Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Obama Hates Black People

Here is another observation from the CNN/YouTube debate. Two African American girls asked, via video, the following question:
QUESTION: Hi. I'm Cecilla Smith.

QUESTION: And I'm Asanti Wilkins.

QUESTION: And we're from Pennsylvania, and my question is to all the candidates, and it's regarding the national minimum wage. Congress seems to never have a problem when it comes time to give themselves a raise. But when it came time to increase the minimum wage, they had a problem.

My question to the candidates: If you're elected to serve, would you be willing to do this service for the next four years and be paid the national minimum wage?

What was most interesting was Obama's response:

OBAMA: Well, we can afford to work for the minimum wage because most folks on this stage have a lot of money. It's the folks on that screen who deserve -- you're doing all right, Chris, compared to, I promise you, the folks who are on that screen.

Now, why exactly did our holier-than-thou socialist messiah Obama assume that the people on screen were not doing well, or not as well as Chris Dodd? Because they were black? I mean, maybe, just maybe, they asked the question because they make minimum wage. But at the same time, I've heard a number of people, from the wealthy to the not-so-well-off, discussing this issue. So it isn't a given. It could have just been something that concerned them, as it concerns the demonic Ted Kennedy.

It's this gross assumption of inferiority, especially an assumption based on group membership, which clouds a great deal of thinking on the left. The anti-individualism which colors liberalism often blinds many from seeing people as singular and unique. All solutions and problems, from the well-intentioned to the mean-spirited, are seen through the filter of tribalism - only the collective can be assigned attributes, and only the collective is capable of valid and viable action. Individual concerns are secondary.

Racism is a negative aspect of tribalism. It can only be overcome by ending, or at least downplaying, tribalist thought; it cannot be overcome by reversing, re-balancing or transforming the tribalism itself into another form like political correctness. All political correctness or affirmative action programs do is continue the practice of judging persons by their perceived group affiliations. And what is positive or negative in one context could be viewed as ugly or wonderful in another. A celebration of culture via food could be twisted into an ugly stereotype, for example. I would not go out on a limb and say people should not be proud of their personal cultural or sub-cultural heritages, but the problem with tribalism is that it puts heritage far above individual personality, achievement, and faults. Once individualism is placed in the fore-front, and heritage is placed on the back-burner, then heritage becomes unimportant in assessment of other individuals, a neutral, and can be appreciated for what it is, and not be used as a negative.

Sadly, Democrats like Obama get far too much mileage out of the promotion of tribalist thinking, and will use it for political leverage rather than trying to make the world a better place. And, as we see here, such fuzzy thought can even make a racist out of a race-baiter.


Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Hillary vs. Obama


I love a good debate.

YouTube/CNN Jerkfest

So, like many Americans, I watched the CNN/YouTube Democratic Presidential Candidate debate last night. Here are some of my initials reactions:

1. Joe Biden is a fucking asshole, and proved to be the biggest dickhead of the evening. If you didn't know this already, gentle readers, check out Biden's overly insulting response to a YouTube presented question about gun control (in which the questioner referred to his gun as his "baby"):
I'll tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help... I don't know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun. I'm being serious.
I'm being serious here myself - Biden is an asshole with a capital "hole." Not only does he spit in the face of the Constitution by completely disregarding the Second Amendment, and suggesting one would have to be mentally unstable to own a gun, but he goes out on a limb to insult a reasonable questioner ("tell me your position on gun control"). Now, a lot of men refer to their toys as "babies," so there was absolutely no reason to take a disgusting, holier-than-thou attitude and tear apart a guy who believes in freedom and liberty on national television. Even worse, Biden added:
... I hope he doesn't come looking for me.
Great. The questioner did not make a single threat toward anyone. Not only does Biden see our Constitutionally protected right of gun ownership and thus self-defense as insane, he implies that just because someone OWNS a gun, then they're automatically assumed to be guilty of potential assassination and dangerous enough to actually go after a politician. What a typical mixed-up liberal lame-brain. In the justice system, criminals have been given all the loopholes possible by the left, making convicting real threats to our lives and property nearly impossible, but private, up-standing, law-abiding citizens are assumed guilty by liberals, simply because these gun-owners believe in the right to keep arms, bear weapons, and defend oneself from the evil slime in the world that the government does such a bang-up job of keeping out of prison and on the streets. Thanks, Senator, for trusting us to make our own decisions and not preventing us from obtaining the tools we need to keep ourselves safe. And thanks so much, Biden, for those wonderful characterizations of gun-owners as nut-cases and assassins. I don't take that personally at all. Way to win over the moderates, the libertarian minded, and those that actually believe we citizens can and should take responsibility and make decisions for our own lives without unnecessary, cumbersome government interference. You're an asshole. Biden, you should apologize to gun owners and most especially to the guy that asked that question.

2. Kucinich is a complete goofball. I'm surprised anyone but hippy pacifist vegan nimrods give him any respect whatsoever. Oh right, they're the only ones that take him seriously in the first place.

3. Bill Richardson won both the race-baiter and the conspiracy-whacko awards of the evening with a single sentence:
We need to have an effort to get the Republican Party to stop suppressing minority voters.
Riiiiight. Richardson resorts to ugly, baseless accusations and urban myths here to further slander the Republican Party for his own personal gain and for the Democratic Party's. What we really need to have an effort to do is to get Bill Richardson to stop molesting little children. Oh, what Bill? You don't like it when someone lies about you to make you look bad? Too bad, you started it. Stop suggesting that Republicans are racist. I'm sick to death of the gross mischaracterization.

The question asked was actually an interesting one, regarding "standardizing" our nation's elections. Although, I doubt that low voter turnout is much of a result of distrust in the voting process as the questioner implied. Still, a nationally standardized, more trustworthy system would be a welcome change. For one, a national ID card along with voter ID verification at the polls would improve the validity of the process and prevent a lot of fraud. There is very little now, really, to stop illegal aliens, ineligible criminals and duplicate voters from casting votes.

4. Is that John Edwards real hair or some sort of hair textured helmet?

Monday, July 23, 2007

Obama and Clinton try to out race-bait one another

Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton, those two god-awful, mindless, divisive top contenders for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, yesterday showed their true colors, whipping out their race-cards in a World Series of Race-Baiting Poker frenzy during an annual convention for the Hispanic KKK (aka, La Raza).

At one point,
Mrs. Clinton said she has been trying "to understand where all of the venom and the incredible anxiety came from" in the immigration debate.
Well, Hillary, if you cannot understand (i.e., comprehend, not necessarily agree with) the reasons for the anger and frustration many Americans feel over this issue and your handling of it, then you're more than likely too motherfucking stupid (and by 'stupid' I mean 'extremely fucking idiotic') to be President of the United States. Or, you're just being disingenuous here, and you're just too dishonest to be trusted. Knowing who your husband is, either option is a very real possibility.

Rather than really explore or even bother debating the positions held by those who disagree with you, you'd rather feign incredulity, and thus dismiss their opinions rather than address the substance and logic behind them. Instead of facing an honest discussion or owning up to the massive failure of the Federal Government on illegal immigration and border security, you just pretend (or honestly are too moronic to believe otherwise) that any disagreement or disgust with your stance on illegal immigration is nothing but emotional, irrational meanness.

Passion is not venom. You must learn to distinguish between the two. That people express opinions with emotion is not necessarily some form of evil. Even if, HUGH GASP, those opinions are the opposite of your own. Look at your own passion, if you truly have any. Is righteous fury venom? No, it is not. To be honest, many who disagreed with you find your constant accusations and assertions that they are 'racist' particularly atrocious and venomous. Do not act admirable and gracious while at the same time underhandedly tossing out defamations.

Not that Hillary would be brave enough to read this, or really honestly curious enough to discover what a reasonable view opposing her own might be, but let me break it down a bit for her to "understand", since she at least claimed to have a desire to learn the source of the passionate reaction to the amnesty movement and legislation she supported.
  • Many Americans are fed up to the core of their beings with the unwillingness of the federal government, that both of the legislative and executive branches, to protect this nation, its citizens and communities, from waves of unwelcome and undocumented foreigners invading our soil, unchecked. Concern over a wide open gate through which anyone can enter, harmful or not, is not venomous or prejudiced. It is merely rational, motivated self-defense.
  • A great number of American citizens are sick to death of the tendency of Democrats and some Republicans (like Bush) to favor and reward criminality and simultaneously completely ignore and work against justice, ethical behavior, security, and law enforcement. Border patrol agents are jailed for doing their job, and local police have their hands tied by destructive politically correct policies preventing them from even determining who is or is not a legal citizen. The Senate wanted to grant amnesty (citizenship) to people that broke the law coming here, giving them a jump in line in front of loads of people that have been patiently attempting to gain American citizenship via legal means. Of course actions like this make a number of law-abiding people who respect justice and fairness angry. The villains are rewarded, and the heroes are attacked or castrated.
  • People were especially upset that the views of American citizens were being ignored so that members of both political parties could basically buy votes by giving undeserving criminals citizenship, thus creating a new pool of grateful underprivileged voters. It smacked of pandering rather than action in the best interest of the nation.
  • The American people were tired of being lied to by politicians who voted for one element of border enforcement, a fence, but then failed to see that it was built - or even worse actively worked against its construction and completion.
  • The debate was not about Mexican-Americans, nor even legal immigrants. People grew quite annoyed, and rightly so, by the intentional and obvious attempt to blur the distinctions between hispanics, legal immigrants, and illegal aliens. The venom from the race-baiters bred increasingly passionate responses from those opposed to illegal immigration.
  • Many people have seen their neighborhoods and towns overrun by illegal non-citizens who have no interest in this country or its culture beyond seeing it as a cash-cow and a source of free services - people unwilling even to learn the language. And now businesses and government services are forced by liberal ilk to provide special consideration and Spanish language texts to these people with no real commitment to this country. Politicians hide in their elite towers, failing to even take a look at areas destroyed by the onslaught of impoverished illegals.
To further spread the lie of 'ugliness' about those concerned about illegal immigration and to further vilify the grassroots activism and patriotism that defeated the Senate's inane amnesty proposals, Hillary offered up the following mock indignation:
"I am very disappointed, and I was really quite offended by the tone of the debate and some of what was said by outside parties who were trying to influence the debate."
If you are so offended by the tone, why, Hillary, are you being such a hypocrite; why do you constantly name-call and try to portray the opposition is such an extremely negative, hurtful light? If Ms. Clinton should be disappointed in anyone, it's her own two-faced, transparent behavior here, bemoaning the supposedly "racist" views of the other side from her own delusional position of arrogance and unfounded superiority. In short, she decries what she views as one group of people seeing some other group as inferior, all the while acting as if that initial group suffers from some form of inferiority itself.

I can think of almost nothing more offensive than the load of crap Hillary is trying to sell to the American public (and to non-American migrants). If she wants to fix the tone of the debate, well then, she should start off by stopping her own intentional button-pushing and baseless attacks. Address facts, and agree or disagree as the case may be. But stop disparaging the other side.

Exposing her diseased mind to the general public, Hillary Clinton, whose policies alone show her putting the interests of law-breaking foreigner invaders over those of her own nation's populace, shows her disdain for democracy by referring to the outraged American citizenship, those to whom she SUPPOSEDLY should answer to, as "outside parties." In what sort of twisted universe are the voters of the United States who put you in power the "outside parties," and illegal aliens the ones whom the government should service and represent? How on Earth can we keep trusting an elected representative who displays this sort of antipathy to the free expression of views by American citizens to the governmental officials that should serve them? It is not Hillary's disagreement with those opposed to illegal immigration that is troubling, it is her opinion that she does not answer to the public, or that those portions of the public that do not follow her lead are somehow "outsiders."

To punctuate her insanity, she informed La Raza that even racists, like any other individual committing an act of evil, are not responsible for their actions. True blame rests only in the hands of the anti-Christ:
She blamed the tone on what she called a poor economy under President Bush.
Insulting as her implications of racism are, it is even more insulting to hear her claim that we supposed haters are not even capable or responsible for our own ill-will toward Latinos, it is, like everything else, Bush's fault. For being completely inept, that guy sure has some crazy magic powers of persuasion and control.

Barack Obama one upped Hillary in the insulting shithead department:
The Illinois Democrat said the recent Senate immigration debate "was both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights."
And yet again, another worthless piece of monkey dung politician claiming to be a uniter, claiming to be above partisanship, claiming to be a moderate voice, proves to be nothing more than a twisted, corrupt, unethical, lying, mean-spirited, abusive extremist and divider. The only thing ugly about the debate was the amount of illogical hatred displayed by characters like Barck Hussein.

Does anyone besides the race-baiting diversity pushers and the smarmy socialist elite truly want this assfuck as President of the United States? Can you imagine having this hateful, hurtful malefactor as leader of the free world?

Perhaps you think I'm being a tad harsh. But, to be truthful, I'm probably not being harsh enough. Should I sit idly back as dipshits like Clinton and Obama refer to me as "racist," ignoring my true opinions and painting me with negative scarecrows for their own personal gain, to the detriment of justice and the good of the country? No. Fuck them. They've insulted me, so I'm insulting them back. Clinton and Obama are, without a doubt, a couple of major fucking assholes.

Friday, July 20, 2007

Anti-Freedom, Anti-Liberty Democrats Strike Again

Last night, Senate Democrats beat back an attempt to prevent the dreadfully fascist Fairness Doctrine from being reinstated. While not necessarily a vote for creating government censorship over talk radio, it was a step toward allowing left-wing discrimination against the free expression of conservatives. For all the lip-service our leftist (and a handful of right-wing) politicians pay toward "civil liberties", the Democrat-controlled Senate has utterly failed to protect the First Amendment (speech, press) rights of American citizens. Oddly, the Democrats are only worried about the "extremist" (read "they don't agree with us, boohoo") views of conservatives on the radio, but care not one iota about "ensuring" (ie, oppressively forcing others to present) a balance of ideas in other media, from internet blogs, to cable/satellite TV/radio, to television news and shows, to movies, to books, to songs on the radio, to whatever else. And of course, extremist liberal indoctrination in classrooms of state-sponsored K-12 and college institutions is perfectly acceptable, because freedom is not important, only their attempt to control your thoughts and opinions is.

Here's how your vile representatives in the Senate voted (60s yeas were needed):

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---49
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
NAYs ---48
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 3
Brownback (R-KS)
Johnson (D-SD)
Obama (D-IL)

I'd like to send out a big FUCK YOU



to my own totalitarian Senators, Boxer and Feinstein, for their own utter failure to protect freedom and liberty and individual choice (except in cases of anal sex and fetus-cide). Next time you run a commercial on the public airwaves, I fully expect you to give me half the time you pay for so that I can present my own opposing opinions on you and your actions in the government. They haven't banned the word "twat" from the radio yet, have they?