Categories
Archives
Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Zimmerman, Alinsky and Obama

by Jack Kerwickalinsky-obama-marx1

When Barack Obama ran for the presidency five years ago, pundits on both the left and right reassured the country that the election of America’s “first black president” promised to issue forth a new era of interracial harmony.

Some of us, however, knew all too well that this was the kind of stuff that only fools and liars could peddle. In fact, we predicted that, far from inaugurating a “Post-Racial” America, cries of “racism” were sure to increase if Obama seized the White House. Unfortunately, in retrospect, we appear to have been prescient.

We knew, first of all, that there is indeed such a thing as the Racism-Industrial-Complex (RIC) that is every bit as massive as any other industry. Ideologically, professionally, and even emotionally, RIC agents are deeply invested in sustaining their narrative of endemic “white racism” and perpetual “black suffering.” The election of a black man to the most visible and potent office on the planet threatens that narrative.

Thus, the cries of “racism” would have to become both more frequent and more extravagant if RIC was to continue to flourish.

Secondly, we also knew that, given his background, racial unity would be the last thing on Obama’s mind. Quite the contrary: Obama’s lifelong preoccupation with achieving racial “authenticity” and his passion for “community organizing” foretold a presidency that would be accompanied by endless crises—including and especially racial crises.

The acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of black 17-year-old Trayvon Martin is the latest such crisis that Obama is exploiting for all that it is worth.

Far from using his influence to effect some measure of calm, last Friday, following a week of mayhem in which roving mobs of blacks disrupted cities, destroyed property, and randomly subjected innocent whites and others to violence, the President decided to exacerbate this situation.

It is crucial, Obama maintained, that we—i.e. white folks—understand why blacks share “a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario” as was Trayvon Martin on the night that he was shot dead by George Zimmerman, “from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.”

Blacks suffer “pain” over the Zimmerman verdict because they are “looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.” But this past is very much alive in the present, according to Obama, for to this day, black men continue to fall prey to the sinister machinations of wicked white racial profilers. Moreover, even Obama himself isn’t safe from this virulent white “racism.”

Most black men, including Obama, have “had the experience of being followed while shopping in a department store.” Most black men, including Obama, share “the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars.” Most black men, including Obama, have “had the experience of getting on an elevator” and seeing “a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off.”

Ironically, immediately upon lamenting the ugliness of this racial profiling, Obama unwittingly acknowledges its reasonableness, for he assures us that blacks have no delusions concerning “the disproportionately” high rates of black criminality and the fact that “they’re disproportionately both perpetrators and victims of violence.” Yet even this, he is quick to observe, “is born out of a very violent past in this country[.]”

In other words, while blacks do indeed act more violently than others, this too is because of the oppressive “racist” treatment to which whites have traditionally subjected them.

To the intimidation and wanton cruelty in which the anti-Zimmerman forces have engaged in the aftermath of Zimmerman’s acquittal, Obama spoke not a word except to caution them against “dishonoring” the memory of Trayvon Martin.

So, why did Obama insert himself in this case in the first place? Why has he chosen to fan the flames of an already combustible situation and all but justify even the violence that has been done to innocent person and property?

Answer: Obama is first and always a “community organizer”—a community agitator.

As the Godfather of community agitating, Saul Alinksy, wrote, the agitator should always seek to “cause confusion, fear,” “to agitate to the point of conflict,” and “stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.” The agitator “begins his ‘trouble making’ by stirring up these angers, frustrations, and resentments, and highlighting specific issues or grievances that heighten controversy.” He also “dramatizes the injustices[.]”

The agitator has but one objective: the construction of a “mass power base of what he calls the army.”

Obama most definitely does not want interracial harmony in America. He never did. He wants—he needs—mutual antagonism between the races. It is in his interest, as well as that of his party, for the members of his black base to be ruled by an “us versus them” mentality when it comes to race relations.

This is why Obama has fueled the persecution of George Zimmerman and the Brown Shirt tactics of the black mobs that have taken to the streets courtesy of the inspiration of the Jesse Jacksons, Al Sharptons, Eric Holders, and, yes, Obamas of the world.

