to return to his theory that Barack Obama doesn’t really want to be President:

Michelle’s $375,000 Spanish vacation — with the Daily Mail dubbing her a “modern-day Marie Antoinette” — is further proof of my thesis. What man who wanted to be re-elected (or see his party do well in November) would let his wife go off on such an “excellent adventure” in these economic times? … It is beyond tone deaf, perhaps to the level of subconscious (or even deliberate) self-sabotage.

At the very least, something most peculiar is going on. The first lady goes off on a jaunt worthy of 18th Century aristocracy at the very moment of her husband’s birthday. Is somebody trying to tell us something? Is somebody trying to tell her spouse something? Or vice-versa? Who knows? You won’t find out in the mainstream media — that’s for sure. They don’t even bother to check Obama’s college records. Perhaps the National Enquirer is on the case. They may be the only hope.

If I were still a member of the Democratic Party, I would be most concerned.

Roger speculates that the Obamas’ behavior may be symptomatic of narcissism, then offers this alternative:

But maybe it’s simpler. Maybe Michelle and Barack just assume the president is not going to be re-elected, so why bother to keep up pretenses?

All very provocative. But, while it seems clear that President Obama enjoys campaigning and hobnobbing a lot more than he does governing, it is hard to imagine him giving up after one term. I think the Obamas’ tone-deafness, which was on exhibit long before Michelle’s Spanish vacation, more likely results from their inexperience and the fact that if you are a significant figure in Democratic Party politics, you spend a great deal of time with rich people.  They can skew ones perspective.”

Comment:  I don’t agree with this line of explanation of the entitlement president Obama and his wife.  I have the feeling most pundits about Obama behavior have never had much contact with the inner city American black community.

I don’t think the Obamas have any feel for conduct in the majority culture.  College kids don’t either.  They are too into themselves to think or be concerned about what is generally accepted as proper berhavior in the majority culture adult world. 

There isn’t much of an adult world in 2010 America, that is true.  But one of the rules of behavior is when the masses are suffering in America, its leaders must show some degree of contrition, understanding and empathy……more than Obama slogans and rhetoric, especially those mechanically delivered as they usually are.

In my experience in this minority community, dated though it might be, blacks believe those in the white community are exactly like they are  at the lower level of social expression with all the lying, violence, and dysfunction that is the  major part of it, only white reporters, left and  right, lie about it…cover it up to make blacks look bad.  Little distinction is made in judging whites based on their range of political persuasion, left to right.   A white is a white.  Some are dumber than others.  The racists are those whites who in any way don’t harmonize and acquiece to black demands.  

Through his political approaches, I don’t believe Obama has a feel for a standard American view.  I think his advisors are mostly outsiders, renegades…..isolates, themselves foreign to or critics of American habits of thought and behavior.   They don’t have a feel for the inappropriate.  Or, if they do, they choose to challenge it.

Remember the bigwig from the UK and British Petroleum who talked about the common folk of the Gulf community suffering from the oil spill, as “the little people”?   We don’t call any Americans “little people”, even “midgets”……..  The BP man didn’t know his Americn culture on the matter.

It may be that re-election is not the primary goal of this president.  His primary goal seems to be to establish a Marxist state in which the government micromanages America in every aspect possible, because these college folk, isolated and ill-educated as they are, isolated from wisdom, white or black are certain they know how to run your and my life better than we do.

Mr. Obama, and Mrs. Obama may be surprised at the resistance from the people unwilling to relinquish their lives to the state………and they may be surprised that in this time of woe for so many American family’s a Marie Antoinette trip to  Spain might not be a good thing to do…….but what can they expect from white racism?

Is David Cameron the New George W. Bush?

………is the way Andy Becket of the major  Leftwing Brit Journal, the Guardian entitled his today’s article at guardian.co.uk.  He continued with the subtitle:  “Our young energetic prime minister has more in common with the discredited former president than you may think.”

Well, I wasn’t thinking about the comparison, and I am not particularly interested in the ups and downs of David Cameron leading Britain, other than I view hims as a Brit RINO…… or rather CINO(conservative in name only) and bubbly on television.  At least he isn’t a Gordon Brown clone.

