...since the world is populated overwhelmingly with such family traditions. The more such families you admit, the less the prospects for even marginal attenuation stateside, of the world's near-consensus AGAINST treating strangers fairly, as if they were relatives ( i.e. extended-family ones)."Mass immigration has introduced alien ethnic cronyism on a vast scale into America, as any student not only of today’s deluge but also of the Great Wave well knows. The whole point of amoral familism is that among many of the world’s ethnic groups honesty to those with whom one does not have close kinship ties is not normal and accepted behavior."
from: Amoral Familism And Baby Formula
...perhaps totally unrelated:
"A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. "
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
The Media Unaccountability Of Obama Shows That Worse Must Be Expected If He Won
If the major media now refuse to hold Obama accountable for his positions, but cover for him, much as if they were his campaign spokesmen, doesn't it have to be much worse if a sitting president, with all the power of that office, held that racial privilege of media unaccountability? May the electorate reasonably trust major media, officialdom or academia to hold this racial candidate accountable if he became president? They won't do it now, and he has no effective way to get back at them for violating any such omerta, with his current position. One still has to go to the internet or the far right publications to get this most basic and necessary information for voting as a responsible citizen:
________"...Obama voted with his party 96 percent of the time. In the prior two years, his number was 95 percent, making him the fourth most partisan member of the Senate. And not just partisan, but also highly ideological. In 2007, according to the National Journal, Obama's voting record made him 'the most liberal Senator.' Throughout his Senate career, according to Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the dean of liberal advocacy groups, Obama voted 'right' 90 percent of the time. Actually this is misleading, since ADA counts an absence as if it were a vote on the 'wrong' side. If we discount his absences, Obama voted to ADA's approval more than 98 percent of the time."
...quoted from Joshua Muravchik at (an online-only contribution to) Commentary found via VFR
The worse someone is, the more he gets out of a refusal to bring up negatives. It's hard to think of a more anti-moral proceeding, than one which rewards the bad in proportion as they are bad, and power-greedy. When the very intelligent, worldly, knowledgeable and socially accomplished do precisely the above-criticized operations, isn't it likely to be deliberate and aimed at aggrandizing power? There's little chance of a mistake, other than a typical one of over-ambition, which is an occupational hazard, so to speak, of their avocation to power.
________"...Obama voted with his party 96 percent of the time. In the prior two years, his number was 95 percent, making him the fourth most partisan member of the Senate. And not just partisan, but also highly ideological. In 2007, according to the National Journal, Obama's voting record made him 'the most liberal Senator.' Throughout his Senate career, according to Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the dean of liberal advocacy groups, Obama voted 'right' 90 percent of the time. Actually this is misleading, since ADA counts an absence as if it were a vote on the 'wrong' side. If we discount his absences, Obama voted to ADA's approval more than 98 percent of the time."
...quoted from Joshua Muravchik at (an online-only contribution to) Commentary found via VFR
The worse someone is, the more he gets out of a refusal to bring up negatives. It's hard to think of a more anti-moral proceeding, than one which rewards the bad in proportion as they are bad, and power-greedy. When the very intelligent, worldly, knowledgeable and socially accomplished do precisely the above-criticized operations, isn't it likely to be deliberate and aimed at aggrandizing power? There's little chance of a mistake, other than a typical one of over-ambition, which is an occupational hazard, so to speak, of their avocation to power.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Aggressive Intolerance From The Quota-Placeholder
As quoted from this and the following links:
"Does Barack Obama support the First Amendment? (answer: well, it depends)
Is Barack Obama a strong proponent of the First Amendment? Does he support free speech, even by those who strongly disagree with him? The answer is: not really.
I'll keep track in reverse chronological order:
* Public officials in St. Louis/Missouri threaten Obama opponents with criminal libel? (apparently under the direction of or with the input of the BHO campaign)
* Barack Obama threatens licenses of stations running NRA ad (National Rifle Association)
* Obama quote: '[immigrants and illegal aliens are] counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling our airwaves – rhetoric that poisons our political discourse, degrades our democracy, and has no place in this great nation.' That's a reference to commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs, two people that Obama has not only smeared but lied about. Clearly, he doesn't just disagree with them, he doesn't want them to have the right to speak."
Politics being the ethics of aggression, there is only one consideration, which party tries to expand the scope of aggression more than the other? If one is to assign rank to different kinds of aggression in our polity, rating one sort more dangerous than another, threats to political speech being more aggressive on one side than another, may be dispositive. Not only does Obama show up as the lowly one on this consideration, but he effectively acknowledges his weakness relative to the truth coming out, for the mass audience, on his actual inclination and associations. As applicants for the highest security clearance, to be given by the electorate, all questionable associations must be brought up for public questioning.
Added from Thursday, October 2, 2008
A Major Move To The Left Needs Enforcement Of News Blackouts...
... in major media through state intimidation. If not so, why would this be attempted:
“Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment”
"Item: Both Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, have indicated that an Obama administration would use its control of the Justice Department to prosecute its political opponents... [...]
Item: There is a troubling report that the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Section, top officials of which are Obama contributors, has suggested criminal prosecutions against those they anticipate will engage in voter 'intimidation' or 'oppression' in an election involving a black candidate"
An indication is to be seen here as well, that the anti-volitionist, materialistic left, greatly outdoes the spiritual, volitionistic right, in bold aggression against freedom of political speech and publication. If the left cannot behave even in this one area, where they should have some credibility on a par with the larger right-wing, they deserve no chance at power, as may be given by the electorate.Those who rose by one unearned special dispensation after another, have the least respect for other's rights. It's the effrontery of the protected classes, moving on toward change we don't need.
"Does Barack Obama support the First Amendment? (answer: well, it depends)
Is Barack Obama a strong proponent of the First Amendment? Does he support free speech, even by those who strongly disagree with him? The answer is: not really.
I'll keep track in reverse chronological order:
* Public officials in St. Louis/Missouri threaten Obama opponents with criminal libel? (apparently under the direction of or with the input of the BHO campaign)
* Barack Obama threatens licenses of stations running NRA ad (National Rifle Association)
* Obama quote: '[immigrants and illegal aliens are] counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling our airwaves – rhetoric that poisons our political discourse, degrades our democracy, and has no place in this great nation.' That's a reference to commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs, two people that Obama has not only smeared but lied about. Clearly, he doesn't just disagree with them, he doesn't want them to have the right to speak."
Politics being the ethics of aggression, there is only one consideration, which party tries to expand the scope of aggression more than the other? If one is to assign rank to different kinds of aggression in our polity, rating one sort more dangerous than another, threats to political speech being more aggressive on one side than another, may be dispositive. Not only does Obama show up as the lowly one on this consideration, but he effectively acknowledges his weakness relative to the truth coming out, for the mass audience, on his actual inclination and associations. As applicants for the highest security clearance, to be given by the electorate, all questionable associations must be brought up for public questioning.
Added from Thursday, October 2, 2008
A Major Move To The Left Needs Enforcement Of News Blackouts...
... in major media through state intimidation. If not so, why would this be attempted:
“Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment”
"Item: Both Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, have indicated that an Obama administration would use its control of the Justice Department to prosecute its political opponents... [...]
Item: There is a troubling report that the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Section, top officials of which are Obama contributors, has suggested criminal prosecutions against those they anticipate will engage in voter 'intimidation' or 'oppression' in an election involving a black candidate"
An indication is to be seen here as well, that the anti-volitionist, materialistic left, greatly outdoes the spiritual, volitionistic right, in bold aggression against freedom of political speech and publication. If the left cannot behave even in this one area, where they should have some credibility on a par with the larger right-wing, they deserve no chance at power, as may be given by the electorate.Those who rose by one unearned special dispensation after another, have the least respect for other's rights. It's the effrontery of the protected classes, moving on toward change we don't need.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Politics Being The Ethics Of Aggression, It All Comes Down To Who Stands For More Aggression...
