Cheney was right!

[oldhardhead]

The mask slips

I’ve been travelling and so have only just been catching up with the Obama race row over the altercation between Henry Louis Gates and the Cambridge, Mass. police. Strikes me this is no storm in a teacup. Look at the Fox News clip that Tim Montgomerie highlights here for some extremely sharp comments indeed, particularly by Charles Krauthammer. Even after Obama started rowing back, noted Juan Williams of NPR, he was still getting the facts wrong, claiming that Sgt Crowley had led Gates out of his house whereas this was ‘just not true’.

This affair is toxic because it touches many nerves: America’s neuralgic conscience over its historic racism, the monstrously unjust over-reaction to that racism, and the election of a President who supposedly embodied, in both his identity and his approach, a post-racial New Man and an absolution for past national sins. Now the mask has slipped, and even those with Obama stars in their eyes can’t hide their dismay.


As regular readers of this blog know, I have been banging on from the start of Obama’s rise to power about the astonishing discrepancy between how he was presented by the media on the issue of race and what he actually had said and done. His whole background from the earliest days onwards was steeped in anti-white grievance politics of the most bitter and corrosive kind. This was all ignored. His two-decade membership of an anti-white church was ignored, his early anti-white mentors such as Frank Marshall Davis were ignored, his participation on the Nation of Islam ‘Million Man march’ and his association with Nation of Islam cadres were ignored.

And as Krauthammer aptly observed – and as I wrote here – Obama’s major speech on race in March 2008 in which he finally ‘renounced’ his former pastor, the anti-white bigot Rev Jeremiah Wright, which was hailed as the greatest piece of oratory since the Gettysburg address and which supposedly transcended racial animosities to create the colour-blind Brotherhood of Man, was anything but. In this speech Obama actually said Wright should not be renounced, and that Wright’s racism was actually all the fault of white people. The fact that so many people failed to hear or read what Obama actually said and instead heard or read only what they wanted to hear was truly frightening.


Now, thanks to the histrionics of Henry Louis Gates, we can see how Obama’s dysfunctional attitude to race plays out in real time.

Boston Globe Scrubs Henry Louis Gates Arrest Report From Website | NewsBusters.org

The police report:

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Police Report - July 23, 2009

[Pineygirl]

Amazing, isn't it?

I can't believe I never heard of Frank Marshall Davis before -- you mean ANOTHER one? I'll have to Google him.

[oldhardhead]

I remember reading something about him. His friend "Frank" haha! That's so cute.

Obamas Communist Mentor

OK... that leads us to:

AIM Says Media Cover-Up Obamas Socialist-Oriented Global Tax Bill

WASHINGTON, February 13, 2008 -- Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid disclosed today that a hugely expensive bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic Senator Barack Obama, was quickly passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. Kincaid said that the major media's cover-up of the bill, which makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations, demonstrates the media's desire to see Senator Obama elected to the presidency.

In a column posted on the AIM web site, Kincaid noted that Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S. 2433) through his committee without hearings. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. It was scheduled for a Thursday vote but was moved up a day, to Wednesday, and rushed through by voice vote. Kincaid learned, however, that conservative Senators have now put a "hold" on the legislation, in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote.

The House version (H.R. 1302) was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars. Kincaid's column notes that the official in charge of making nations comply with the U.N. Millennium Goals, which are prominently highlighted in the Obama bill, says a global tax will be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.

The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid?

Oh, well that's no biggie. Once they finish killing the economy, we won't have a very big GNP. HAHAHAhahaha!!!



Now I'll have to 'google' "Global Poverty Act".

As SAdams would say, welcome to the new world order. BTW, I wonder how she's doing.



.

[oldhardhead]

Uh-Oh!

H.R. 2639: Global Poverty Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)

To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

Errrrrrr... Because our economy is so good, the US has no deficit or debt, and unemployment is so low... No, that's not it.

We should be on guard any time politicians use the word "comprehensive," an umbrella word that always shades a lot of mischief.

The notion that American taxpayers should or could cut in half the number of people worldwide who live in poverty by 2015 is ridiculous.

U.N. Tax

The scariest phrase in the bill is "Millennium Development Goal." That refers to the declaration adopted by the United Nations Millennium Assembly and Summit in 2000 (blessed by President Bill Clinton) that called for the "eradication of poverty" by "redistribution (of) wealth and land," cancellation of "the debts of developing countries" and "a fair distribution of the earth's resources" (from the U.S. to the rest of the world, of course).

The Millennium project is monitored by Jeffrey D. Sachs, a Columbia University economist. In 2005 he presented then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan with a 3,000-page report based on the research of 265 so-called poverty specialists.

Sachs' document criticized the U.S. for giving only $16.3 billion a year in global anti-poverty aid. He argued that we should spend an additional $30 billion a year in order to reach the 0.7% target that the U.N. set for the U.S. in 2000.

Sachs says that the only way to force the U.S. to commit that much money is by a global tax, such as a tax on fossil fuels.

TA-DAAAaaaaa! As Blocker was saying. The purpose of the Global warming scam is to inflict the Cap & Tax & Trade & Tax ... for the "eradication of poverty" by "redistribution (of) wealth and land," cancellation of "the debts of developing countries" and "a fair distribution of the earth's resources" (from the U.S. to the rest of the world, of course).




IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Obama's 0.7% Solution For Poverty Gets Pass From Senate Republicans



Here's Obama's Global Poverty Act by Edward Cline -- Capitalism Magazine about it, which in part:

Congress is proposing, in Barack Obama's Global Poverty Act (S.2433, based on H.R. 1302, passed by the House September 25, 2007), that Americans be delivered into a state of indentured servitude as laborers for the United Nations. Perhaps "indentured servitude" is too kind a term, for as horrendous a condition as it is, there is usually a time limit to such servitude. Slavery would be the more accurate term in this instance, for what Congress is considering is servitude by Americans in perpetuity, in exchange for nothing but the privilege of laboring to "save" the world without thanks or reward, of filling the alleged needs of others, of performing unlimited "community service" for the offense of merely existing.

The not-so-peculiar and odd thing about H.R. 1302 was that it passed the House by voice vote. This is a stratagem adopted by legislators who fear that a bill is so outrageous that it is better that no record be kept of those who endorsed it. S.2433 was passed from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the same manner - by voice vote, without public hearings, to protect the identities of the guilty. It will probably be introduced to the Senate for a similar, anonymous voice vote -- by Harry Reid.
There is a double irony in this behavior. First, S.2433 is a bipartisan-sponsored bill. This underscores the fact that there is no fundamental difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Second, it is a piece of legislation which, given the altruist, collectivist premises behind it, one would have thought its creators should have trumpeted boastfully. But it is being handled by corrupt, guilty, fearful sneaks who haven't the courage of their own malice.

It reminds one of the scene in Atlas Shrugged, when James Taggart pulls down a window blind to obliterate the sight of the Washington Monument, just as he and government officials decide to decree a moratorium on brains.

Gee, it sounds like another tax. 95% of Americans will get a tax cut if we elect Barack Obama. No one making less than $250,000 will pay a single penny more in taxes if we elect Barack Obama.

The proper American response to this evil and to its sponsors and supporters, in Congress and in the U.N., should be Dagny Taggart's when she learns of it: "I won't work as a slave or as a slave-driver." The bill's co-sponsor is Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee. Its other co-sponsors are Senators Joseph Biden, Maria Cantwell, Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Hagel, and Robert Mendez, all Democrats.

[Pineygirl]

HAHAHAHAHA, I think I got it!

Obama's TelePrompter must've failed him -- he meant to say Americans would get a 95% tax INCREASE. His words were simply miscalibrated.

[oldhardhead]

HAHAhaha! Piney, I think you are right.

"All I know right now is we have a problem, and it includes the spiraling cost of Medicare," Mr. Obama said

That's all he knows?

I guess he didn't have his teleprompter. I guess he didn't have his teleprompter when he said the police acted stupidly.

Why not simply see if the Democrats can fix Medicare and Medicaid before nationalizing much of the rest of health care?

I thought he said the AARP endorsed his plan?

A. Barry Rand, AARP's chief executive officer, said the organization, a powerful lobbying force with roughly 40 million members, has endorsed none of the bills pending on Capitol Hill. He also said the group supports neither Democrats nor Republicans in the reform debates in Congress, including one on the roughly $1.5 billion House plan.



"But if we don't act now, it will only get worse," Mr. Rand said.

If they do act now, or anytime, they can make it worse. Just "doing something - anything" is no guarantee that it will make it better. Why is that not obvious?

Obama to seniors: - Washington Times

[Pineygirl]

"We're from the government and we're here to help."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Arius]

The good news about all of this OHH is that because you are so "right", and everyone agrees with you, there will be no challenge to your thought process. It's republican UTOPIA!

I wonder if, for you, a challenge to your thought process actually invokes any thought. This is not an accusation, but more of a question. Do you weigh the challenge's merits or do you simply seek to find answers in your rhetoric to dismiss it?

It would seem that the balance of two extremes is correct. Conservative thoughts are balanced by liberal thoughts, and the truth is in the places where such thoughts are intertwined. Extreme heat is counter to life (or comfort), as it extreme cold, but life and comfort can always be found in the moderation of each by their intertwining. It seems that the only difference between the natural occurrence of moderation and the human occurrence is the attachment of the human mind to outcome. Outcome doesn't matter in nature, it is a creation of the mind of humans.

[oldhardhead]

Originally Posted by Arius

The good news about all of this OHH is that because you are so "right", and everyone agrees with you, there will be no challenge to your thought process. It's republican UTOPIA!

Groovy.

I wonder if, for you, a challenge to your thought process actually invokes any thought. This is not an accusation, but more of a question. Do you weigh the challenge's merits or do you simply seek to find answers in your rhetoric to dismiss it?

I, like, you know... ask the esteemed professor how he "feels" about it, and then weigh that against how I feel about it at the moment, man... and usually, like I ask a totally random person. "How do you "feel about" 1 + 2 = 3? Do you come here often? You got a name?" With deep introspection into "self," we meditate on the meaning of 2 + 2. Then we realize that it does not matter how anyone feels about it. 2 + 2 still = 4.

Heavy.

It would seem that the balance of two extremes is correct. Conservative thoughts are balanced by liberal thoughts, and the truth is in the places where such thoughts are intertwined. Extreme heat is counter to life (or comfort), as it extreme cold, but life and comfort can always be found in the moderation of each by their intertwining. It seems that the only difference between the natural occurrence of moderation and the human occurrence is the attachment of the human mind to outcome. Outcome doesn't matter in nature, it is a creation of the mind of humans.

This porridge is tooo hot! And this porridge is toooo cold!! And this....

No man, the correct answer does not lie in the grey area between wrong and correct - it lies to the extreme of correctnessville, man! Can you dig it? I knew you could!

Welcome to reality-o-rama, man!!!




.

[Pineygirl]

the correct answer does not lie in the grey area between wrong and correct

Too few people give that a lot of thought. They want "unity." But what "unity" really means is that everybody's going to do it my way.