Character means a great deal to me.   And I worry a lot about my own.  I admit that character should mean a lot to everyone…..we would be a better culture for it. 

I liked George W. Bush.  I like George W. Bush.  I shall like George W. Bush till I die!

He was a poor politician and not a good planner.  I did not put on a good show.  He never pretended to be a university controlled  intellectual.   I found and find that a great positive.  He was the anti-Obama, and God Bless him for it.  He was from a family which believed in government service.   I suppose there is an air of elitism in that belief and practice, but I find that noble.

I don’t hate the rich.

Mr. Bush did not want to plague America with any Marxist demands.   He was a citizen, bright and capable, with a terrific resume of an American who was troubled finding his space in life (as is so common among the young of families of wealth and noteriety.   It is reported he was winsome and popular with all in his years of probing through his forests.  It was reported by the countless who trie to smear  him that in his college youth,  he once danced on a bar top sans clothing.  I hoped at the time it was true.   It made him an American college kid, which by the way, he was.  He never threw a bomb like some  friends of our current president did.

He was inarticulate.  But so is Obama, the contemporary hero of the American mass leftwing media.  George W. never claimed to have been in all of America’s 57 states.  George W. Bush’s father also was inarticulate, often ending sentences with a drift rather than with words. 

What a good man America had as president from January 20, 2001 through January 19, 2009.   An honest man, decent man, and a man of charcter who preferred, it seemed, to be quiet and private than standing in the world’s spot light……..The Gary Cooper of the White House occupants, I think.

He represented an old fashioned American gentleman;  a man who humbled himself before his religion and privately went on to do his best as the nation’s leader.

The current president is dramatically a different person.   He seems to be a decent person in the core.  But he has had a bad upbringing.  He is a politician rather than a good man.   He professes dishonesty and duplicity as the  base for his communication skills.  He is secretive and plotting.   He is not a classic American, and does not like America as it is and for what the country has stood and achieved.  I believe he is a Marxist by religion.

David Cameron has not faced a September 11, 2001.   In what way did Mr. Bush exceed the electorate’s instructions in 2001?   

Mr. Cameron  has not faced an election so hotly and visciously and dishonestly contested as the election of November, 2000, an election some of his leftwing opponents, mainly those in the media and on the extreme left, have used to energize enemies of all kind to destroy Mr. Bush’s presidency…..They succeeded in many ways.   “Bush lied.  People died” is a slogan those saboteurs of America  dishonestly fixed into the public’s mind of Mr. Bush’s being.  

In the process, they have destroyed the meaning of the word “Lie” as telling an untruth.  Perhaps this is why Mr. Obama has forgotten its meaning if ever he knew what it meant.

“Discredited” is the word writer Beckett uses in his subtitle.  Yes and no….He is still discredited by America’s motivated Leftwing press, college professors, and Obama propagandists.   I do not think former president George W. Bush will continue to be discredited for long……but not until the retirements, probably,  of Barack Hussein Obama and the Leftwing gurus selling their anti-American propaganda products in the  Journalism schools of America’s universities.

Here is Mr. Andy Beckett’s guardian.co.uk article:

“Both men come from elite families, but rebranded themselves – with useful help from supposedly “anti-elite” parts of the rightwing media such as the Sun and Fox News – as relatively ordinary citizens. Both men were political slow starters: Cameron not active in student politics in the 80s, despite the decade’s crucial and absorbing ideological battles; Bush not winning elected office until he became governor of Texas in 1995 at the age of 48. Rather than doing early political apprenticeships, like the earnest young Milibands, Bush and Cameron had some hedonistic times as young adults, which may continue to interest their opponents and biographers.

Having missed the heyday of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, the two men began to rise instead when voters were losing their appetite for transatlantic conservatism’s more caustic remedies, and positioned themselves accordingly as “compassionate conservatives”. Most journalists took this carefully constructed moderation at face value.

Voters were less impressed. In the 2000 presidential election Bush, infamously, received about half a million votes fewer than Al Gore, despite Gore’s over-complicated and stiff public manner, and a jittery economy. In this May’s general election, it is already less remembered, Cameron’s Conservatives scraped 36% of the vote – only a slight improvement on the share the party won in its heavy defeats in 2005 and 2001 – despite Gordon Brown’s Gore-style presentational problems, and despite a British economy that was not so much jittery as post-traumatic.

And yet, out of Bush and Cameron’s poor election showings in 2000 and 2010 has come a new, bolder British and American conservatism. You could call it a politics of wishful thinking – or of bluff.

First, the two men spun their thin or nonexistent electoral mandates as decisive expressions of public support. Thus, in America, throughout the month-long tumult of recounts and court challenges that followed the 2000 election, Bush presented himself as the contest’s victor and Gore as the loser, when there was plenty of evidence that the situation was unclear or even the opposite. Similarly, in Britain this May, on election night, with a mere three seats declared (all retained by Labour) and the exit polls predicting a hung parliament, Cameron’s key ally, George Osborne, told the BBC: “I do not think there’s any question of Labour being able to continue [in office].” A few commentators fleetingly raised an eyebrow at Osborne’s characteristically cocky, premature triumphalism, but it helped create a conventional wisdom about the election result that led directly to the formation of the coalition.

Once in government, Cameron, like Bush, has again exceeded the electorate’s instructions. The cautious, inclusive, compassionate conservative has turned into a divisive rightwing radical. Both men have used national emergencies as political cover. For Bush, it was 9/11 that justified his huge, reckless neocon experiment. For Cameron, the emergency, more contrived, has been the double one of a hung parliament and a large national deficit – neither of them remotely unprecedented, but scary enough, in a Britain recently grown accustomed to political and economic stability, to make a shrinking of state spending drastic enough to satisfy the zaniest of 80s Thatcherites look like common sense, for the time being, to an impressive 55% of voters.”

Harry Reid’s Election Year Politics

TO GOVERN is to choose, and nothing lays bare a government’s true priorities like the choices it makes about spending taxpayers’ money. In that regard, the Senate’s decision to spend $10 billion on education jobs this week is revealing — and deeply discouraging.

The crusade for an education jobs bill, led by the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress, has always struck us as more of an election-year favor for teachers unions than an optimal use of public resources. Billed as an effort to stimulate the economy, it’s not clearly more effective than alternative uses of the cash. Yes, school budgets are tight across the country, but the teacher layoff “crisis” is exaggerated. In fact, as happens each year, many teachers who got pink slips in the spring have been notified that they’ll be hired after all. Many layoffs could have been — and indeed have been — avoided by modest union concessions.

As of last school year, the money for 5.5 percent of the 6 million K-12 jobs nationwide came from Washington through the 2009 stimulus; the new money reinforces this dangerous dependency.

Nor does the legislation target areas with the most projected teacher layoffs; Maryland, for example, is slated to get $179 million, yet officials have no estimate of layoffs for the school year that begins in a few weeks. The Baltimore Sun noted in May that “most of [the state's] school systems are not planning to lay off teachers,” and that several were hiring new ones. No matter: The bill allows school systems to use the money to expand their teaching staffs or even to raise teacher salaries.

The same bill includes $16 billion for Medicaid, offset in part by eliminating tax credits for overseas income of multinational corporations. Medicaid relief defensibly helps states cope with what is, for many, a crushing federal mandate. The money earmarked for education might have been defensible, too, if Congress swapped it for reforms, such as changing the widespread policy of firing by seniority. Cherished by teachers unions, this practice ensures that layoffs disproportionately affect schools serving poor children, because they tend to have the newest teaching staff. Congress rejected the idea.

Compounding that unfairness, however, is the Senate’s decision to help pay for the teacher bailout by cutting $11.9 billion from nutrition assistance for the poor starting in 2014. You read that right: The bill borrows money to spend on middle-class school system employees today and promises to pay it back by taking food out of the mouths of America’s neediest in a few years. A family of three can expect their benefits to drop about $50 a month. The cuts would leave food assistance at its pre-2009 stimulus levels, but those were hardly luxurious.”

Comment:  In case, dear readers, you have forgotten what Harry Reid looks like and sounds like, please click on this youtube video of an interview where he, in the flesh, insisted and insisted, that for Americans, paying their income taxes was voluntary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg