Racist Professor Asks “Can My Children Be Friends With White People?”

Where does one even begin with this level of absurdity?  This so-called professor of law posits the question “Can My Children Be Friends With White People?”, and unequivocally answers with “NO.”  He uses lots of broad brush arguments with no basis in fact that I would assume he KNOWS would never hold up in court, and would be immediately thrown out as hearsay and slander.  He is a “law” professor, right?  Let’s look at some of the more egregious examples of his projectionism and hypocrisy.

“Donald Trump’s election has made it clear that I will teach my boys the lesson generations old, one that I for the most part nearly escaped.”

As you do later in your diatribe, you are associating Donald Trump and his supporters with racism against blacks, yet you provide not one scintilla of evidence that Donald Trump is or has done anything racist against blacks.  I guess the approximately 8% of the black community who voted for Trump aren’t black enough for you?  Perhaps they are “Uncle Toms?”

“The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous dream of black and white children holding hands was a dream precisely because he realized that in Alabama, conditions of dominance made real friendship between white and black people impossible.”

Mr. Yankah is accusing an entire race of being racist, but in doing so is showing himself to be the bigoted racist.  There are SOME white people who are racist, just as there are SOME black people who are racist.  Mr. Yankah, why aren’t you embracing the words of the man whose coattails you hide behind by judging INDIVIDUALS by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin?  Hypocrite.

“History has provided little reason for people of color to trust white people in this way, and these recent months have put in the starkest relief the contempt with which the country measures the value of racial minorities.”

No reason to trust whites?  While blacks were at one time enslaved by whites (AND by blacks, AND by arab muslims), you were also freed by WHITES.  You were given the right to vote by WHITES.  The Civil Rights Act was passed by, you guessed it, WHITES.  The VAST majority of welfare dollars going to the black community is also be collected overwhelmingly from… wait for it… WHITES.  Sir, if you couldn’t trust whites, you would still be in chains working in cotton fields.  If you can read this, thank a WHITE Republican.

“America is transfixed on the opioid epidemic among white Americans (who often get hooked after being overprescribed painkillers — while studies show that doctors underprescribe pain medication for African-Americans). But when black lives were struck by addiction, we cordoned off minority communities with the police and threw away an entire generation of black and Hispanic men.”

Notice what the disingenuous “professor” of law does here.  He does the bait and switch.  He tries to equate the opioid problem in the white community with the illicit trade and addiction problems of crack, heroin, and meth in the black community.  Both are horrible, but they are NOT the same thing.  One who is prescribed opioids by a doctor is generally taking them for pain associated with a medical procedure, at least initially.  Those who take and become addicted to crack, meth, and/or heroine do it by CHOICE from the beginning.

“I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible.”

You, sir, are a flaming racist, projecting your own faults onto people whom you have never met, and do not know.  You are making a sweeping generalization that is PURELY based on race while pointing the finger of racism at others.  Hypocrite.

“Only white people can cordon off Mr. Trump’s political meaning, ignore the “unpleasantness” from a position of safety.”

EXCUSE ME????  WHO has been more in danger since Trump was elected, and just as much during Barack Obama’s presidency???  You can’t continue the bullcrap lie that blacks are being targeted by white cops, or are being murdered by whites at some abnormally high rate.  The ACTUAL crime statistics prove that to be entirely false.  The ACTUAL crime statistics prove that blacks are MANY times more likely to be murdered by a BLACK person than by a white person.  They also prove that a white person is more likely to be killed by a black person than a white person.  But let’s go back to the “fear” thing.  Are their roving bands of whites roaming the inner cities LITERALLY hunting black people?  No.  There ARE mobs of blacks beating up whites.  How about things like the “knockout” “game?” Most perpetrators have been black attacking whites.  If there is ANY group that should be afraid of another based on the evidence, it is whites who should be “suspicious” of blacks.  But I don’t advocate the broad brush racism that you do.  I advocate a situational suspicion instead of a race-based suspicion.  If an angry mob of ANY color of people is moving toward you, you don’t wait around to see if they want to be friends.  If someone is pointing a gun at you, it doesn’t matter what skin color they are.  If someone is passing laws that are detrimental to your freedom and liberty, it doesn’t matter what their skin color happens to be, right?

