this time of year, I sometimes hear from parents who have been appalled
to learn that the child they sent away to college to become educated
has instead been indoctrinated with the creed of the left. They often
ask if I can suggest something to have their offspring read over the
summer, in order to counteract this indoctrination.
This year the answer is a no-brainer. It is a book with the unwieldy
title, No Matter What ...They'll Call This Book Racist by Harry Stein, a
writer for what is arguably America's best magazine, City Journal. In a
little over 200 very readable pages, the author deftly devastates with
facts the nonsense about race that dominates much of what is said in the
media and in academia.
There is no subject on which lies and half-truths have become so much
the norm on ivy-covered campuses than is the subject of race. Moreover,
anyone who even questions these lies and half-truths is almost certain
to be called a "racist," especially in academic institutions which
loudly proclaim a "diversity" that is confined to demographics, and all
but forbidden when it comes to a diversity of ideas.
The ultimate irony is that many of those who publicly promote or
accept the prevailing party line on race do not themselves accept it
privately. A few years ago, when a faculty vote on affirmative action
was proposed at the University of California at Berkeley, there was a
fierce disagreement as to whether that vote should be taken by secret
ballot or at an open faculty meeting.
Both sides understood that many professors would vote one way in
secret and the opposite way in public. In short, hypocrisy is the norm
in discussions of race -- and not just at Berkeley. Moreover, it is the
norm among blacks as well as whites.
Black civil rights attorneys and activists who denounce whites for
objecting to the busing of kids from the ghetto into their neighborhood
schools have not hesitated to send their own children to private
schools, instead of subjecting them to this kind of "diversity" in the
As for whites, author Harry Stein says that many white liberals "give
blacks a pass on behaviors and attitudes they would regard as
unacceptable and even abhorrent in their own kind." This, of course, is
no favor to those particular blacks -- especially those among young
ghetto blacks whose counterproductive behavior puts them on a path that
leads nowhere but to welfare, at best, and behind bars or death in
gangland street warfare at worst.
In the introduction to his book, Stein says that his purpose is "to
talk honestly about race." He accomplishes that purpose in a fact-filled
book that should be a revelation, especially to young people of any
race, who have been fed a party line in schools and colleges across
He looks behind the highly sanitized picture of Al Sharpton, as a
civil rights statesman with his own MSNBC program and his designation as
a White House adviser, to the factual reality of a man with a trail of
slime that has included inciting mobs, in some cases costing innocent
Positive news also receives its due. Some readers of this book may be
surprised to learn that the ban on racial preferences in the University
of California system did not lead to a disappearance of blacks from the
system, as the supporters of affirmative action claimed would happen.
On the contrary, more blacks graduated from the system after the ban
-- for the very common sense reason that they were now admitted to
University of California campuses where they qualified, rather than to
places like UCLA and Berkeley, where they had often been admitted to
fill a quota, and often failed.
Stein's book is also one of the few places where many young people
will see the actual words of people like Bill Cosby, Shelby Steele, Pat
Moynihan and others who have opposed the fashionable platitudes that
confuse racial issues.
Whether those words convince all readers is not the point. The point,
especially for young readers in our schools and colleges, is that this
may be one of the few times they will ever encounter a fundamentally
different set of views on race -- views that they have only heard
referred to as coming from "Uncle Toms" or "racists."
JOHN McCAIN IGNORED VOTER
FRAUD TO AVOID CIVIL UNREST.
Leaked emails from the intelligence group Stratfor recently revealed some shocking allegations of massive Democrat voter
fraud in 2008. The emails revealed by WikiLeaks say that the McCain campaign
decided to ignore the wide spread voter fraud in order to avoid massive civil
unrest — even though it meant he’d lose the White House.
The emails say that Democrats were caught “stuffing ballot boxes in Philly
and Ohio,” but the McCain
campaign decided to let it all go.
After discussions with his inner circle, which explains the delay
in his speech, McCain decided not to pursue the voter fraud in PA and Ohio,
despite his staff’s desire to make it an issue. He said no. Staff felt they
could get a federal injunction to stop the process. McCain felt the crowds
assembled in support of Obama and such would be detrimental to our country and
it would do our nation no good for this to drag out like last go around,
coupled with the possibility of domestic violence.
