Tag Archives: Muslim

BACK TO RACISM

President Donald Trump was elected President of the United States five months ago. He was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States two and a half months ago. Yet, Democrats still can’t decide why their candidate, Hillary Roddam Clinton, wife of former president, beloved by all Democrats, Bill Clinton, lost.

During the presidential campaign, we heard all sorts of allegations of sexism, or the trendier term, misogyny, against those who did not support the Democrat nominee. Of course, for the eight previous years of Obama, we heard nothing but racism allegations against those who were not supportive of the 44th President of the United States. So, first it is racism for which the right is guilty, then enters candidate Clinton, and it is sexism for which the right is guilty.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. Does anybody focus on issues? It is evident that the Democrats are not focused on issues. Some of them do have enough smarts to know they cannot win on issues, but the rest of the Democrats are too ignorant to focus on the issues. So, there we go. I have called Democrats ignorant, and I am not taking it back. They are ignorant. Notice, I said ignorant, not stupid. If you do not know the difference, look it up in Webster’s.

An article came across my news feed from theintercept.com, a website with which I was not familiar, entitled: Top Democrats are Wrong: Trump Supporters were more Motivated by Racism than Economic Issues. Truth be known, I was not aware that Democrats were even entertaining the idea that their beloved Hillary Clinton lost the President election except for us racist, sexist Republicans.

According to the author of the article, Mehdi Hasan, Bernie Sanders, de facto leader of the Resistance stated, “Some people think that those who voted for Trump are racists, sexists, homophobes and deplorable folks.”

This statement was made at a rally in Boston, alongside socialist/communist Senator, Elizabeth Warren. Can’t believe that Fauxkahontas was silent on this one. Mr. Hasan does not agree with Senators Sanders and Fauxkahontas, I mean Warren. Hasan further indicates that, in the New York Times, three days after the November election, the Vermont Senator claimed that Trump voters were “expressing their fierce opposition to an economic and political system that puts wealthy and corporate interests over their own.”

Mr. Hasan feels that both Sanders and Fauxkahontas, I mean Warren, seem much keener to lay the blame at the feet of the dysfunctional Democratic Party and an ailing economy than at the feet of racist Republican voters. Hasan goes on to state that their deflection is not surprising, nor is their coddling of those who happily embraced an openly xenophobic candidate.

In his article, Hasan says that “He gets it,” and agrees that it is hard to accept that millions of their fellow citizens harbor what political scientists have identified as “racial resentment.” (I have not heard that term before.) He further acknowledges that the reluctance to admit that bigotry, and tolerance of bigotry, is still widespread in society is understandable. Hasan then asks the question, why would senior members of the Democratic leadership want to alienate millions of voters by dismissing them as racist bigots?

What did I get from the above? Some Democrats may be willing to justify Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump because Democrats are out of touch with middle-class America. With respect to the issues, including the economy, foreign policy, immigration, energy, the environment, and health care, Democrats are diametrically opposite to mainstream America, also known as the fly-over country. However, that is a mighty big but, other Democrats are continuing to hurl accusations of racism, sexism, and whatever else they can throw at those who disagree with them.

I was one of the first pundits to label Democrats/ liberals/progressives or whatever they want to call themselves these days as the “tolerant left.” I am sarcastic. The left is anything but open-minded and tolerant. Later Bill O’Reilly also used that term. Maybe I should have had it copyrighted.

As I have indicated in many of my writings, liberals are the real racists, hypocrites, liars, and bigots. If some left-winger hurls the racism accusation at me, I know that I have won the debate, the argument, or whatever. Liberals change the definition or racism to whatever suits their needs of the moment. If they cannot justify the hurling of other accusations at someone with whom they do not agree, they will resort to racism.

Hasan cites American National Election data and a “plethora” of studies that have concluded that since the start of the 2016 presidential campaign that the race was about race. Philip Klinkner, a political scientist at Hamilton College, and an expert on race relations (that’s what the article said), grabbed headlines last summer when he revealed that the best way to identify a Trump supporter was to ask that person if Obama was a Muslim.  If the person said yes and the person was white, 89% of the time that person would have a higher opinion of Trump than Clinton. So, anyone who thinks Obama is a Muslim and has white skin, probably a racist.

Wow! That’s what I call scientific.

Hasan also indicated that other surveys and polls of Trump voters found “a strong relationship between anti-black attitudes and support for Trump,” with rump supporters being more likely to describe African Americans as criminal, unintelligent, lazy, and violent. Also, Trump voters were most likely to believe that people of color are taking white jobs, and a majority of them rate blacks as less evolved than whites.

My regular readers know that I am from the state of Alabama and currently live in the Birmingham area. Yes, Birmingham, Alabama. I do not hear or observe any of the attitudes or statements that Mr. Hasan makes in the above paragraphs in this, the second half of the second decade of the twenty-first century. These attitudes may have been common in the late sixties/early to mid-seventies. But not now. Alternatively yet, maybe folks up north have these attitudes, but not here in the south.

Because Trump managed to win white votes regardless of age, gender, income, or education, racial identity and attitudes displaced class as the central battleground of American politics as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have espoused.

Hasan does cover the question, “how can racial resentment have motivated Trump supporters when so many of them voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012?” Klinkner covers that by stating that in 2016, Clinton, unlike Obama, faced a Republican candidate who pushed the buttons of race and nativism in open and explicit ways that John McCain and Mitt Romney were unwilling or unable to do. Did he? I followed the campaign closely, and it did not appear to me that Donald Trump was “pushing buttons of race and nativism in open and explicit ways.” The comments made about Mexicans who crossed the border illegally being criminals and rapists did not appear racist to me, nor did it to most conservatives. Liberals, of course, went ballistic, but what else is new?

So, based on the above notions, which are abstract at best, Mr. Hasan, concludes: “It isn’t the economy. It’s the racism, stupid.” But wait…is Mrs. Clinton not a white woman? Yes, Mrs. Clinton is indeed a white woman, who campaigned on continuing the policies of Barack Obama. So, if the voters, who overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama were pleased with the direction in which the country was heading, but just did not like Obama because of the color of his skin, they should be ecstatic that someone white was running and was promising to continue Obama-style governance.

Mr. Hasan’s reasoning is substantially flawed. Plus, these studies, which he sites sound bogus to me. Remember, though, Mr. Hasan is a liberal, and liberals do not have to be correct. They just have to say something over and over again until the fact that what they are saying is a lie no longer matters. It is now the truth. Liberals no longer have to be consistent. Being hypocritical is accepted in liberal land.

Are liberals ever going to stop hurling false accusations and those who do not agree with them? We all know the answer to that one. Are we ever going to get liberals to change? Of course not! Then why bother? Because we must continue to stand up for what is right. Standing down and letting the left continue to spout forth their lies and hypocrisies, allows them to win in the end.

Facebooktwitter

DISTURBING THINGS

The Paris attacks of November 13, 2015, of which ISIS has claimed credit, seem to have unleashed many disturbing things. The current president’s response to these attacks is unprecedented for any past leader of the free world. He has done nothing to insure the American people that he intends to carry out the oath he has taken twice where he swore to uphold the constitution of the United States of America, therefore, protect the Unites States and its citizens from harm. I’ve never commented on this, but I’m going to now. I am convinced that the president of the United States is either a Muslim or a strong Muslim sympathizer. There’s just too much evidence point the above. Every chance he has, he disses Christianity and tells us that we shouldn’t judge the Islam by the actions of a few. However, he has indicated that all conservatives/Republicans are his enemies and seems to be more energetic when disparaging conservatives/Republicans than when talking about the fight against terrorism as Rush Limbaugh opined when he was a guest on Fox News Sunday, November 22, 2015.

Also, on 11/22/2015, I read an article on WND.com by Paul Bremmer that further disturbs me and furthers my opinion that the current president of the United States is evil.

According to a recent study by a team of Italian researchers, if you think there might be something wrong with homosexuality, you may have a mental disorder. Discussing the study, lead researcher Emmanuele A. Jannini stated: “After discussing for centuries if homosexuality is to be considered a disease, for the first time we demonstrated that the real disease to be cured is homophobia, associated with potentially severe psychopathologies.”

According to Mr. Bremmer, the research team specifically found that psychoticism, immature defense mechanisms, and a fearful attachment style were associated with a greater homophobic attitude in individuals.

Bremmer goes on to indicate that award winning journalist and author David Kupelian was not surprised by this new study because he predicted exactly such developments in his latest book, “The Snapping of the American Mind.”

Kupelina predicted that the current obsession of the looney left, which dominates the social sciences, with pathologizing conservatives and Christians as ‘disordered’ would only accelerate.

We all know that those on the left would welcome any study that indicated conservatives had a mental disorders by the fact that they are conservative. They would say that study was sound and irrefutable. Then in order to protect conservatives from themselves and protect liberals from conservatives, perhaps conservatives should be rounded up and required to undergo various methods of treatment that could include sensitivity training, medication, and perhaps incarceration.

Kupelina has also revealed in his book that some researchers have endeavored to prove conservatives’ brains are structured differently. A 2010 study in the United Kingdom reported conservatives’ brains with larger amygdalas, the part of the brain associated with fear, anxiety, and emotion. In 2012, a University of Arkansas professor released a study linking conservative views to low brainpower, writing, “When under time pressure or otherwise cognitively impaired, people are more likely to express conservative views.

However, Kupelian revealed that contrary to what liberal social scientists might prefer, solid research has shown that those on the political left are far more likely to suffer from mental illness than those on the right.

Mr. Kupelina opines that the Obama administration seems most concerned about protecting the rest of the country from conservatives. And while conservatives had not yet been declared mentally ill, but the Department of Homeland Security released a report in 2009 warning of a rising domestic terrorist threat from rightwing extremism. Rightwing extremists, according the report, included returning military vetrans, people concerned about illegal immigration, constitutionalists, second amendment supporters, and pro-lifers, among others.

The old Soviet Union, as well as other communist/far-left governments demonized their ideological opponents and would put them in gulags for torture and eventual execution. While I believe that this is a long way from happening in the United States of America and I think a revolt would occur long before any of this would ever happen here, the left certainly does everything it can to destroy those who don’t tow the liberal line. And to be able to commit conservatives to mental institutions, medicate them to the point of submission, and taking away their right to vote and bear arms, is certainly a liberal’s dream.

Facebooktwitter

WILFULL IGNORANCE

According to allenbwest.com, former head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency under the current President, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn said the administration’s foreign policy approach has led to an “almost a complete breakdown of order in the Middle East” and described it with two harsh words: “willful ignorance.”

Willful means intentional and ignorance means without knowledge. So, the current President approaches foreign policy related to the Middle East, as someone who just doesn’t want to know what’s taking place there.

On January 3, 2014, newspapers reported that the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) had captured and raised its flag over Fallujah, where Marines in 2004 had fought one of the bloodiest battles of the Iraqi war. The Washington Post reported: “A rejuvenated al-Qadea-affiliated force asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah on Friday, raising its flag over government buildings and declaring an Islamic state in one of the most crucial areas that U.S. troops fought to pacify before withdrawing from Iraq over two years ago. The upheaval also affirmed the soaring capabilities of ISIS, the rebranded version of the al-Qaeda in Iraq organization that was formed a decade ago to confront U.S. troops and expanded into Syria last year while escalating its activities in Iraq.

The current President was asked where this was going now that al-Qaeda is resurgent in Iraq, Syria, and Africa by David Remnick of the New Yorker. His reply was as follows, “I think the analogy we user around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”

Mr. Remnick then indicated to the current President that the JV team he was describing just took over Fallujah. The President then responded, “But let’s just keep in mind, Fallujah is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology is a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.

In January 2014, the President viewed the situation in Iraq, particularly Fallujah as a local matter between jihadists, but now, the United States is striking ISIS targets in an effort to turn back its advance across Iraqi territory.

With the passage of time, the current President’s JV comment does look ignorant, so White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest is trying to cover up body odor with cheap perfume in suggesting that what is now known as the Islamic State was not the subject of the January 2014 conversation. In a Washington Post article, Glenn Kessler wrote that the context of Mr. Remnick’s question makes it clear that he was asking about ISIS.

The Middle East is a mess. In September 2014, the current President said that Yemen’s war on terror was a success. In January 2015, Shiite insurgents overran Yemen’s presidential palace, posing a coup-style threat to President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. The U.S. was forced to close its embassy in Yemen and embassy personnel had to flee the country.

Now, the Secretary of State, under the direction of the current President has completed talks with Iran regarding their nuclear program. According to various news sources, only the framework of an agreement has been negotiated. I can’t imagine anyone in their right mind would think that Obama’s deal would keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But we all remember, “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” So I was expecting the current President to at least say that it’s a good plan and that we would have to read it to see what was in it.

However, the current President is now admitting the deal does no such thing according to caintv.com. Caintv.com goes on to indicate that even assuming Iran’s complete cooperation with all of the alleged terms, even assuming to cheating, even assuming they allow inspections when our side says they’re warranted, and even assuming no covert sites spinning centrifuges, we’re looking at a nuclear Iran probably sometime in the next decade.

The current President promised us that Iran would not have a nuclear weapon while he was President. It looks like the President has done just that. There may not be a nuclear weapon under his watch, but his watch ends in less than two years. What about the next President? Did the current President merely kick the can down the road? If Iran does get a nuclear weapon in ten months, will the drive-by media allow the President to blame Barack Obama like Barack Obama has blamed George Bush for the last six plus years? The Obama approach is to remove all threats of military action, remove all economic sanctions, trust Iran to keep its work, and then sign a deal that even he doesn’t claim keeps them from getting the bomb.

This makes me knot up inside. What is this President doing to the United States of America? Do we really think that Iran is going to cooperate with the terms of this agreement? They’re not! What scares me even more, though, is that this President is, at least, an admirer of Islam. Some folks out there say that he’s Islamic and that he bows to the east. I’m not going to say he’s Islamic; I’m just going to say that he is an admirer of Islam. On several occasion, he has said that he is a Christian.

According to wnd.com, at a White House breakfast, Tuesday morning, April 7, the current President took a swipe at Christians, saying Christians are supposed to love all their neighbors, but that he sometimes hears less than loving expressions by Christians. That concerns him. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I do it all the time. Humans are sinful by nature. Before stepping off into it, the President did “pull back.”
Now what about all the things that Muslims say about their neighbors and all the threats that Muslims make? He didn’t mention that.

I’ve always said and I will continue to say that this President’s goals are not to strengthen the United States of America and continue to strive for exceptionalism; rather the goals of this President are to destroy the United States of America and all that it stands for. Could this Iranian nuclear deal possibly have been negotiated so that Iran would deliberately put off developing and deploying nuclear weapons until this President is out of office, and then? Can you say “Willful Ignorance?”

Facebooktwitter