Archive for the ‘Race right…not riot’ Category

How about another slap in the face! That’s change, of a sort….

First, just so you know why I’m so adamant, outspoken, and vehement on this issue:  I think voter fraud one of democracy’s most heinous crimes, and should be a felony on the first charge, and a capital crime, punishable by death on the second.  Nothing attacks our way of life so viciously as voter fraud.  Were this case about whites keeping blacks from a polling place, I’d be just as much of an attack dog.

The non-partisan U.S. Commission on Civil Rights just issued a 144 page report on the New Black Panther voter intimidation case from 2008.  The report is a strong rebuke of the White House and Obama’s Department of Justice.  Intimidation and non-compliance within the Department are illuminated in this comprehensive investigation.  To be truthful, I’m surprised that they had the gonads to be so frank, forward, and honest, and I compliment the Commission.

If you’d like to see the report itself, and decide for yourself, go here:

The White House and the Department of Justice are ignoring the report.  I think we the people should shove it down their throats and up more personal places, where they can’t ignore the discomfort.

It is reported that the Department of Justice blocked their own people from doing a complete investigation, insisting that they do an investigation of charges brought on behalf of minorities, not, for God sakes, against them.  Ignoring if a harmed party was a minority or not would be too fair, just, and impartial…something we’ve come to learn we can’t expect from this administration.  Is this the “change” you and I want, is this the change all those who voted for Obama expected?  You got shafted, folks, and it’s time you fessed up.

Those same civil rights advocates who cried foul all these years only find a foul when it’s against a minority.  When it’s against white America, who have, after all, supported the Constitution time and time again in favor of minorities, and who now find themselves being discriminated against, by their OWN Department of Justice.

I, for one, think this hypocritical president and his attorney general should be…no, tarred and feathered is an old, out of date, solution…how about voted out, thrown out, kicked out, dropped in the proverbial grease.  They don’t know how good they’ve had it.  What a chance they’ve had, and they have insulted America’s trust.  It’s time they were taught some humility.  It’s time we shoved it to them.  It’s hard to read in the light of “where the sun don’t shine” but they ignore it when it’s in their face.

The 1st Lady, with approval ratings as strong as 70%

I hate to sound disrespectful to any woman, particularly to the 1st Lady, but I have to wonder “how soon they forget?”  I can’t see Mrs. Obama on television without seeing her say, rather vindictively I thought, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.” It’s just a little amazing to me, that while attending one of the finest universities in the country, she wasn’t proud of her country for the opportunity to be there? Had she lived in almost any other country in the world, she would not have had that very, very rare chance.  But then, this is America!

I don’t know that I, being Caucasian, can ever truly understand the black experience in the United States, however, I was raised in county housing, my father was an alcoholic, my mother worked hard and long so I was a latch-key kid.  I remember always being embarrassed because I had holes in my underwear, pant knees, socks….  I could never attend father-son banquets as my father was visiting John Barleycorn, or God knows where.  I put myself through school.  I’ve worked since I was 16 and could get a work permit.

And all that time, I’ve been fiercely proud of my country.  But maybe that’s just me.

In the following article, the red or italics (depending upon your program) are by me:

From The Daily Beast (Nov. 1)

By Dayo Olopade

With approval ratings at 70 percent, the first lady is the Democrats’ most popular pol. Pity she wasn’t out louder and longer rallying the women’s vote.

At rallies today in Pennsylvania and Nevada, First Lady Michelle Obama—known as “The Closer” on the 2008 campaign trail—is making a last-ditch closing argument for the Democrats.

She’s hit eight cities in the last two weeks, emerging from months of political hibernation—OK, speaking out for healthy food and better schools—in an 11th-hour push aimed at staving off a scheduled landslide. Making whistle stops in New York, California, Illinois, Colorado, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Washington State, she’s determined to rally the base. “We can’t stop now; we’ve come too far,” she told a dinner crowd in Seattle—adding a “Yes we can!” fist pump as an afterthought.

If anybody can, Michelle can—at least on paper. At a time when her husband’s approval rating has plummeted, hers stand strong at 70 percent—making her one of the most popular figures in Washington. Of course, it wasn’t Mrs. Obama who lead the way toward the bankruptcy of the United States, and maybe she shouldn’t be painted with that same broad brush…but I bet she’d have done much the same.  She’s not exactly a tight budget wife, having just taken a two million dollar trip with the girls to Paris and getting ready to go to Mumbai, where her bunch has rented 800 luxury rooms, on your dollar and mine. And she appeals to a crucial constituency—female voters, a decisive bloc this fall. “She’s a terrific asset to Democrats this cycle,” says Jen Bluestein, communications director at Emily’s List. It helps that Mrs. Obama projects that purple glow her husband used to talk about. “She’s very popular with Democrats but she’s also increasingly popular with Republicans and Independents,” adds Hari Sevugan, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee.

But at a time when a bumper crop of women candidates are on the ballot—10 for governor, six for the Senate, and 138 for the House—a disturbing number of women voters are either checked out of the election or forsaking the Democratic Party, according to recent polling by Gallup, CBS, and The New York Times.

Now, it appears that a “disturbing number of women” are not as easily fooled as many of the rest of the country, and that they, too, remember Mrs. Obama’s words, and her support of an administration which has put us $5,000,000,000,000.00 more in debt in only two years.  Ladies, you “disturbing number,” I salute you for your astuteness, and your love of, and respect for, your country.

For the balance of this article go to The Daily Beast ( )

The pinnacle, and the abyss, of multiculturalism


What could be bad about sharing the U.S. with other cultures?  Are we not the melting pot of the world?  Do not other cultures have and offer so, so much of value?

Of course they do.

But is that the question?  No.  The question is, what’s great about America, and do we want to keep her the greatest country in the world, the go-to country in the world?  The country millions and millions, if not billons, want to call their own?

I don’t know about you.  Maybe you believe that we should not strive to bring the rest of the world up to our standards of, most importanty, freedom; but also of morals, of work ethic, of quality of life, of opportunity?  And yes, of tolerance?

But tolerance has to be tempered.  Our tolerance will overwhelm us, bury us, eventually destroy us; particularly when our tolerance does not set a standard for those who bring their culture to our shores, and who take the easy out.

The easy out?

Yes, the easy way.  It’s human nature to take the easy way. Those who emigrated to the U.S. in the past were not offered a multi-culture. They were offered neighborhoods where they could find neighbors who shared much of what their past had been—religion, food, manner of dress, mores, and behaviors.  But still they had to learn the language, obey the laws of their adopted country (street signs in English, as an example), join in day to day interaction with long time Americans who had assimilated to a new culture…a uniquely American culture.  Bisquick did not print it’s labels in both languages as they do now, so what’s happened as a result of our tolerance?  Those reading labels are not compelled to learn to read them in English.

It’s such a simple concept it shouldn’t need to be said.  Give them the easy way, and they’ll take it.

Give them Spanish ballots and they won’t be compelled to learn the issues from English speaking sources.  Is there a Spanish radio station or television station or newspaper that’s not extremely liberal?  That offers a real look at what made America the great free enterprise country she is…or at least was?

What’s changed?  In my opinion we began to degrade the country when we allowed those new to our shores to read and speak only their native tongue.  When ballots were offered in Spanish, then Latin Americans, legal or illegal, no longer had to listen to the broad scale of radio and T.V. , or read widely offered newspapers in order to glean the information needed to make intelligent choices, to vote for whomever they felt was the best to represent their beliefs.  Give them Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, or Arabic T.V., and they’ll watch it, and be stuck in their own cultures, and not compelled to assimilate that of their adopted country.  Not compelled to see, hear, and learn what the original multiculturalism has created, the greatest country on earth.

When schoolrooms offered a half-day of Spanish teaching, what resulted? A half-day of education for those who didn’t speak Spanish is what resulted. Should a foreign born child be taught English?  Of course, but not at the expense of a native born child.

Am I suggesting that we force Procter and Gamble or General Mills to print labels only in English?  No, I’m far too much of a free-enterpriser to suggest tampering with almost anything done by a company merely trying to increase sales.  But I am suggesting that ballots, the very basis of our way of life, the very foundation of this country, should only be in English, and more so, that English should be declared, and legally so, the language of the country.  I don’t think our forefathers ever foresaw that the language of the country would or could be anything else.

Even if it takes a Constitutional amendment to do so, and I’m about the last one to suggest tampering with the Constitution.

And, yes, we must embrace multiculturalism, but not at the cost of Americanism and all that’s made this country great.

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…,” but then bring them up to our standards.  Don’t allow all that’s wonderful and great about America to cave into theirs.

The easy way is seldom, if ever, the best way.

Great Britain is learning the hard way:

Let’s see, and they call us racist…I think it’s the pot calling the kettle black!

If this doesn’t offend and outrage you, you’re unconscious.  This came to me via email without attribution, but I’ve vetted it and included the information below:

Subject: Pigford vs. Glickman. Unbelievable

It’s amazing what we didn’t know…

Remember Shirley Sherrod, the dept. of Agriculture gal, who seemed to be ‘racist’ and lost her job???  Well as Paul Harvey used to say, “here is the rest of the story”….  and it is not pretty.  The surprise ending has not been shared nor reported upon by the media, but it is a whopper!!   Thanks to the Wall Street Journal for bringing this to light.  It takes some reading below, to the 6th paragraph for sure, before you will realize what happened here.

Friends you can ‘Google’ the word Pigford and it pops up, then click on The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit…. and check this information out for yourself – I did and it’s there.

You thought you knew what happened with the Shirley Sherrod story, but you may have missed the twist and big ending. The hook was baited, the fish bit hard, then you found out you were playing an entirely different game.  Please read it all. Any of you banging your head yet? How in the hell does this crap keep happening, and why do we let it be ignored. Cover up after cover up, plain corruption at its best, and it is costing us dearly folks.

Pigford vs. Glickman

This came in this morning in response to the WSJ article published yesterday on Obama dividing America on race.  There is no need to make any other comment other than pass along this mind boggling information…all comments that follow are from this article:

Andrew Breitbart is a media genius. He proved it originally with his brilliant handling of the ACORN ‘hooker’ scandal which he skillfully manipulated so that the corrupt media was forced, against its will, to broadcast corruption in one of Obama’s most powerful political support groups.  But Breitbart’s handling of that affair is nothing compared to his brilliant manipulation of the Shirley Sherrod ‘white farmer’ scandal.

It all began Monday, July 22, 2010. As the country watched in horror, Breitbart released a snippet of a tape on his “Big Government” site which showed an obscure black female official of the Dept. of Agriculture laughing to a roomful of NAACP members about how she’d discriminated against a destitute white farmer and refused to give him the financial aid he desperately needed.  As she smirked to the room, she’d sent him instead to a white lawyer – ‘one of his own kind’ – for help.

The black woman was Shirley Sherrod – and almost immediately she became the center of a firestorm of controversy which exploded throughout the country. Within a day of the release of that infamous tape, the head of the Dept. of Agriculture, spurred on by Obama, demanded – and received – Sherrod’s resignation. Breitbart had won. But then seemingly Breitbart’s actions began to explode in his face. As Sherrod screamed in protest, FOX News released the entire text of her speech last March to the NAACP. And there on tape Sherrod was shown supposedly repenting of her racism against a white farmer and instead championing his fight to win funds to keep his farm afloat. Within hours of that entire tape being revealed, the entire world turned against Andrew Breitbart .

Conservatives throughout the country were enraged that he’d endangered their reputations by releasing a ‘doctored’ tape. Breitbart, they thundered, had dealt a fatal blow to the conservative media.

I confess that I also was horrified at what I saw as the clumsiness and stupidity of Breitbart’s in ‘doctoring’ a tape to make a supposedly innocent woman look guilty. But now I discover I have been as guilty of haste to judgment of Breitbart as the Dept. of Agriculture was of Ms. Sherrod.

Only now am I realizing the real purpose for Breitbart’s release of that tape snippet. It was to allow him to cunningly trick the media into exposing one of the most shocking examples of corruption in the federal government – a little known legal case called “Pigford v. Glickman”.

“In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997.” The case was entitled “Pigford v. Glickman” and in 1999, the black farmers won their case. The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims.

But then on February 23 of this year, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment. In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to “Pigford”. The amount was a staggering $1.25 billion.  This was because the original number of plaintiffs – 400 black farmers – had now swollen in a class action suit to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America .

There was only one teensy problem.  The United States of America doesn’t have 86,000 black farmers.  According to accurate and totally verified census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697. Oops.

Well, gosh – how on earth did 39,697 explode into 86,000 claims? And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion?  Well, folks, you’ll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the “Rural Development Leadership Network” but whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action – Shirley Sherrod. Oops again.

Yes, folks.  It appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the United States – a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism at the government and cowed them into submission.  And it gets even more interesting.

Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted her in this race fraud. As it turns out, the original judgment of “Pigford v. Glickman” in 1999 only applied to a total of 16,000 black farmers. But in 2008, a junior Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds.