And this is why, politically, the acquittal of Zimmerman was a win for Obama.

BLACK LEADERS IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO SHAPE UP YOUR RACE

Jason Riley: Race, Politics and the Zimmerman Trial
The left wants to blame black criminality on racial animus and ‘the system,’ but blacks have long been part of running that system.George Zimmerman’s acquittal of murder charges in a Florida court has been followed by predictable calls for America to have a “national conversation” about this or that aspect of the case. President Obama wants to talk about gun control. Civil-rights leaders want to talk about racial profiling. Others want to discuss how the American criminal justice system supposedly targets black men.

All of which is fine. Just don’t expect these conversations to be especially illuminating or honest. Liberals in general, and the black left in particular, like the idea of talking about racial problems, but in practice they typically ignore the most relevant aspects of any such discussion.
RACE1
Photo: Getty Images
Political Diary editor Jason Riley on why black civil rights leaders focus on white racism instead of personal responsibility.

Any candid debate on race and criminality in this country would have to start with the fact that blacks commit an astoundingly disproportionate number of crimes. African-Americans constitute about 13% of the population, yet between 1976 and 2005 blacks committed more than half of all murders in the U.S. The black arrest rate for most offenses—including robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes—is typically two to three times their representation in the population. The U.S. criminal-justice system, which currently is headed by one black man (Attorney General Eric Holder) who reports to another (President Obama), is a reflection of this reality, not its cause.

“High rates of black violence in the late twentieth century are a matter of historical fact, not bigoted imagination,” wrote the late Harvard Law professor William Stuntz in “The Collapse of American Criminal Justice.” “The trends reached their peak not in the land of Jim Crow but in the more civilized North, and not in the age of segregation but in the decades that saw the rise of civil rights for African Americans—and of African American control of city governments.”

The left wants to blame these outcomes on racial animus and “the system,” but blacks have long been part of running that system. Black crime and incarceration rates spiked in the 1970s and ’80s in cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia, under black mayors and black police chiefs. Some of the most violent cities in the U.S. today are run by blacks.

The jury’s only job in the Zimmerman trial was to determine whether the defendant broke the law when he shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year in a gated community near Orlando, Fla. In cases of self-defense, it doesn’t matter who initiated the confrontation; whether Mr. Zimmerman singled out Martin because he was a black youngster in a neighborhood where there had been a series of burglaries by black youngsters; or whether Mr. Zimmerman disregarded what the police dispatcher told him before he got out of his car. Nor does it matter that Martin was unarmed and minding his own business when Mr. Zimmerman approached.

All that really mattered in that courtroom is whether Mr. Zimmerman reasonably believed that his life was in danger when he pulled the trigger. Critics of the verdict might not like the statutes that allowed for this outcome, but the proper response would not have been for the jury to ignore them and convict.

Did the perception of black criminality play a role in Martin’s death? We may never know for certain, but we do know that those negative perceptions of young black men are rooted in hard data on who commits crimes. We also know that young black men will not change how they are perceived until they change how they behave.

The homicide rate claiming black victims today is seven times that of whites, and the George Zimmermans of the world are not the reason. Some 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks.

So let’s have our discussions, even if the only one that really needs to occur is within the black community. Civil-rights leaders today choose to keep the focus on white racism instead of personal responsibility, but their predecessors knew better.

“Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We’ve got to face that. And we’ve got to do something about our moral standards,” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told a congregation in 1961. “We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves.”

Mr. Riley is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.

A version of this article appeared July 16, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Race, Politics and the Zimmerman Trial.

Obama Calls Syrian Rebels “Freedom Fighters”, They Call Themselves Jihadists And Beheaded a Priest

REBELS

Obama Not Expecting to Serve Out His Term?

President Obama today offered up some unusual phrasing with respect to his future as president, implying he might for some reason leave office before his term is up.

“I will leave this office at some point – sometime in the next three and a half years,” Obama said during remarks today in San Jose, California.