..to be visited on those within the jurisdiction for which the decision (of the electorate) is to be made. No other consideration is relevant in comparison to this, as the politics can only reasonably be distinguished from the non-political realm, by reference to whether it falls under the heading of ethics of aggression, or not.
From the Augusta Chronicle:
"Mr. Obama was the only member of the state Senate to vote against a bill to prohibit the early release of convicted criminal sexual abusers; and was among only four who voted against bills to toughen criminal sentences, increase penalties for criminals whose offenses were committed in the furtherance of gang activities..."
From GC of GNXP : " Obama is beloved by both Yale *and* Jail, and is an apologist for criminal vermin like the Jena Six. "
Supporting link for the above: Krissah Williams Thompson reports on the push to register felons to vote for Obama. Is there a reasonable expectation, other than operator error, in which such felons are registered, and would vote other than for Obama? If not, that tells us quite a lot in itself.
The following quotes are from Corsi's bestselling exposé and are adduced as unchallenged by Obama:
"Obama was deeply influenced by Frantz Fanon..." [JB characterization of Fanon: poster boy of anti-caucasianism for the academic left, known for advocating violent aggression against whites as liberating for blacks]
"Odinga supporters expressed their anger at losing the December 2007 election by engaging in a wave of tribal and religious violence in which machete-wielding Luo mobs killed 1,000 people and displaced approximately 350,000 more. [pages 103-107]
The post-election violence included massacres of Christians in which Luo mob supporters of Odinga damaged more than 300 churches, including burning to death 50 people who sought refuge in a Christian church in the town of Eldoret. [page 104]"
This is the same Odinga who was supported by Obama, and who through U.S. intervention has now acquired a top position in the Kenyan government. Obama's loyalties are to the subhuman aggressor, and America will not accept that.
From the Augusta Chronicle:
"Mr. Obama was the only member of the state Senate to vote against a bill to prohibit the early release of convicted criminal sexual abusers; and was among only four who voted against bills to toughen criminal sentences, increase penalties for criminals whose offenses were committed in the furtherance of gang activities..."
From GC of GNXP : " Obama is beloved by both Yale *and* Jail, and is an apologist for criminal vermin like the Jena Six. "
Supporting link for the above: Krissah Williams Thompson reports on the push to register felons to vote for Obama. Is there a reasonable expectation, other than operator error, in which such felons are registered, and would vote other than for Obama? If not, that tells us quite a lot in itself.
The following quotes are from Corsi's bestselling exposé and are adduced as unchallenged by Obama:
"Obama was deeply influenced by Frantz Fanon..." [JB characterization of Fanon: poster boy of anti-caucasianism for the academic left, known for advocating violent aggression against whites as liberating for blacks]
"Odinga supporters expressed their anger at losing the December 2007 election by engaging in a wave of tribal and religious violence in which machete-wielding Luo mobs killed 1,000 people and displaced approximately 350,000 more. [pages 103-107]
The post-election violence included massacres of Christians in which Luo mob supporters of Odinga damaged more than 300 churches, including burning to death 50 people who sought refuge in a Christian church in the town of Eldoret. [page 104]"
This is the same Odinga who was supported by Obama, and who through U.S. intervention has now acquired a top position in the Kenyan government. Obama's loyalties are to the subhuman aggressor, and America will not accept that.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Speaking The Unspeakable: Subprime Debacle Has A Lot To Do With Pro-Diversity Re:Illegals
On VFR where the following is posted :
"A. Zarkov writes:
To understand the roots of our current financial crisis, one cannot ignore how the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) got the ball rolling. There is tremendous resistance to this story because of its racial aspects, but a few brave souls have dared. Stan Leibowitz was one of the first with his New York Post essay last February called 'The Real Scandal.' It's all very simple. You can't have a sub-prime loan problem if there are no sub-prime loans, and those loans could not exist without lax underwriting standards. To understand the mentality behind reduced underwriting standards one simply has to browse the handbook published by the Fannie Mae Foundation (yes that Fannie Mae) called "Reaching the Immigrant Market: Creating Home Ownership Opportunities for New Americans." Here you can see first hand the bizarre thinking that led to loaning people large sums of money they couldn't ever repay. For example, the handbook authors write about 'barriers to immigrant homeownership.' What are the barriers? Once you decode the Orwellian language, the barriers are obvious: 1. Lack of a verifiable income; 2. Lack of a credit history that demonstrates the will and ability to repay loans; 3. Lack of ability to speak and read English, the language loan contracts are written in; 4. Lack of a valid Social Security Number; 5. Inability to make down payments and closing costs. The handbook advises financial institutions on how to reach the immigrant market by using "nontraditional" measures of immigrant creditworthiness. Translation: no creditworthiness. You can find the whole prescription for lax underwriting in Chapter 6. Here they are. Again I decode the Newspeak:
1.Latitude in proving legal residence--give mortgages to illegal aliens
2. Low down payment--no down payment.
3. Higher qualifying ratios--ignore the fact that the borrower will spend most of his income on mortgage payments.
4. Alternative and nontraditional credit--ignore the borrower's dismal credit score if he even has one. Substitute meaningless or easily faked documents.
5. Waive the mortgage insurance requirement (page 55)--the killer item! As the handbook explains, this give the lender the ultimate say in the underwriting decision because the mortgage insurance company is out of the loop. This important safeguard is gutted. Is it any wonder you get a worthless loan? Americans are forced to pay for mortgage insurance, but illegal Mexicans aren't. [...] Chapter six also provides the names of various special loan programs for aliens. We have the Wells Fargo Community Homeownership Program--no mortgage insurance. How about the National of La Raza Home to Own Program. The table on page 58 gives others.
It's now obvious how approximately half a trillion dollars in bad loans got created. It started with blacks and the CRA, [...] the hordes of illegal aliens that had spread throughout the U.S. Financial engineering gave them the means to sell off this toxic junk and make money on the loan origination fees. Then you wrap the whole thing in a racism-xenophobia security blanket to immunize it against criticism.
Now the federal government proposes to buy all these bad loans and charge it off to the taxpayer! Once the feds own the homes, will they simply let the borrowers live in them indefinitely? A gift to Mexicans courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.
You can read the Leibowitz article here.
You can download the Fannie Mae Foundation handbook here. I encourage everyone to download (before this embarrassing document disappears) and at least browse the handbook. "
It is also at least somewhat misleading to describe this extended bad-mortgage slump, which has years behind it and ahead of it, as a crisis. There is a series of crises for the firms, as they get taken out one by one, each on its own day of 'crisis'; but the overall slumping pattern is a slow-motion wave of defaults caused by valuing openness to diversity of ever-lower and more fraudulent credit extensions. The non-diverse have to pay mortgage insurance, the diversity doesn't. Often they need not give valid ID to obtain hundreds of thousands in mortgage credit to buy, or squat in, a property. That problem remains unsolved, and to solve it requires restricting eligibility for mortgages, at the same time that the public desire is to get a larger share of the population into mortgages. The only way to do that now is to recruit teenagers into mortgages, as was done in Oklahoma in the heyday of the Penn Square beer-out-of-a-boot bankers. Beyond that market would be negative down payments.
Added 9-26-08 from Saturday, September 20, 2008
Forcing Openness To Diversity Can Bring Down The High & Mighty
As this quote explains:"Freddie Mac warned of the logical pitfalls of pursuing loans on the basis of skin color and not credit history.The Washington Post reported that the company conducted a study in which it was found that far more black people have bad credit than white people, even when both have the same incomes. In fact, the study showed a higher percentage of African Americans with incomes of $65,000 to $75,000 had bad credit than white Americans with incomes of below $25,000.Such data demonstrated that when federal regulators demanded parity between racial groups in lending, the only way to achieve a quota would be to begin making intentionally bad lending decisions.The study, however, came under brutal attack in the U.S. Congress and was ridiculed with charges of racism."This quotation was found on VFR, where one may find MORE…Sailer's article on The Diversity Recession gives indispensable background: … [Read More]Oddly enough, here one finds that following the money trail, leads on toward losses, even the bankruptcy of some of the most elite firms. One does find, though, that the basic elements associated with contemporary (race-exploiting) power-greed are very much to the forefront.Politicians bully the money-men, crying racism, and those power-seekers gain power, even rising from obscurity like Obama, to the Democratic presidential nomination.The smearing approach is conspicuously used, where opponents are expected to prove that they have motivations other than racial hatred against disadvantaged minorities. The only answer to this, is to keep pointing out that there is no rational argument for officials to have more power to racially redistribute or any domestic reason, that is why they have only the smearing approach of: prove you're not racist, or give us what we want. The issues are chosen so as to facilitate such an approach, and even when they'rre not deliberately so chosen, an effect like natural selection occurs, such that headway is made when the issue and the method are related as above.If valuing openness to diversity created value all by itself, these officials would not have been able to bankrupt or force the mergers of eminent financial institutions. Heads they win power, tails you lose money and freedom-from-aggression. It's a ratchet, and it's a racket, and it's non-profit, but highly favorable to the accumulation of power.At or under this link or search term---YouTube - Explosive Video, Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the ... Dems the "Family" and "Conscience" of Fannie Mae---may be found on Youtube a reference for that claim as to Obama being drawn up on the vortex of politically extracting minority mortgages. This was filched from the formidable GC of GNXP.And for those who delight in following the Benjamins, here's a blaze on one relevant trail of bright breadcrumbs...[FROM]...Bear Stearns... Fannie M... Freddie M... Lehman ... AIG
[To] McCain- $88,050... $6,550... $9,100... $117,500... $36,875
[To] Obama- $570,614... $137,950... $68,750... $370,524... $75,899[paraphrased from this Permalink of Pamela Geller's]
Added 9-26-08 from: Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Has the Anti-Discrimination Society Hit Its Final Brick Wall On Wall Street...
or will the patchings hold well enough to let business go back to politics as usual? One point to notice is that the society that prides itself on its enforcement of anti-discrimination, has no possibilities other than to go a-begging, to those that do not pretend to believe in the equality and brotherhood of all mankind, much less try to force such notions on the unwilling by state aggression. Maybe it's not this bad, but what if it is: Anti-discrimination and beggary! Not only is trying to turn us into the U.S. of anti-caucasianism immoral, it is starting to show its long-term impracticality as well.Some more flabbergasting aspects of the subprime fallout are in this article
"A. Zarkov writes:
To understand the roots of our current financial crisis, one cannot ignore how the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) got the ball rolling. There is tremendous resistance to this story because of its racial aspects, but a few brave souls have dared. Stan Leibowitz was one of the first with his New York Post essay last February called 'The Real Scandal.' It's all very simple. You can't have a sub-prime loan problem if there are no sub-prime loans, and those loans could not exist without lax underwriting standards. To understand the mentality behind reduced underwriting standards one simply has to browse the handbook published by the Fannie Mae Foundation (yes that Fannie Mae) called "Reaching the Immigrant Market: Creating Home Ownership Opportunities for New Americans." Here you can see first hand the bizarre thinking that led to loaning people large sums of money they couldn't ever repay. For example, the handbook authors write about 'barriers to immigrant homeownership.' What are the barriers? Once you decode the Orwellian language, the barriers are obvious: 1. Lack of a verifiable income; 2. Lack of a credit history that demonstrates the will and ability to repay loans; 3. Lack of ability to speak and read English, the language loan contracts are written in; 4. Lack of a valid Social Security Number; 5. Inability to make down payments and closing costs. The handbook advises financial institutions on how to reach the immigrant market by using "nontraditional" measures of immigrant creditworthiness. Translation: no creditworthiness. You can find the whole prescription for lax underwriting in Chapter 6. Here they are. Again I decode the Newspeak:
1.Latitude in proving legal residence--give mortgages to illegal aliens
2. Low down payment--no down payment.
3. Higher qualifying ratios--ignore the fact that the borrower will spend most of his income on mortgage payments.
4. Alternative and nontraditional credit--ignore the borrower's dismal credit score if he even has one. Substitute meaningless or easily faked documents.
5. Waive the mortgage insurance requirement (page 55)--the killer item! As the handbook explains, this give the lender the ultimate say in the underwriting decision because the mortgage insurance company is out of the loop. This important safeguard is gutted. Is it any wonder you get a worthless loan? Americans are forced to pay for mortgage insurance, but illegal Mexicans aren't. [...] Chapter six also provides the names of various special loan programs for aliens. We have the Wells Fargo Community Homeownership Program--no mortgage insurance. How about the National of La Raza Home to Own Program. The table on page 58 gives others.
It's now obvious how approximately half a trillion dollars in bad loans got created. It started with blacks and the CRA, [...] the hordes of illegal aliens that had spread throughout the U.S. Financial engineering gave them the means to sell off this toxic junk and make money on the loan origination fees. Then you wrap the whole thing in a racism-xenophobia security blanket to immunize it against criticism.
Now the federal government proposes to buy all these bad loans and charge it off to the taxpayer! Once the feds own the homes, will they simply let the borrowers live in them indefinitely? A gift to Mexicans courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.
You can read the Leibowitz article here.
You can download the Fannie Mae Foundation handbook here. I encourage everyone to download (before this embarrassing document disappears) and at least browse the handbook. "
It is also at least somewhat misleading to describe this extended bad-mortgage slump, which has years behind it and ahead of it, as a crisis. There is a series of crises for the firms, as they get taken out one by one, each on its own day of 'crisis'; but the overall slumping pattern is a slow-motion wave of defaults caused by valuing openness to diversity of ever-lower and more fraudulent credit extensions. The non-diverse have to pay mortgage insurance, the diversity doesn't. Often they need not give valid ID to obtain hundreds of thousands in mortgage credit to buy, or squat in, a property. That problem remains unsolved, and to solve it requires restricting eligibility for mortgages, at the same time that the public desire is to get a larger share of the population into mortgages. The only way to do that now is to recruit teenagers into mortgages, as was done in Oklahoma in the heyday of the Penn Square beer-out-of-a-boot bankers. Beyond that market would be negative down payments.
Added 9-26-08 from Saturday, September 20, 2008
Forcing Openness To Diversity Can Bring Down The High & Mighty
As this quote explains:"Freddie Mac warned of the logical pitfalls of pursuing loans on the basis of skin color and not credit history.The Washington Post reported that the company conducted a study in which it was found that far more black people have bad credit than white people, even when both have the same incomes. In fact, the study showed a higher percentage of African Americans with incomes of $65,000 to $75,000 had bad credit than white Americans with incomes of below $25,000.Such data demonstrated that when federal regulators demanded parity between racial groups in lending, the only way to achieve a quota would be to begin making intentionally bad lending decisions.The study, however, came under brutal attack in the U.S. Congress and was ridiculed with charges of racism."This quotation was found on VFR, where one may find MORE…Sailer's article on The Diversity Recession gives indispensable background: … [Read More]Oddly enough, here one finds that following the money trail, leads on toward losses, even the bankruptcy of some of the most elite firms. One does find, though, that the basic elements associated with contemporary (race-exploiting) power-greed are very much to the forefront.Politicians bully the money-men, crying racism, and those power-seekers gain power, even rising from obscurity like Obama, to the Democratic presidential nomination.The smearing approach is conspicuously used, where opponents are expected to prove that they have motivations other than racial hatred against disadvantaged minorities. The only answer to this, is to keep pointing out that there is no rational argument for officials to have more power to racially redistribute or any domestic reason, that is why they have only the smearing approach of: prove you're not racist, or give us what we want. The issues are chosen so as to facilitate such an approach, and even when they'rre not deliberately so chosen, an effect like natural selection occurs, such that headway is made when the issue and the method are related as above.If valuing openness to diversity created value all by itself, these officials would not have been able to bankrupt or force the mergers of eminent financial institutions. Heads they win power, tails you lose money and freedom-from-aggression. It's a ratchet, and it's a racket, and it's non-profit, but highly favorable to the accumulation of power.At or under this link or search term---YouTube - Explosive Video, Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the ... Dems the "Family" and "Conscience" of Fannie Mae---may be found on Youtube a reference for that claim as to Obama being drawn up on the vortex of politically extracting minority mortgages. This was filched from the formidable GC of GNXP.And for those who delight in following the Benjamins, here's a blaze on one relevant trail of bright breadcrumbs...[FROM]...Bear Stearns... Fannie M... Freddie M... Lehman ... AIG
[To] McCain- $88,050... $6,550... $9,100... $117,500... $36,875
[To] Obama- $570,614... $137,950... $68,750... $370,524... $75,899[paraphrased from this Permalink of Pamela Geller's]
Added 9-26-08 from: Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Has the Anti-Discrimination Society Hit Its Final Brick Wall On Wall Street...
or will the patchings hold well enough to let business go back to politics as usual? One point to notice is that the society that prides itself on its enforcement of anti-discrimination, has no possibilities other than to go a-begging, to those that do not pretend to believe in the equality and brotherhood of all mankind, much less try to force such notions on the unwilling by state aggression. Maybe it's not this bad, but what if it is: Anti-discrimination and beggary! Not only is trying to turn us into the U.S. of anti-caucasianism immoral, it is starting to show its long-term impracticality as well.Some more flabbergasting aspects of the subprime fallout are in this article
Friday, September 19, 2008
Does Islam In America Know On Which Side Its Bread Is Served?
Quoting from where one may find: More
"Muslim Arab-Americans favor Obama 84-4.
Obama is doing better among Muslim Arab-Americans than he is among African Americans."
Recall also that this demographic is largely foreign-born, better-educated than the average, cosmopolitan and far above the average level found in their source countries, while travelling often in elite circles hereabouts. In spite of advantages, especially regarding education, this Islamic demographic is indicating political preferences which would be difficult to match outside of a wild and depraved public housing project. These are the prospects for assimilation, beware!
Added from : Sunday, September 21, 2008
Obama May Be Only Good At Making Submissive Gestures Towards Islam
It could be that he has just been carried along on everything else where he would otherwise need to be far above middle ranges. That would have happened so as to have a black who is on the far left, yet who style-wise, travels below the radar which is tripped by obvious anger and hate. The Islamic enthusiasm for him might have been elicited by a feeling that he is willing to be a dhimmi to them. A further speculation along these lines: with several venerable Jewish firms having been brought down recently, shouldn't the government be investigating whether this is terrorism and meddling aimed at securing the presidency for the Islamic preference? If there are indications of this, the government must tell us now, rather than later as the Spanish reluctantly did several years ago, thus ensuring Zapatero's Socialist victory. Bush probably can't keep his eye on the ball, though, as the Feds are going after a Christian compound in Arkansas today, while allowing Acorn to run wild with impunity. This is what the government would do if Bush were in a coma, and letting it run itself.
"Muslim Arab-Americans favor Obama 84-4.
Obama is doing better among Muslim Arab-Americans than he is among African Americans."
Recall also that this demographic is largely foreign-born, better-educated than the average, cosmopolitan and far above the average level found in their source countries, while travelling often in elite circles hereabouts. In spite of advantages, especially regarding education, this Islamic demographic is indicating political preferences which would be difficult to match outside of a wild and depraved public housing project. These are the prospects for assimilation, beware!
Added from : Sunday, September 21, 2008
Obama May Be Only Good At Making Submissive Gestures Towards Islam
It could be that he has just been carried along on everything else where he would otherwise need to be far above middle ranges. That would have happened so as to have a black who is on the far left, yet who style-wise, travels below the radar which is tripped by obvious anger and hate. The Islamic enthusiasm for him might have been elicited by a feeling that he is willing to be a dhimmi to them. A further speculation along these lines: with several venerable Jewish firms having been brought down recently, shouldn't the government be investigating whether this is terrorism and meddling aimed at securing the presidency for the Islamic preference? If there are indications of this, the government must tell us now, rather than later as the Spanish reluctantly did several years ago, thus ensuring Zapatero's Socialist victory. Bush probably can't keep his eye on the ball, though, as the Feds are going after a Christian compound in Arkansas today, while allowing Acorn to run wild with impunity. This is what the government would do if Bush were in a coma, and letting it run itself.
Monday, September 15, 2008
America's First Racial Election For The Presidency As Declared By Biden
Obama's racial identity: "That will be a transformative event in American politics and internationally," Biden said. "That all by itself will be significant." The quote from Biden is to be found here: Biden: Elect Obama because He’s Black
Most important is to point out that there is no reasonable argument for a move to the left, and the power that undeserving officials get from that leftward move. If there were, it would be used, and not the smearing suggestion that the only impulse behind a vote against the black candidate is racial hatred.
It is really major media, officialdom and its professoriate which by now, should have to prove that they are not motivated entirely by racial hatred-against the majority-that is. The power-greedy have nothing to offer rationally; only illegitimate manipulations are possible for them. Officials have too much, not too little, power. They are not known to have too little power, that's what it's all about.
Added 9-26-08 from : Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Don't You Snitch On Obama!
It's 'smearing' if you do mention before the public, that Obama has far-left connections, has voted leftwards even of the only socialist senator, and can quite sensibly be described as terrorist-friendly. Isn't it interesting that 'smearing' is redefined to occupy the place where one would expect the term 'snitching' to be used? Maybe it will be noticed that those who react more against national-political snitching, than against that which is snitched on, are implacable left-supporters regardless. That is part of what it means to be on the left: You don't snitch on those who facilitate power-greed, at least the anti-volitionist, anti-hereditarian kind of power-seeking.Permalink :Obama FINALLY Admits Communist Connection-----------"The Mainstream media has been attacking Jerome Corsi’s book, The Obama Nation at every opportunity possible. I wonder if any of them actually tried to investigate any of the facts. Doubtful. But here is a fact Senator Obama confirms. In the midst of his massive rebuttal to the book, Senator Obama ADMITS his close relationship with Frank Marshall Davis. Of course, he doesn't mention the part about Davis being a bigshot in the Communist Party of the US..."Obama's murky past: "While the New York Times crack investigative staff is busily pursuing a 4-H pal of Sarah Palin's, they seem to have missed the biggest story of this election cycle. Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn are unrepentent terrorists who even today advocate communism and the overthrow of the United States government. They launched and orchestrated Barack Obama's career, providing him with the qualifications necessary to run for major political office. Repeat: communists and terrorists launched Obama's career. And the fossils at the Times, who are rapidly sinking into financial quicksand, can't bother to report the story."What if in 1960, several books on Kennedy connections to fascism and mafia activities a decade or two earlier, had been published? Something like that hypothetical is happening to Obama now, and it's many times more significant than the 'swiftboating' of Kerry, which mainly exposed fish story-type lies and embellishments
Most important is to point out that there is no reasonable argument for a move to the left, and the power that undeserving officials get from that leftward move. If there were, it would be used, and not the smearing suggestion that the only impulse behind a vote against the black candidate is racial hatred.
It is really major media, officialdom and its professoriate which by now, should have to prove that they are not motivated entirely by racial hatred-against the majority-that is. The power-greedy have nothing to offer rationally; only illegitimate manipulations are possible for them. Officials have too much, not too little, power. They are not known to have too little power, that's what it's all about.
Added 9-26-08 from : Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Don't You Snitch On Obama!
It's 'smearing' if you do mention before the public, that Obama has far-left connections, has voted leftwards even of the only socialist senator, and can quite sensibly be described as terrorist-friendly. Isn't it interesting that 'smearing' is redefined to occupy the place where one would expect the term 'snitching' to be used? Maybe it will be noticed that those who react more against national-political snitching, than against that which is snitched on, are implacable left-supporters regardless. That is part of what it means to be on the left: You don't snitch on those who facilitate power-greed, at least the anti-volitionist, anti-hereditarian kind of power-seeking.Permalink :Obama FINALLY Admits Communist Connection-----------"The Mainstream media has been attacking Jerome Corsi’s book, The Obama Nation at every opportunity possible. I wonder if any of them actually tried to investigate any of the facts. Doubtful. But here is a fact Senator Obama confirms. In the midst of his massive rebuttal to the book, Senator Obama ADMITS his close relationship with Frank Marshall Davis. Of course, he doesn't mention the part about Davis being a bigshot in the Communist Party of the US..."Obama's murky past: "While the New York Times crack investigative staff is busily pursuing a 4-H pal of Sarah Palin's, they seem to have missed the biggest story of this election cycle. Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn are unrepentent terrorists who even today advocate communism and the overthrow of the United States government. They launched and orchestrated Barack Obama's career, providing him with the qualifications necessary to run for major political office. Repeat: communists and terrorists launched Obama's career. And the fossils at the Times, who are rapidly sinking into financial quicksand, can't bother to report the story."What if in 1960, several books on Kennedy connections to fascism and mafia activities a decade or two earlier, had been published? Something like that hypothetical is happening to Obama now, and it's many times more significant than the 'swiftboating' of Kerry, which mainly exposed fish story-type lies and embellishments
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Electorate Is Presumed Guilty Until Momentarily Proven Innocent
while Obama is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, even though he is an applicant for the very highest security clearance, that is issued by the electorate. If this doesn't exemplify official anti-caucasianism, to be such a widespread assumption in the media and beyond, what would?
Added from Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Presumption Of Innocence For Terrorists & Terrorist-Friendly Obama, While Guilt Is To Be Presumed Of The Electorate?
09/14/08 - The Fulford File: Guilty As Hell, Free As A Bird—Ayers, Obama, And The Exclusionary Rule, by James Fulford
Reading the above, one can hardly escape the conclusion that Obama regards Ayers as two different moral beings, at least rhetorically. One Ayers ran wild in the 1960's; the other Ayers is entitled to a presumption of innocence, whether charged anew or not. The new Ayers is "establishment" and "respectable". Such a treatment is grossly, nihilistically subversive of morality, and this has to be pointed out again and again, but, most of all it shows that Obama is terrorist-friendly. The electorate, unlike Dohrn, for example, has never, and will never, be charged with, and put on trial for, any crime whatsoever. Somehow, though, this vast electorate, or at least the majority of it, gets presumed guilty of rejecting the world-historical Obam-enon, solely from racial hatred such as would be on a slippery-slope to mass-murder, presumably. Ayers gets away with murder, gets called "respectable" by Obama, while the electorate is somehow obliged to prove itself innocent of any and every racialized accusation by voting for black-as-black. Only government schools could get such a procedure regarded as justice and not monstrous injustice.
Added from Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Presumption Of Innocence For Terrorists & Terrorist-Friendly Obama, While Guilt Is To Be Presumed Of The Electorate?
09/14/08 - The Fulford File: Guilty As Hell, Free As A Bird—Ayers, Obama, And The Exclusionary Rule, by James Fulford
Reading the above, one can hardly escape the conclusion that Obama regards Ayers as two different moral beings, at least rhetorically. One Ayers ran wild in the 1960's; the other Ayers is entitled to a presumption of innocence, whether charged anew or not. The new Ayers is "establishment" and "respectable". Such a treatment is grossly, nihilistically subversive of morality, and this has to be pointed out again and again, but, most of all it shows that Obama is terrorist-friendly. The electorate, unlike Dohrn, for example, has never, and will never, be charged with, and put on trial for, any crime whatsoever. Somehow, though, this vast electorate, or at least the majority of it, gets presumed guilty of rejecting the world-historical Obam-enon, solely from racial hatred such as would be on a slippery-slope to mass-murder, presumably. Ayers gets away with murder, gets called "respectable" by Obama, while the electorate is somehow obliged to prove itself innocent of any and every racialized accusation by voting for black-as-black. Only government schools could get such a procedure regarded as justice and not monstrous injustice.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
De Carvalho On The Psychological Warfare For Obama
The American Lula________________"Obama’s campaign is a work of precision psychological engineering, planned not to win over voters through rational persuasion, but to weaken, shock, and stupefy them to the point of making them accept every loss, every humiliation, every defeat, just in order not to contradict the assumed moral obligation to elect him, it being of little importance whether he actually is an enemy in disguise. Here is what Obama is demanding—and obtaining—from voters: that they sacrifice everything to a fetish, that they do so to some extent consciously, sharing therefore the blame..."
In that sense, the media (and power-grubbing academic) blitz for the racial candidacy, is indeed all about you, but not so much about Obama.
Can Americans be made to feel, by suggestion and subtle gesture and indirection, OBLIGED to grant amoral exemption to the black-qua-black?
If De Carvalho and the polls are even close to being right, it looks black as death for civilization, that there is not already a landslide a-building against Obama, the receptacle of racial, unspeakably deceitful and misbegotten "atonement".
In that sense, the media (and power-grubbing academic) blitz for the racial candidacy, is indeed all about you, but not so much about Obama.
Can Americans be made to feel, by suggestion and subtle gesture and indirection, OBLIGED to grant amoral exemption to the black-qua-black?
If De Carvalho and the polls are even close to being right, it looks black as death for civilization, that there is not already a landslide a-building against Obama, the receptacle of racial, unspeakably deceitful and misbegotten "atonement".
Thursday, September 11, 2008
9-11 Remembered & Forgotten: The Disaster Of Valuing Openness To Diversity
all the way down, to the foundations of 100-storey buildings, crushed by immigrants. No one else is going to mention this; that these buildings were brought low, and the national military headquarters itself successfully attacked, by immigrants. All were foreign-born; all fully intended to die on this side of the borders, without ever crossing them again. Thousands died because it suited the powerful to insist, that all man are brothers and such that there can be no lasting enemies, that all are equal and discrimination against those who appear unequal is all that one may legitimately discriminate against, that freedom-for-aggression is desirable, but real freedom is not, and that openness to diversity from civilization is valuable, and more and more of such openness, is more and more value. It still looks as though the first line of defense protecting the Capitol and the White House, was the courage, intelligence and initiative of the passengers, amazingly different from our leaders of anti-discrimination, who, even SEVEN YEARS later, have yet to move strongly against the large-scale immigration of Islamic hostiles.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Why Do The Ambitious Hate Small-Town America
This effect is showing up prominently today especially regarding Palin. It is not so much a question of looking down on others, but of outright hatred; one without sympathy, but that wishes destruction on its objects.
It is vicious, unprovoked hatred, resembling only that which an adult male feels towards his benefactor who saved him. The ambitious of the large cities, whether it is ambition for power or for money or for opportunity for some rarefied urban career specialization, have repeatedly had to be saved politically by the less ambitious out towards the country.
They, the ambitious, have had to be saved from the consequences of their own politics, in which the ambitions of one sort are treated as dovetailing with the evil ambition, which is to say: Power-greed.
They have had to be just saved, over and over, as if they were hopelessly incompetent and grossly inferior, non-viable life-forms. The awareness of this relation, stings them so long and intensely, that they can only react with hatred towards their benefactors, out in the smaller places.
A prime recent example is the differential support for the EU referendum on the Lisbon treaty in the Irish voting. The ambitious, more educated and metropolitan, were down on all fours licking the boots of the power-greedy EU monstrosity. The less-ambitious, less-specialized, more small-town-living part of the electorate, had to save the more ambitious from the consequences of their own alliance with power-greed.
Doesn't it go without saying that the benefactors will be hated for this. Now we have the same situation with Palin, as representing small-town America and such, and drawing the hatred which calls her part of a trailer park element. At this link: More is to be found that is peculiarly candid:
________"She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name..."
The hatred is obvious, and clearly different from just feeling superior, as can be determined by reflecting that disadvantaged minorities would never be described by such a writer as that demographic which "sullies America's name". Those minorities, no matter how outrageously low their common standards of behavior, even compared to what the hate-filled, left-friendly find gratifying to refer to as 'white trash', would not be so described, not by the power-greedy at least. Combine these elements and a clear pattern shows: The power-greedy hate those who constrain their efforts to get a bigger, more powerful bureaucracy, and one with power to share out with the ambitious of the above type.
It is vicious, unprovoked hatred, resembling only that which an adult male feels towards his benefactor who saved him. The ambitious of the large cities, whether it is ambition for power or for money or for opportunity for some rarefied urban career specialization, have repeatedly had to be saved politically by the less ambitious out towards the country.
They, the ambitious, have had to be saved from the consequences of their own politics, in which the ambitions of one sort are treated as dovetailing with the evil ambition, which is to say: Power-greed.
They have had to be just saved, over and over, as if they were hopelessly incompetent and grossly inferior, non-viable life-forms. The awareness of this relation, stings them so long and intensely, that they can only react with hatred towards their benefactors, out in the smaller places.
A prime recent example is the differential support for the EU referendum on the Lisbon treaty in the Irish voting. The ambitious, more educated and metropolitan, were down on all fours licking the boots of the power-greedy EU monstrosity. The less-ambitious, less-specialized, more small-town-living part of the electorate, had to save the more ambitious from the consequences of their own alliance with power-greed.
Doesn't it go without saying that the benefactors will be hated for this. Now we have the same situation with Palin, as representing small-town America and such, and drawing the hatred which calls her part of a trailer park element. At this link: More is to be found that is peculiarly candid:
________"She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name..."
The hatred is obvious, and clearly different from just feeling superior, as can be determined by reflecting that disadvantaged minorities would never be described by such a writer as that demographic which "sullies America's name". Those minorities, no matter how outrageously low their common standards of behavior, even compared to what the hate-filled, left-friendly find gratifying to refer to as 'white trash', would not be so described, not by the power-greedy at least. Combine these elements and a clear pattern shows: The power-greedy hate those who constrain their efforts to get a bigger, more powerful bureaucracy, and one with power to share out with the ambitious of the above type.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
A Glimpse Of The Pro-Diversity Future As the Diversity Managers Dream It
...with the two Asian senators at the spearpoint of this bold thrust at our sovereignty i.e.
a racial government for Hawaii with features building towards secession:
___ "If the Senate overrides the veto, it will speed the country’s embrace of a form of post-nationalism (already held by many elites) — a confederation of various races, ethnicities and interest groups competing for special privileges, exemptions and recognition.
The Akaka Bill creates a race-based government for native Hawaiians. Even its supporters don’t deny that the bill could lead to outright secession. In the meantime, the bill will produce a regime of racial preferences, reparations, and lawsuits fueled by ethnic grievance, victimhood, and entitlement...."
...as found in More Race Politics From the Un-Post-Racial Candidate
The broken pediment, or was he the Natural Bridge of Hybrid Vigor, is all for this split-off.
All three mixed-race senators are enthused over this fissuring along strictly racial lines. Two out of three of them are spearheading it with the Akaka bill. This points to what the power-greedy perhaps don't want anyone but themselves to observe; the mixed-race are not natural bridges but natural dividers. If so, why is this? At the frontiers we find the most warlike, and their increase is assisted by those further off the frontiers of conflict, so that those who can effectively stimulate that assistance through carefully managing frontier conflict to their advantage, increase numbers and their practices relative to those who are less able to manage this feat.
This is what valuing openness to diversity means in practice; valuing division and conflict and the power that grows from being the arbiter, and ever more arbitrary, ruler of the intensified conflicts and divisions. Competition for power is not always zero-sum. Forty dictatorships hacked from one republic offer hugely more power for those who ride Diversity to the top of the devolutionary racial sovereignties, although the nukes presumably would stay with the big remainder, and thus the international power need not atrophy that much. The wars that get us to the devolutions allow for essentially unlimited power Re: the citizenry. Even if every catalyzed conflict fizzles, there is still great increase of power to be won for each step towards the ultimate divisions.
a racial government for Hawaii with features building towards secession:
___ "If the Senate overrides the veto, it will speed the country’s embrace of a form of post-nationalism (already held by many elites) — a confederation of various races, ethnicities and interest groups competing for special privileges, exemptions and recognition.
The Akaka Bill creates a race-based government for native Hawaiians. Even its supporters don’t deny that the bill could lead to outright secession. In the meantime, the bill will produce a regime of racial preferences, reparations, and lawsuits fueled by ethnic grievance, victimhood, and entitlement...."
...as found in More Race Politics From the Un-Post-Racial Candidate
The broken pediment, or was he the Natural Bridge of Hybrid Vigor, is all for this split-off.
All three mixed-race senators are enthused over this fissuring along strictly racial lines. Two out of three of them are spearheading it with the Akaka bill. This points to what the power-greedy perhaps don't want anyone but themselves to observe; the mixed-race are not natural bridges but natural dividers. If so, why is this? At the frontiers we find the most warlike, and their increase is assisted by those further off the frontiers of conflict, so that those who can effectively stimulate that assistance through carefully managing frontier conflict to their advantage, increase numbers and their practices relative to those who are less able to manage this feat.
This is what valuing openness to diversity means in practice; valuing division and conflict and the power that grows from being the arbiter, and ever more arbitrary, ruler of the intensified conflicts and divisions. Competition for power is not always zero-sum. Forty dictatorships hacked from one republic offer hugely more power for those who ride Diversity to the top of the devolutionary racial sovereignties, although the nukes presumably would stay with the big remainder, and thus the international power need not atrophy that much. The wars that get us to the devolutions allow for essentially unlimited power Re: the citizenry. Even if every catalyzed conflict fizzles, there is still great increase of power to be won for each step towards the ultimate divisions.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
When 'The Diversity' Means The Quota-Eligible...
valuing openness to diversity will mean also valuing the increase of quota recruitment.
More quota recruitment means also further randomization of the information contained in merit recruitment; therefore it is anti-merit. Pro-diversity is anti-merit, and valuing openness to diversity is a way of being pro-diversity. Each additional cohort pushes towards anti-merit society, but valuing openness to 'diversity' as above has no inherent limit values or thresholds, and would be even completely contradicted by the imposition of them. Therefore, necessarily, valuing openness to Diversity makes anti-merit society the ideal. Politically, diversity does mean quota-eligibles; the mention of broader diversity as of species and genetic mutations, ideas and cultures which are not needy, is only by way of analogy, used in support of pro-diversity as being for quota-eligibles.
More quota recruitment means also further randomization of the information contained in merit recruitment; therefore it is anti-merit. Pro-diversity is anti-merit, and valuing openness to diversity is a way of being pro-diversity. Each additional cohort pushes towards anti-merit society, but valuing openness to 'diversity' as above has no inherent limit values or thresholds, and would be even completely contradicted by the imposition of them. Therefore, necessarily, valuing openness to Diversity makes anti-merit society the ideal. Politically, diversity does mean quota-eligibles; the mention of broader diversity as of species and genetic mutations, ideas and cultures which are not needy, is only by way of analogy, used in support of pro-diversity as being for quota-eligibles.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Those Who Want Freedom-FOR-Aggression Favor Obama
and they have every reason to. Obama is a standout for taking the side of aggressors, possibly unrivalled in the legislatures he has so far been in. Although such a pattern is common among black racial activists, somehow Obama managed to outdo his colleagues among legislators. This could explain a large part of his appeal to the left, in that wanting freedom-for-aggression, and hating freedom-FROM-aggression, is at least a large part of what it means to be on the left.
The following quote from the Augusta Chronicle illustrates how far out in left field Obama is on this question of whether some must have freedom-FOR-aggression.
"- Obama was the only senator not to support a bill 'to report suspected child abuse while protecting the identity of the facility or person providing the information.' The bill passed 54-0-1 -- the one being Obama, who voted "present." It passed the Illinois House 117-0.
- Obama voted present 'on a bill in committee requiring criminals to serve consecutive sentences for separate crimes involving convictions for severe bodily harm or sexual assault, but didn't vote at all when the measure came to the floor.' The bill passed the Senate 54-0 and the House 118-0.
- Obama voted present on a bill 'making it harder for abusive and neglectful parents to regain custody of their children.' The Senate vote was 57-0-1, with the lone wolf being Obama.
- Obama skipped a vote on a bill 'to prohibit convicted sex offenders from serving on school boards.' It passed without him, 58-0 in the Senate and 106-0 in the House.
Adds the Times : 'The records also show Mr. Obama voted 'no' on a bill allowing police officers to execute warrants and enter buildings without knocking if there was a reasonable belief a weapon would be used against them; voted 'present' on legislation requiring that minors who commit gun crimes on or near a school be prosecuted as adults; and did not vote on a bill requiring fingerprint background checks on school bus drivers.
'Mr. Obama was the only member of the state Senate to vote against a bill to prohibit the early release of convicted criminal sexual abusers; and was among only four who voted against bills to toughen criminal sentences, increase penalties for criminals whose offenses were committed in the furtherance of gang activities..."
Power-greed, malice and the liking of freedom-FOR-aggression go together. Obama managed to stand out even from hardened black racial activists in the Illinois legislature, for taking the side of aggressors. He went the extra mile for them and then some; therefore he is an enemy of our freedom-FROM-aggression, and of all true freedom.
The following quote from the Augusta Chronicle illustrates how far out in left field Obama is on this question of whether some must have freedom-FOR-aggression.
"- Obama was the only senator not to support a bill 'to report suspected child abuse while protecting the identity of the facility or person providing the information.' The bill passed 54-0-1 -- the one being Obama, who voted "present." It passed the Illinois House 117-0.
- Obama voted present 'on a bill in committee requiring criminals to serve consecutive sentences for separate crimes involving convictions for severe bodily harm or sexual assault, but didn't vote at all when the measure came to the floor.' The bill passed the Senate 54-0 and the House 118-0.
- Obama voted present on a bill 'making it harder for abusive and neglectful parents to regain custody of their children.' The Senate vote was 57-0-1, with the lone wolf being Obama.
- Obama skipped a vote on a bill 'to prohibit convicted sex offenders from serving on school boards.' It passed without him, 58-0 in the Senate and 106-0 in the House.
Adds the Times : 'The records also show Mr. Obama voted 'no' on a bill allowing police officers to execute warrants and enter buildings without knocking if there was a reasonable belief a weapon would be used against them; voted 'present' on legislation requiring that minors who commit gun crimes on or near a school be prosecuted as adults; and did not vote on a bill requiring fingerprint background checks on school bus drivers.
'Mr. Obama was the only member of the state Senate to vote against a bill to prohibit the early release of convicted criminal sexual abusers; and was among only four who voted against bills to toughen criminal sentences, increase penalties for criminals whose offenses were committed in the furtherance of gang activities..."
Power-greed, malice and the liking of freedom-FOR-aggression go together. Obama managed to stand out even from hardened black racial activists in the Illinois legislature, for taking the side of aggressors. He went the extra mile for them and then some; therefore he is an enemy of our freedom-FROM-aggression, and of all true freedom.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
The Audacity Of Attempted Censorship Of Political Publication
"Obama isn't just ignoring or running from his past. He's actively trying to cover over it: His campaign has threatened TV stations with their broadcast licenses for running ads noting Obama's link to Ayers." quoted from this link to the Augusta Chronicle
as found via this one: Annenberg, Ayers And Obama In The Weekend News
which also quotes the (Minnesota) Post-Bulletin as follows: "Imagine if John McCain had a similar relationship with a right-wing militia leader who had bombed a federal building."
as found via this one: Annenberg, Ayers And Obama In The Weekend News
which also quotes the (Minnesota) Post-Bulletin as follows: "Imagine if John McCain had a similar relationship with a right-wing militia leader who had bombed a federal building."
Monday, September 1, 2008
If A Presidential Candidate's Hero Was A Pimp Named Detroit Red...
later called Malcolm X, how Obamanable is the electorate which could vote for him?
Obama claims the pimp Malcolm X as a hero in one of his autobiographies. As found through this Parapundit Entry Permalink, Sailer says: "Obama wrote that the hero of his youth was Malcolm X." Speaking of obamanation, Jerome Corsi's book Obama Nation also picks out the pimp M.X. as a hero for Obama, analyzing those autobiographies of his. The effrontery of self-importance, of someone who could look UP to a pimp, yet consider himself good enough to hold high office, is very hard to surpass. What if McCain had been shown to have had Charles Manson as his hero or role model, is there any chance any major media outlet could lay off that information? Of course not, and that demonstrates the depraved double standard which is working in favor of the black because he's black, and left-wing enough to excite the interest of the power-greedy.
Added from: Monday, August 25, 2008
Big Media Dem'monolith, Terrorist-Friendly Keynoter & Pro-Diversity As Disease Vector Again
1-Behold the monolith: From Dissecting Leftism of Monday, August 25, 2008"* ABC News - (99% to democrats) [...] * CBS News - (99% to democrats) " More here
2- Ingrid Mattson: THE DNC INVITES TERROR SYMPATHIZER, JIHAD APOLOGIST MUSLIM KEYNOTE SPOT » & Leader of Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization gets standing ovation at Democratic Convention -if this isn't a white flag waved in front of terrorists, what would be?
3- 08/23/08 - Saturday Forum: A Former Consular Officer Says Anything Goes For Legal Immigrants With Diseases; etc.As suggested, the money trail was followed, and power-greed turned up, since 99% donations to democrats would antagonize many viewers and advertisers, it can't really be about how to make their media business more money.
Added from: Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Left In Complete Panic Mode As Swiftboaters Televise Obama-Ayers Tightness
From Stop The ACLU» Obama Camp: Prosecute Donors To Group Criticizing ObamaFighting back against Obama’s thugsby Michelle Malkin, shows the ad, which Fox News had been scared off from running, and which is panicking the left apparatus, making their side look as terrorist-friendly as they are. Attempts to suppress even internet coverage of the Obama-Rezko-Auchi axis are found at this Permalink.
Added from: Friday, August 29, 2008
Obama Had Islamic Help To Get Him Into Harvard Law
Muslim Obama Supporter Declares White People Deserve and Want to Have Their Ears and Noses Cut Off- this is the bestial patron of Obama, who got black racial activist Percy Sutton to push for his acceptance into Harvard Law School.
As found at this Permalink, Mansour the terrorist-friendly, Islamic leftist, money man appears to have pressed for Obama to get one of the black quota places at Harvard Law. This could hardly be a disinterested transaction; loyalty to Islam and its terrorist-adoring leftist faction would be an absolute requirement. The left has fallen to such unprincipled depths, that it can be found licking the boots of dark age Islam. The Coup, by Updike, indicates how Islam, leftism and racial hatred are capable of being combined into an ideology for dictatorship. Our major media are depraved enough today, that they could be thrilled by that possibility happening here.
Added from: Saturday, August 30, 2008
Major Media's Foamball Soft Treatment Of Their Black Mascot
is a disgraceful dereliction of a high responsibility, which must be punished relentlessly for years to come. Boycott nationally advertised brands if possible. The urgent need, though, is to make Obama lose and disqualify McCain. A Palin presidency would be an excellent retaliation for what the media and the powerful have failed to do regarding the vetting of Obama and even McCain, their second or fallback choice. As if to prove anew their perfectly depraved dereliction, the big media are crowing over the supposedly world-historical minority victory, of a first major-party black nomination for the presidency. Has it been noticed that only a few months ago, they were insisting that Obama transcends race, and that race doesn't matter; now he's the black candidate of history-making significance. I'm certain the electorate will react with negative response to the beneficiary of such rank contradictions, manipulation and gross dishonesty. The worst must be assumed as to why we can't have reported any negatives on this media-favored candidate.
Added from: Sunday, August 31, 2008
With Openness To Diversity You Get Unilateral Disarmament
The quota placeholder-for-president has the audacity to offer this leftist, ChiCom-obedient program:
"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.
And I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.
Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons, I will seek a ban on the production of fissile material,and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBM's off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal "
...quoted as found via Steve Schippert on NR Tank here: 08/29 01:51 PM
Since diversity has no connection with positive value in and of itself, valuing openness to diversity as if it did have such value-significance, will result in placing positive value sign on negative moves, and especially openness to them, and such that a unilateral disarmament results, even a literal military one regarding nuclear defenses.
Added 9-15-08 from: Sunday, September 7, 2008
Far Too Much Is Given To The Black Man, & The More The Majority Gives
...the worse the hatred against the majority grows. If the presidency is given, the minority hatred will get much worse, not be softened in any way. No one is making this most obvious point, while millions appear to be proceeding on the opposite assumption. In that feeling, they have much encouragement from those whose presentations are neither sincere nor given in good faith.
added 9-18-08: "Military fears 'unknown quantity' Obama Fretting over 'apparent lack of understanding on the threat of radical Islam' ". Is it lack of understanding, though, or more like what he said in his book, that he stands "with the muslim when the political winds shift"? Why would Obama raise money and give Speeches for Palestinian refugees ?
Obama claims the pimp Malcolm X as a hero in one of his autobiographies. As found through this Parapundit Entry Permalink, Sailer says: "Obama wrote that the hero of his youth was Malcolm X." Speaking of obamanation, Jerome Corsi's book Obama Nation also picks out the pimp M.X. as a hero for Obama, analyzing those autobiographies of his. The effrontery of self-importance, of someone who could look UP to a pimp, yet consider himself good enough to hold high office, is very hard to surpass. What if McCain had been shown to have had Charles Manson as his hero or role model, is there any chance any major media outlet could lay off that information? Of course not, and that demonstrates the depraved double standard which is working in favor of the black because he's black, and left-wing enough to excite the interest of the power-greedy.
Added from: Monday, August 25, 2008
Big Media Dem'monolith, Terrorist-Friendly Keynoter & Pro-Diversity As Disease Vector Again
1-Behold the monolith: From Dissecting Leftism of Monday, August 25, 2008"* ABC News - (99% to democrats) [...] * CBS News - (99% to democrats) " More here
2- Ingrid Mattson: THE DNC INVITES TERROR SYMPATHIZER, JIHAD APOLOGIST MUSLIM KEYNOTE SPOT » & Leader of Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization gets standing ovation at Democratic Convention -if this isn't a white flag waved in front of terrorists, what would be?
3- 08/23/08 - Saturday Forum: A Former Consular Officer Says Anything Goes For Legal Immigrants With Diseases; etc.As suggested, the money trail was followed, and power-greed turned up, since 99% donations to democrats would antagonize many viewers and advertisers, it can't really be about how to make their media business more money.
Added from: Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Left In Complete Panic Mode As Swiftboaters Televise Obama-Ayers Tightness
From Stop The ACLU» Obama Camp: Prosecute Donors To Group Criticizing ObamaFighting back against Obama’s thugsby Michelle Malkin, shows the ad, which Fox News had been scared off from running, and which is panicking the left apparatus, making their side look as terrorist-friendly as they are. Attempts to suppress even internet coverage of the Obama-Rezko-Auchi axis are found at this Permalink.
Added from: Friday, August 29, 2008
Obama Had Islamic Help To Get Him Into Harvard Law
Muslim Obama Supporter Declares White People Deserve and Want to Have Their Ears and Noses Cut Off- this is the bestial patron of Obama, who got black racial activist Percy Sutton to push for his acceptance into Harvard Law School.
As found at this Permalink, Mansour the terrorist-friendly, Islamic leftist, money man appears to have pressed for Obama to get one of the black quota places at Harvard Law. This could hardly be a disinterested transaction; loyalty to Islam and its terrorist-adoring leftist faction would be an absolute requirement. The left has fallen to such unprincipled depths, that it can be found licking the boots of dark age Islam. The Coup, by Updike, indicates how Islam, leftism and racial hatred are capable of being combined into an ideology for dictatorship. Our major media are depraved enough today, that they could be thrilled by that possibility happening here.
Added from: Saturday, August 30, 2008
Major Media's Foamball Soft Treatment Of Their Black Mascot
is a disgraceful dereliction of a high responsibility, which must be punished relentlessly for years to come. Boycott nationally advertised brands if possible. The urgent need, though, is to make Obama lose and disqualify McCain. A Palin presidency would be an excellent retaliation for what the media and the powerful have failed to do regarding the vetting of Obama and even McCain, their second or fallback choice. As if to prove anew their perfectly depraved dereliction, the big media are crowing over the supposedly world-historical minority victory, of a first major-party black nomination for the presidency. Has it been noticed that only a few months ago, they were insisting that Obama transcends race, and that race doesn't matter; now he's the black candidate of history-making significance. I'm certain the electorate will react with negative response to the beneficiary of such rank contradictions, manipulation and gross dishonesty. The worst must be assumed as to why we can't have reported any negatives on this media-favored candidate.
Added from: Sunday, August 31, 2008
With Openness To Diversity You Get Unilateral Disarmament
The quota placeholder-for-president has the audacity to offer this leftist, ChiCom-obedient program:
"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.
And I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.
Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons, I will seek a ban on the production of fissile material,and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBM's off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal "
...quoted as found via Steve Schippert on NR Tank here: 08/29 01:51 PM
Since diversity has no connection with positive value in and of itself, valuing openness to diversity as if it did have such value-significance, will result in placing positive value sign on negative moves, and especially openness to them, and such that a unilateral disarmament results, even a literal military one regarding nuclear defenses.
Added 9-15-08 from: Sunday, September 7, 2008
Far Too Much Is Given To The Black Man, & The More The Majority Gives
...the worse the hatred against the majority grows. If the presidency is given, the minority hatred will get much worse, not be softened in any way. No one is making this most obvious point, while millions appear to be proceeding on the opposite assumption. In that feeling, they have much encouragement from those whose presentations are neither sincere nor given in good faith.
added 9-18-08: "Military fears 'unknown quantity' Obama Fretting over 'apparent lack of understanding on the threat of radical Islam' ". Is it lack of understanding, though, or more like what he said in his book, that he stands "with the muslim when the political winds shift"? Why would Obama raise money and give Speeches for Palestinian refugees ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