“So, too, is his history of housing discrimination,…”

Again, you offer ZERO proof of your allegations.  Just like the rest of the Alinsky-left, you are just slinging mud to see what sticks.  You are repeating progressive media talking points with no citation, or research of your own.  You’re supposed to be a freaking LAW professor.  You of all people should know you don’t build a case on hearsay.

“…his casual conflation of Muslims with terrorists,…”

See above.  He has NEVER said that all muslims are terrorists.  He has POINTED OUT that many of the terrorist attacks in this country have been committed by MUSLIMS, most of whom were IMMIGRANTS or “REFUGEES” who were NEVER PROPERLY VETTED.  Donald Trump has been attempting to put in place travel and immigration restrictions on the VERY SAME countries that BARACK OBAMA did.  So, are you going to be intellectually honest and call Barack Obama an islamophobe and racist now?  No, you’re too much of an intellectually weak coward to be that even handed.

“…his reducing Mexican-Americans to murderers and rapists.”

TRUMP. NEVER. SAID. THIS.  You are quoting a viral MISQUOTATION of Donald Trump when he said that there are SOME bad people, rapists and murderers, coming across our border.  And he is FACTUALLY, 100% CORRECT to say so.  Does MS-13 ring a bell?  Do you read the news AT ALL?  There are dozens of stories every week of illegal aliens killing Americans, stealing identities, and all sorts of other crimes, ON TOP OF THEIR ORIGINAL CRIME OF COMING HERE ILLEGALLY.  Oh, and you refer to a group of “Mexican-Americans.”  I say you’re either American, or you’re whatever nationality the country you came from calls its citizens.  If you become an American citizen, there can be no dual loyalty.  One cannot serve two masters.  There can be no hyphens.

“They bristle at the accusation that they supported racism, insisting they had to ignore Mr. Trump’s ugliness.”

So, if I as a white American say that I do not support or condone racism in any way, I am to be dismissed and labeled a racist despite the COMPLETE LACK OF EVIDENCE that would back any assertion of racism, but if YOU say you’re not a racist, despite an entire article of evidence which the New York Times has published for you, we’re supposed to just believe you?  Again, Mr. Morally Superior Black Man, I point you back to the message of MLK, Jr. which you hide behind and PRETEND to embrace.  He would disavow you in a heartbeat, you noisy cymbal and clanging gong.

“They protest: Have they ever said anything racist? Don’t they shovel the sidewalk of the new black neighbors? Surely, they say, politics — a single vote — does not mean we can’t be friends.”

Yes, you jackwagon.  That’s EXACTLY what we say, and BELIEVE.  I don’t care if my neighbor is black, white, latino, oriental, Indian, Native American, etc.  I care that my neighbor ISN’T AN A**HOLE.

“My bi-ethnic wife, my most trusted friend, understands she is seen as a white woman, even though her brother and father are not. Among my dearest friends, the wedding party and children’s godparents variety, many are white.”

Funny how if a white person points out that they have black friends, or even a black spouse, people like YOU immediately say they have a “token black” friend to “hide their racism.”  Do you see the irony here?

As a self-respecting PERSON, I would be ashamed to pen my name to such an ignorant, racist piece of drivel as this NYT article by Mr. Ekow N. Yankah. However, the left has no shame, and doesn’t seem to have a problem exposing their own ignorance, racism, hatred, and hypocrisy. In fact, they seem to be wearing them as badges of “honor.”

Link to article:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/opinion/sunday/interracial-friendship-donald-trump.html

NY Times: Murder Rates Rose in a Quarter of the Nation’s 100 Largest Cities

The NY Times unsurprisingly completely misses the boat on the cause of the spike in homicides in major cities across the US.  They blame drugs.  No, drugs are just another symptom of the root cause.  The root cause is the decay in our moral foundation caused by a growing biblical illiteracy.  When the Bible and biblical principals were the foundation of our society, when they were taught in church, in school, and reinforced everywhere, we didn’t have these kinds of problems.  Whether or not you were a Christian is irrelevant.  The core principles were universal.  You were NEVER taught that it was acceptable to do drugs, destroy other people’s property, have children out of wedlock, engage in all manner of deviance and many of the other behaviors that are now tolerated.  Those who scream the loudest to remove God from our society are often the first to bemoan the inevitable results, and are ALWAYS wrong about the cause of those results.

Link to article:  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/08/us/us-murder-rates.html?_r=3

Flip-flop hypocrisy and an absence of leadership from our incompetent Dear Leader, and the left who worships him.