Read More: http://www.whitehousedossier.com/

Read more: http://MinutemenNews.com/2013/06/obama-not-expecting-to-serve-out-his-term/#ixzz2VinnykW8

The Sinister Truth About Obama And Islam

by John Myers

UPIthe-sinister-truth-about-obama-and-islam_image_crop
“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation…” -Barack Obama
Who is President Barack Obama and what does he want? That he is an enigma is indisputable.
The ultra-Left continues to see him as a transformative figure that will remake America. His critics agree that Obama wants to change America, but not for the better. I decided to find out by reading half a dozen books and taking notes over the past few months.
The three books that are most compelling in their explanations of Obama are:
• Richard Minter, Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide For Him.
• Edward Klein, The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House.
• Bob Woodward, Obama Wars.
Minter’s credits include writing for The Wall Street Journal, Forbes and even the left-leaning Newsweek. Klein was a former editor for Newsweek. And the venerable Woodward was a key player that revealed Watergate when he was famously reporting for The Washington Post and has been considered to be the political assassin of President Richard Nixon.
These books contend Obama is a loner with few or no friends, has a messiah complex and an unequalled ego. They state that beyond his troika – wife and First Lady Michelle Obama, Senior Advisor to the President Valarie Jarrett and Attorney General Eric H. Holder – Obama listens to nobody. More damning is both Minter and Klein contend that the President and his gang of three are sympatico; that their African-American heritage has made them and all blacks victims of the white establishment and that they must change the United States with the redistribution of wealth, the Constitution be damned.
In Leading From Behind, Minter writes:
(In college Obama had) a passion for civil rights, social justice, and radical politics… (He) was developing a radical resume. He audited a class at Columbia University taught by famed writer and Palestinian activist Edward Said, spoke at protests at Harvard Law School, attended a church where the radical Israel sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright echoed off the walls.
Is Obama a Muslim in Christian Clothing?
No one can forget the Reverend Wright and his “Goddamn the United States!” outburst from the pulpit. But according to Klein, it wasn’t Wright who corrupted young Obama. It was Obama who used Wright by cultivating a relationship for his own political gain, namely to cover his Islamic beliefs.
I can already see a wave of hate comments from of our liberal readers so I am going to fully cite my reference from his book where Klein interviewed almost 200 people that have personally known the President, including Rev. Wright.*
Below and verbatim is from page 40 of The Amateur. It is Klein’s interview with Wright, the man Obama once said was, “like my father”:
“After Barack and I got to know each other, it got to the point where we would just drop by my church to talk,” Wright said. “And the talk gradually moved away from his community-organizing concerns — street cleaning, housing, child care, and those kinds of needs — to larger things, more personal things. Like trying to make sense of the world. Like trying to make sense out of the diverse racial and religious background from which he came. He was confused. He wanted to know who he was.
“And I told him, ‘Well, you already know the Muslim piece of your background.’” Wright continued. “You studied Islam, didn’t you? And Barack said, ‘Yeah, Rev, I studied Islam. But it helped me understand Christianity, because I already know Islam.’ And I said, ‘Well, let’s start from the beginning. Who do you say Jesus is? Let’s boil it down to the basics.”
“Did you convert Obama from Islam to Christianity?” I asked Wright. “That’s hard to tell,” Wright replied. “I think I convinced him that it is okay for him to make a choice in terms of who he believed Jesus is. And I told him it was really okay and not a putdown of the Muslim part of his family or his Muslim friends.”
This interview was not conducted by a conservative. These are not the words from a book by Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin or the soon-to-be-a-retired-Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. Klein is a seasoned newsman who freely admits that, like most of his colleagues in the media, he was first blinded by the celebrity aura that is the substance of Barack Obama. Nevertheless, linking the President to Islam is a serious charge. Yet others see some truth in it.
It was reported last week that Virginia Republican nominee for Lieutenant Governor E.W. Jackson wrote in a 2010 blog that Obama has “Muslim sensibilities” and a “Muslim perspective” to view the world. He added that Obama has taken an anti-Semitic approach to the White House that he “picked up from the black community.”
What exactly are the President’s thoughts on Islam? In his own words:
• “We will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities.”
• “These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.” (This must be a different Islam than the one that blows people up in Boston and cuts off soldier’s heads in London.)
• “As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.” (Again, a different Islam, because in the past 20 years I have seen little evidence that the Muslim faith cares about non-believers dignity or wants peace.)
Trust me Mr. President, few care about what you did for Islam when you were a young man. What we do care a great deal about — especially given we have been fighting a decades long war against Islamic extremists — is what your plans are now. What now appears certain is that you do not want to hurt Muslim sensitivities regardless of what terror they unleash on Christian Americans.
Obama refuses to use the words “extremist Muslims” or “Muslim Jihadists.” In 2009, Obama said it was “workplace violence” (I thought that was when you kicked over the water-cooler at the office) when Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter and follower of al-Qaida, shot and killed 13 military personnel while screaming “allahu akbar” (god is great).
It is ridiculous, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer told Fox News in April, that the President refuses to use the words “jihadist” and “Islamist” to describe the threat.
Krauthammer added: “I say I don’t know what he’s thinking, but I sure know what he’s saying and doing. The lengths to which he will go to avoid telling us the truth about the enemy is becoming comical and certainly embarrassing… (Obama) refuses to use any words that might imply a connection between radical Islam and terrorism, which anybody who is over the age of 9 knows is the single greatest cause of terror in the world today.”
Every Hitler Needs A Himmler
Maybe you want the President to be politically correct. That is your business. What you should not want, and what you should fear, is that Obama has a pro-Muslim agenda before his term ends and is instructing Attorney General Eric Holder and his lieutenants to illegally enforce it… praise be to Allah!
United States attorney in Tennessee Bill Killian has promised to use Federal civil rights statutes to stop offensive and inflammatory speech about Islam.
Last week the Tullahoma News quoted Killian: “We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected,” Killian told the newspaper.
Killian, along with the FBI special agent that runs the Knoxville office, is meeting with the local Muslim community to inform them about their rights under Obama law.
Excuse me, but what the hell? What about our rights as Americans? What about the First Amendment? This gets to the core of why Obama can hopefully be impeached and why Holder should be fired immediately. If not, writers for Personal Liberty Digest™ and readers like you who write comments will have to watch what we say about the poor Muslims in our country; members of a religion that the President seems hell-bent on protecting.
Yours in good times and bad,
-John Myers
*Klein, Edward (2012) The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House. New York, NY: Regency Publishing, Inc.

