Archive for the ‘Liberal Politicians’ Category

From Time:

Robert Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and West Point graduate, fears that won’t happen. He spells out what he sees as the dangers of opening combat billets to women in his new book, Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women into Combat. His key concern is that, under political pressure, the military will ease its standards, resulting in a less-capable force. Battleland recently conducted this email chat with him. …

What do you see as the three biggest risks to letting women serve in the combat arms?

There are a multitude of risks—far more than most people realize, especially those without military experience. Among the many risks I discuss in “Deadly Consequences” are these three:

– First, standards will be lowered. As a practical matter, there has to be a certain minimum number of women in combat units for the policy to succeed. That can be accomplished only by “gender norming” the standards for combat service. Lower standards will inevitably degrade combat effectiveness, and the nation will be less secure. There is also good evidence that the policy will harm military recruitment and retention.

– Second, women who serve as ground combatants, whether by choice or under compulsion, will suffer disproportionate physical and psychological harm.

– Third, the already serious problem of sexual assault in the military will get worse. Notwithstanding the Administration’s wishful thinking, this prediction is borne out by the statistics.

His points in general are the same ones hit on here in previous posts here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

There is nothing to gain from this.  There is much to lose.

On the battlefield, there is no agency to appeal to for gender bias.  The enemy, the weather, the conditions, the misery do not care that things aren’t fair.

Torsion bars don’t care if you’re too weak to change them.  Track doesn’t care if you’re too weak to break it and rebuild it.

breaking_track mlrs

You can yell at artillery shells all you want that they’re sexist for weighing too much, but they will not care.

155 shells

90 pounds of gear on your back does not care… and the inability to do any combat job gets passed on to someone more competent, who then has to carry two loads instead of one.

US infantry

Your buddy who needs your help does not get lighter just because you’re a girl (or a weak man who only meets a girls’ standard).


Men who do these jobs have to be physically strong athletes.  Those who can’t meet the standard are a continuing drag on their unit and/or are mustered out.

The few individual women who could meet the standard (and could probably get waivers and be welcomed into units that might find utility for them) are not who is being looked at here.  This is a push for cocktail party circuit politicians to say “look at the good social justice thing I did for women” that will put girls into positions that break many men, and will break women much faster and much worse.

The AP has this mushball story today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Boston Marathon bombings cast a shadow Friday over the start of debate on legislation to remake the U.S. immigration system, as some Republicans argued that the role of two immigrant suspects raised questions about gaps in the system.

There was no suggestion that the two suspects, brothers who had lived in Dagestan neighboring Chechnya in southern Russia, had entered the U.S. illegally. And authors of a sweeping new immigration bill, which got its first hearing Friday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued that their legislation would improve U.S. national security because the estimated 11 million people now living here illegally would have to come forward and undergo background checks.

Those 11 million living here illegally can never pass a background check.  Their first step into the country was to violate US federal law.  They fail.  Every one of them.

There are plenty among that number who have committed further crimes, in fact, there are huge numbers who have committed crimes.  “Sanctuary cities” that don’t turn over illegal aliens to ICE for deportation are full of them, in no small part because local law enforcement does nothing to them.

The Boston terrorist Tamerlan Tsarnaev could’ve been deported already.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the 26-year-old killed in a wild shootout with police, was a legal U.S. resident who nevertheless could have been removed from the country after a 2009 domestic violence arrest and conviction, according to a Judicial Watch source. That means the Obama administration missed an opportunity to deport Tsarnaev but evidently didn’t feel he represented a big enough threat.

Other reporting confirms Tsarnaev’s arrest for domestic violence but we’re seeking confirmation of a conviction. Nevertheless he would have been subject to removal for the arrest itself.

This falls under crimes of moral turpitude, which are deportable offenses.

Of course, the immigration bill is about amnesty for illegal aliens and creating more Democrat voters, cheap labor for businesses, and changing the nature of the nation into one that has a huge underclass to rule, and a ruling overclass that distributes the handouts looted from the evaporating middle class.  It’s how socialists stay in power and how socialism and class warfare works.  Whether or not terrorists stay in the country is irrelevant to them.