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: ‘Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world’…

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: ‘American and coalition forces are… in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger’…

MARCH 18, 2011
OBAMA: “Obama closed Friday’s remarks by saying, “I’ve taken this decision with the confidence that action is necessary, and that we will not be acting alone. Our goal is focused. Our cause is just. And our coalition is strong.”

2001, Before beginning operations in Afghanistan
BUSH: “To all the men and women in our military … I say this: Your mission is defined. Your objectives are clear. Your goal is just.”

MARCH 18, 2011
OBAMA: “The United States did not seek this outcome. Our decisions have been driven by Qaddafi’s refusal to respect the rights of his people and the potential for mass murder of innocent civilians.”

Oct. 7, 2001
BUSH: “We did not ask for this mission, but we will fulfill it. … We defend not only our precious freedoms, but also the freedom of people everywhere to live and raise their children free from fear.”
————————————————————————–

When Bush got us into Iraq, the screams from the left were “BLOOD FOR OIL!” and “We have no national interest in Iraq,” and “How is Saddam Hussein a threat to us?” and “Bush is a war criminal.”

Isn’t it strange how 99.9% of the media and the left refuse to acknowledge that Obama is doing the same things or worse as Bush? Isn’t it also strange how now that Obama owns Iraq and Afghanistan, you hear very little about them anymore? Where are the daily body counts on the news? Where are the daily interviews with protesters? Where are the Cindy Sheehan’s of the world hiding now?

Remember when the price of oil climbed above $100/bbl and gasoline hit over $3 a gallon under Bush? Remember the cries of “Bush/Haliburton are evil, and it’s all their fault,” and “Bush needs to be impeached?” Now that oil is back over $100/bbl, and gas is at a national average of $4/gal, more than twice where it was when Obama took office, AND the Obama energy policy DEMONSTRABLY contributes to the increase, WHERE are the cries to impeach Obama and remove his energy czars?

I almost NEVER find myself agreeing with someone like Ralph Nader, but he is one of the few on the left who is at least giving an apples to apples comparison of Bush’s to Obama’s actions. While I think he has many facts wrong, at the end of this clip he makes THE statement that both liberals AND conservatives must come to grips with. “If Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axCLQQzMtsw&feature=player_embedded

Now, when it comes to Libya, Obama can’t make up his own opinion about the deal. Doing so and displaying actual leadership on the matter would infringe on his golf, party, vacation, Andy-Warhol-ish-need-my-15-minutes-of-fame lifestyle where he loves to enjoy the perks of being president while doing none of the actual work. He has been all over the map on Libya and the unrest in the mid-east, and our European allies, as well as the muslim world, are confused to say the least. As NYT writers Helene Cooper and Steven Meyers write, Obama is basically following the women (Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice) to war. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?_r=2&hpw Now we are involved in combat in a THIRD middle eastern country with our shrinking, crumbling, underfunded military behind a “leader” who says we are creating enemies in the middle east, and spending too much money and wasting too many lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What was it the two guys on the Guinness commercial said? Oh, yeah. “BRILLIANT!”

Now, about that Nobel Peace Prize that the mOssiah was preemptively awarded for saying he would do great things, and bring peace to the world? I got your worthless peace prize right here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE5ndLZ0768&feature=player_embedded

Surprise: NY Times Runs Cover Article in Support of R.O.T.C.

Quite surprising indeed.  The attitudes from the very same Ivy League schools that spawned Barack Obama have been notably anti-military, and anti-free speech (read that anti-conservative speech).  They are still using the “don’t ask, don’t tell” thing as a cop out.  For either the Times or any of the campus rags to say anything positive about the military is startling in the least.
+

---

http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/articles/2009/20091103030718.aspx?print=on

Surprise: Times Runs Cover Article in Support of R.O.T.C.

By: Clay Waters

November 03, 2009 14:01 ET

There was a  surprise on the cover of the special Education Life section of Sunday’s paper: A 3,000-word story by Michael Winerip, “The Ivy Corps and the R.O.T.C. Ban,” that offered a supportive view of ROTC on Ivy League campuses.

Winerip sympathetically examined the trials faced by a Harvard student enrolled in the Reserve Officers Training Corps program:

In a speech last year, Drew Faust, the president of Harvard, congratulated seniors who had gone the extra mile to get their R.O.T.C. training. She meant it literally, and the extra miles they had gone were the least of it.

Harvard has not had a Reserve Officers Training Corps program on campus since antiwar protests in the 1960s shut it down. The handful of Harvard students determined enough to join R.O.T.C. must travel to Boston University and across Cambridge to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for their training, under a system developed by the military that allows host universities to serve nearby campuses.

For the last four school years, several times a week, Daniel West, Joe Kristol and Dom Pellegrini, all training to become United States Marine Corps officers, had to get to M.I.T. or B.U. by 5:45 a.m. It was so early the subway wasn’t running yet.

“I’d be up at 4:45 to shave first,” Mr. Kristol said.

Sometimes, when they had the energy and the weather wasn’t too frigid, the three ran the half-hour to B.U. in the predawn darkness. Some days, Mr. Kristol drove them — he says that was the only reason he kept a car, which cost him $250 to $300 a month to park and maintain.

….

This is the 40th anniversary of the antiwar protests that led to the ban of R.O.T.C. at some of the nation’s most elite universities — Harvard, Yale, Brown, Columbia, Stanford, the University of Chicago, Tufts. And yet, the attitude on these campuses today is hardly antimilitary. There are numerous signs of genuine respect for the soldiers who serve. An editorial last May in the student newspaper, The Harvard Crimson, which for decades attacked R.O.T.C., praised classmates who had joined the program. “They demonstrate a commitment to service that should be admired and followed by the rest of the student body,” The Crimson said. The Yale, Columbia and Brown student papers have all published editorials in the recent past calling for the return of R.O.T.C. to their campuses.

Winerip pointed out that even our liberal president thinks the Ivy ban on R.O.T.C. is a bad idea:

During a campaign visit to Columbia University, Barack Obama, a favorite on the Ivy campuses, called the R.O.T.C. ban there wrong. (R.O.T.C. students at Columbia, in Manhattan, go to Fordham University or Manhattan College, both in the Bronx, for training). “The notion that young people here at Columbia, or anywhere, in any university, aren’t offered the choice, the option of participating in military service, I think is a mistake,” Mr. Obama said.

Winerip found a liberal excuse — the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell,” policy, which excludes open homosexuals from military service — but also relayed suggestions that citing that as a reason for the continuing R.O.T.C. ban was mere window-dressing to justify knee-jerk anti-military views.

 

---

 

Newsweek Despairs ‘Checks and Balances’ Impede ObamaCare

More hypocrisy from the state-run media formerly known as “mainstream.”

Isn’t it funny how Newsweek, the New York Times, and a host of other liberal opinion outlets screamed endlessly during the George W. Bush years that he was “abusing” his powers, that he was wrecking the constitution, that the “checks and balances” were a good thing.

Now a thug communist has sneaked into the Oval Office, is blatantly coloring outside the lines of the constitution, and is doing EVERYTHING HE CAN to circumvent the constitutional checks and balances.  Yet now those liberal communists who are in the tank for Mao-bama are crying that the constitution is getting in the way of “real change.”  Thank God for that!

These people HATE what our country was founded on.  They hate our constitution.  They hate capitalism, and they hate freedom.

In short, THEY HATE AMERICA.

---

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091029014120.aspx?print=on

By: Brent Baker

October 29, 2009 13:36 ET

Penning the lead story for the “Yes He Can (But He Sure Hasn’t Yet)” Newsweek cover, “A Liberal’s Survival Guide,” Anna Quindlen defended President Obama from liberal complaints he’s not enacting liberal policies fast enough as she explained that he’s “saddled” by the “incremental” constitutional structure, but she fretted: “Universal health care is the area in which the gap between what’s needed and what’s likely is most glaring, and the limitations of the president’s power most apparent.” Not hesitating to share her opinion, Quindlen despaired:

It is dispiriting to watch the cheerleaders of American exceptionalism pound their chests and insist that our citizens do not need the kind of system that virtually every other developed nation finds workable….

As elected officials posture and temporize, families are bankrupted by health-care costs and forgo treatment they can’t afford. Statistical measures of the national health, from life expectancy to infant mortality, continue to be substandard. And because we have that system of checks and balances, in which movement usually happens slowly and sporadically, a great need for sweeping reform may be met with a jury-rigged bill neither sufficiently deep nor broad, which perhaps someday will give way to a better one, and then eventually a truly good one.

Framing her piece in the November 2 edition of the magazine, “Hope Springs Eternal: Assessing a Young Presidency,” Quindlen proposed:

This is a country that often has transformational ambitions but is saddled with an incremental system, a nation built on revolution, then engineered so the revolutionary can rarely take hold.

Checks and balances: that’s how we learn about it in social-studies class, and in theory it is meant to guard against a despotic executive, a wild-eyed legislature, an overweening judiciary. And it’s also meant to safeguard the rights of the individual…But what our system has meant during the poisonous partisan civil war that has paralyzed Washington in recent years is that very little of the big stuff gets done. It simply can’t.

— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
+

---

New York Times: Illustrating the Definition of “Media Bias”

It’s funny how the New York Times (and other left leaning “news” outlets just like them) suddenly finds a conscience about reporters speaking at politically oriented functions.  I guess it’s only OK for liberals to do it.  Even more so if it’s speaking out against George W. Bush.

Hypocrites.

---

http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/articles/2009/20091030123419.aspx?print=on

Times Suddenly Concerned About Journalists at Partisan Political Events

By: Clay Waters

October 30, 2009 12:21 ET

Media reporter Brian Stelter’s Metro section story on Wednesday, “Newsman to Speak at Events of Group Opposed to Health Care Plan,” tackled the apparent journalistic no-no of John Stossel, the libertarian journalist who recently moved to Fox Business from ABC News.

Stelter suggested that Stossel’s scheduled appearance in front of a conservative group is a rare foray of a journalist into a partisan political event that vindicates the White House’s attacks on Fox News.

John Stossel, the newest star of the Fox Business Network, is also starring this week at a series of events orchestrated by opponents of a Democratic health care overhaul.

On Thursday Mr. Stossel is expected to speak at three forums hosted by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group, in three cities. The group’s Web site says Mr. Stossel and others will “debate solutions and discuss the dangers of government-forced health care” at the forums.

The unusual appearances come at a time when the sister network to Fox Business, the Fox News Channel, is facing fierce criticism from the White House and its allies. In recent days critics have leaped on Mr. Stossel’s speaking engagements as the latest evidence of conservative bias on the part of Fox, a unit of the News Corporation. The Obama administration has cast the network as a part of the political opposition.

Most news organizations discourage participation at partisan political events. In its publicity material for the forums, Americans for Prosperity identifies Mr. Stossel a “veteran journalist.” But Fox says Mr. Stossel is not a part of its hard news division; rather, he is an analyst and host.

In its responses to the White House and other critics, Fox has said there are differences between its journalists and its opinion program hosts. But the Obama administration and others have asserted that those lines are regularly blurred.

Stelter put the burden on Fox News to justify not being attacked by the full force of the White House:

Greg Sargent, a blogger for the Web site whorunsgov.com, a Washington Post Company Web site, wrote last week that Mr. Stossel would be effectively working “as a political activist” by attending the forums, and said it “doesn’t seem like great timing” given Fox’s feud with the White House.

Mark Feldstein, an associate professor of journalism at the George Washington University, said the relationship between Mr. Stossel and a partisan group was “pretty shameful” by traditional journalistic standards. “But I guess we’re no longer in an age of tradition,” he said.

One journalist not mentioned: Former Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse, who marched in a pro-choice rally in April 1989. According to a contemporaneous story in the Washington Post, Greenhouse was unaware Times policy states that “staff members avoid employment or any undertakings, obligations, relationships or investments that create or appear to create a conflict of interest with their professional work for the Times.”  (Unaware?  Yeah, right.  If this was the first she had heard of the policy, then why did she repeat her “mistake” at the rally below?  Hypocrite.)

And, in June 2006, Greenhouse ripped the Bush administration to shreds at a Harvard address, claiming “our government had turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and other places around the world. And let’s not forget the sustained assault on women’s reproductive freedom and the hijacking of public policy by religious fundamentalism.”

Yet Greenhouse continued to cover abortion issues for the Times until her retirement in 2008.

---

 

Obama’s Narcissistic Rage

Talk about the nuts running the asylum…  People suffering this severely from serious psychosis need to be institutionalized, not be put in charge.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/narcissistic_rage_in_the_white_1.html

Return to the Article

October 28, 2009

Narcissistic Rage in the White House

By James Lewis

The term “narcissistic rage” gets 26,000 citations in Google Scholar. It is a common feature of extreme or pathological narcissism.

While psychiatrists often say they can’t do long-distance diagnosis, it really isn’t that hard if you have a lot of information about a person and can watch how he operates from day to day. Intelligence agencies around the world have psychiatric staffs for exactly that purpose.

While most people are pretty hard to predict, extreme narcissists are comparatively simple. They constantly hunger for ego gratification (sounds like a certain always-in-the-spotlight president I know), they are immature (constantly lashing out at those who disagree with him), constantly need to demonstrate their own superiority (or perceived superiority), often need endless sexual conquests (like Bill Clinton), are manipulative (right again), constant liars (NAILED IT!), are completely cold about the human beings they harm (like John Edwards), and they deal with frustration by uncontrollable fits of rage.  (the classic clinical description of “pathological narcissism” describes Barack Hussein Obama to a T)

I think that’s what we saw last week with the White House lashing out at Fox News.

According to the New York Times,

“Speaking privately at the White House on Monday with a group of columnists and commentators, including Rachel S. Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert of The New York Times,

President Obama himself gave vent to sentiments about the (Fox) network, according to people briefed on the conversation… ” (italics added).  (“Waaahhh, waaahhh, waaahhh!  Those mean people disagree with me!  I’m going to beat them up!)

So Obama didn’t even keep this thing on background. He allowed himself to be quoted in his favorite rag, the New York Times. Dowd, Maddow, Herbert, and Rich did their part by going into attack-dog mode against conservatives. They know exactly what Obama needs and wants, and to keep in good stead with this White House, they feed that hungry ego with the most outrageous flattery and imitation.

It is a perfect symbiosis. Obama is easy to manipulate, and liberal commentators are used to demonize the opposition. They’ve all been raised on Rules for Radicals.

Obama’s thin skin is shared by his coterie. US News and World Report wrote:

Team Obama was pushed over the brink by a growing list of what it considered outrageous anti-Obama conduct by Fox that showed no sign of stopping. Obama’s advisers say that they seethed while Fox commentators used their shows to encourage protests against Obama’s healthcare proposals last summer. Team Obama fumed as Fox personalities tried to pressure some controversial Obama advisers to resign.

White House officials say that Fox has continued to stir the pot against Obama in a regular pattern — raising a criticism, having Republican congressional leaders comment on it, and then using those comments to keep the criticism alive.  (In other words, Fox News was doing EXACTLY what journalists are supposed to do.  They are supposed to be skeptical, supposed to question EVERYONE, and supposed to verify EVERYTHING.)

A break point came when Fox tried to create the impression that angry anti-Obama protesters at congressional town hall meetings last summer signaled that Obama’s healthcare proposals were dying, a story line that other news organization picked up. White House officials say this was untrue, that those proposals were not dying at all.

Another break point came when Fox commentator Chris Wallace called White House officials “crybabies.” A senior Obama adviser tells U.S. News that White House staffers developed “a growing realization” that the president would never get a fair shake from Fox.  (To Obama and his zOmbies, it’s only fair if it’s what Obama thinks and wants you to say.)

Notice the need to have total obedience from the whole press. Fox News is a small part of the total media, but they’ve driven the Obees into a fit. Of course, every single president in American history has been targeted by the media, and generally much, much worse than Obama has. Take George W. Bush, for example. (But I forgot…Bush was Evil, and Obama is Good.  Well, that explains it.)

Last week’s coordinated Obama attack on Fox News made no PR sense. Fox increased its viewership by 10%. Obama lost points in the polls; you can give the American people only so many demonstrations of the Chicago Way before they figure out you aren’t the Great Healer after all.

Obama is far and away the biggest and most naïve narcissist in living memory to occupy the White House. He hasn’t been smoothed and polished by years of deal-making in the Senate like LBJ. The outrage looks like it was just an uncontrollable expression of who Obama and his crew are. If we get more of this, Obama’s carefully buffed sheen will be permanently damaged for the saner 70% of the population. The other 30% will always fall for him anyway.

Pathological narcissism is a reflection of weakness, not strength. Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics points out how much of it has been happening in less than a year of this administration, including months of a honeymoon period. Obama constantly uses wild and irresponsible accusations against his perceived enemies. Bevan writes:

In the first nine months in office President Obama and/or members of his administration have accused doctors of performing unnecessary medical procedures for profit; demonized bond holders as ‘speculators’; produced a report suggesting military veterans are prone to becoming right wing extremists; attacked insurance companies and threatened them with legislative retribution; ridiculed talk show hosts and political commentators by name from the White House podium; dismissed and demeaned protesters and town hall attendees as either unauthentic or fringe characters; maligned a white police officer for arresting a black man without knowing the facts of the case; launched an orchestrated campaign to marginalize the country’s biggest pro-business group; and publicly declared war on a news organization.

When Obama runs into brick walls, he seems to reflexively go into a state of rage. Bill Clinton was the same way, and so was LBJ. But Clinton and LBJ had a lot of time to learn to moderate their own worst instincts. The best thing that ever happened to Bill Clinton as president was the election of the Gingrich Congress in 1994, which forced him to deal with reality. Jimmy Carter has been on a constant narcissistic revenge campaign since he lost to Ronald Reagan and never got a second term. It explains a lot about Jimmy’s amazing destructiveness against his favorite whipping boy, Israel.

The same thing will happen to Obama if and when he loses the election in 2012. Since narcissists in power keep people around them in a constant state of fear — everybody gets targeted and feels insecure — you can expect a ton of dirty tricks in elections to come. But then Democrats constantly use dirty tricks.

I fear two things with Obama. One is if the GOP fails to elect a House majority in 2010 to keep Obama within the bounds of sanity. A GOP majority is essential for the safety of the country and the world. But even if Obama is defeated in 2012, he will just turn into an angrier version of Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. He will haunt the political future of this country as long as he is alive, because that famished ego never gets enough. Malignant narcissism often gets worse over time. And on the Left and among blacks, Obama will still have love and adoration enough to keep him supplied. He is an easy target for flattery by the Saudis, even the Iranians — in fact, by all the real enemies we have.

So even if the voters throw out this very dangerous cult-like administration, you can expect Obama to be popping up in our politics for years to come. He will haunt the Democrats, which might be a good thing. But he will haunt the United States as well, even if he is defeated in 2012.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/narcissistic_rage_in_the_white_1.html at October 30, 2009 – 03:02:26 PM EDT

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Just the Fax, Senator.

My latest letter to our pole-iticians.  It was faxed to every senator that published a fax number on his/her web page, as well as the news outlets listed in the CC block.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

September 27, 2009

From:     xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Transparency, Healthcare, Tyranny, and the Relevance of the House and Senate

To:          All Members of the United States Senate

Cc:          xxxxxxxxx, New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Roger Hedgecock, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity

Senators,

It is with a heavy heart that I write this letter.  As the polls taken all over the country indicate, Americans increasingly do not trust Mr. Obama, and we increasingly do not trust you.  You may ask why this may be so.  Let me scratch the surface.

During his campaign, Mr. Obama promised “transparency.”  He promised that everything about his administration would be out in the open for all to see.  All of you applauded.  What has been the reality since the election of Mr. Obama?  We have an $800 billion non-stimulating stimulus package that was crammed down our throats with lots of back room deals and cloak-and-dagger secrecy.  The promised review periods?  Never happened.  “Czar” and cabinet appointments?  Secret appointments of unknown, un-vetted people who would never be able to get a job in our government if there were any investigation of their backgrounds.  Now you are racing to pass legislation which on its face is excessively burdensome, and at its core is unconstitutional.  Many of you insult us and say we don’t need time to read the bill because it’s too complex for us to understand.  Many of you call those of us who question the need for this bill “racist,” “Nazis,” “un-American,” or worse.  Some of you stir up fear and say if we don’t act now, millions will die.  Similar hollow promises and threats were made when many House and Senate members were hoodwinked into voting for the stimulus bill.  We were promised that the unemployment would not go above 8%, and that the economy would immediately turn around if we let you spend this $800 billion dollars.  You lied.  Even worse, most of the money in the bill is not stimulus related.  It is mostly political payoff and pork.  Recently a few of you actually listened to your constituents and have pushed for an amendment that would require the bill to be available for public review for 3 days before any vote on it.  Once again, those of you seeking power for yourselves at the expense of American taxpayers sent us a loud and clear message.  You think that we work for you.  You think we just need to be quiet because you are smarter than any of us and therefore know better than we do what is good for America.  Those of you who voted to continue lying to Americans know who you are, and so do we.

As you continue to push for this massive reform of healthcare, and ultimately a government takeover of the entire system, any rational person must ask “why?”  If the baby’s bath water is cold and/or dirty, you simply change the water.  You are throwing out the baby and keeping the dirty water.  It would take me more pages than you will ever read to dissect what is wrong with the reform bill(s) being shoved through the house and senate right now.  You haven’t read any legislation passed in the last year (maybe more), so why would I expect you to read this letter.  The one thing all of us can agree on is that healthcare costs are too high.  Why?  Two primary reasons: (1) government involvement, and (2) trial lawyers.  Yet what does this bill do?  It has the government that can’t run the Post Office, or manage the government run healthcare we already have take over even more of the healthcare industry, and it ignores tort reform.  Then there are the simple economic principles of supply and demand.  Because even today you will not allow doctors to refuse ANYONE healthcare if they show up at a hospital (especially illegal aliens), and you allow many frivolous lawsuits against those doctors and hospitals with outrageous settlements, you have driven, and will drive more of the BEST doctors from practice.  There will be millions more people to be covered under your mandatory plan and fewer doctors to treat them.  It doesn’t add up to anything but healthcare rationing, and a lower quality of healthcare.  Who will decide who gets healthcare and who does not?  Under this bill, it will be you.  Even if I can afford better healthcare, you will not allow me to get it.  Yet to add insult to injury, since you are all so superior to the rest of us, you will not be forced to take part in this abortion of a plan.  What should put the final nail in the coffin of this plan is the fact that we will have no choice in whether or not we buy the government healthcare.  We will be fined $1,900 to $25,000 if we don’t buy government healthcare, or face jail time.  We are told that our taxes will not go up, yet the IRS is the primary enforcement agent of this plan.  Something rotten in Denmark (or Washington), wouldn’t you say?  Do you see why so many Americans are angry about this?  I didn’t think so.

The way you are treating Americans amounts to tyranny.  For those of you who haven’t read the definition, it means the arbitrary or unrestrained despotic exercise and abuse of power or authority.  Here’s the funniest part about this.  Those of you abusing your positions actually think you will matter when all is said and done.  In reality you are being used as useful idiots.  Do you remember the “czars” I mentioned earlier?  With his use of the “czars” and several other slashes he has taken at the constitution, Mr. Obama is rendering you irrelevant.  As soon as he gets what he wants, you will all no longer matter.  And you are the ones letting it happen.  Sadly, what is worse is that we the people will no longer have the government our founding fathers envisioned which worked FOR the people.  Nor will we have the chance to peacefully continue or regain it.

I will end with words from the Declaration of Independence, words which reflect the brilliance of our founding fathers to those who love freedom.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. …”

I will also remind you of the oath of office that you swore upon taking office.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Mr. or Ms. Senator, it is my duty and our duty as Americans to do whatever is necessary to preserve our constitution, our freedom, our republic, and our way of life.  An increasing number of Americans are becoming aware of that responsibility with each passing day.  We will fight to the end to preserve these things.  The only question is whether we will do it with or without your help.

Sincerely,

/// SIGNED ///

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Axis of Idiots

I love Marines. If a fraction of our politicians were this honest, we’d be in pretty good shape. Oh, I forgot. We’re not allowed to say “terrorism” anymore. According to Janet Napolitano and Obama we have to call it “Man-caused disasters.” My bad. I say we let the Marines take Capitol Hill, make a mountain of all the corrupt politicians, and plant the flag squarely in Barney Franks keester. Maybe we should pick someone else for the top of the pile. Barney might enjoy it too much.

THOSE MARINES HAVE A WAY WITH THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, DON’T THEY??
________________________________________

Too bad we don’t have folks on Capitol Hill willing to speak out like this. J.D. Pendry is a retired Marine Sergeant Major who writes for Random House. He is eloquent, and as taught by the Marines, he seldom beats around the bush!

‘THE Axis of Idiots’

Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the U.S.S. Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam . Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You’ve accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq . You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam . You’re a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can’t win militarily in Iraq . You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa . Okinawa , John ? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You’re not a Marine, sir. You wouldn’t amount to a good pimple on a real Marine’s butt. You’re a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John .

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot , who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run..

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi’s torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated another beheading for you.. If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there.. You’re a bloated, drunken fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers – the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers – cause to think that we’ll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.

American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are America ‘s ‘AXIS OF IDIOTS.’ Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don’t ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam . If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it..

Our country has two enemies:Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.

Semper Fi,

J. D. Pendry – Sergeant Major, USMC, Retired