The Senator was Barack Obama.

Because this law was passed in dead silence and because the woman responsible for spearheading it was an obscure USDA official, American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced in the midst of a worldwide depression to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim.

But Breitbart knew.  And last Monday, July 22, 2010, he cleverly laid a trap which Sherrod – and Obama – stumbled headfirst into which has now resulted in the entire world discovering the existence of this corrupt financial judgment.  Yes, folks – Breitbart is a genius.

As for Ms. Sherrod?  Well, she’s discovered too late that her cry of ‘racism’ to the media which was intended to throw the spotlight on Breitbart has instead thrown that spotlight on herself – and her corruption. Sherrod has vanished from public view.   Her ‘pigs’, it seems, have come home to roost. ;

This (a partial) from Wikipedia:

Pigford v. Glickman was a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), alleging racial discrimination in its allocation of farm loans and assistance between 1983 and 1997. The lawsuit ended with a settlement in which the U.S. government agreed to pay African American farmers US$50,000 each if they had attempted to get USDA help but failed. To date, almost US$1 billion has been paid or credited to the farmers under the settlement’s consent decree.

The lawsuit was filed in 1997 by Timothy Pigford, who was joined by 400 additional African American farmer plaintiffs. Dan Glickman, the Secretary of Agriculture, was the nominal defendant. The allegations were that the USDA treated black farmers unfairly when deciding to allocate price support loans, disaster payments, “farm ownership” loans, and operating loans, and that the USDA had completely failed to process subsequent complaints about racial discrimination.[1]

After the lawsuit was filed, Pigford requested blanket mediation to cover what was thought to be about 2,000 farmers who may have been discriminated against, but the U.S. Department of Justice opposed the mediation, saying that each case had to be investigated separately. As the case moved toward trial, the presiding judge certified as a class all black farmers who filed discrimination complaints against the USDA between 1983 and 1997.

The plaintiffs settled with the government in 1999. Under the consent decree, all African American farmers would be paid a “virtually automatic” US$50,000 plus granted certain loan forgiveness and tax offsets. This process was called “Track A”.[2]

Alternatively, affected farmers could follow the “Track B” process, seeking a larger payment by presenting a greater amount of evidence — the legal standard in this case was to have a preponderance of evidence along with evidence of greater damages.

Another insightful commentary from Thomas Sowell

This from Thomas Sowell

Go here for his column:

Town Hall Daily

Few things have captured in microcosm what has gone so painfully wrong, where racial issues are concerned, like the recent election for mayor of Washington, D.C.

Mayor Adrian Fenty, under whom the murder rate has gone down and the school children’s test scores have gone up, was resoundingly defeated for re-election.

Nor was Mayor Fenty simply a passive beneficiary of the rising test scores and falling murder rates. He appointed Michelle Rhee as head of the school system and backed her as she fought the teachers’ union and fired large numbers of ineffective teachers– something considered impossible in most cities across the country.

Mayor Fenty also appointed the city’s chief of police, Cathy Lanier, who has cracked down on hoodlumism, as well as crime.

Either one of these achievements would made mayors local heroes in most other cities. Why then was he clobbered in the election?

One key fact tells much of the story: Mayor Fenty received more than 70 percent of the white vote in Washington. His opponent received more than 80 percent of the black vote.

Both men are black. But the head of the school system that he appointed is Asian and the chief of police is a white woman. More than that, most of the teachers who were fired were black. There were also bitter complaints that black contractors did not get as many of the contracts for doing business with the city as they expected.

In short, the mayor appointed the best people he could find, instead of running a racial patronage system, as a black mayor of a city with a black majority is apparently expected to. He also didn’t spend as much time schmoozing with the folks as was expected.

So what if he gave their children a better education and gave everybody a lower likelihood of being murdered?

The mayor’s faults were political faults. He did his job, produced results and thought that this should be enough to get him re-elected. He refused to do polls and focus groups, and he ignored what his political advisers were warning him about.

No doubt Mayor Fenty is now a sadder and wiser man politically. While that may help him if he wants to pursue a political career, Adrian Fenty’s career is not nearly as important as what his story tells us about the racial atmosphere in this country.

How did we reach the point where a city is so polarized that an overwhelming majority of the white vote goes to one candidate and the overwhelming majority of the black vote goes to the opposing candidate?

How did we reach the point where black voters put racial patronage and racial symbolism above the education of their children and the safety of everyone?