Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Calling All Bow-Tying White Boys


Most of us remember that in the 1950s a black man often would become outraged when a white man, stereotypically a Southern white man, called him “boy.” 

“Boy” is not a racial slur, but everyone knew that the word was intended to mock and otherwise diminish the black man to whom it had been applied.  The innocuous word “boy” is proof that words, in and of themselves, are not the issue; intent is the issue.  Back in the 1950s, the words boy and nigger were equally reprehensible because everyone knew what they signified about the speaker’s mind-set.  No one could have faulted any black man for reacting aggressive to having been called boy or nigger.

In 2012, the racist use of the word “boy” has evaporated because, unlike the word “nigger” that is kept current by black racists to intimidate and silence whites, “boy” as an African American slander is not used routinely by either whites or blacks.

So, I was floored when on Fox’s American Live May 3, 2012, black feminist and racist, Jehmu Greene referred to white journalist Tucker Carlson on live television as a “bow-tying white boy.”  More startling was when he replied, “You can use name-calling all you like” the cowardly Greene countered, “I didn’t call you a name.”   (This is the same double standards, double speaking, double binding Jehmu Greene that I mentioned in my book when she played a previous race-based word game on Fox News.)

Did Greene apologize to Carlson during the show?  No.  Instead, as is her style, she continued to interrupt and shout over him; another disrespect that Tucker called her on.   It was left to Megyn Kelly later to offer her regrets to the “bow-tying white boy.”

Imagine for one minute that an obvious slur had been white to black rather than the reverse.  What if Tucker had referred to Jehmu as a “fat-assed black girl”?  Would Carlson ever have appeared on Fox, or on any other mainstream news program again?  You bet your slim-ass, he would not have.  But Greene remains on Fox, unscathed.

While, in this context, the significance of “boy” as insult is clear, “bow-tying” is a bit elusive.  Presumably, its use represents Greene’s attempt to paint Carlson as a nerdish white elitist.  No self-respecting “real” black male would wear a bow-tie?

Maybe Ms. Greene should check the record.  Her main man, Louis, kill all the white devils, especially the Jews, Farrakhan would not be caught dead without his signature bow-tie.   And, according to Wesley Morris (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7346656/the-rise-nba-nerd), LeBron James and Dwyane Wade of the Miami Heat wear bow-ties, too.

We can return now to my essential point about racial slurs: it is the slurring person and his/her racist intent that are the real issues, not the words per se.  Jehmu Greene is a racially angry, racially preoccupied, racializing, and race-crusading black identity slavemaster.  In that respect, she is very much like her esteemed friend President Obama for whom she, and others like her, do the raceketeering dirty-work while Barack Hussein and Michelle Robinson Obama no-doubt howl delightedly and uproariously in the privacy of the White House, safe from detection and responsibility.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Poetic Justice for Mr. O


In my last blog, I wrote that the media’s favorite swaggering despot got a liberally applied liberal media smack down for his drone strike policy.  I showed that, for once, New York Times types realize that the I-can do-no wrong Emperor has no clothes.  As incredible as it seems, even they finally accept the inherent contradiction of celebrating Barack as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate one year and recognizing him as Executioner-in-Chief the next.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I’m fine with drone strikes, especially when they snuff-out murderous radical Muslim terrorists.  My complaint is with the President, not with the military strategy.  Once again, the issue is one of his dark-triad personality.  The narcissistically-preoccupied Barack Obama truly believes that he, and only he, is the best judge of who to kill and when.  He, no doubt, would support that arrogant contention by referring to his decades-long experience with military theory and practice, and to his supra-natural understanding of morality and philosophy in matters of life and death.

Although Barack Hussein being subjected to New York Times censure is sweet, however, even better is to see that the United Nations Human Rights Council also woke-up to Obama.  Courtesy of my friend, Don, who sent me the information, below is the introduction to a Whiskey and Gunpowder posting:

Obama sure loves killing people with his drones.
GENEVA (Reuters) - A U.N. investigator has called on the Obama administration to justify its policy of assassinating rather than capturing al Qaeda or Taliban suspects, increasingly with the use of unmanned drone aircraft that also take civilian lives.
Christof Heyns, U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, urged Washington to clarify the basis under international law of the policy, in a report issued overnight to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The 47-member Geneva forum is to hold a debate later on Tuesday.

United Nations Human Rights Council … United Nations Human Rights Council … United Nations Human Rights Council?  When did I last hear about that august group?

Damn !  I know where I heard about them.  That's the group that the Obama Administration tried to sic on the dastardly Republicans for trying to require voter registration.  That's the group that SuperBarack Obaman, the first, invincible, black (really biracial) immigrant from Krypton, held in high esteem as the arbiter of truth, justice, and the American, or perhaps international, way.  Eric Shawn of FoxNews.com wrote about the issue on March 14, 2012:
UN rights council delves into US voter I.D. laws
The controversy over requiring voters to provide photo IDs has reached the world stage.
The United Nations Human Rights Council is investigating the issue of American election laws at its gathering on minority rights in Geneva, Switzerland. This, despite the fact that some members of the council have only in the past several years allowed women to vote, and one member, Saudi Arabia, still bars women from the voting booth completely.

So, the dark-triad, double-speaking President who tried to use a sham United Nations organization to attack voter registration laws, instead has become their target.  Moreover, the Human Rights Council is not merely investigating Obama for killing rather than capturing the terrorists.  Rather, Zamir Akram alleges that “Thousands of innocent people, including women and children, have been murdered in these indiscriminate [drone] attacks."

Can you say “comeuppance ?” 

Sunday, June 17, 2012

The Identity President


Never in human history has identity been so relentlessly, ruthlessly, and successfully manipulated as with Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama. This man, mediocre prior to his presidential election, had no notoriety other than a phony racial credential; yet in photo and print, he has been favorably compared to Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, even Ronald Reagan, to name only a few.  Yet, Barack, the “intellectual giant,” is the first president too insecure to disclose his educational record to public scrutiny.  Barack Obama fears that release of his education record will expose some unscripted, identity-related flaw. If he had something to celebrate, you can be sure that the President would have had it published in banner headlines.         

Obama, his self, and those who promote him, literally, have been trying to condition/program us into believing his identity propaganda through a kind of verbal saturation bombing.  Moreover, the strikingly successful misinformation bombardment has had world-wide collaborators. You surely recall that Barack Obama was selected as a Nobel Peace Prize candidate only two weeks after being elected United States president and as the winner, only two months later—all during a time when he was directing two wars.  Had the Prize selection been this year, the committee might have read the May 30, 2012 New York Times editorial explaining Obama’s latest Middle East peace mission:

It has been clear for years that the Obama administration believes the shadow war on terrorism gives it the power to choose targets for assassination, including Americans, without any oversight. On Tuesday, The New York Times revealed who was actually making the final decision on the biggest killings and drone strikes: President Obama himself. And that is very troubling…A unilateral campaign of death is untenable. To provide real assurance, President Obama should publish clear guidelines for targeting to be carried out by nonpoliticians, making assassination truly a last resort, and allow an outside court to review the evidence before placing Americans on a kill list. And it should release the legal briefs upon which the targeted killing was based.

Peacemaker and assassin.  If you are President Barack Hussein Obama, there is no identity contradiction here.   As we all heard during the 2008 campaign, the commander in chief is “comfortable in his own skin” and anyone who thinks otherwise is a racist or “right-wing nutcase.”  So, harkening back to great leader parallels, we conclude that Obama also compares favorably to other “great” assassins, such as John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald.  Now there’s notoriety:  Could Obama be like two great presidents and their two “great” assassins simultaneously?  On the other hand, the analogy suffers since none of the four ever won a Nobel.

Why so much obsession about Barack’s identity?   It begins with Obama himself.  As all conflicted narcissists, he always has been preoccupied with who he is and who he isn’t.  He, in fact, carves-out his identity by cutting-out identity straw men, often race-based.  Barack is not bi-racial; he is black.  If he is biracial, how can he claim to be the first black president?  Biracial is too complicated and too ambiguous for Barack Obama.  He reduces identities to either-or. 

So, when in April 2008 the President refers to working-class whites by saying, "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," he really is commenting about himself.  He is setting up his identity straw men in order to rationalize and to dismiss “small town voters” as persons who will not support him because of their identities.

Barack Obama knows who he is and he knows who everyone else is.  He puts people in neat little categories, labels them, embraces the “good” ones, and mocks and marginalizes the “bad” ones.          

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Barack Obama’s Self-Serving Propaganda and Policies Corrupt American Values and Manipulate American Servicemen and Servicewomen



In my last blog, I commented on the Newsweek April 16, 2012 cover story asking, “Is Obama Making It Worse? An exclusive Newsweek poll reveals the persistence of America’s stark racial divide.”  Unlike Newsweek’s excuses for the President’s negative influences, I concluded that the deepening black-white gulf has been an inevitable, malignant consequence of the Barack Obama personality disorder that underlies his policies.

Now, another, particularly egregious, example of how the dark-triad President attempts to enrich himself politically by playing on the needs of the vulnerable.

Like so many Americans, I was troubled to hear of the alarmingly high number of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans who have applied for service-related disability benefits.  But in order to understand the statistic, we first need to travel briefly back in time.

On July 7, 2010, James Dao wrote a New York Times article entitled, “V.A. Is Easing Rules to Cover Stress Disorder” that summarized the changes.  He enumerated the following salient aspects of the new rules:

eliminate a requirement that veterans document specific events like bomb blasts, firefights or mortar attacks that might have caused (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) P.T.S.D;”

grant compensation “if they can simply show that they served in a war zone and in a job consistent with the events that they say caused their conditions. They would not have to prove, for instance, that they came under fire, served in a front-line unit or saw a friend killed;”

provide benefits “for service members who had good reason to fear traumatic events, known as stressors, even if they did not actually experience them.”

In essence then, the new Obama rules invited anyone who ever has served in Iraq or Afghanistan to apply for disability benefits.  And what did the potential benefits include?   Free medical care, free mental health services, and anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars per month, probably for life.  Dao suggested that the program likely would cost “$5 billion over several years.”

Since I have conducted social security psychological disability evaluations for over twenty-five years, I had well-informed reasons to expect that the Obama-promulgated rule changes would precipitate a tsunami of disability applications, and that many, if not most, would be unwarranted.  Anyone with any experience with disability requests would have had concerns.  In fact, even Democrat Jim Webb of Virginia, a Vietnam veteran, felt compelled to caution his colleagues in the United States Senate about the need for more “practical, proper procedures.”
   
Of course, no one with a shred of compassion and/or gratitude can begrudge the military, especially war veterans, earned compensation for any real harm that they have suffered in service to us and our country.  I must admit, however, that I am shocked to hear that 45 % of Post 911 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are filing for disability benefits, alleging an average of 12 ailments.  Daniel Politi of Slate (May 27, 2012) advises that the number of current disability applicants literally is double the number from the 1990’s Gulf War.

Obviously, the Obama White House did not follow Jim Webb’s advice to include “practical, proper procedures” for implementing the new rule.  Rather, they saw disability benefits as offering an opportunity for political gamesmanship.  Millions of Americans had questioned Obama’s alliance to America during the 2008 election when he failed to place his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.  Belatedly realizing that political blunder, of course, he started striking the traditional pose—more to court votes than to express heart-felt patriotism.  On Memorial Day 2012, Barack said, "As long as I'm president, we will make sure you and your loved ones will receive the benefits you've earned and the respect you deserve."  Given Barack Obama’s history, should we regard that as a statement of affection or as a video clip for a re-election commercial?   Please note that Obama tried a similar tactic to rehabilitate his wife’s glaringly absent patriotism.  After being chastised for saying that she had not been proud of America until after her husband received the Democratic presidential nomination, Michelle Obama and her handlers blitzkrieged the media, advertising her as the guardian angel of military families.

Today, advocating for all manner of governmental benefits is a preferred Obama campaign strategy for winning votes.  But that is nothing new.  Barack and other demagoguing Democrats always have used “benefits” to manipulate the masses.  We sadly remember how their welfare society destroyed the work motivation and family integrity of poor people, especially of African Americans.  At this point in our national history, Obama is trying to seduce military types by attempting to buy them off, too.
                                                                                                     
The current economic context also is important.  In the midst of the “worst financial crisis since the Great Depression”—a crisis that Obama ignored while jamming through his budget-busting pet projects, such as Obamacare—veterans are particularly vulnerable.  According to the Air Force Times, June 1, 2012, “the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports the unemployment rate for Iraq- and Afghanistan-era veterans jumped to 12.7 percent in May, up from 9.2 percent the previous month.”   In such dire times, after all their sacrifices, desperate service men and women cannot be faulted for viewing disability benefits as something that they need and deserve; the Obama economy has entrapped them into looking to the benefits in order to survive Obamaland. 

Our Great Leader’s self-serving, manipulative policies illustrate once again that the character of a president does count.  Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama, a man whose personality is an amalgam of Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism, has no choice but to do what he has programmed himself to do: target a vulnerable potential constituency and exploit, exploit, exploit.