Do as we say, not as we do - Part II

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

A recurring theme of the Obama White House is "sacrifice." The president has repeatedly stressed the need for us to tighten our belts. He has informed us, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ..." During the campaign, his wife told us that we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. Shortly after the election, the president said that "[e]verybody's going to have to give. Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game."

This emphasis on "sacrifice" is presented as a simple matter of justice. We are told that we live in a nation that comprises a small fraction of the earth's population, yet we consume a disproportionate share of the world's resources.

The Obamas do not expect us to sacrifice alone. They believe that they have established a long pattern of self-sacrifice. According to Michelle Obama, one of the Obamas' first major decisions after graduating from college was, "Do I go to Wall Street and make money, or do I work for the people?" As we all know Barack, decided to "work for the people." During the campaign, Michelle informed six women in the playroom of the Zanesville Ohio Day Nursery, "We left corporate America." She advised these working-class women to do the same: "Don't go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers." According to Michelle, these are "the careers we need." She discouraged them from going into "corporate law or hedge-fund management." She warned these women, however, that their salaries would respond negatively if they made that choice.

After attaining the White House, the Obamas have continued to sacrifice, with a notable example being their trip to Denmark in order to secure the 2016 Olympics for Chicago. Michelle explained, "As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days, so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home." The Obamas appear to be bearing up, however. They are tough. As Michelle told her Zanesville audience, "So I tell people, 'Don't cry for me.'" In spite of their apparently sincere belief that they are sacrificing "for the people," Michelle's behavior occasionally seems to belie this idea. This is most obvious in her thirst for fashion.

Michelle attended a luncheon for the homeless wearing a pair of $540 Lanvin sneakers. On a trip to Russia, she was seen sporting what was thought to be a $5,950 VBH alligator manila clutch. The White House protested that she was actually carrying the $875 VBH patent leather clutch. This is perhaps another example of self-sacrifice. She has ordered a pair of thigh-high leather boots from Robert Clergerie, a famous French designer. Had Governor Sarah Palin made any of these purchases, she would have been criticized on the front pages of the major newspapers. Their treatment of Michelle Obama is considerably kinder. She is seen as a fashion icon.

For a couple with a preference for $100-a-pound Wagyu beef, it is inconsistent to claim that "we can't eat as much as we want." Apparently the president's admonition that we can't "keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times" does not apply to him. If his senior adviser David Axelrod is to be believed, the president prefers a warm environment. Axelrod is reported by the New York Times as describing the temperature in the Oval Office as rather temperate: "He's from Hawaii," Axelrod said. "He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there." The president's years in Chicago apparently were not sufficient to acclimatize him to the cold.

The Obamas have every right to dress as they please. The have every right to spend their money as they choose. However, they cannot spend lavishly while contending that they are sacrificing for "the people." The majority of "the people" know about sacrifice. A Zogby poll reported that 70 percent of households are forgoing movies and restaurants. Are the Obamas? Perhaps the pièce de résistance was a statement by Michelle after a party for the "first dog," Bo: "We had a really sweet celebration -- [Bo] got a doghouse cake made out of veal stuff and he had his brother Cappy come over and we had party hats." Poor Bo. I am certain that he would have preferred Wagyu steak.

John Dietrich
American Thinker

Everyone who flies on their plane is profiled...
__________________
We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do. Don't go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we're encouraging our young people to do that.
Michelle Obama
(From Part I)

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

"There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America," declared Barack Obama at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. "There's the United States of America.''

One year has passed since Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress were swept into power. We felt our racial sins had been washed away as millions of whites pulled the lever for Barack Obama. He promised us unity and clearly implied that he would govern in a color-blind way.

This promise, like so many others, has been broken.

The administration and Congress have passed policies clearly based on favoritism. They have further appointed, approved, and empowered key officials who have displayed a strong desire to benefit African-Americans over the interests of all Americans.

George Picard
American Thinker
Printing what the Times decides to bury...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Obama expressed support for reparations (retracted during the campaign) and expressed frustration that the Constitution and the Warren Court presented roadblocks to redistributing wealth to blacks (do you recall his "spread the wealth around" gaffe during the campaign?). As Barack Obama has said, "Words matter." Listen to his own words in a 2001 radio interview. Maybe by the time he is done with the Supreme Court, that will be less of a problem.

In his 2006 book, Obama outlined a plan for essentially a government bailout of the inner cities, which he describes as "repositories for all the scars of slavery and violence of Jim Crow." (I urge readers to peruse "Obama's Stealth Reparations," written by Paul Sperry, a Hoover Institution fellow.) Some of these ideas are being implemented now via the stimulus bill and other measures.

Those views (and goals) were buried by the campaign, but they are preserved and readily available on the internet for those willing to look and to see. (By the way, Google "Reparations by way of Health Care reform" to further explore this topic.)

Same source
__________________
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. …

I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.
Barack Hussein Obama
2001 Radio Interview

 

[Saint Peter]

This is all the same bullshit that was in Part I.

What a ripoff.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

This is all the same bullshit that was in Part I.

What a ripoff.

I have news for you.

In Part III, YOU get to finally sacrifice your children ('s future).

Of course, the Obama kids will roll large...

uBet!
i

 

[Saint Peter]

I have news for you.

In Part III, YOU get to finally sacrifice your children ('s future).

Of course, the Obama kids will roll large...

uBet!
i

I have no children. That I know of.

If so, those fuckers are on their own.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Judge a man NOT by the content of his character, but by the color of his skin!

I have no children. That I know of.

If so, those fuckers are on their own.

They will be replaced by MexiCANs...

Abigail Thernstrom in "Lani's Heir: The new, old racial ideology of the Holder Justice Department" explores Holder's views toward race and the law. She informs us about a card that Holder carries in his wallet on which is written "a black man's race defines him more particularly than anything else." Holder explains its meaning:

I am not the tall U.S. Attorney, I am not the thin U.S. Attorney. I am the black U.S. Attorney ... There's a common cause that bonds the black U.S. Attorney with the black criminal or the black doctor with the black homeless person." All blacks share a "common cause."

And that cause seems to have impelled Holder to use the Justice Department to tilt what should be a level playing field into one that disproportionally favors African-Americans. He is betraying the principle of equal rights -- a fundamental principle enshrined in our Constitution.

How? Let us count the ways.

Holder's Justice Department shields the new Black Panther Party from punishment for intimidating voters during last year's campaign, suddenly dropping three of the four charges in a layup of a case and penalizing the final one with a laughable tickle on the wrist. Then he stonewalls congressmen and the Civil Rights Commission, who want to get to the bottom of this miscarriage of justice. To top off the audacity, the lawyer who pursued the action against the New Back Panther party has been "reassigned" and is less available to answer subpoenas being ignored by Holder.

Could Holder claim a lack of manpower to answer claims regarding this scandal? No, because he has vastly expanded the Civil Rights Division to pursue, among other things, voting rights cases. It just doesn't seem to interest him when perpetrators of voting-rights violations are African-Americans or are believed by him to benefit African-Americans.

Why has ACORN escaped investigations for conspiracy across state lines? Perhaps it's for the same reason that Justice has ruled that ACORN is eligible for federal aid -- despite all the scandals surrounding the group. Recall that the Obama campaign paid ACORN hundreds of thousands of dollars in registration and get-out-the-vote efforts.

Conversely, Holder and the political appointees Obama has made since his inauguration are using the reins of power to help ensure that African-Americans are able to elect the candidate they want in the mixed community of Kinston, North Carolina by fixing the rules in a very blatant manner. They are also working across the country to loosen registration requirements that states have enacted to ensure the integrity of the voting process. In the case of Georgia, Holder vetoed the state's verification law because the DOJ claimed it would have a "disparate impact on minorities" -- a claim belied by the facts. The Department of Justice is also focusing energy on Missouri's voter registration laws. This is just the beginning.

 

[RobDownSouth]

John Dietrich
American Thinker

Everyone who flies on their plane is profiled...

Oooh, yesterday you brought back "but...but.....Clinton!" and today you're resurrecting class envy (or as little Soon Yi so charmingly calls it, "crass envy")

Cuttin' and pastin' makes you appear so incredibly intelligent to a certain demographic here, don't it?

 

[RobDownSouth]

I have news for you.

In Part III, YOU get to finally sacrifice your children ('s future).

Of course, the Obama kids will roll large...

uBet!
i

Speakin' of sacrificin' our children's futures, tell me again how cuttin' taxes for the wealthiest 1% of America while simultaneously spending major billions declarin' war was the right thing to do? Hmmm?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Speakin' of sacrificin' our children's futures, tell me again how cuttin' taxes for the wealthiest 1% of America while simultaneously spending major billions declarin' war was the right thing to do? Hmmm?

What percentage of the tax bill does the 1% pay?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Oooh, yesterday you brought back "but...but.....Clinton!" and today you're resurrecting class envy (or as little Soon Yi so charmingly calls it, "crass envy")

Cuttin' and pastin' makes you appear so incredibly intelligent to a certain demographic here, don't it?

Redneck translation: When the Progressives cannot defend their actions, they simply attack with hate, fury, and frothing spittle...
__________________
Contemporary leftists, on the other hand, view their opponents as people you send off to the Gulag, unworthy of any respect, deserving of any kind of low blow, no matter how foul. So you accuse Goldwater of insanity, slander Justice Thomas as a sexual monster, casually publish plays, books, and films calling for the assassination of President Bush, and assault the first serious Republican female candidate at her weakest point -- her family. And of course, you scream to high heaven if any form of turnabout occurs in your direction, as in the case of the Obama family, which was declared "off limits" early in the presidential campaign, at the same time that Palin's family was being stretched on the media rack.

This style of political loathing has become effectively innate. It has been systemized to such a degree as to become integral. Modern liberalism cannot do without it. An entire structure has been erected on the basis of political hatred, and from that structure a whole new strategy has arisen.
J.R. Dunn

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

In contrast a guy could get hearing AIDS listening to your ad homos.

There is his unabashed hatred of the homosexual community.

 

[unregistered]

 

[off2bed]

I wonder how many people his moobs woke up while he was jogging through the neighborhood this morning.

Thanks a lot for planting that mental image in my mind.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I wonder how many people his moobs woke up while he was jogging through the neighborhood this morning.

Jogging on his Medicaid-paid Scooter?



Perish the thought!

 

[unregistered]

 

[off2bed]

Think of it as a chest spanking cadence...

Stop it, man! I mean it!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Think of it as a chest spanking cadence...

Judging by the nature of his other personal attacks, he carries candy for children in the scooter basket...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

He definitely has it in for other people's children.

I would have just ignored him without the personal attack...




He knows that.
__________________
Liberals would prefer no opposition. Behind the force field of political correctness, there should never be any disagreement once the liberal mind has decided that something is good for society. There can be no opposition to the "correct" way of thinking, and if you don't think "correctly," you are attacked.
Reverend Kenneth L. Hutcherson

 

[unregistered]

 

[off2bed]

"Turn the other cheek" only works when you're fighting against a sane person.

 

[unregistered]

 

[MeeMie]

Interesting stuff.

It boggles my mind to think that liberal americans can read those actual facts, facts that can be researched independently, and not condemn them. Instead they attack the messenger, as is their style noted in this thread again.