Rules for Posting and Commenting on this Blog

This is a private web site. Free Speech and other Constitutional Rights do not apply here as they are intended only for the government and public space. The following are rules of conduct.

You will be blocked if you:

- Swear, use offensive language, mock or attack any writers or participants personally.

- Call anyone a racist or a hater, even if it’s disguised. (”I like you and I hope God will open your eyes so that you can stop hating and end your racism”). A racist is a person who just won a fight against a liberal. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. But since liberals have no way to respond to indisputable facts and rational logic, they must attack others with words like “racist” in order to somehow feel superior to someone who actually won the argument.

- Use words like “nigger”. Either make a point or don’t. Calling people names makes you look ridiculous. Stating that you are afraid to send your kids to a black school because of the high crime and the targeting of whites may persuade someone. Saying, “I hate them niggers” will only make you look like a fool.

- Issue statements in support of Hitler or any openly Nazi web site (that includes Stormfront and other Klan pages and forums). Nazis are an embarrassment to anyone trying to counter the views of the far-left. The Left purposely tries to create the impression that any non-leftist must be a Nazi. The reason this tactic is successful is that most neo-Nazis embrace this ideology only because they like being the object of other people’s disgust. I reject the idea that opposing affirmative action and hundreds of billions annually in government spending on blacks is somehow Nazi. In any event, this is not a Nazi web site. If you are looking for Nazis, go some place else and never come back here.

- Suggest that slavery, lynching, Holocaust or other such events were positive and should happen again. Any civilized society must support the rule of law. One of the sources of our pride is (or should be) the fact that whites eliminated slavery and then forced everyone else to do the same. If you think Sudanese Arabs are right to enslave Sudanese blacks, you probably do not belong in the Western civilization that rejected slavery. I don’t suggest that we go and fight other people’s wars, but we should never say that slavery, mob justice (lynching) or genocide is a positive event. It makes us look barbaric. Almost like we are a Third World people.

- Rather than argue your point, you cite your education as proof of your superiority. I don’t care about your education. Many people, myself included, are probably better educated than you are. Go crawl back to your liberal hole where you can make believe that only liberals are educated and those who disagree must be rednecks. And in any event, your education is irrelevant. Either you can make a good point to defend your point of view or you can’t. Let everyone decide the quality of your reasoning based on what you write. Even if you have a higher degree, it does not make you right. Hiding behind your degree makes it clear that you are wrong and merely trying to intimidate others.

Anyone But Obama

“Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual.”
- Michelle Obama.

Many have accurately noted that John McCain is not a great choice. But what’s our only other realistic option? It’s Barack Obama who is a horrible choice, probably the worst one ever.

Yes, we can make an ideological stand and vote for the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate. I did that in the last 3 elections. But this is not the time because the possibility of President Obama ruining our country for four years is just too horrifying to imagine.

When FDR and Winston Churchill faced of choice of Stalin or Hitler, they chose Josef Stalin. Not because they liked him. Not because he was going to do what the West wanted. But because Adolph Hitler was an unacceptable choice.

Sure, they could’ve pumped weapons and intelligence to the Polish resistance, but the two Western leaders realized that the Poles - while honorable and more pro-American/pro-democracy - just don’t stand a chance of defeating Nazi Germany. There was a proper time to support Polish fighters, even when it looked like they could never win. But World War II wasn’t that time. The possibility of Hitler dominating Europe, from Britain to the Ural, was just too awful to imagine, and so a decision was made to support Stalin.

Obama is not Hitler. But he’s an unacceptable choice.

I can’t imagine living in a country led by Obama. McCain will not damage the country nearly as much.

Reagan, Bush1, Bush 2, Mondale, Dukakis, Dole, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, etc. were all “close enough” choices. We survived Clinton, and we survived Bush. We could make an ideological stand there.

We can’t make an ideological stand this year. Not with Obama possibly having a filibuster-proof majority in Congress. Between having a dominant majority in Congress and the ability to shut down all opposition with the charges that criticism of the President is “racist”, we’ll slide into a near-dictatorship where the President will abuse his power in the name of what he believes is good (and “good” is defined as black empowerment since blacks see progress only when they are “empowered”).

