Thursday, August 18, 2011

Affirmative Action President

VERDICT - THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PRESIDENT By Frances Rice A scathing and absolutely accurate assessment of the Obama Presidency has been rendered by knowledgeable pundits.  The following article provides a clear-eyed analysis of the fact that, indeed, Barack Hussein Obama is an Affirmative Action president.   To view the article on the Internet, click on the below title. Frances Rice is a lawyer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and chairman of the National Black Republican Association.  She may be contacted on the Internet at:  www.NBRA.info ______________________ Obama: The Affirmative Action President By Matt Patterson Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.  How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job? Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.  He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor.  It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president? Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin.  Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest? Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action.  Not in the legal sense, of course.  But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.  Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back.  Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.  Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action.  Yes, racist.  Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.  And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be?  As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate.  All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.  What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character.  Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed.  The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all.  Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years. And what about his character?  Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles.  Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess.  It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence.  But really, what were we to expect?  The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly? In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job.  When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense.  It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office. But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while.  And really, isn't that all that matters these days?

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1069034
McChrystal was talking to you
The ink had not yet dried on my last column that discussed the fact that Barack Obama was woefully unprepared for the presidency and as a result is making deadly missteps in the execution of that role, when news broke of General Stanley McChrystal in essence saying the exact same thing to Rolling Stone magazine. This isn't just a story to be brushed off. This is a bombshell.
Don't be distracted by the media comically chastising the General for daring to speak out against "The One" (yes, the same media that hailed military officers who were willing to "speak truth to power" in criticizing George Bush). That isn't the story.

The true meaning of the McChrystal episode is titanic, because it is quite apparent the General was sending a stern message directly to the American people.

For more reasons than I can count, it is beyond obvious that McChrystal's public criticism of Obama was not a lapse in judgment or a mistake. It was unquestionably intentional. First, four-star generals have not achieved that rank without knowing the chain of command and the expectation of subordination to superiors. Second, all of McChrystal's advisers were touting the same message, demonstrating this was no fluke, nor an offhand comment taken out of context. Third, McChrystal spoke the inflammatory words to Rolling Stone, a well known anti-war, anti-military magazine. Fourth, reports are that McChrystal actually saw the piece before it went to print and offered up no objections to its content.

If all that is true, then it naturally begs the question: Why did he do it?

McChrystal is one of the lead authors of the "counterinsurgency" strategy that, despite the nay saying of liberals like then-Senators Obama and Biden, transformed Iraq from a quagmire into a success. He knows the strategy works. But as its architect, he also knows this new military policy requires two vital elements: lots of troops, and as much time as necessary for them to do their job.

While other factors are important (cultural bonds, regional partnerships, financial investment, troop morale, etc.), the two most crucial ingredients to making counterinsurgency work (in Afghanistan or anywhere) is a massive amount of troops on the ground to overwhelm the enemy and live among the people, and a commitment to stay as long as necessary to break the will of the enemy.

This is precisely why counterinsurgency worked in Iraq. Over the ignorant objections of both Obama and Biden, then-President Bush listened to his military commanders and ordered the troop surge. And while being pummeled by the media and Democrat political opportunists for not setting a hard deadline for withdrawal, Bush committed to stay in Iraq until the job was finished. The result speaks for itself.

As the Afghan war began to deteriorate, Stanley McChrystal was put in charge to implement that effective strategy there. But he quickly found that Barack Obama is no George W. Bush. First, Obama – having championed himself as the anti-war candidate – cut the number of troops McChrystal requested. And then, in what has to be one of the most foolish wartime moves in history, he announced an arbitrary date for the beginning of American troop withdrawal.

This may please the ex-hippies in the anti-war crowd that Obama courted during the 2008 campaign, but it has emboldened our enemy, imperiled our troops, and created a giant mess of our counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan.

Having pressed his case privately with Obama's war team in Washington, McChrystal certainly saw the handwriting on the wall, and as a final recourse, pled his case to the American people.

Were his actions a breach of protocol? Yes. Did they rise to the level of insubordination? Probably. Was Obama justified in removing him from command? I think so. But after we're done hammering McChrystal for going over the President's head, we better give some serious thought as to why he was so willing to put his career on the line like that.

The reason is as clear as it is frightening: our political leadership in Washington is clueless. And their incompetence is costing us not only resources and money, but most importantly the precious lives of brave American soldiers.

General Stanley McChrystal was willing to lose his job to send that message to the only people who can do something about it. He was talking to you.

I just heard.... Obama is going to impose a 40% tax on Aspirin because it is white and it works!!!!!!! And the beat goes on!

Racist Insight ............. Funny but true  I have been wondering about why Whites are racists, and no other race is.
Proud to be White, Michael Richards makes his point..
Michael Richards better known as Kramer from TVs Seinfeld does make a good point.
This was his defense speech in court after making racial comments in his comedy act. He makes some very interesting points...
Someone finally said it... How many are actually paying attention to this? There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc. And then there are just Ameri-
cans. You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman' ... and that's OK.
But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink ... You call me a racist. You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you... so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?
You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day. You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day You have Yom Hashoah. You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi. You have the NAACP You have BET... If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists. If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists. If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR , lives we'd be racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.
Wonder who pays for that??
A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.
If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships ..... You know we'd be racists.
There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US.
Yet if there were 'White colleges' That would be a racist college.
In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.
You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.
You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.
I am proud... But you call me a racist.
Why is it that only whites can be racists??
There is nothing improper about this e-mail. Let's see which of you are proud enough to send it on. I sadly don't think many will. That's why we have lost most of OUR RIGHTS in this country. We won't stand up for ourselves!
BE PROUD TO BE WHITE!
It's not a crime yet .. but getting real close!

>
> THEY GAVE YOUR MORTGAGE TO A LESS QUALIFIED MINORITY
> by Ann Coulter
> September 24, 2008
>
> On MSNBC this week, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter tried to connect John
> McCain
> to the current financial disaster, saying: "If you remember the
> Keating
> Five scandal that (McCain) was a part of. ... He's really getting a
> free
> ride on the fact that he was in the middle of the last great financial
> scandal in our country."
>
> McCain was "in the middle of" the Keating Five case in the sense
> that he
> was "exonerated." The lawyer for the Senate Ethics Committee wanted
> McCain
> removed from the investigation altogether, but, as The New York Times
> reported: "Sen. McCain was the only Republican embroiled in the
> affair, and
> Democrats on the panel would not release him."
>
> So John McCain has been held hostage by both the Viet Cong and the
> Democrats.
>
> Alter couldn't be expected to know that: As usual, he was lifting
> material
> directly from Kausfiles. What is unusual was that he was stealing a
> random
> thought sent in by Kausfiles' mother, who, the day before, had e-
> mailed:
> "It's time to bring up the Keating Five. Let McCain explain that
> scandal
> away."
>
> The Senate Ethics Committee lawyer who investigated McCain already had
> explained that scandal away -- repeatedly. It was celebrated lawyer
> Robert
> Bennett, most famous for defending a certain horny hick president a
> few
> years ago.
>
> In February this year, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," Bennett
> said, for
> the eight billionth time:
>
> "First, I should tell your listeners I'm a registered Democrat, so
> I'm not
> on (McCain's) side of a lot of issues. But I investigated John
> McCain for a
> year and a half, at least, when I was special counsel to the Senate
> Ethics
> Committee in the Keating Five. ... And if there is one thing I am
> absolutely confident of, it is John McCain is an honest man. I
> recommended
> to the Senate Ethics Committee that he be cut out of the case, that
> there
> was no evidence against him."
>
> It's bad enough for Alter to be constantly ripping off Kausfiles.
> Now he's
> so devoid of his own ideas, he's ripping off the idle musings of
> Kausfiles'
> mother.
>
> Even if McCain had been implicated in the Keating Five scandal --
> and he
> wasn't -- that would still have absolutely nothing to do with the
> subprime
> mortgage crisis currently roiling the financial markets. This crisis
> was
> caused by political correctness being forced on the mortgage lending
> industry in the Clinton era.
>
> Before the Democrats' affirmative action lending policies became an
> embarrassment, the Los Angeles Times reported that, starting in
> 1992, a
> majority-Democratic Congress "mandated that Fannie and Freddie
> increase
> their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income
> borrowers.
> Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been
> aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains."
>
> Under Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on
> banks
> to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton's
> secretary of
> Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae
> for
> racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and
> Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income
> borrowers by the year 2001.
>
> Instead of looking at "outdated criteria," such as the mortgage
> applicant's
> credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were
> encouraged to
> consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as
> having a
> good jump shot or having a missing child named "Caylee."
>
> Threatening lawsuits, Clinton's Federal Reserve demanded that banks
> treat
> welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to
> qualify for a mortgage. That isn't a joke -- it's a fact.
>
> When Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches,
> political correctness was given a veto over sound business practices.
>
> In 1999, liberals were bragging about extending affirmative action
> to the
> financial sector. Los Angeles Times reporter Ron Brownstein hailed the
> Clinton administration's affirmative action lending policies as one
> of the
> "hidden success stories" of the Clinton administration, saying that
> "black
> and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever
> recorded."
>
> Meanwhile, economists were screaming from the rooftops that the
> Democrats
> were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the
> moment the
> housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn't get out of their
> loans by selling their houses.
>
> A decade later, the housing bubble burst and, as predicted,
> food-stamp-backed mortgages collapsed. Democrats set an affirmative
> action
> time-bomb and now it's gone off.
>
> In Bush's first year in office, the White House chief economist, N.
> Gregory
> Mankiw, warned that the government's "implicit subsidy" of Fannie
> Mae and
> Freddie Mac, combined with loans to unqualified borrowers, was
> creating a
> huge risk for the entire financial system.
>
> Rep. Barney Frank denounced Mankiw, saying he had no "concern about
> housing." How dare you oppose suicidal loans to people who can't repay
> them! The New York Times reported that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were
> "under heavy assault by the Republicans," but these entities still had
> "important political allies" in the Democrats.
>
> Now, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, middle-class
> taxpayers
> are going to be forced to bail out the Democrats' two most important
> constituent groups: rich Wall Street bankers and welfare recipients.
>
> Political correctness had already ruined education, sports, science
> and
> entertainment. But it took a Democratic president with a Democratic
> congress for political correctness to wreck the financial industry.
>
>

Get your shit together readers, or Obama may actually ride the liberal apocalypse kahuna into the White House. Surfs up America!

Did you know he voted for habeus corpus for the Gitmo detainees? Voted for election funding reform? Get this: He actually opposed the Patriot Act! Opposed it! This Hitler incarnate will soon knock down our proud executive branch resulting in nightmare liberal reforms unless you forward this email to as many unsuspecting family and coworkers as possible. The country's future rides on you right now. Must. Click. Forward. Button. Do it. Hurry.

---- Original Message -----

So I stewed on posting this for a while. This was sent in by a fellow right-wing email victim, it is heavy on the racial slurs to make a point about white "inequality," a mainstay theme to the right-wing forward canon of "what's wrong with this world" emails. Which cuts to the purpose of this blog.
The goal of MRWD is to shine daylight on such forwards, allowing viewers a chance to examine the forwarded email community; promoting awareness and giving readers free expression to comment on the forwards, calling attention to the accuracy, motivation or other point worth mentioning to each forward entry. MRWD is not, by any means, promoting the sentiments expressed in these forwards, but aims to allow readers (many of whom are fellow victims of right-wing forwards) to connect and lambaste the unchecked right-wing forwards in the spirit of open expression in the name of our hard fought freedom of critical speech.

That said, here it is, yet another quiet, right-wing forward brought into the public eye:

Proud To Be White

Someone finally said it.

How many are actually paying attention to this?

There are African Americans, Mexican Americans,

Asian Americans, Arab Americans, Native Americans, etc.

And then there are just Americans.

You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.

You Call me "White boy," "Cracker," "Honkey,"

"Whitey," "Caveman" .. And that's OK.

But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger,

Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink ... You call me a racist.

You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you,

So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King

Day. You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day. You

Have Yom Hashoah You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi You have the NAACP.

You have BET.

If we had WET (White Entertainment Television) . We'd be racists.

If we had a White Pride Day .. You would call us racists.

If we had White History Month We'd be racists.

If we had any organization for only whites to "advance" OUR lives ..

We'd be racists.

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of

Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.

Wonder who pays for that?

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships

.. You know we'd be racists. There are over 60 openly proclaimed

Black Colleges in the US , yet if there were "White colleges" ..

THAT would be a racist college.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching

For your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights,

You would call us racists.

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're

Not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride .

You call us racists.

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer

Shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running

From the law and posing a threat to society . You call him a racist.

I am proud.

But, you call me a racist.

Why is it that only whites can be racists?

There is nothing improper about this e-mail.

Let's see which of you are proud enough to send it on.

Anonymous submits: "Of course, charming is a joke. I just received this e-mail (for the second time- they don't even remember what crap they've already forwarded to me) from some elderly Republican neighbors back home. As a polite Southern girl, it's hard to tell them off for this. But as a thinking human being, I don't think I can let them get by with sending this to me again. Interestingly though- the first time they sent it to me, it was just Ebonies Hernandez- no Asian in there. I guess that someone wanted to make sure everyone was equally belittled."

----begin forward---
> Hello,
>
>
>
> My name be Ebonies Li Herenandez, an AfricanHispanicAsiatic- American
> girl who just got an award For being the best speler in class. I got
> 67% on the speling test and 30 points for being black, 5 points for
> not bringing drugs into class, 5 points for not bringing guns into
> class, and 5 points for not getting Pregnut during the cemester.
>
>
>
> It be hard to beat a score of 120%. The white dude who sit next to me
> is McGee from the Bronx He got 94% on the test but no extra points on
> account of he have the same Skin color as the opressirs of 150 years
> ago.
>
>
>
> Granny ax me to thank all Dimocrafts and Liberals for suporting
> Afermative action. You be showing da way to true equality.
>
>
> I be gittin in medical skool nex an mabe I be yo doctor when Hillory
> take over da healtcare in dis cuntry.
>