They care about neither criminals nor terrorists.  To give some idea of how bad sanctuary cities and sanctuary states are, consider that in Massachussetts, the illegal aliens can hit state representatives while driving drunk and laugh because they know there will be no consequences.

What’s going to happen when you start “background checking” all these illegals and find out they’ve stolen social security numbers, have numerous arrests for DUIs, have numerous arrests for domestic abuse, and such?  It’s all very prevalent among illegal aliens, because many of them tend to be low-class unskilled laborers who well know they can commit crimes because the police will do nothing to them because the politicians will deny the law.

To give a perfect anecdotal example of the sanctuary city mentality, a friend of mine rode with state troopers in WI.  The trooper encountered a car that wanted to race with his unmarked police car, and he obliged just enough so he could make an arrest and take the idiot straight to jail.  When they hit a high enough speed (in a safe area), the trooper pulled over the racer.  Turned out the racer, doing 100 mph as his top speed, was an illegal alien.  No arrest.  The illegal alien walked because it’s WI state policy to not arrest illegals.

Every Democrat immigration bill is about expanding their base.  It’s about destroying the nation and securing Democrat power through the Curley Effect, and it’s about giving away the nation because the Ruling Class Democrats don’t feel like you’ve earned your life – no matter how hard you worked or fought for it, so they’re going to give the nation to someone they feel is more deserving.  After all, you didn’t build that.

>Lame Duck "Immigration Reform" - Amnesty

The original article is here.


President Barack Obama and Vice President Jose...

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


The link to Matt Drudge’s site is here.


This is getting serious folks, Joe “foot in the mouth,” Biden has now stated that,


The president is going to act…. There are executives orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required….

So the question is now, does Congress play dead and allow this to happen like they did with the President using an Executive Order to legislate from the White House and make the DREAM Act a reality?






Enhanced by Zemanta

From Gateway Pundit:

, member of the United States House of Represe...

, member of the United States House of Representatives (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Sheila Jackson Lee.

Bless her heart….

“I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns,” Jackson Lee said on the House floor. “Oh no, I’m not going to take your guns. But look at what Dick’s Sporting Goods did … they wanted to be part of the solution and part of America.”

Part of the solution, congresswoman, is removing the ever so asinine gun ban around our schools. Arm the teachers and/or principles if they are trained, licensed and willing to carry a fire arm. Those children died as a result of the school teachers and school staff (private guns) not being able to respond to the situation appropriately. In this case it was meeting force with force. In what world,  congresswoman, can a school teacher or principal defend their students when they are banned from doing so? If one followed that type of thinking the federal government is ultimately responsible for the deaths at Sandy Creek.

Oh wait, we are supposed to wait on the first responders (government guns) to exterminate the intruder taking lives inside the school. How did that turn out in this last school shooting at Sandy Creek? Not very well I think.

I do not want to turn my guns in after this horrible mess at Sandy Creek if anything I wish I could go to school with my son everyday and sit in a corner  not bothering anyone armed to the teeth, just in case a demented individual decided that he or she need to shoot up the school. I would offer my services gladly to any school district where I live to provide that protection for any human being as would many other people I have the privilege of knowing.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Alfonso Rachel is a very, very sharp guy.

Can we have Colonel Allen West in 2016, please?

He may not be busy, depending on how many extra votes the Democrats find.

From Bloomberg News:

Two female soldiers asked a federal judge to throw out the U.S. military’s restrictions on women in combat, claiming the policy violates their constitutional rights.

U.S. Army reservists Jane Baldwin and Ellen Haring, in a lawsuit filed today in Washington, said policies excluding them from assignments “solely because they are women” violate their right to equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution’s 5th Amendment. The complaint names Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Secretary John McHugh as defendants.

“This limitation on plaintiffs’ careers restricts their current and future earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement, and their future retirement benefits,” the women said in the complaint filed by Christopher Sipes of Covington & Burling LLP in Washington.

As expected, there are women and lawyers suing to fight reality.

Rifle: 8 pounds
Boots: 4 pounds
Helmet: 4 pounds
Vest with SAPI plates: 15+ pounds
NVGS: 2 pounds
Gas Mask: 3 pounds
Water: 10 pounds
Ammo: 10 pounds
Pack: 50 pounds (sleeping system, medkit, clothing, socks, hygiene gear, etc.)

I’m just ballparking there – some items weigh more or less.  The Interceptor with SAPI plates always felt like 25, but I’m sure that’s just because it crushes the breath out of you, too.  Grunts also strap stuff more stuff to their vests than armor crews.  Plus there’s 782 gear/FLIC to wear.  Kneepads are worn because it hurts when you put 300 pounds plus down on hard ground.  It’s almost like resting, except you know you have to stand again, and it hurts on the way up.

This limitation on plaintiffs’ careers restricts their current and future earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement, and their future retirement benefits

Reality places limitations on the plaintiff’s ability to survive combat, their potential existence, and the possibility of them receiving any future promotions other than posthumous, and giving their retirement benefits to anyone but their family as life insurance.  Lawsuits will not make the rigors of combat easy.  It will force trainers and instructors to place objectively inferior women and men into infantry situations they should never be placed in just to make some cocktail party political general and leftist politician happy.

More stupidity:

“The linear battlefield no longer exists,” the women said in the complaint, describing as “arbitrary and irrational” the combat restrictions for women.

“Woman are currently engaged in direct combat, even when it is not part of their formally assigned role,” the reservists said. Furthermore, the Army has “deliberately circumvented” its own policies by “attaching” women to ground combat units.

“There is no practical difference, in terms of the work that servicewomen do, between ‘assigning’ women to a ground combat unit and ‘attaching’ women to a ground combat unit,” the women said in the complaint.

There is a huge difference between a motor-T truck driver chick being attached to a combat unit and the same chick being crushed with 150 pounds of gear as an M240 gunner, or the A-gunner, who gets to carry his own rifle, plus extra barrels and ammunition for the M240.  There is a huge difference between a radio maintenance chick who carries the crypto unit to update a vehicle’s radio and an armor crewman who has to break track.

This is just an MLRS track.  Assuming it uses Bradley tracks, those blocks are something like 25 pounds each, times 82-85 per side.  Lots of weight.  Knocking the pins out takes a sledge and a special tool, and knocking the pins out from underneath the vehicle requires swinging a sledge in the prone sideways.  It’s very hard work.

Knocking out torsion bars is done with a post driver level with the ground.  It’s another thing that’s incredibly difficult (and the body motion required to pound something out at waist-level would probably result in EEO complaints anyway.)  With actual tanks, the track blocks weigh something like 60 pounds each, the shells the loader moves weigh 50something pounds and have to be manipulated inside the vehicle.  And that’s not even getting into towing and how much tank bars weigh.

Over at The Soldier’s Load, there’s an excellent piece on how Women Do Not Belong In The Infantry.

Women do not belong in the infantry.

It’s a simple statement and one that, until recently, nearly every civilized culture seemed to accept as a truism. For reasons as multitudinous as they are apparent and profound, in time of war men have shouldered arms and marched to the clash of legions or the sound of the guns. Women as a rule have not. Even in those scattered and wretched societies whose women prowled the battlefields to torture the wounded and desecrate the dead, no woman was thrown into offensive action against the massed ranks of the enemy. Show me an exception and I’ll show you savages.

I’ll note that the exceptions aren’t necessarily savages.  They’re also last-ditch forces, partisans, and nations surrounded on all sides by genocidal enemies.

Of course, IDF girls aren’t as known for looking like this:

As they’re known for this:

And make no mistake, the tough-looking chick in the top picture still looks like the four in towels below underneath.  She’s probably 5’8″ and 150 pounds or so if she’s big.  And still, she’s not going to carry another 150 pound load-out.  She’s not going to tack up and hump for miles and miles.  She’s not going to carry a mortar base plate or a Javelin for 10 hours, or load 155 shells or change a final drive (a gear in tracked vehicles that weighs slightly more than Mount Rushmore).  She’s not going to drag another troop who weighs 250 pounds loaded out of the line of fire.

Soldier’s Load goes on:

Most service members will admit that conditioning hikes are grueling exercises in physical and mental endurance. I personally despised them, especially when it was my turn to shoulder a 25 pound machine gun or a 45 pound, .50-caliber receiver. Each hike took all of my effort and physical fitness to complete. Unsurprisingly, during my time at The Basic School no female lieutenant completed a hike of greater than 6 miles with the rest of the 180 or so male lieutenants. Not one. And that’s with the male lieutenants carrying all of the radios and heavy weapons.

His whole post is very articulate, and worth reading here.  He also hits on cultural, physiological, and other reasons that have been touched on here.

But this will be decided in the courts, and in the halls of government bureaucracies now run by leftist politicians who are out to make their political points and, as Evan Sayet says, elevate failed, evil, and wrong at every turn.  Standards will be dropped, instructors who maintain the old standards will be accused of sex discrimination and driven out (never mind that reality discriminates), and the institutions will become weaker, and people will die for what some politically correct academic lawyer nitwit got into his addled little brain to impose on institutions that are light years away from his fantasy world.  Women will die, men will die, conflicts will be lost, morality will be displaced, and the few who choose to nobly serve will suffer for the institutions made by the academic leftists.

Via HotAir:

A program that gives federal immigration officials access to the fingerprints of undocumented immigrants booked into local jails will start Tuesday across New York state despite staunch opposition from advocates and lawmakers, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

A representative of the immigration enforcement agency is quoted as saying that the program has already delivered results, and “has helped ICE remove more than 135,000 convicted criminal aliens, including more than 49,000 convicted of major violent offenses like murder, rape and the sexual abuse of children.” So what could possibly go wrong?

Asked about the program at a Friday news conference, New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said “we prefer that they not do that here.”

“It’s just so counter to what New York is about as an immigrant city,” she added. “And I’m real proud of our mayor and our governor, who have all spoken out…. The police can’t disregard the law at the end of the day, but it’s a terrible thing to put them in when they should be focusing on real crime.”

See, the thing is, they don’t want to enforce the law.  The modern liberal doesn’t care about the law, they care about getting more votes, about redistributing the wealth and prosperity of the US to criminals, because to them, illegal aliens are the lowest of underclasses, and thus the most authentic proletariat demanding of redistribution.  They do find it hard to say “we don’t want to enforce the law” because it’s phenomenally hypocritical and plainly so.

The thing is, though, that when we don’t even try to enforce our immigration laws, and especially when law enforcement doesn’t share info, we get things like Richard Ramirez.  Ramirez is a serial killer who brutally murdered and raped 14 (or more) people, and who was apprehended numerous times by local law enforcement, Border Patrol, and Customs.  Thing is, they didn’t have systems that were integrated at the time, and while there were some 30+ arrests made by law enforcement agencies for things not related to the murders, no one arresting him at the time knew anything about him.

For a more direct example of not enforcing immigration laws, consider just the illegal aliens who kill cops.  Or the police chiefs who get appointments in the Obama administration after not enforcing immigration laws… and getting their officers killed.

The widow of a Houston police officer killed by an illegal immigrant was “shocked” to learn that the city’s former police chief has landed a top immigration job with the Obama administration, her lawyer told on Friday.

That’s because Joslyn Johnson, whose husband, Rodney Johnson, was killed in 2006, is suing former Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt for failing to enforce federal immigration laws. She claims her husband would be alive today if the city had bothered to check up on the gunman’s immigration status.

Now that Hurtt is taking a job to oversee partnerships between federal and local officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Johnson — and other critics — say they’re concerned the official who resisted immigration enforcement in Houston will now be in charge of promoting it.

Monday’s murder of a Phoenix police officer by an illegal immigrant from Mexico has heightened debate over undocumented residents and crime.

Phoenix Police officer Nick Erlie was shot and killed by Erik Jovani Martinez, an illegal who previously was deported and had an arrest warrant. Martinez was shot and killed by police after taking a hostage. He had been arrested eight times.

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said the incident stems from the federal government’s failure to secure the border. “Three thousand Phoenix police officers are risking their lives and doing their jobs. Officer Nick Erfle sacrificed his life, and did his job. Now to all of you in Washington, when are you going to do your job and secure this border?”

Immigration hawks — including activist and Valley car dealer Rusty Childress and talk radio hosts — criticize Gordon, Gov. Janet Napolitano, State Attorney General Terry Goddard and others claiming they are not tough enough on border issues. They say Phoenix and other police departments do not check the immigration status of those being arrested.

Every time a city becomes a “sanctuary city” for crime, they become a sanctuary city for crime.  There’s a political pandering bloc that wants more unregistered Democrats in the country, and they push for it.  The inevitable consequences are blamed on someone else, whether it be society, that criminals have to “hide in shadows” from the law, or racist politicians who claim that law enforcement are terrorists, or whatever else is convenient.

Second and third-order effects.  You don’t enforce laws, you get more crime.

And for one more example of regular ol’ illegal aliens who’ve been deported coming back and committing crimes, here’s one who went after deputies with an AK.

Harry Reid, Keynesian Idiot

Posted: October 23, 2011 by ShortTimer in Economics, Liberal Politicians, Mike in East Texas

From FOX News:

With 1.6 million fewer private sector jobs than at the start of President Obama’s administration, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that it’s critical to pass legislation for hiring teachers and police because public sector employees are losing their jobs while “private sector jobs have been doing just fine.”

“The massive layoffs we have had in America today, of course, are rooted in the last administration, and it is very clear that private sector jobs are doing just fine. It’s the public sector jobs where we have lost huge numbers, and that’s what this legislation is all about,” he said.

But BLS noted that while 57,000 new jobs were created in August, as the school year started back up again, 42,000 were in the private sector while 15,000 were government jobs.

This is a whole lot of failure here.  Why?  Because as Obama supporter Mort Zuckerman writes in US News & World Report:

Washington, Wall Street, and the business world were astounded and dismayed by the dismal employment statistics recently put forth by the government. We need 125,000 jobs every month just to account for people entering the workforce, but the numbers show only 18,000 more jobs in June and 25,000 in May. And the June numbers included the assumption that 131,000 net jobs were created by newly formed companies, a generous assumption that has proved to be consistently overstated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the past three years. Equally concerning is that the underlying employment numbers are even worse than Washington’s gloss.

So 57,000 new jobs doesn’t cancel out the 125,000 new workers in need of jobs.  Last I remember him mentioning it, Mike in East Texas said we needed closer to 190,000+ new jobs a month just to break even, not 125,000.

Harry Reid is yet another Keynesian idiot.  There’s no way to boost the economy by hiring more people for government.  Government doesn’t have its own money to spend – it takes money from the private citizen.  For every $120,000 a year average federal job, many average $61,000 private jobs have to be taxed to pay for it.  Assuming $10,000 in taxes, it takes 12 private workers to pay for one federal job.

Taking more money out of the private economy to fund ultimately non-producing sections of society results in a weakened economy.  Every added government job takes more from each citizen.  Every added government job takes more from every business that hires every citizen, ultimately leading to job cuts due to increased taxes.  Every added government job is ultimately a drain on the private economy – even the necessary ones like military, law and courts, etc., who do have a Constitutional and beneficial function – and especially the wholly unnecessary pork-barrel, administrator, special-project grant and regulator-bureaucrat jobs that simply force more businesses to comply with more laws and regulations, hand out “free” money taxed away from businesses to special interest groups, and so on, hampering producers even further.

From The Daily Caller:

I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and  just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to  just let them help this country recover….”

Say what!?

This is typical democrat/socialist/statist rhetoric right here. She’s perfectly alright with suspending a part of our Constitution, so the congressmen and women can focus on bringing the country out of a stagnant economy, well she says that is the reason. Here is a better reason: the statist in Congress are terrified of the 2012 elections and are scared to death of what the outcome might be. They could lose the senate, which means the “partisan” gridlock in Congress will become a non factor. Governor Beverly Perdue would love for the political gridlock to continue until the political winds shift back in favor of the democrats, if said winds ever do….

This, “suspending elections,” theme has been heard several times before usually in banana republics. This is the United States of America, we don’t suspend elections, we have them regardless of national emergency or a stagnant economy.

Self-described leading online source of news and commentary from an African American perspective, founded in 2008 by Harvard Professor Henry “Beer Summit” Gates has this interesting story:

It’s a Great Time to be Racist (Alternate title: Obama and Racism: How Else to Explain the Insults?), by Nsenga Burton

Let’s face it: There’s only one explanation for some of the attacks on President Obama.

Racists have officially lost their minds.

There’s someone who officiates that?

In recent weeks, the venom spewed at President Barack Obama would leave one to believe that we are in the midst of a racist renaissance. “A dick,”jackass,” “tar baby, “your boy” — you name it and the president has been called it. For some reason, some people are so enraged by how this country is purportedly being run that they cannot separate a real critique of the president’s decisions from mean-spirited name-calling related to his race.

A racist renaissance?  Dick, jackass, tar baby, your boy?  That’s it?

For some reason, some people are so enraged by criticism of how this country is being run that they cannot separate a real critique of the president’s decisions or general name-calling from actual racism.

Yes, the country that likes to pretend that it is far removed from its racist past has engaged in the verbal equivalent of a throwback jersey. Some people have reached far back into that Reconstruction-era closet, pulled out that dingy jersey adorned with racial slurs, shaken it out and put it on proudly. Elected officials have reduced themselves to behaving like petulant children, storming in and out of meetings and running to the media to lob personal attacks at the president, then offering lame apologies shortly afterward.

Well, we aren’t that far removed from our racist past.  Democrat Senator and Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd hasn’t been dead for that long.  Leftists still keep dividing people by race, segregating them into new voting blocks.  They keep going back to ideas of racists past, like their progressive progenitor Woodrow Wilson, who segregated the fedgov and military.  They keep going back to the ideas of unabashedly racist Lyndon Baines Johnson, whose Great Society led blacks into state-dependant poverty in order to form a voting block that, as per LBJ’s words: “I’ll have them n*ggers voting Democrat for the next two hundred years.”

Now, I wasn’t aware that dick, jackass, and tar baby were racial slurs.  “Boy” if given proper intonation, can well be.  But it’s also often used as a term of criticism separated from race as well, like saying “your buddy”, “your brother”, “your son”, “your papi”, etc.  Expressions like “your boy”, “your son” can be referring to subordinates who aren’t displaying competence, while simultaneously denoting that the person being addressed is their superior and is therefore responsible for their lackluster performance.  “Your buddy”, or “your brother” refer to peers who are windowlickers, while “your papi”, “your dad”, etc., refer to a higher ranking individual who is by no means superior.

Corporal, tell your boy to stop lifting sandbags and start filling ‘em.

Hell, even a “black” website like… The Root… knew that “your boy” wasn’t racist.

Slur? We’re going to have to go with Pat here and agree that it wasn’t one.

Well, until the next piece is written and “your boy” turns into a racist comment.

We got a peek at what was to come just seven months into President Obama’s tenure. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted, “You lie!” during the president’s speech about health care reform. Clearly Wilson had a flashback to legalized segregation, when folks publicly bullied, threatened and heckled blacks to remind them of who was “in charge.”

Wilson subsequently issued an apology, saying his actions were “regrettable” and he’d let his emotions take over. He was just the first of a series of elected officials acting like fools and then offering weak apologies as a remedy for said actions.

Obama did lie.  Joe Wilson called him on it… and was correct.  How is it racist to call a liar a liar?

Yes, it’s clear to anyone that “Wilson had a flashback to legalized segregation”.  Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurreee….

Well is it racist or not?

To be clear, “You lie!” is not a racist exclamation. Yet and still, it is insulting and in recent memory has not been used against any other president, even when he may have been lying about one thing or another.

Again, Obama lied.  How is calling a liar a liar racist?   I’d use the phrase “calling a spade a spade“, but over-sensitive racists might see that as a racist comment, despite the expression dating back to 1542 or so.

The problem is Joe Wilson shouldn’t have apologized.  John Wayne had this to say: “Don’t apologize, it’s a sign of weakness.”  Joe Wilson, and numerous others accused of racism are apologizing for doing what they think is right – and those apologies turn into admissions of guilt and culpability for actions that aren’t wrong.

Pundits and politicians like Wilson have been letting their emotions and their acidic tongues take over ever since. We’ve had other comments and shenanigans, like Tea Party member Marilyn Davenport of the Orange County Republican Central Committee sending out “chimp” emails of the first family, insisting that it was political satire and yet apologizing, while refusing to step down. That email was clearly racist because of the long history of comparing blacks to apes in art, literature, film and history, based on a so-called hierarchy of humans.

Well, maybe.  It could be racist, or it could just be imitating the political discourse of the left.

Let’s look at some of that leftist discourse now!

Just to make heads explode… Chimpy McBushitler meets Barack Obamonkey.  One is not racist in the least, and is a clever criticism of the worst president ever (according to sites like the Smirking Chimp), while the other is the most racist racism ever in the history of racist racism.

The most recent example of racial commentary comes from Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), who referred to President Obama as a “tar baby.” He not only apologized but also said that he was certain the president would accept his apology because he is a “man of character.”

Tar baby comes from an Uncle Remus story.  You touch it, you get stuck in it.  It’s a folksy southern analogy that could’ve just as easily been a black hole.  Hey, is that racist?

Thanks, kid!

Not knowing anything about Rep. Lamborn aside from what I’ve read just now, I’m immediately critical of his apology.  If he didn’t mean to say it, why did he say it?  If he has to explain it because the audience is ignorant, then he has to explain it.  But why apologize based on someone else’s being offended?  If it wasn’t intended to offend, just say “it wasn’t meant to be offensive, you should grow some thicker skin and see when something is and isn’t meant to be racially offensive”.  Guess what: there are a lot of non-racist people out there.

Organized Racism

Therein lies the rub: These examples of what appears to be a fundamental lack of respect for President Obama have more than offensive words behind them. Racism is the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others. These politicians and pundits appear to be engaging in racist acts based on this flawed ideology at the same time that all kinds of “movements” have sprung up in reaction to Obama’s election.

Obama has a fundamental lack of respect for the nation.  He considers the compact between people and government – the Constitution – to be fundamentally flawed and a “charter of negative liberties” – he’s critical of restrictions on government power imposed by free people.  His choices in racists like Sotomayor and radical communist racists like Van Jones and radical advocates of genocide like John Holdren indicate a lot more offense than anyone calling him a “dick”.

So if racism is wrong, why are the distinctive cultural characteristics embraced by the left in order to form voting blocks and ethnic constitutencies right?  Oh, because it’s leftist racism.  Doublethink.

No other president has had his qualifications for the office challenged so vigorously.

8 years of criticism of Bush and we’re expected to believe that?

Is it just partisanship? Could be, but it seems to be pretty darn close to racism.

Except it’s not.  And your own article admits it.  And your own website admits it.  And it’s not racism.  If you want to see racism, you’ll find plenty on the media/Democrat left, and plenty on the national socialist left at Stormfront (I’m not linking to them).

Rush Limbaugh and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky are on record for wanting President Obama to fail. Why? McConnell and Limbaugh uttered these words early in Obama’s tenure as president, even before he could reasonably have gotten anything off the ground.

Yes.  And that’s not racism.  Obama’s stated goals were to “fundamentally change” the country.  Michelle Obama said Barry would “force us to change”.  Obama said we couldn’t drive our SUVs or have our heat at 72 based on what other countries think.  Obama said under his plan, “energy prices would necessarily skyrocket“.  Obama said he wanted to “spread the wealth around”.

If Obama were to succeed, those who’ve succeeded (and in turn employ those working their way up), will have their costs of living increased, their nation changed by force, their accumulated wealth forcibly redistributed, and the entire nation will fail.  Obama’s plan is antithetical to the continued success of the United States and all its citizens (and legal alien nationals within the US).

Could it be partisanship? Yes. Could it be a profound lack of patriotism? Yes. But again, it smacks of something that has nothing to do with partisanship or patriotism but with the basest of reasons for disliking and disrespecting someone: because he or she does not look like you.

Could it be aliens?  Yes.  Could it be our robot overlords?  Yes.  Could it be crab people?  Yes.  Could it be Descartes’ Great Deceiver?  Yes.

Is it?  No.

Partisanship comes from having different ideas.  The left wants a command economy, control of people’s lives and freedom.  The right wants a free economy, and only select traditionalist elements want any control of people’s lives and freedom.  Patriotism stems from wanting your country to do well.  If Obama’s fundamental changes succeed, we’d have things like contracts being rendered null and void due to political pull, “under the radar” attacks on the Bill of Rights, and so on.

One of the critical failures of this is the doublethink that then comes about when someone like Thomas Sowell or David Webb criticizes Obama.  Then they’re suddenly “not black”… even though both are much blacker than Obama (given that his mom Stanley is about as white as you get).

If it isn’t because President Obama is black, then what is it? There is plenty to criticize about the current administration, but the inability to do so with respect for the man or the office is the giveaway.

No it’s not.  If Nsenga Burton and those of similar ilk don’t get it, they should see these links by photojournalist Zombie:

Bush As Hitler

Death Threats Against Bush

There is plenty to criticize, and given Obama’s disrespect and contempt for the nation, its traditions, its virtues, and its people, is something that the population at large is willing to reciprocate.

The racial climate is suffocating and getting worse. Every other week, another politician or pundit is apologizing for making what he or she keeps calling inappropriate comments about President Obama. But what these people call inappropriate, insulting or partisan, I call racist — a term that describes abusive or aggressive behavior toward a member of another race based on the belief that some races have an intrinsic superiority over others. If this is not what we’re witnessing, then I don’t know what it is.

They shouldn’t be apologizing.  That gives the impression that what they said is wrong.  In this case, their apologies are to people who are oversensitive, and the apology itself turns into an acknowledgement that something is amiss.

If you try to calm a dog during a thunderstorm or when scared by changing your tone of voice, the dog gets worried.  Since you changed your tone of voice, something must be amiss.  If you go “don’t worry, boy, it’ll be okay” in a coddling tone, the dog starts to think that there’s something wrong, and it actually stresses the dog out more.  If you address the dog in normal tones of voice and don’t act like anything is wrong, the dog will still sense the danger, but won’t fret.

Likewise, if people with criticisms ignore the perpetual cries of racism, then they give the racialist racists nothing to feed on.  If you apologize for every little thing, then it’s going to seem like you know you’ve done something wrong, and something is wrong.  Consider above – the dog analogy and the use of the word “boy” may have just set off some leftist racialist racist’s dog whistle, but I don’t really care.  It’s not racist, it’s an analogy.

When leftists go after Clarence Thomas because they want an unrestrained government, then they’re doing what they believe.  When they say he should be hanged or fed his own toes, well, they’re racist.  The left’s institutional racialist racists ignore anything done against those they oppose on political grounds.

Obama’s being criticized by a rare few because he’s racist.  Find the n-word thrown around by a non-democrat and you’ll find some racism.  Sure, democrat union thugs beat black guys and call them the n-word, but like most leftist doublethink, that means nothing, and since Kenneth Gladney was a tea partier, he must’ve really been white.

Yes, it’s a great time to be a racist, and a horrible time to be the nation’s first black president.

I guess if you have the right political orientation – namely leftist, then it is a great time to be a racist.  And why is it a horrible time to be Bill Clinton?

How else to explain the insults?  How about he’s fundamentally opposed to many of the things that have made the US great, he opposes things we do well and right, he divides people in the same manner he did as a community organizer, his hollow rhetoric duped people who meant well, his constant blaming of others for his own abysmal failures at every turn becomes a cry for more power – how about the fact that his success means the country’s failure?  People are mad at him.

They’re not mad because he’s half-black, they’re mad because virtually all of the things he believes are in opposition to what everyone in the nation believes.  They’re mad because those who voted for him blindly out of hope and change are regretting their foolish decision to vote on emotion instead of logic.  They’re mad because they’ve seen his successes lead to the nation’s failure.  They’re mad because his every success is meant to crush the nation.  They’re mad because he bows to and hugs dictators, but shoves the Dalai Lama out the back door of the White House past the trash.  They’re mad because his claim of opposing corporatism is in direct opposition to his unabashed favoritism for G.E.  They’re mad because he’s overseen two stimulus programs, both of which we were told would save the economy, and neither of which has done so – they’re mad because every failure of his turns into a need for more power.  They’re mad because so many of the things Bush was accused of, Obama has perpetuated.

They’re mad because he told veterans to pay for their war wounds.  They’re mad because he’s so far disconnected from society he blathers about arugula and doesn’t know how to say corpsman.  They’re mad because he doesn’t act like an American, he doesn’t care about America, and he wants America to change into what he wants.

Most Americans are pretty proud of their nation, and Obama’s constant and utter disrespect for the nation wears thin.

It’s not his skin color.  It’s the content of his character.