J. Christian Adams, a former United States Department of Justice official, notes how fraught with danger these revelations are.
With the blessings of hindsight, we see that fear of mob violence
in our country is no longer a hypothetical in the mind of a presidential
candidate. The call by the New Black Panther Party in Sanford,
Florida, to seize (or kill) a
private citizen is no longer the stuff of a senator’s imagination.
Adams was the member of the Justice Dept. that
revealed to the world that Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, decided not
to prosecute the obvious law breaking perpetrated in Philadelphia
by the Black Panthers during the 2008 general election.
Adams feels we are an inch away from major civil unrest as Democrats look to
increase voter fraud in order to keep control in Washington and attempt to get
away with it by using the threat of civil unrest to intimidate Republicans into
turning a blind eye to it all… OR ELSE.
This is exactly the sort of law breaking we’ve come to expect from the
Democrat Party. It will get worse before it gets better but that doesn’t
mean we should ignore it.
Supreme Court casts doubt on Obama’s
immigration law claim
From The Washington Times
Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration's claim
that it can stop Arizona from
enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument
Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict
The court was hearing arguments on Arizona's
immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration
status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write
new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.
The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict
with the federal government's role in setting immigration policy, but justices
on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument.
"It seems to me the federal government just doesn't want to know who's
here illegally," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.
The Arizona law requires all
police to check with federal officials if they suspect someone is in the
country illegally. The government argues that is OK when it's on a limited
basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is
essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has
limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it
gets about possible illegal immigrants.
"These decisions have to be made at the national level," he said.
But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.
"I'm terribly confused by your answer," said Justice Sonia
Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to
pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona
The Obama administration was on its firmest ground when it argued Arizona
should not be allowed to impose state penalties such as jail time against
illegal immigrants who try to seek jobs.
Federal law chiefly targets employers, not employees, and Mr. Verrilli said
adding stiffer penalties at the state level is not coordination. He said
Congress's 1986 immigration law laying out legal penalties was meant to be a
comprehensive scheme, and Congress left employees untouched — and Justice
Sotomayor seemed to agree.
"It seems odd to think the federal government is deciding on employer
sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees," she told
Paul D. Clement, who argued the case on behalf of Arizona.
A decision is expected before the end of the court's term this summer.
Only eight justices were present for
the arguments. Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably
because she was the Obama administration's solicitor general in 2010, when the
law was being debated in Arizona.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure into law, was present for the
arguments, as were members of Congress who follow the immigration issue: Rep.
Zoe Lofgren of California, the
top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, and Rep. Steve King, an
Iowa Republican who has fought for an immigration crackdown.
Critics have said the law, known as SB 1070, will lead to racial profiling
of Hispanics in Arizona. But the
Obama administration has not challenged the law on those grounds, instead
focusing on issues of federal versus state power.
Mr. Verrilli said Arizona's
goal is to try to force the federal government to change its priorities, but he
said those policies are designed at the national level in order to balance
concerns over available resources and international relations.
"What [Arizona is] going
to do is engage effectively in mass incarceration," he said. "It
poses a very serious risk of raising serious foreign relations problems."
Some of the justices, including Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., seemed
concerned that allowing police to perform immigration checks could end up
leading citizens being held even longer during stops by police.
Mr. Clement said the law still complies with the Fourth Amendment's limits
on unreasonable searches.
Anticipating an unfavorable ruling, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a New York
Democrat who is a critic of the Arizona
law, said Tuesday that if the court does uphold the state's law, he will
introduce legislation to overturn that decision and grant the federal
government sole control on immigration matters.
Mr. Schumer's legislation would also overturn a 2011 Supreme Court case that
upheld a separate Arizona law
that requires all businesses in the state to check employees' legal status
using E-Verify, the federal government's electronic verification system.
In that instance Congress specifically left open the chance for states to
pass their own business licensing laws, and in a 5-3 ruling the justices upheld
Since Arizona passed its laws,
other states have followed suit. Local enforcement laws have been adopted in a
half-dozen states, though all have been challenged in court. Still states have
adopted requirements that businesses use E-Verify.
IT IS NOW A FELONY TO PROTEST
IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS ROYAL MAJESTY KING BARRY THE FIRST.
This is a new law signed by Obama in early
March 2012 which makes it illegal to protest in his presence. Regardless of where you stand politically,
this is very scary. This sounds more like Nazi Germany than The United States we use to know.
The law means that wherever Obama is you do not have a right to ask him
anything you want to. His secret service
can have you arrested, fined, and imprisoned for more than a YEAR if you ask
him something he doesn't like or doesn't want to answer. Watch this video and send the link to this blog post to every freedom loving person you know.
IF you know me, or have been reading my blog for a while,
then you probably know I am a big fan of Thomas Sowell
WHO IS RACISTBy
Whatever the ultimate outcome of the case against George
Zimmerman for his shooting of Trayvon Martin, what has happened already is
enough to turn the stomach of anyone who believes in either truth or justice.
An amazing proportion of the media has given us a painful demonstration of
the thinking -- and lack of thinking -- that prevailed back in the days of the
old Jim Crow South, where complexion counted more than facts in determining how
people were treated.
One of the first things presented in the media was a transcript of a
conversation between George Zimmerman and a police dispatcher. The last line in
most of the transcripts shown on TV was that of the police dispatcher telling
Zimmerman not to continue following Trayvon Martin.
That became the basis of many media criticisms of Zimmerman for continuing
to follow him. Only later did I see a transcript of that conversation on the
Sean Hannity program that included Zimmerman's reply to the police dispatcher:
That reply removed the only basis for assuming that Zimmerman did in fact
continue to follow Trayvon Martin. At this point, neither I nor the people who
assumed that he continued to follow the teenager have any basis in fact for
believing that he did or didn't.
Why was that reply edited out by so many in the media? Because too many
people in the media see their role as filtering and slanting the news to fit
their own vision of the world. The issue is not one of being "fair"
to "both sides" but, more fundamentally, of being honest with their
NBC News carried the editing even further, removing one of the police
dispatcher's questions, to which Zimmerman was responding, in order to feed the
vision of Zimmerman as a racist.
In the same vein were the repeated references to Zimmerman as a "white
Hispanic." Zimmerman is half-white. So is Barack Obama. But does anyone
refer to Obama as a "white African"?
All these verbal games grow out of the notion that complexion tells you who
is to be blamed and who is not. It is a dangerous game because race is no game.
If the tragic history of the old Jim Crow South in this country is not enough
to show that, the history of racial and ethnic tragedies is written in blood in
countries around the world. Millions have lost their lives because they looked
different, talked differently or belonged to a different religion.
In the midst of the Florida
tragedy, there was a book published with the unwieldy title, "No Matter
What ... They'll Call This Book Racist." Obviously it was written well
before the shooting in Florida,
but its message -- that there is rampant hypocrisy and irrationality in public
discussions of race -- could not have been better timed.
Author Harry Stein, a self-described "reformed white liberal,"
raised by parents who were even further left, exposes the illogic and outright
fraudulence that lies behind so much of what is said about race in the media,
in politics and in our educational institutions.
He asks a very fundamental question: "Why, even after the Duke
University rape fiasco, does the
media continue to give credence to every charge of racism?"
Harry Stein credits Shelby Steele's book "White Guilt" with
opening his eyes to one of the sources of many counterproductive things said
and done about race today -- namely, guilt about what was done to blacks and
other minorities in the past.
Let us talk sense, like adults. Nothing that is done to George Zimmerman --
justly or unjustly -- will unlynch a single black man who was tortured and
killed in the Jim Crow South for a crime he didn't commit.
Letting hoodlums get away with hoodlumism today does not undo a single
injustice of the past. It is not even a favor to the hoodlums, for many of whom
hoodlumism is just the first step on a path that leads to the penitentiary, and
maybe to the execution chamber.
Winston Churchill said, "If the past sits in judgment on the present,
the future will be lost." He wasn't talking about racial issues, but what
he said applies especially where race is involved.
USAID training foreign workers for
From The Daily Caller
While the president has been urging “insourcing,” the government has been
sending money to the Philippines
to train foreign workers for jobs in English-speaking call centers.
According to New York Democratic Rep. Tim Bishop and North Carolina
Republican Rep. Walter Jones, this is unacceptable and “shocking.”
The pair are calling on the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) to immediately suspend what is known as the Job Enabling English
Proficiency (JEEP) program.
According to Jones’ office, in 2010, after the two men compelled USAID to
end a similar training program in Sri Lanka,
the agency assured the congressmen that they would “conduct a review to ensure
the project will not take any jobs away from Americans.”
In a letter to the USAID administrator, Rajiv Shah, Bishop and Jones
expressed their displeasure at learning of the effort they thought the agency
had explicitly promised against.
“I believe it was reasonable to conclude from that statement that your
agency’s outsourcing training program was terminated, particularly in light of
President Obama’s ‘insourcing’ initiative announced earlier this year,” the
pair wrote. “Therefore, I was shocked to learn that USAID has used taxpayer
dollars to invest in outsourcing training programs in the Philippines
at the expense of American workers.”.
According to Bishop, more than 4.5 million Americans currently work in call
centers, but since 2007 more than 500,000 call center jobs have been outsourced
to foreign countries.
Business Week broke the story about the JEEP program this
week. According to Business Week, the program is part of the Growth and Equity
in Mindanao (GEM) initiative, which costs
$100 million annually.
“The JEEP program was developed to promote peace and stability in Mindanao
by teaching English to youth in conflict-prone areas to help them pursue
gainful employment in tourism, nursing and other locally-based industries and
to break the cycle of violence which had gripped that region of the
Philippines,” a USAID spokesperson told Business Week, adding that it is set to
expire at the end of the year.
The congressmen want it gone yesterday.
“Using Americans’ hard-earned taxpayer dollars to fund the training of
foreign nationals to take our jobs is absolutely crazy and totally unacceptable,”
Jones said in a statement. “Uncle Sam is over $15 trillion in debt and
unemployment is still elevated because of policies like this, and it’s got to
The pair pledged in their letter to “use every legislative option available
to permanently prohibit USAID from engaging in such practices in the future.”
“I support the international development mission of USAID but my top
priority is protecting American jobs and American taxpayers,” Bishop concluded.
“I anticipate working closely with USAID in a bipartisan manner to ensure that
none of its programs overseas will hurt workers here at home.”
Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the
image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim
that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural
born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is
“irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.
Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that
Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in
order to be a candidate.
Hummm..I wonder if the Constitution is required reading in law school.
George Everett " Bud " Day(born February 24, 1925) is a retired
U.S. Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot who served during the
Vietnam War. He is often cited as being the most decorated U.S.
Service member since General Douglas MacArthur, having
received some seventy decorations, a majority for actions
Day is a recipient of the Medal of Honor.
I got shot down over N Vietnam in 1967, a Sqdn. Commander.
After I returned in 1973....I published 2 books that dealt a lot
with "real torture" in Hanoi. Our
make-believe president is
branding our country as a bunch of torturers when he has
no idea what torture is.
As for me, I was put thru a mock execution because I would not respond...
Pistol whipped on the head....same event.. Couple of days later...
hung by my feet all day. I escaped and a
couple of weeks later, I got
shot and recaptured. Shot was OK...what
happened afterwards was not.
They marched me to Vinh...put me in the rope trick, trick...almost
pulled my arms out of the sockets. Beat me on the head with a
little wooden rod until my eyes were swelled shut, and my unshot,
unbroken hand a pulp.
Next day hung me by the arms....rebroke my right wrist...wiped
out the nerves in my arms that control the hands....rolled my fingers
up into a ball. Only left the slightest movement of my L forefinger.
so I started answering with some incredible lies.
Sent me to Hanoi strapped to a barrel of gas in the back of a truck.
Hanoi ..on my knees....rope trick again. Beaten by a big
Into leg irons on a bed in Heartbreak Hotel.
Much kneeling--hands up at Zoo.
Really bad beating for refusing to condemn Lyndon Johnson.
Several more kneeling events. I could see my knee bone thru
There was an escape from the annex to the Zoo. I was the Senior
officer of a large building because of escape...they started a mass
torture of all commanders.
I think it was July 7, 1969..they started beating me with a car fan belt.
In first 2 days I took over 300 strokes...then stopped counting
because I never thought I would live thru it.
They continued day-night torture to get me to confess to a non-existent
part in the escape. This went on for at least 3 days. On my knees...
fan belting...cut open my scrotum with fan belt stroke. Opened up
both knee holes again. My fanny looked like hamburger..I could not
lie on my back.
They tortured me into admitting that I was in on the escape...and
that my 2 room-mates knew about it.
The next day I denied the lie.
They commenced torturing me again with 3- 6- or 9 strokes of
the fan belt every day from about July 11 or 12th..to 14 October
1969. I continued to refuse
to lie about my roommates again.
Now, the point of this is that our make-believe
president has declared to the world that we (U.S..) are a bunch of
torturers...Thus it will be OK to torture us next time when they
catch us...because that is what the U.S Does.
Our make-believe president is a know nothing fool who thinks
that pouring a little water on some one's face, or hanging a pair of
women's pants over an Arabs head is TORTURE.. He is a meathead.
I just talked to MOH holder Leo Thorsness, who was also in my squadron,
in jail..as was John McCain...and we agree that McCain does
not speak for the POW group when he claims that Al Gharib was
torture...or that "water boarding" is torture.
Our president and those fools around him who keep bad mouthing
our great country are a disgrace to the United States.Please pass
this info on to Sean Hannity. He is free
to use it to point out the
stupidity of the claims that water boarding...which has no after
If it got the Arab to cough up the story about how he planned the attack on the
twin towers in NYC ...
Hurrah for the guy who poured the water!!
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz ripped Nugent’s comments, saying,
“Mitt Romney surrogate Ted Nugent made offensive comments about President Obama
and November’s elections this weekend that are despicable, deplorable and
completely beyond the pale.”
“We have more than 200 days to go in this election,” she added. “If the GOP
and Romney are willing to accept this kind of rhetoric at this stage of the
campaign, I can’t imagine what they’ll accept in September and October.”
Nugent responded by calling her a “brain-dead, soulless, heartless idiot,” and
her remarks merely encouraged him to stand stronger.
“This is the Saul Alinsky ‘Rules for Radicals’ playbook,” Nugent said. “The
Nazis and the Klan hate me. See, I’m a black Jew at a Nazi-Klan rally, and
there are some power-abusing corrupt monsters in our federal government that
despise me because I have the audacity to speak the truth to identify the
violations of our government, particularly Eric Holder and the president and
Tim Geithner, ad nauseam. And I spoke at the NRA and I will stand by my speech.
It was 100 percent positive.
“It’s about ‘We the People’ taking back our American dream from the corrupt
monsters in the federal government under this administration and the communist
czars he’s appointed. And if anybody has a problem with that, call
1-800-NUMBNUT and [leftist filmmaker] Michael Moore will try to explain it to
you as he searches for soap.”
Newly recently released tax documents reveal how billionaire
“philanthropist” George Soros expanded his U.S.-based empire by using funds
from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the
Obama stimulus. Soros and Obama worked hand-in-glove through the stimulus,
which has been called the largest single partisan wealth transfer in American
In 2010, tax records show that Soros, a convicted inside trader with
extensive knowledge of the American financial system and government policies
under Obama, deployed grantees from his Open Society Foundations1
to lobby for and acquire federal contracts for job training, green energy, and
community redevelopment programs. By gaining control over those
resources, Soros advanced his agenda for “green economics,” open borders, and
increased government handouts. In short, he grew his empire, which includes
much of the “progressive” movement in the U.S.,
as the federal government and Obama’s political constituencies grew in power
Anyone interested in learning more can read all about it here: