Did "White Privilege" elect Mr. Obama?

It is difficult to get my head around exactly what people mean by the term, "white Privilege."  And worth a separate discussion in depth, but suffice it to say that right now I understand that it means that the lighter your skin...the more "white" you are...the more you are likely to succeed.

President Obama is half "white."  At least that is what I have read and been told.  So...do these people that espouse "white privilege" intend to indicate that it was the white half of Mr. Obama's lineage that got him elected, and not his striving and his accomplishments?  Because general statements that are proven to be true also hold up when brought down to the specific...and that is what we are talking about in this case: did, in fact, "white privilege" predestine that Mr. Obama would win the Presidency.  That seems absurd on the face of it:  his opponent was much lighter complexioned...although with a healthy tan, and in contrast Mr. Obama was darker.  If "White Privilege" is such an element of the failure of African-Americans to make more progress than so far accomplished, why and how is it explained in the face of Mr. Obama's election victories?

I must admit that this thought is NOT original with me; I heard the subject raised last night on "Red Eye Radio" and the concept leapt out into my brain, slept and broke out again this morning, yearning for release.

Another twist on this whole subject: suppose two African Americans are vying for the same position...private industry or public office...are we being told that automatically the lighter skinned one will get the job or be elected?  It seems to me that is what is being argued by those who claim every white person in America benefits improperly from "white privilege."

Also...does tanning count?  I mean, if one person has a deeper tan than another, does that mean that the pale one will win in an election for public office?

And...how does this concept account for the original proclamation that President Clinton was our first "black President?"  Does that mean that President Obama is now left with the historical footnote of being our first Muslim President?  The concept of guilt by skin complexion is murky at best...it would seem that letter grading wouldn't work...that we would have to make it a numerical system based on pigment density.  And...what would be the base line?  Do we need different base lines for different races, since they clearly do not start out equal.

Perhaps we can get the Global Climate Change folks investigating this...providing grant and government funding is available...

When did "citizens" get downgraded to second class status?

Way more than a half century ago I studied the Constitution.  It didn't excite me, failing as so many of my homework assignments were want to do, and while I now appreciate the assignment, as it helps me find particular sections more quickly.  When in school, the Constitution seems quite simple and quite clear: three branches of government, each with their separate responsibilities, and a check and balances element to keep the government from becoming the threat to individual liberty that Thomas Jefferson so deeply feared.

And the purpose of the Federal Government was to defend the Citizens and the borders of the United States of America, providing for the common defense and common good.

I spent some time looking through my dog-eared copy of the Constitution the other night, looking for the Amendment that vacated that last purpose.  I couldn't find it.  That still puzzles me, because it surely must have been repealed, or somehow eliminated.  Why?  Well, because the Federal Government is now taking steps to protect non-citizens as a priority over protecting citizens.  Apparently my citizenship now grants me second class status.  I think this is wrong.  I never heard any discussion about a change.  I was never consulted...or given an opportunity to vote on such a change.  So...why is it so.

Do I hear some of you saying "You are wrong; there has been no such change, ... what are you talking about!"?  Well...Consider the following factual points:

First: our borders are "protected" inadequately and those assigned to protect the border actually help and provide aid to people "sneaking" across and into our country;

Second: our federal administrative courts and tribunals release in the general public most of those apprehended with no certainty or, apparently, expectation that they will appear at their next scheduled court appearance and with no way of knowing where they might start looking for these people who are in our country illegally;

Third: while our economy is barely holding steady and we have millions of citizens who cannot find work in their fields or with the sufficient hours that would enable them to support their families, the Federal Government now is going to allow  a minimum of 5 million people who have come into the country illegally to get Social Security accounts and work permits so that they can compete head to head with the law-abiding citizens of this country.  Our President actually is defying Congress in this step to provide greater difficulty for citizens to find work and jobs that they so badly need;

Fourth: the federal government, when presented with State activity to protect their borders, their businesses, their roads, their homes from people present in their states illegally, prohibits and takes to court those states and prevents those states from protecting its citizens.

Fifth: the federal government provides aid...paid for by money paid in taxes by the citizens of this country...to those here without legal permission.

Now, maybe I just don't understand the situation.  However, absent a Constitutional Amendment that makes citizenship a second class existence, I am waiting for anyone in what is presumably MY (and every other citizen's) government to explain why I have been told to stand still while the welfare of non-citizens has been made a priority over my, and my family's, welfare.

Exactly when, and WHY,  did the cart get put in front of the horse?

Sharia Law

What I find so dangerous and insidious about Muslim Sharia law and Islamic attitudes generally is the assumptive trust that western liberal-progressives have in Islam. Sharia law is accepted by devout Muslims. They accept its absolute nature and the penalties dictated. Islam also calls for the elimination of non-believers where Muslims are ruling. This can be by conversion, demotion to a slave-like position in society, or by death.

What liberal-progressives hang their hats on is that the Qur'an calls for treating non-Muslims equally...the same as believers. They point to this as being proof of non-discrimination by Muslims toward other religions and other groups. And, technically, they are correct in this observation. But their reasoning is flawed. What this proves is that if Islam becomes a majority, they will apply Sharia law to everyone...equally.

That means that adultery and homosexuality, among others, will result in death. Theft will result in amputation of a limb. Women will have to wear various forms of the hijab, or more. So...there will be equal treatment...but not the preservation of different life styles. If they become a majority, they will not allow the Supreme Court or the Congress or the President to frustrate what they see to be their solemn duty as called for in the Qur'an...to insure the Islam is followed by all.

It is a mystery to me how progressive-liberals can remain so sanguine in the face of these facts. Is it that they believe that the Constitution, which they have so successfully suborned, will somehow have more force when it serves their purposes in defending against the Islamic goal? Can they be that obtuse and/or stupid? And I am confounded by the failure of those who instinctively sense the threat to not clearly enunciate the threat in the manner I have described...I haven't heard one analyst comment along the lines that I see so clearly. Am I that wrong? If so, I would dearly like someone to disabuse me of my belief. I would dearly like to be wrong.

Debating Ahmadinejad may be Obama's Best move

He does this every chance he gets, but Iran's President has once again offered to debate our President on...how did he phrase it...”to see who has the best solutions for the world's problems,” I think it was. He was quoted in a Reuters' article as saying, “Toward the end of summer we will hopefully be there for the (U.N.) General Assembly and I will be ready for one-on-one talks with Mr. Obama, in front of the media of course."

He has done this before, of course. Specifically, he challenged President Bush the same way. Of course, one of his statements in the course of the challenge included claiming
Bush was scared to talk, but Iran preferred it, “We have always favored talks, Iranians have never, ever favored war."

On the face of Iran's continued provable terrible record on civil rights, Ahmadinejad's statements and position is laughable, undeserving of response, much less serious consideration.

But...

Maybe...just maybe...President Obama should take on the challenge. Why? Well, things have not been going well for the President recently. He campaigns well, but people are starting to talk. Why isn't he staying in the Oval Office and improving the still stagnant recovery? Why haven't his promised improvements in job development happened? Why are we perhaps on the verge of a “double-dip” recession? And other questions, still un-asked by most of the media remain quietly considered by voters. He is clearly not an accomplished administrator, so staying in the office is not his best option. So...what to do?

Perhaps he could turn support for him into a patriotic thing. Take on Ahmadinejad directly...at the UN...in a debate. He could put the clear facts that Ahmadinejad denies into a presentation that would be an “in-your-face” moment that would rally all of America to his side...at last, the President standing up for the inherent exceptional-ism and good of America and, in the process, making the idiocy of the Iranian President's claims clear to all...once and for all.

Doesn't it sound great? Of course, it will take a bit of work and preparation. Mr. Obama will first need to get all of his facts in order, memorize those facts and be able to talk on them from many different points of view and in different contexts, all without the aid of a teleprompter...this, after all, will be a no-holds debate, not a formal speech. And he will need to get used to getting into the face of his opponent at close range, dealing with yelling and challenges coming from close range and being able to show his emotion while remaining in control of his argument and presentation while avoiding his proven tendency to calm others by giving them what they want...approval or silence. But...if he can get that part down pat...what a show that would be. Single-handedly, he could bring American's back on board his bandwagon...and he might find out that he likes it, that being and acting strong has more going for it than waiting for others to play "nice."

Just think of it...I had a dream...a President standing up for America and all that is right in the face of one of the proven rights-denying representatives of a dictatorial regime.

Someone should call Rahm.

Would a loss of Congress lead to 4 more years for Obama?

I sometimes hate it when a mental light bulb goes on late at night, especially late when I am trying to get to sleep. Last night was just such an occasion, and I really didn't like what I saw as it went on.

Consider this. The economy is in the tank and people feel threatened by the deficit and the now beginning-to-be-visible costs of Obama Care. The Democrats could very well loose the House of Representatives in November and their majority in the Senate. Sounds good for traditional thinkers, right?

Well, maybe not so much.

A Republican Congress would prevent the continuation of the big government, anti-business changes and threats of changes that have stifled any real business growth that would take us out of this morass and bring unemployment down. And Republicans would possibly be able to get some pro-business legislation or at least some relief for small business enterprises. This would lead to a real positive change in the economy.

Do you believe for one second that Obama would not claim credit for an obfuscate the real causes of any economic improvement? With his snake-oil-salesman's ability, he would go around telling all how he saved them all. In other words, it might just lead to his re-election in 2012. If, and it is a big if, the Dems lose Congress, the Republicans had better be on their toes to document their part in any improvement in the economy, or they will have won the battle but lost the war.

President Obama's new Nuclear policy

This guy never ceases to amaze me. When I am unable to conceive of any way he can further prove his naiveté, he confounds me by coming up with something new. Now, he wants to voluntarily tie one arm behind our back to make the fight fair, should another country attack us. Heaven forbid that we should respond to a biological or other attack killing Americans by being free to choose from our entire arsenal...Noooo, as long as they are not in violation of the non-proliferation treaty, we will leave the nuclear option out. Right...

Charles Krauthammer offered the best analogy:

Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up-to-date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)

However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.

This is quite insane. It's like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections."

This President has no idea what he is doing or...he wants to accelerate the demise of this country in favor of a new world order. You choose.