Obama is a dangerous ideologue and demagogue. A populist demagogue scares me much more than a regular sell-out politician.

He will spend trillions, much of it on “black” programs. He will spread university speech codes to the society at large. He will incite blacks and use the power of the government to back up their mobs.

Obama will destroy this country. I really believe that.

Anyone but Obama. Anyone. I would prefer to have Al Sharpton or Louis Farrakhan as President because they’re honest enough to get whites to speak up against them.

Obama, on the other hand, talks about unity. But it is unity under his umbrella where everyone agrees with him, and those who disagree are destroyed.

This is a wrong election to make an ideological stand by voting for a Third Party or sitting out. Anyone but Obama. Anyone.

Destruction by the coming Democratic Hegemony

Some have suggested that Democrats winning the three special elections may be a good sign as they sound conservative on many issues, including amnesty.

I disagree. Democrats winning will be bad for the right, including amnesty. A Republican who makes moderate statements about immigration reform is more likely to block amnesty than a Democrat who sounds anti-amnesty when he’s running for office.

When push comes to shove, liberals will make sure to pressure Democratic congressmen into either voting for the left or at least not blocking their legislation.

More importantly, this isn’t just 3 elections. It’s a sign of what will come in November. A Democratic hegemony all but assures us of amnesty, affirmative action and a leftist-activist Supreme Court for another quarter century.

Republicans have many of the same flaws, but not to the same extent. Bush’s two Supreme Court nominees are solid choices, and have moved the court somewhat to the right. A decision on affirmative action by this court was better than that of past courts.

No, this court did not end affirmative action. But it made things slightly better, while a court that had a pair of liberals instead of John Roberts and Samuel Alito would’ve surely made things even worse.

If you replace Justice John Paul Stevens and one of the other 3 liberal judges (all of them in their 70s) with two more conservatives, real progress could be made, progress that would last long after McCain and half the Congress have died.

With McCain as the GOP candidate and Obama as the Democratic nominee, unfortunately amnesty is likely a done deal - at least in the minds of the “leaders” who will fight “the masses” to push through their “comprehensive immigration reform.”

But on another important front, affirmative action, we can’t afford to lose ground just as we were beginning to make some gains.

President McCain would mean that the right would be able to rely occasionally rely on his veto in the short-term and on the Supreme Court in the long-term to stop the liberal onslaught. It would mean that a budget-hawk might think twice before building ever-more condo-style projects.

President Obama would mean leftist hegemony with Michelle making sure that we have our whiteness beaten out of us as her husband spends trillions on black causes and uses the Department of Justice to bring to their knees any commercial or educational institution that refuses to stick to hard racial quotas.

Africa’s Einsteins

This reminds me of Christians who get so wrapped up in their religious beliefs that they go looking for the Garden of Eden and Noah’s Ark. PC-Leftism is a religion. It’s not just ideology like capitalism or democracy, it’s a full-on religion. That’s why it’s incompatible with other religions - you can’t be Christian and Muslim at the same time, and you can’t be Christian and PC-Leftist at the same time.

Africa’s Ensteins will be discovered on the same day we’ll find the potion of youth.

Professor Stephen Hawking, who has devoted his career to finding the origins of the universe, is to begin a new search—for Africa’s answer to Einstein.

Despite suffering from motor neurone disease which has left him almost completely paralysed, Hawking, 66, has made the journey to South Africa to launch the project today.

Some of the world’s leading high-tech entrepreneurs and scientists have backed the £75m plan to create Africa’s first postgraduate centres for advanced maths and physics, after the British government declined to provide funding.

Hawking will be joined by eminent physicists and mathematicians including two Nobel laureates in physics, David Gross and George Smoot, and Michael Griffin, the head of Nasa. Naledi Pandor, South Africa’s education minister, will also speak.

“The world of science needs Africa’s brilliant talents and I look forward to meeting prospective young Einsteins from Africa,” said Hawking.

Indian Givers

it was American policy starting in 1796 to vaccinate Indians against small pox. It would be odd if Ameicans tried to kill off Indians by means of a disease they were trying to prevent!

Genocide of the Indians was never the policy of the US army or government. The army was under orders to spare women, children, and men who surrendered or were too severely wounded to fight. Although some non-combatants were killed during army attacks, any deliberate killing of a non-combatant was punishable by law. In fact, after the Battle of Wounded Knee in 1889, President Harrison investigated killings of non-combatants and found that the army did everything in its power to avoid them. The army also provided first aid and hospital care for wounded Indians.

Whites did not always adhere to such high ethical standards, however. In the colonial era, the British army conducted some genocidal campaigns against Indians. After independence, the unofficial posses of white settlers who did battle with Indians were also barbaric at times. The American government considered such acts criminal and prosecuted them.

While the policy of the American government was never genocide, that of the Indians certainly was. The Indians were never inhibited by any of the scruples that restrained the US army. The history abounds with accounts of “acts of devilish cruelty” that had “no parallel in savage warfare,” in the words of one army officer quoted by Lewy. Rape and the slaughter of non-combatants was common during Indian raids, as was torture of prisoners. Lewy writes:

The torture of prisoners was indeed routine practice for most Indian tribes, and was deeply ingrained in Indian culture. Valuing bravery above all things, the Indians had little sympathy for those who surrendered or were captured. Prisoners unable to withstand the rigor of wilderness travel were usually killed on the spot… [Other prisoners would be] subjected to a ritual of torture designed to humiliate them and exact atonement for the tribe’s losses. Afterward the Indians often consumed the body or parts of it in a ceremonial meal, and proudly displayed scalps and fingers as trophies of victory.

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/blog/blog/was_there_an_indian_genocide/

You can bet your mortgage that everything said about white flaws is a huge over-exaggeration. One incident of whites doing anything bad is equated with persistent policy.

This is similar to saying, “I saw you drink a beer last week, and therefore you must be a drunk.” And if you try to defend yourself against the charge, they will laugh at you and ridicule you for saying that one beer does not make you a drunk.

In fact, a lot of times, it’s what they saw you drinking was not beer. I will write more about the Tuskegee incident, but let me just say now that the commonly made statements about it are false. Blacks were not infected with anything, nor was there a denial of treatment to the people who could’ve been cured. This was perfectly legitimate medical practice, approved by both black doctors and black organizations.

Racist Math

If racial prejudice persisted, it was on these deeper levels.

If we can’t see any prejudice, we’ll just attribute it to something deeper. Sort of like a superstitious person who thinks that the witch brought him good luck, and when the good luck doesn’t come, he says, “I guess the witch just kept the bad luck I don’t know about away from me.”

Political psychologists devised new tests to uncover these [racist] sentiments. First, they crafted survey questions aimed at unearthing what they called “symbolic racism,” “modern racism,” and, most recently, “racial resentments,” which ascribe to blacks as a group certain negative attributes or undeserved advantages. For example, researchers asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with statements such as “It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites” or “Over the past few years, blacks have gotten more economically than they deserve.”
http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=76d4881e-d014-4dd6-b732-8adef23f68f4&p=2

If whites notice that blacks with 1150 SAT scores wind up in Ivy League schools, they are racist. Recognizing that one number (1150) is lower than another (1450) is somehow prejudiced and racist. I guess it’s that “racist math” concept we’ve been hearing about the last few years.

67 percent thought blacks should work “their way up … without any special favors.” Psychologists David Sears and Donald Kinder, as well as others, found that this racial resentment was the single most important factor–more important than even conservative ideology or political partisanship–in explaining strong opposition to a host of government programs that either directly or indirectly benefited minorities.

Racism never ends. How dare whites believe that blacks should work their way up without any special favors. Opposing special favors based on race is hate, hate I tell you! No wonder leftists think everyone is racist. If opposing preferences to someone just because of color of his skin is racist, then yeah, I guess it’s true that America is a very racist country.

Criminal Justice against the blacks and the poor

Despite common claims, blacks are NOT imprisoned more than whites or for longer terms, and both statements are the reverse of the truth. A large percentage of black jurors vote for the race, not for justice. Whites do not. A British study found that blacks were 3 times more likely to acquit a fellow black than a white person. Whites too were more likely to acquit a black person, but only slightly. Cops arrest blacks in lesser numbers than their percentage of crimes. Heather McDonald documented that in New York, for example, whites are arrested 3 times more often than the percentage of crime they commit.

Blacks commit higher degree felonies and are more likely to be predicates. You can’t compare all crimes as if they were all the same. We have different degrees of each crime. A robbery where a HS kid takes away lunch money from another HS kid would never result in a jail sentence. A robbery with a gun that was actually fired will have to result in a prison sentence. Blacks are several times more likely to use weapons in commission of a crime.

Likewise, a first time offender will usually be given a break. A 12th time felony offender, will likely face life in jail or something close to it.

Only when comparing apples (career violent robber) to oranges (first time arrest of a HS kid who took lunch money) do you arrive at blacks get longer sentences. When comparing apples to apples, and oranges to oranges, blacks get arrested less and serve less time because black jurors were incited against the justice system and also because prosecutors and cops face constant charges of racism that can cost them their job.

Poor people also do not get more jail time than the rich. Poor people steal all the time and usually on a first time offense, they won’t even get a criminal record.

Rich people who screw around with corporate forms wind up in prisons for the rest of their lives and become examples for all of society.

Accountants for corporation who made mistakes get 3-6 times longer sentences than black rapists.

Liberals need to stop making up facts convenient to their ideology, turn on the TV and watch all the corporate officials who got slammed with sentences that no poor, black murderer ever gets.

The average rape sentence is literally several times shorter than the average sentence for corporate malfeasance. Is that the rich benefiting and the poor suffering? I think not.

Typical Liberal Lies

This woman is obviously college-educated, or more accurate college-indoctrinated. This is the kind of garbage that I’ve heard on daily basis in college and grad school. For the benefit of young readers, here’s a response.

Guy White: “Blacks always think they “deserve” everything, whether it’s food stamps, housing projects, affirmative action or boyfriends.”

Should the question read as follows: Whites have received everything they felt they deserved more than every other racial group in America, especially in relation to black citizens?

White did not receive anything. Whites earned it. White wealth does not come from welfare or affirmative action. Sure some whites receive welfare, but that’s not the cause of the black-white gap. In fact, very few whites are chronically on welfare. Even fewer live in the ghetto. None get jobs and college admission letters because of racial preferences. What whites have was achieved through education and hard work, and neither concept is known in the ghetto.

Have not white people received MORE food stamps, welfare, Social Security Benefits (whites live longer than blacks, and therefore, receive not only THEIR SS, but, also the DECEASED BLACK CITIZEN’S SS benefits, since blacks die 5-7b years earlier than whites) through the decades than have black people?

This is false. In the 1960s, a study found that most welfare recipients are white. At the time, however, near 90% of the population was white. At all times, blacks were more likely than whites to receive welfare, but when the white population was nearly 90% white, obviously whites made up a majority of welfare recipients.

Today, that is not true anymore. In part because welfare was vastly expanded to include money for bastard children (WIC), housing projects, etc. But it is also due to the white population dropping to only about 65% of all Americans.

Whites still receive more Social Security (I guess we should kill whitey, how dare he live so long!), but minorities receive more of every other form of government welfare. And let’s not forget that whites are the ones who pay over 90% of all taxes collected by the government. Asians pay their fair share. Blacks and Latinos (especially the illegals) pay very little because our tax system is so “progressive” [meaning the more you make, the higher your tax rate will be]. So therefore, whites do not take from the government. Poor whites take from other whites. Blacks, meanwhile, take predominantly from the “whitey” they hate so much.

Finally, whites rarely stay on welfare for a long time. In the ghetto, almost everyone receives lifetime welfare in one form or another. How many whites do you know who not only never had a job, but don’t even have a single friend or relative with a job? I don’t know any. I do know such blacks.

Have not whites benefitted (at the expense of black people) when Affirmative Action was white (and through white women, it still is)?

Affirmative action was never for whites. Feminist affirmative action is an outrage, but it’s nowhere near as big as racial affirmative action.

Have not whites benefitted more from redlining, gerrymandering, and racist applications of the G.I. Bill, FHA, as well as SS?

In fact, blacks were the ones who benefited from gerrymandering. If districts were created in even squares, being only a 12% minority, blacks would almost always wind up a minority in almost any district, so there would be very few black politicians.

Social Security is racist because whites live longer than blacks? What would be non-racist? Killing whites? How do you propose we resolve this problem? Why can’t there be one program - one! - that benefits whites more, especially given that whites pay all the taxes that cover Welfare State (minority taxes couldn’t cover the most basic government expenses, much less welfare).

Redlining is long gone. In case you haven’t heard, it’s not 1940s anymore. Today, we have banks being forced to give loans to unqualified blacks, which not only threatens the survival of the banks, but the health of our overall economy. The current economic downturn and especially the foreclosure crisis was caused by the government and “civil rights” lawyers forcing banks to give mortgages to blacks who could not pay them off.

The other two programs you mentioned were never applied in a racist manner.

Tell me. . . . just what is the “typical black woman”, since YOU obviously are an expert on ALL THE BLACK WOMEN IN AMERICA?

This was a play on Obama’s “typical white person”. Maybe you should ask you Lord and Savior what he meant when he used the word “typical”. Or only whites can be “typical”?!

A “real man” loves ALL women.

Feminist crap! A real man loves a woman who will be a good life partner for him and will pass good genes to his children. Both consciously and subconsciously, that’s how people make decisions as to who to marry. It’s called evolution. You know, that thing that liberals deny because evolution means people adjust differently to a different environment, causing genetic differences between races…

A man who can only love the beauty (inside and out) of only one particular race of women, is not a man in my eyes.

More feminist crap.

That is a man who does not have the balls to be a man towards all women. That is a man who is a coward.

Yeah, all women deserve the right to reproduce with Brad Pitt. Otherwise, you’ll sue for gender discrimination.

And sadly, that is the impression that many white men give me. That they are cowards when it comes to black women, and those white men do not have the balls to treat with humane respect black women.

You see? According to racial feminists, “humane respect” means we must have sex and have children with black women? Feminists gone wild…

So, please answer my question: How did you come to the conclusion of what a typical black woman is, when you you not interacted with EVERY black woman in America?

I don’t know, ask your Messiah, Barack Obama, what the word “typical” means. But just so you know, typical does not mean “every”. It means something like “most”. We can say for example that a typical adult human is 5 to 7 feet tall. I don’t need to meet every human in the world to tell you what a “typical” height for a human is. Nor does it mean that there aren’t some people who are taller or shorter than the “typical” range.

But for a better definition of “typical”, I suggest you email Obama’s campaign. He’s an expert on “typical white people.”

Black Social Gospel

The new Pastor in Barack Obama’s radical Church is Rev. Otis Moss. What does our likely next President think about him? “Well, you know, the new pastor — the young pastor, Reverend Otis Moss, is a wonderful young pastor.”

What does Otis Moss think? “Fuck America!” and “US of KKK” [he quoted from a song that uses those words, anyway]. Yup, those are the quotes of this “wonderful young pastor”.

Erik Rush, the African-American journalist who first wrote about Jeremiah Wright, told Sean Hannity: “This is indicative of Black Liberation Theology” and Otis Moss chose a song with those words on purpose.

Rev. Moss says that he, like Jeremiah Wright, believes in the “black social gospel”. What is “black social gospel”?

“The social gospel translates into very strong Marxist ideology,” explained Erik Rush.

Obama claims that he did not know what Wright was preaching. But it’s not just Wright. It’s not even just this particular church.

It’s the theology, a mix of black nationalism and socialism that made up all the sermons in the church Obama chose as an adult precisely because it subscribes to “Black Liberation Theology”.

Oh and by the way, you know what you get when you mix nationalism and socialism? National-socialism.

Nice, Barack, very nice!

TNB

Obama spoke of “the typical white man”. Now watch “the typical black woman”. First 3 minutes are very indicative of how blacks, especially women, think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIyLlmV1iFw&feature=related

It’s not that I support interracial marriage, which I do not, but her sense of entitlement to everything, including men, and her attacks on whites are typical, as is her claim that what blacks need to do is to teach racism to their children by raising “black awareness”.