Dinesh D’Sousa Explains Obama in “The Roots of Obama’s Rage”

Aging, “young” conservative, Dinesh D’Sousa has written a pretty good “profile” of Barack Hussein Obama, in his new book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage”, if it is anything like his descriptions he reviewed today substituting for Dennis Prager as host of the Dennis Prager Show.  Here is a summary found at the D’Sousa Website:

“The real Obama is a man shaped by experiences far different from those of most Americans; he is a much stranger, more determined, and exponentially more dangerous man than you’d ever imagined. He is not motivated by the civil rights struggles of African Americans in the 1960s — those battles leave him wholly untouched. He is not motivated by the socialist or Marxist propaganda that hypnotized a whole generation of wooly-minded academics and condescending liberals — those concepts also leave him cold.

What really motivates Barack Obama is an inherited rage — an often masked, but profound rage that comes from his African father; an anticolonialist rage against Western dominance, and most especially against the wealth and power of the very nation Barack Obama now leads. It is this rage that explains the previously inexplicable, and that gives us a startling look at what might lie ahead.

In The Roots of Obama’s Rage you’ll learn: Why Obama’s economic policies are actually designed to make America poorer compared to the rest of the world Why Obama will welcome a nuclear Iran Why Obama sees America as a rogue nation — worse than North Korea The real reason Obama banished a bust of Winston Churchill from the White House and ordered NASA to praise the scientific contributions of Muslims Why Obama would like to make America’s superpower status a thing of the past

Stunning, provocative, original, and telling — no one has better diagnosed who Obama is, what he intends to do, and why he poses an existential threat to America than Dinesh D’Souza in The Roots of Obama’s Rage.

from the back cover…

We are today living out the script for America and the world that was dreamt up not by Obama but by Obama’s father. How do I know this? Because Obama says so himself. Reflect for a moment on the title of his book: it’s not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. In other words, Obama is not writing a book about his father’s dreams; he is writing a book about the dreams that he got from his father.

Think about what this means. The most powerful country in the world is being governed according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s — a polygamist who abandoned his wives, drank himself into stupors, and bounced around on two iron legs (after his real legs had to be amputated because of a car crash caused by his drunk driving). This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anti-colonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son is the one who is making it happen, but the son is, as he candidly admits, only living out his father’s dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is being governed by a ghost.”

Comment:  I was very persuaded by Mr. D’Sousa’s assessments of the president made while hosting the Prager show today. 

My argument from his first campaign appearances on television early January, 2008, this was a person manufactured at the modern American university, but was more foreign to the country than American.  A stranger, a loner, a man without a sense of humor and friends.  No one speaks affectionately about the president from his days gone by.  No one.

His inability to be genuine from the very outset, should have disqualified him from from presidential success.   Contemporary American blacks live a culture separate from America.  Not all of the time when they exit their communities, but many never when they remain home.  Many learn ugly untruths about America from very young lives.   Others have them stirred while at college……and Mr. Obama went to college.

Yet, Mr. Obama is genetically an equal mix.  He chose to be black at a time when to be black is profitable.  I think I probably would have done the same, but if I could take my America with me, I could never have belonged to a Jermiah “Hate America” church for twenty two years. 

Mr. Obama has  chosen Islam and Marxism among his romances. That  he has chosen to fulfill his father’s dream to fix up Marxism by creating a romantic socialism…..is very plausible.

____________________________________

Obama On Campaign Parade “Without a Defendable Record”…George Will

George Will wrote this article at the Washington Post.  It’s title is “Without a defendable record, the Democrats pound the table”………..

and smear, he could have added.  He writes:

“It is a lawyers’ adage: If you have the law on your side, argue the law; if you have the facts, argue the facts; if you have neither, pound the table. Forgive the Democrats for their current table-pounding.

They cannot run on their record, which has two pillars. One is the stimulus that did not stimulate as they said it would (or else unemployment would not be above 8 percent). The report that the recession ended in June 2009 means the feeble recovery began before stimulus spending really started.

The second pillar is the health-care legislation. This may not be (as suggested by Michael Barone, author of the Almanac of American Politics) the most unpopular major legislation since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. But it remains as unpopular as it was when the administration told Americans to pipe down and eat their broccoli.

Unable to campaign retrospectively, Democrats also cannot campaign prospectively — “Elect us and get more broccoli!” Hence the table-pounding: The Tea Party is a death panel for America’s happiness.

As the year began, we were warned that Tea Partyers would not play nicely with others — would not abide by the mores and outcomes of the two-party competition. It is, however, some anti-Tea Party “moderates” who exemplify repulsive politics this year.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist wanted the Republican Senate nomination. So did Marco Rubio, a Tea Party favorite. When Rubio went from 30 points behind Crist to 30 points ahead, Crist discovered that he is not a Republican. Promptly reversing his beliefs on various policy questions, he embarked on a run as an independent.

It is unfairly said that Crist’s versatility of conviction proves that he has no convictions. He has one. It is that he should be a senator. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski is similarly a conviction politician.

She became a senator by nepotism (her father appointed her to his Senate seat when he resigned to become Alaska’s governor). Since losing her renomination bid — defeated by Tea Party-backed Joe Miller — she has behaved as though voters have violated her property right to her seat. She is running a write-in campaign. (To hear an amusing radio ad against this, visit http://www.ItsNotYourSeatLisa.com.)

When Mike Lee, supported by Tea Party types, defeated Utah Republican Sen. Bob Bennett’s bid to be renominated for a fourth term, Bennett contemplated a write-in campaign. In Delaware, where Christine O’Donnell defeated Rep. Mike Castle for the Republican Senate nomination, Castle entertained but then ruled out a write-in candidacy Wednesday evening.

Democrats, unable to run on their policies, will try to demonize the opponents with Tea Party support as unstable extremists with personality disorders. They have ridden this hobby horse before.

In 1964, the slogan of the Republican presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, was “A choice, not an echo.” Forty-six years on, the Tea Party is a loud echo of his attempt to reconnect American politics with the tradition of limited government.

In response to a questionnaire from a magazine, 1,189 psychiatrists, none of whom had ever met Goldwater, declared him unfit for office — “emotionally unstable,” “immature,” “cowardly,” “grossly psychotic,” “paranoid,” “chronic schizophrenic” and “dangerous lunatic” were some judgments from the psychiatrists who believed that extremism in pursuit of Goldwater was no vice. Shortly before the election, Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter published in Harper’s an essay (later expanded into a book with the same title), “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” that encouraged the idea that Goldwater’s kind of conservatism was a mental disorder.

On the eve of the convention that nominated Goldwater, Daniel Schorr of CBS, “reporting” from Germany, said: “It looks as though Sen. Goldwater, if nominated, will be starting his campaign here in Bavaria, center of Germany’s right wing” and “Hitler’s one-time stomping ground.”

Goldwater, said Schorr, would be vacationing near Hitler’s villa at Berchtesgaden. Schorr further noted that Goldwater had given an interview to Der Spiegel “appealing to right-wing elements in Germany” and had agreed to speak to a gathering of “right-wing Germans.” So, “there are signs that the American and German right wings are joining up.”

But as Andrew Ferguson of the Weekly Standard has reported, although Goldwater had spoken vaguely about a European vacation (he did not take one), he had not mentioned Germany, and there were no plans to address any German group. Der Spiegel had reprinted an interview that had appeared elsewhere.

The relevance of this for 2010? There is precedent for the mainstream media being megaphones for Democratic-manufactured hysteria.”

Comment:  He raised his voice, with black accent occasionally thrown in, at his show on the Madison campus of the University of Wisconsin system yesterday….The Left is big there.  They like Marxism and preach it.   Judeo-Christian concepts are very yesterday, and are not allowed on campus…..as well as freedom of speech, unbigotted professors, and search for truth in the social sciences……a typical 2010 American institution of “higher” learnings.

What Americans, Even Obama, Need to Know About Islam……

…..is clearly and passionately and articulately  reviewed by Brit, Pat Condell.  He differs in his assessments of modern, active  Islam from president Obama.

Mr. Condell’s resume of the insults modern Islam accosts  civilized societies everywhere  is  not allowed in Obama’s politically correct censorship crowd…..especially in the calcified Ivory which controls free speech throughout our American “towers” of higher and lower learnings.

Here is your opportunity to hear a Brit’s review of Islamic activities in the language  of freer speech than seems allowed here in free America:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/pat-condell-on-ground-zero-mosque-is-it-possible-to-be-astonished-but-not-surprised.html

Comment:  Click on to hear the exquisite explanations again.  Masterful speech needs to be examined in review after review……and remember Mr. Condell’s observation:

“Nine-eleven  could never have happened if not for Islam and its teachings!!!”  

POLITICIZED ISLAM IS THE ENEMY OF FREE PEOPLES EVERYWHERE !

Why Is a College Education So Expensive in Price, and Cheap in Learnings?

Why Is College So Expensive?

Soft consumer demand in a weak economy has led many businesses to cut prices, but this is not the case in the market for higher education.  In fact, tuition at American universities has been increasing faster than inflation for the past 30 years, say Courtney O’Sullivan, an editor at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Angelica Gonzalez, a research assistant at the National Center for Policy Analysis. 

• An increasing proportion of the cost of college education is paid for with federal aid, much of it in the form of student loans.
• Between 1999 and 2009, the portion of average tuition and fees at a four-year public university financed by federal loans rose from less than 60 percent to about 75 percent.

So where is all this taxpayer money going?  Not the classroom. 

• The Delta Cost Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity and Accountability reports that institutional spending per fulltime equivalent student for student services rose more than 36 percent at private research universities from 1998 to 2008, after adjusting for inflation.
• By contrast, institutional spending on instruction increased only 22.4 percent at private research universities.
• At public research universities, student services spending increased 20.1 percent and instructional spending rose just 10.1 percent over the same period.

Higher costs are not translating into better results for students bearing the debt, say O’Sullivan and Gonzalez.

• From 2002 to 2006, the number of total degrees awarded per 100 fulltime equivalent students enrolled increased by just one at private research universities and by two at public research universities, according to the Delta Cost Project.
• In addition, the share of students completing a bachelor’s degree in four years or less fell from about 45 percent in 1977 to 31 percent in the 1990s, according to a National Bureau for Economic Research report.

Source: Courtney O’Sullivan and Angelica Gonzalez, “Why Is College So Expensive?” National Center for Policy Analysis, September 30, 2010.

Comment:  And so the next question asked is “Why, in the social sciences, are the students who matriculate through graduation, so unlearned, so unprepared for employment, so unaware of the adult world around them?   Why do they possess such an empty vocabulary?  And then……………

What does a graduate  from  a University Women Studies Department do with a Phd degree in “Vagina Studies”?   Who hires this specialist?   What is her specialty?

What about a graduate degree collected from a Black Studies Department…..Does  one become more qualified, gain more skills  to be more learned racist? ……a worker for the Black Panthers?   a closer friend of Eric Holder in the Justice Department?

And then there are the special studies in nearly every American University these days called Departments of Gay and Lesbian Studies.   In what service does this graduate become professional?

Dear Prager allies…..These people are hired.  What institutions are plagued, pressured, or  forced to hire them?    What is the expertise, the ‘science’ they master and share with others?

For starters, they teach what they have memorized, at your wannabe  up-to-date LIBERAL neighborhood college and university.  They work for the Obama administration, for leftwing political organizing groups,  and for  just-around-the-corner-Leftwing churches, schools, studios, newspapers, journals, minority oriented offices, community organizing groups, and other taxpayer paid “public” service offices all serving the families of the  New Left.

It is an excited group.  It is presenting a new interpretation  of America to create ‘change’.   These are the people Mr. Obama stirs with joy, when he visits the University of Wisconsin at Madison.  These are the people who know better, claim to be  more modern, more considerate of others, and so,want to manage your and our citizen  affairs to make sure we people are equal and don’t differ one from another.

A must for every American interested in America’s modern education world is a reading of David Horowitz’s book, ”One Party Classroom”. 

In his book, Horowitz writes that the University of Missouri, the Women and Gender Studies Program “declares in its ‘Mission Statement’ that it is “committed to the interdisciplinary, feminist study of the social, cultural, and historical processes that gender human identity”.  

 The University doesn’t bother to hide its admission that it accepts the bigotry of feminism as the basis of its “gender studies program”.  Required courses include “feminist politics”.

Another class title in the “Program”, is WGST 2080  Outlaw Genders…with  instructor, Elisa Glick, Assistant Professor of English and Women’s and Gender Studies.  (WGST)  Its course description asks:  “What is gender and how do we define its boundaries?  How are ‘male’ and “female” bodies and identities produced by culture?  How do ‘outlaw genders’ challenge our understanding of (and experience of) sex, gender and sexuality?  What does gender freedom look like?  These are a few of the questions we will explore in this cross-cultural course on gender and sexual diversity.”

David Horowitz writes, “Here, as in countless other Women’s Studies courses, the dubious claim that male and female genders are ‘produced by culture’ is simply rammed down students throats, as the class assigns no texts that include scientific findings that show profound masculine and feminine characteristics rooted in nature.”

This witchcraft accepted as social science by the University of Missouri, is the same witchcraft propagandized by the loony Left at your Marxist friendly college or university just around the corner from where you live…….from coast to coast.

Black Studies graduates, learning scores of new and old ways to hate non-blacks get jobs with the NAACP, community organizing groups, and with the Democratic Party.

Americans are not yet upset enough to pay much attention to the corruption in the country’s education system, whether at elementary, secondary, or university levels.

Many will pay the price regardless of the ridiculous results received dollar for dollar.  The future of America as a community  is very, very bleak. 

The coming generation will practice what we have allowed them to learn.  Without truth there are dreadful consequences……..as we are already beginning to discover in Washington.

Obama To Force Taxpayers to Pay for the Union Label

Steven Melanga writes the following article at realclearlpolitics:

“An advertisement supporting Washington State’s Initiative 1098, which would create a new tax on the state’s upper income earners, starts provocatively with William Gates Sr. taking a dunk in a pool and then declaring that he’s okay with getting soaked by the new tax. So, apparently, is his much richer and more famous son, Microsoft founder Bill Gates Jr., who also supports the initiative.

The sight of rich people pleading to be taxed more has attracted attention to the November ballot initiative. But otherwise, support for the ballot measure, which would slap a tax of from 5 percent to 9 percent on the income of those earning more than $200,000 a year ($400,000 for those filing jointly), is entirely predictable. The chief force behind it is the state’s unions, who’ve contributed some $2 million to the campaign for the initiative, led by the state employees’ union, the teachers’ union and the Service Employees International Union, the largest union in the state with 100,000 workers, many of them working in the heavily-regulated area of health care.

This is the nature of tax hike campaigns these days. When the union movement in America crossed a crucial threshold recently, as membership in public sector unions surpassed private sector union enrollment for the first time, the event signified deeper changes in labor in America. The new labor movement, dominated by government workers, is an increasingly white-collar interest group, culturally progressive and fiscally liberal, and it has become the chief organizer of efforts to raise taxes in America, especially at the state and local level, where these government worker unions wield their greatest influence. Their efforts have helped boost local taxes this year more than any year since 1979.

Find a tax increase campaign and you’re almost certain to find a government union behind it. The California Teachers Association, for instance, is the chief force behind a November ballot initiative in the Golden State which would raise business taxes. The CTA alone has contributed some $6.4 million of its members’ dues money to the campaign, according to filings with the California Secretary of State’s office. Other public unions have anted up another $2.5 million.

In fact, since the budget squeeze hit states and municipalities starting in 2008, such tax and spend campaigns have been typical. Researchers at the Heritage Foundation counted some 25 public union-driven efforts in that time. They include successful efforts by Arizona’s unions to raise the state’s sales tax earlier this year, a ballot initiative in Oklahoma sponsored by the state’s teachers’ unions to raise education spending by $1 billion, a successful $8 million campaign in Oregon by public unions to defeat initiatives seeking to roll back corporate and personal income tax hikes, and a $4 million advertising effort this past spring designed to pressure New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to raise taxes in his state, which failed.

It hasn’t always been this way. At the crucial point in the country’s labor history when public sector employees were first earning the right to organize, the union movement was largely blue-collar, culturally conservative and often pro-economic growth in its efforts. At that time, union leaders led by George Meany, former head of the AFL-CIO, lobbied heavily for one of the most significant tax cuts of the 20th century, the historic 1964 tax package, originally proposed by President Kennedy the previous year with union support.

Meany, ironically, was one of the private labor leaders of that era who looked with suspicion on the growing movement to grant collective bargaining rights to government workers. Critics worried that because government is a monopoly whose management is composed of elected officials, public unions might wind up with a big hand in electing those they must bargain with. Some in Meany’s circle also resented the notion that public employees, already protected by civil service laws, wanted to identify themselves with the long struggles of America’s industrial workers.

But politicians like New York City Mayor Robert Wagner saw even back then that public workers could be valuable political allies. Once a few big city mayors like Wagner began granting collective bargaining rights to public workers, the trend proved irreversible and over time these unions garnered enormous resources which made them among the biggest political players in many states and cities. To understand why, just consider that in California, membership in the teachers’ union grew from about 170,000 at the time when unionization began to about 340,000 today. The CTA is nourished by annual union dues of more than $1,000 per member (do the math), one reason why the union can kick in millions of dollars to support tax-hike initiatives.

In the current election public unions face a backlash from voters who seem to have figured out that the union movement in America is now the chief proponent of higher taxes, and that the increases have often gone to burnish the pay and benefits of government workers. Even union members have figured out that they, too, can become targets of these higher taxes. And not all of them like it.

In 2009 the New York State United Teachers ran a $1.5 million advertising campaign aimed at increasing taxes on families earning $250,000 or more in the Empire State. The ads provoked the ire of some educators. As the head of the Eastchester Teachers Association wrote on the union’s website:

“My wife and I are both employed as science teachers in Westchester County, and earned a gross household income in 2007 of more than $240,000. This year, we may top the $250,000 figure with step increases and extracurricular activities. Thus, NYSUT is suggesting that union teachers who worked hard to get good-paying jobs be taxed at a higher percentage than others.”

Yes, that’s exactly what public unions have been advocating for decades. Even their own members are starting to figure it out, and not all of them like it.”

Ed Schultz, MSNBC Star of Leftese Dialects, Salts Governor Christie’s Girth and Style

 Ed Schultz appears on MSNBC News five nights a week while Americans are busy eating their supper.  He speaks Leftese, Obama language. and speaks in many dialects, usually with more salt  than Obama uses on his tongue….

Mr. Schultz doesn’t like Governor Christie’s style and girth, and that he is conservative, and a governor of a nearly bankrupt Democrat Party-led state, New Jersey.  He has become quite popular.  I admit that I would like him to topple Mr. Obama in 2012.

Mr. Obama may have been born of Kenyan and Kansan parents.  Mr. Christie’s parents were Sicilian and Irish.

click here for a variety of  Ed Schultz dialects including the charge the governor insults all women:

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/27/ed-schultz-chris-christie_n_739929.html

click here for the full video of the teacher who used her Lefty language to challenge the governor, but when given a choice of either being rude  or listen to his answers to her question without her tantrums, she chose to become an adult and listen politely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkuTm-ON904

I admire the teacher for growing up instead of acting Leftish.  She was sent  to harass the Governor.  His reponse to her was remarkably appropriate…..don’t you think?

Exposing Leftwing “Houston Votes” for Voter Fraud

Andrew Breitbard, at Big Government examines reports of massive voter fraud in 2008 in Houston, Texas:

“You may have read that there is strong evidence of voter fraud in Houston. Here’s what you may not have heard: the organization accused of shady behavior is linked to a former head of an Obama campaign office. She is a fan of Che Guevara. She is also the person who invited to a town hall meeting a woman who then posed as a doctor at that meeting during the health care debate.

Here are the details.

Last month, Houston’s Registrar accused a Democratic organization called “Houston Votes” of voter registration fraud. The allegations were recently detailed here, and make compelling reading:

When Catherine Engelbrecht and her friends sat down and started talking politics several years ago, they soon agreed that talking wasn’t enough. They wanted to do more. So when the 2008 election came around, “about 50” of her friends volunteered to work at Houston’s polling places.

“What we saw shocked us,” she said. “There was no one checking IDs, judges would vote for people that asked for help. It was fraud, and we watched like deer in the headlights.”

Their shared experience, she says, created “True the Vote,” a citizen-based grassroots organization that began collecting publicly available voting data to prove that what they saw in their day at the polls was, indeed, happening — and that it was happening everywhere.

. . . .

Their work paid off. Two weeks ago the Harris County voter registrar took their work and the findings of his own investigation and handed them over to both the Texas secretary of state’s office and the Harris County district attorney.

Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Sean Caddle, who also worked for the Service Employees International Union before coming to Houston. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid.

The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures. . . .

“The integrity of the voting rolls in Harris County, Texas, appears to be under an organized and systematic attack by the group operating under the name Houston Votes,” the Harris voter registrar, Leo Vasquez, charged as he passed on the documentation to the district attorney.

Guess who was active in recruiting for Houston Votes? That would be one Maria Isabel!”

Comment:  Barack Hussein Obama was an attorney, the chief attorney for ACORN in Chicago and called himself a community organizer.  Organizing votes was a major part of the agenda.

Voter Fraud, 2008 Houston, Texas…..So, What Else Is New?

Voter fraud has been exposed in Houston, Texas.  Ed Barnes of Fox News, writes the following:

 

“When Catherine Engelbrecht and her friends sat down and started talking politics several years ago, they soon agreed that talking wasn’t enough. They wanted to do more. So when the 2008 election came around, “about 50” of her friends volunteered to work at Houston’s polling places.

“What we saw shocked us,” she said. “There was no one checking IDs, judges would vote for people that asked for help. It was fraud, and we watched like deer in the headlights.”

Their shared experience, she says, created “True the Vote,” a citizen-based grassroots organization that began collecting publicly available voting data to prove that what they saw in their day at the polls was, indeed, happening — and that it was happening everywhere. 

“It was a true Tea Party moment,” she remembers.

Like most voter watchdog groups, she said, her group started small. They decided to investigate voting fraud in general, not just at the polling places, and at first they weren’t even sure what to look for — and where to look for it. 

The first thing we started to do was look at houses with more than six voters in them” Engelbrecht said, because those houses were the most likely to have fraudulent registrations attached to them. “Most voting districts had 1,800 if they were Republican and 2,400 of these houses if they were Democratic . . .

“But we came across one with 24,000, and that was where we started looking.”

It was Houston’s poorest and predominantly black district, which has led some to accuse the group of targeting poor black areas. But Engelbrecht rejects that, saying, “It had nothing to do with politics. It was just the numbers.” 

The task was overwhelming. With 1.9 million voters and 886 voting precincts, Houston’s Harris County is the second largest county in the country — and the key to Texas elections.

The group called for help and quickly got 30 donated computers and “tens of thousands of hours” of volunteer work. And then the questions started to arise. 

“Vacant lots had several voters registered on them. An eight-bed halfway house had more than 40 voters registered at its address,” Engelbrecht said. “We then decided to look at who was registering the voters.”

Their work paid off. Two weeks ago the Harris County voter registrar took their work and the findings of his own investigation and handed them over to both the Texas secretary of state’s office and the Harris County district attorney.

Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Sean Caddle, who also worked for the Service Employees International Union before coming to Houston. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid. 

The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures. 

Caddle told local newspapers that there “had been mistakes made,” and he said he had fired 30 workers for filing defective voter registration applications. He could not be reached for this article.

“The integrity of the voting rolls in Harris County, Texas, appears to be under an organized and systematic attack by the group operating under the name Houston Votes,” the Harris voter registrar, Leo Vasquez, charged as he passed on the documentation to the district attorney. A spokesman for the DA’s office declined to discuss the case. And a spokesman for Vasquez said that the DA has asked them to refrain from commenting on the case.

The outcome of the efforts grew in importance the day after Vasquez made his announcement. On the morning of Aug. 27, a three-alarm fire destroyed almost all of Harris County’s voting machines, throwing the upcoming Nov. 2 election into turmoil. While the cause wasn’t determined, the $40 million blaze, according to press reports, means election officials will be focused on creating a whole new voting system in six weeks. Just how they do it will determine how vulnerable the process becomes.”

Comment:  The inner city American black culture is essentially a Marxist plantation culture and has been for some time.  There are the bossman politicians all hired by the American Left to keep the flock in political line…serve them regular dinners of hate-and lies  education against  anything  white but not  Democrat Party  to go along with  political payoffs  and financial handouts from politicians “looking out for them”.  

It is a culture crippled by male violence and crime, fatherlessness, family units in disarray, and a community allergic to  education, the good schooling kind.  Many of its residents are taught to hate whitey from the day they are born. 

Other folks, decent in their soul, guided by their church and a devotion to the right from wrong, rise above the “Goddamn America” Jeremiah type  preachers whether in cloth or in jail.  Any criticism from anything white is called racism.  The American left obliges by forcing its laws of Political Correctness, some written, some not, throughout the country, in its schools, churches, movies, television, newspapers, magazines……everywhere, into nearly every household.

Universities establish Black Studies Departments where teaching hate of whites becomes established, popular, and chic…..learnings the modern white left calls “Liberal Arts”.

Cheating on voting day in these areas is nothing new.  As in much of the third world, since it is expected, it becomes a matter of degree. 

Obama’s Hangups With News and Fox: His Suffering for Being A Marxist

David Zurawik at the Baltimore Sun isn’t moved by president Obama’s view of what a free, unbiased press is.   The president seems to prefer MSNBC to Fox News and claims there was a time in American history when the press was free of bias.

Only graduates of Columbia and Princeton could develop such learnings.  Let’s see what the president believes about NEWS.

Mr. Zurawik writes:

“Last year at this time, President Obama and his top White House advisers were about to launch a disastrous campaign against Fox News.

I say disastrous because the acting communications director, Anita Dunn, who sounded the call to arms on Howard Kurtz’s “Reliable Sources” show, would resign within weeks. By then, the president and his innermost circle — after going on every major non-Fox news show to attack TV’s highest-rated cable news channel as “not really being a news channel”  — were in full retreat.

I was in the middle of it, a little lonely at first as one of the only mainstream journalists denouncing what the White House was up to. I stressed the need for a free press — a press independent from the reaches and power of any of the branches of government — for democracy to be served.

It got nasty before journalists at other cable channels and networks who understood the principle stepped up and spoke out against an executive branch trying to bully and browbeat a competitor. ABC’s Jake Tapper, then-CNN host Campbell Brown and NBC’s Savannah Guthrie were among the cable and network newscasters who ultimately challenged the White House on what it was trying to do to Fox.

And now comes President Obama in a “Rolling Stone” interview citing the very point I made over and over while under attack from his operatives last fall when he was asked by Jann Wenner about Fox News in an interview for a midterm-themed cover story in “Rolling Stone.” And after he cites the Constitutional principle, he then goes back on the attack saying Fox News is “destructive” to the country.

Here we go again — sort of. The president seems to have learned from the mistakes of last fall’s campaign against Fox. But instead of using his newly gained wisdom to respect the role of a free press, he’s using it to try to be more effective in his attack on Fox News. He’s trying to plug the gaping hole in last year’s rationale to better disguise his partisan intent.

UPDATE: 8 p.m. Check out this report of White House spokesperson praising MSNBC and Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow if you don’t think the White House is on the attack against Fox again just as it was last fall — while shutting its eyes to MSNBC committing the same sins of bias of which it accuses Fox News. This sure looks like playing to the base to me. The White House spokesman says the president believes Olbermann provides an “invaluable service” to the country. He helps keep government “honest.” And this, while the president is saying Fox News is “destructive” to the country.

According to TVNewser’s account of the Rolling Stone interview, here’s Obama’s answer after Wenner asks him is he thinks Fox News is “is a good institution for America and for democracy.”

(Talk about loaded, tee-’em-up, partisan, softball questions. If the publisher of “Rolling Stone” was so concerned about what institutions were good for democracy, he should have stepped up last fall when the executive branch of government was trying to crush one of the most popular news outlets in America. Anyway, here’s Obama, and please note the laughter at the question about Fox and democracy indicated in the transcript of the exchange.)

Obama: “[Laughs] Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition – it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.”

I love it that Obama finally masters the first week’s topic for Government and the Press 101, the part about the need for independent press, and now he’s lecturing us on the History of the Press 499 like he knows what he is talking about.

That’s fine, that’s Obama, isn’t it?

And I guess, it is even okay if Obama wants to say he believes Fox News has a point of view and that  it’s “ultimately destructive” for America. That is a pretty serious charge for the president of the United States to make against a media outlet. I wonder if Obama realizes that he carries the history and the weight of the presidency behind him when he say such things — words that seem more suited to the slash-and-burn rhetoric of a politician on the campaign trail than the president of the United States.

But, after all, Fox News is winning with the viewer-voters of America, and Obama has been losing support for his party left and right. And nothing rallies the left, which is pretty disillusioned with Obama these days, like an attack on Fox — especially on a week of more great ratings news and the release of a study that finds Fox a winner when voters are asked what news outlets are having a positive impact on American politics.

But you don’t deny Fox News or any other news organization access to pool interviews with administration officials as was done last year or have your top aides go on Sunday morning public affairs shows and tell other journalists they should cut Fox News from the journalistic herd.

I have written this before, but it bears repeating: Outside of Richard Nixon, I have never seen  a president with the profound contempt for the press that Obama has.

Say what you will about Fox News and the all the candidates on its payroll, and its parent company donating $1 million to the GOP, all journalists owe Roger Ailes & Co. a debt of gratitude for standing up to the White House last year and teaching this president a lesson about the press and government — a lesson that you think he would have learned long ago being a professor of law.”

Comment:  It is amazing how many professional liars in politics have law degrees.  How unfortunate that a MRI exam doesn’t yet exist which might be able to calculate at what stage of brain disintegration did  this  disease (lying)  so rank among  degreed attorneys begin.

Yet, we know in advance, the results…….at ages 19,20, and 21 through about age 26…..We also already know the locations where the disease has caused the most deterioration of honest thinking…..at the universities….Wisconsin at Madison, California at Berkeley, Harvard at any location, Yale, Columbia, and the list becomes nearly endless. 

This is a station an American youth must endure…..to become brainless from drink, sex  and drugs and professor Obama teachings…..to endure the meaningless of life they’re being taught.

This MRI, if discovered, might be programmed to recommend the number of days, months and years needed for recovery, when these children, programmed to hate, will enter an adult stage to conduct a productive life when thinking might return.

Dennis Prager: “If You Are NOT A Leftist, Why Are You Voting Democrat”?

Dennis Prager columns are available at Townhall.com.    In a recent column Dennis wrote:

“The Democratic president and Democratic Party have expanded the American government to an unprecedented extent. Moreover, they have done so in unprecedented ways: Never before has such extensive society-changing legislation been passed without a single vote of the other political party; and unprecedentedly vast powers have been given to “czars” and their new federal agencies — with no congressional oversight. Add to this a level of national debt that is unsustainable — but meets the left’s great aim of redistributing wealth — and you have the most left-wing government in American history.

Why then would any of the vast majority of Americans who are not leftists vote Democratic this year?

The answer lies in emotion. For many non-leftist Democrats, it is emotionally impossible to vote Republican.

I can illustrate this best with a personal example that I often use in speeches to Jewish audiences.

I was raised both as an Orthodox Jew and a liberal Democrat. In my early 20s, not wanting to practice religious laws solely out of habit or fear, I experimented with religious non-observance.

I remember well the one time this yeshiva graduate ate ham. It was emotionally difficult.

I also well remember the first time this lifelong Democrat voted Republican. And it, too, was difficult. In fact, it was actually more emotionally difficult to vote Republican than to eat the ham.

Now, how could that be? How could it possibly have been more emotionally trying for a lifelong Democrat to vote Republican than for a lifelong observant Jew to eat ham? Isn’t religion a far deeper conviction than politics?

The question implies the answer.

Liberalism and leftism are religions. While I felt I would be sinning against God when I tasted ham, I was certain I was sinning against both God and man were I to vote Republican.

That is how liberals, not to mention leftists, think: It is a grievous sin to vote Republican (unless the Republican is a liberal). One is abandoning their faith, values, community and very identity.

But it is more than that. What keeps most non-leftists voting Democrat (and calling themselves liberal) has been the spectacularly effective saturation of virtually all media and all educational institutions with the message that the right is mean spirited and dangerous.

One of the first books I ever owned — in high school — was titled “Danger on the Right.” Throughout the world, people are fed the message “Danger on the Right” — and virtually never “Danger on the Left,” despite the left’s far bloodier and more totalitarian record.

The majority of people who vote Democratic do not have left-wing values. Only 20 percent of Americans even consider themselves liberal. But vast numbers of people with views that are not leftist have been effectively brainwashed (one cannot come up with a more accurate word) into fearing the right when the threats to their liberty, as well as to America’s standing in the world, its exceptionalism and its economic future all emanate from the left.

That is why nearly all Democratic and leftist reactions to conservatives and Republicans are to avoid argument (remember, on the issues the left has few supporters) and smear them as SIXHIRB, my acronym for “Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist, Bigoted.” It is almost impossible to come up with the name of a leading conservative whom the dominant media have not dismissed as one or more of SIXHIRB — and usually as a buffoon as well. This obviously serves the left and the Democratic Party in many ways. But the most important is to keep non-leftists in fear of anyone who opposes the left. In effect, the left says, and has been saying for a hundred years, “You may not agree with us, but our opponents are evil.”

The Democratic appeal to black voters provides an excellent example. In nearly half a century, the left has done nothing for black America. Leftists have ruined the cities they govern and most of the public schools they control. But they have mastered one thing — the ability to paint their opponents as racist opponents of blacks. So, blacks, many of whom have conservative values — from opposing same-sex marriage to supporting school vouchers — vote almost universally for the left.

The same holds true of most American Jews. Most live profoundly conservative lives but vote left. Why? Overwhelmingly because they believe there is “Danger on the Right.” It doesn’t matter how anti-Israel the left is and how pro-Israel the right is, or that liberal Time magazine has a mendacious cover story on “Why Israel Doesn’t Care about Peace,” while every major conservative periodical is passionately protective of Israel. For most Jews, voting Republican is a far greater sin, emotionally, morally and socially than eating ham.

That is why virtually every liberal columnist at The New York Times has described political opposition to Barack Obama as racist. The left cannot win on arguments. It must demonize its opponents.  From Stalin calling Trotsky a Fascist to Frank Rich labeling the tea parties as mimicking the Nazis’ Kristallnacht, this has been the favored leftist method of achieving power. And that is why it remains so hard for most Democrats to vote what they believe and vote Republican — a lifetime of demonization has worked.’