Remember When Obama and Holder Went After Gibson Guitars? Now, it All Makes Sense.

GIBSON_G_20110831193743Remember Obama and Eric Holder’s attack on Gibson Guitars? Back in 2009 the Obama regime raided Gibson Guitars and demanded that its woodwork labor be done overseas. The original excuse by the Obama regime for their raid on Gibson Guitars was ‘environmental concerns.’ Court documents however, revealed that the raid and legal hassles were from a non-environmental question — which country is working on the wood? That’s right, the Obama regime wanted the ‘fingerboards’ produced outside the U.S. In something that was overlooked at the time but makes a lot more sense now, the Gibson Guitars CEO Henry E. Juszkiewicz is a Republican donor.

When the BS about the ‘wood’ came up as an excuse from the Obama regime to attack Gibson Guitars, the corrupt media never mentioned that Gibson’s competitors used the exact same wood and faced no problems from the government.

Gibson CEO Henry Juskiewicz became widely known after he reacted to the raid by protesting his company’s innocence of running afoul of arcane restrictions (the case here hinged on the degree the wood was finished in India, not whether it was endangered or illegally harvested) in the pages of national newspapers and in Senate hearings held by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

Late last year Gibson settled with Department of Justice.
CEO Henry Juszkiewicz commented, “We feel that Gibson was inappropriately targeted, and a matter that could have been addressed with a simple contact by a caring human being representing the Government. Instead, the Government used violent and hostile means with the full force of the U.S. Government and several armed law enforcement agencies costing the taxpayer millions of dollars and putting a job-creating U.S. manufacturer at risk and at a competitive disadvantage. This shows the increasing trend on the part of the Government to criminalize rules and regulations and treat U.S. businesses in the same way drug dealers are treated. This is wrong and it is unfair. I am committed to working hard to correct the inequity that the law allows and ensure there is fairness, due process, and the law is used for its intended purpose of stopping bad guys and stopping the very real deforestation of our planet.”

Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !