Obama is No ‘Post-Racial’ Candidate
| AR Articles on Racial Preferences in Hiring |
|---|
|
The Fight Against Racial Preferences (Jun. 1999) |
|
Quotas in the San Francisco Fire Department (Sep. 1998) |
|
The Chicago Police Exam (Oct. 1994) |
| More news stories on Racial Preferences in Hiring |
With all my heart—and for the betterment of my country—I desperately wanted to believe that Sen. Barack Obama was not one of the same tired voices who peddle arguments about “institutional racism.”
I have heard him say that America is not about “black and white.” I was inspired when his supporters chanted at his rally on the night of his victory in South Carolina that “race doesn’t matter.” I thought his March 18 speech about race had the potential to become a defining moment in our endless struggle to confront and conquer this issue. I was encouraged by his perceptive acknowledgment that affirmative action breeds resentment and hostility. As millions of whites cast their votes for him in predominantly white states, I held out hope that, perhaps, he truly was a transformative leader.
But a June 10 article in USA Today by DeWayne Wickham dashed my hopes for Mr. Obama.
Mr. Wickham, who had interviewed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, wrote that “Obama believes America can keep its promise to women and blacks without dashing the hopes of working-class whites. He doesn’t think opportunity guarantees made to one group must come at the expense of another.” Then he went on to quote Obama campaign spokeswoman Candice Toliver, who said that “Senator Obama believes in a country in which opportunity is available to all Americans, regardless of race, gender or economic status. That’s why he opposes these ballot initiatives, which would roll back opportunity for millions of Americans and cripple efforts to break down historic barriers to the progress of qualified women and minorities.”
Translation: Mr. Obama supports race preferences.
{snip}
The rationale for using race preferences to “eliminate historic barriers,” upon which Mr. Obama relies as his primary justification, has been rejected consistently by the Supreme Court since the Bakke decision in 1978. Only the pursuit of “diversity” by higher education meets the strict constitutional test for race preferences. As a lawyer, I am sure that Mr. Obama must know this.
{snip}
By supporting race preferences, Mr. Obama is unmistakably attaching himself to despicable ideas like Rev. Wright’s. And, if he believes in those precepts, how does he reconcile his impressive political success and that of Mrs. Clinton with this perspective? Thirty-six million Americans didn’t vote for the two of them because the majority of the American people are racist and sexist.
{snip}
If either Barack Obama or John McCain want to be a truly “post-racial president,” then it is essential that they support efforts to place our nation on a path to guarantee equal treatment under the law for all Americans. That means preferential treatment for none on the basis of their race, ethnic background, skin color or sex.
(Posted on June 13, 2008)
Obama Doesn’t Shrink on Affirmative Action Bans
DeWayne Wickham, USA Today, June 10, 2008
Shortly after Hillary Rodham Clinton suspended her presidential campaign and urged her supporters—especially women—to embrace Barack Obama’s White House bid, the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee gave them another reason to rally to his side.
In response to a question I put to him a day earlier, Obama answered that he opposes efforts to pass constitutional amendments this year in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska to ban affirmative action in state contracting and college admissions.
“Sen. Obama believes in a country in which opportunity is available to all Americans, regardless of their race, gender or economic status. That’s why he opposes these ballot initiatives, which would roll back opportunity for millions of Americans and cripple efforts to break down historic barriers to the progress of qualified women and minorities,” Candice Tolliver, an Obama campaign spokesperson, told me.
White women and blacks are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action programs.
Courageous action
While Obama has long been on record in support of affirmative action, speaking out against the effort by Ward Connerly, a black California businessman who spearheaded successful campaigns to ban it in California, Michigan and Washington, is an act of political courage.
It comes at a time when Obama is trying to win over working-class whites, many of whom believe affirmative action gains by women and blacks come at their expense. Nothing reflects Obama’s call for a departure from the old political thinking more than his belief that he can address the concerns of disaffected whites without abandoning the interests of minorities and women—the Democrats’ core constituencies.
{snip}
Obama believes America can keep its promise to women and blacks without dashing the hopes of working-class whites. He doesn’t think opportunity guarantees made to one group must come at the expense of another. His is admittedly a new political vision, one that may well propel him into the White House—and help this nation fully live up to its promise.
Comments
Among the tennants of the Black Christian Identity Church is a call for the White race to be eliminated. I can’t understand how this telling fact is being surpressed by the media and not as of yet pointed out by the GOP.
Posted by Whiteplight at 5:15 PM on June 13
It’s been my observation that nearly all blacks support, ‘racial preferences’. Always have. Always will.
Posted by at 5:27 PM on June 13
Fundamental to all Marxist worldview, is the unshakable belief in History as a series of inevitable phases of development.
The American Public school curricula was brought under the sway of this belief, via John Dewey and accomplices, therefore, we dont think twice when we hear of various social pathologies being (mis)labled with a time-dependent moniker.
There are in fact, a number of social inducements to adopt the vocabulary and usages (and therefore, mindframe) of the enemy.
Specifically, it sounds very grand and erudite to speak of this or that as “post-modern” or “pre-industrial”, but sadly, the use of the terms indicates a capitulation to the Time-Dependent view of reality that Marxism entails.
The phrase “Post-” is for the most part empty and the mindframe it represents is pernicious.
Ultimately, this behavior amounts to nothing other than (for example) adding a flashy hood ornament to ones car in order to make it look ‘classy’-or putting plastic stick-on flames to make it look ‘racey’. (unavoidable pun partially intended)
Whether or not Mr. Obama is actually “Post Racial” about as frivolous a thought as wondering whether Clinton actually was Americas ‘first black president’.
(Toni Morrison)
Posted by Mr. Smith at 6:19 PM on June 13
The Clintons said they would “…mend, not end, affirmative action”. Old lies, new lies. Affirmative action is primarily at the expense of working class Whites. When it comes to college admissions, AA is an inconvenience. If you don’t get into Cornell, you can go to Colgate. But when it is applied to hiring, you don’t always have a good alternative. Every AA hire represents a White man cheated out of a livelihood.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 6:54 PM on June 13
“Obama supports racial preferences.”
Gee, what a surprise! I mean a black who supports special privileges for blacks. How unusual.
Really, though, are people so naive as to believe that this man is going to do anything buyt promote blacks above all else?
It is the naive fools who have brought us to ruin, and it the same ones that will assure that degeneration leads to all out civil conflict.
Posted by at 8:07 PM on June 13
He will be revealed to be to pro affirmitive action and even pro-reparations for blacks, if the press are brave enough to ask him point blank.
Posted by at 8:10 PM on June 13
The following question was asked on 2-15-08 by the US News and World Report and here is Obama’s answer.
Question: Do you think that, in the end, race will be an impediment to your being elected?
Answer: Look, I have no doubt that there are some people who won’t vote for me because I’m black. There would also be some people who won’t vote for me because I’m young, because I’ve got big ears…or they don’t like my political philosophy.
This country made profound changes after 1960—I was born in 1961—essentially in my lifetime. We have made some profound changes in attitude. Now that is not to suggest that my election provides us racial reconciliation on the cheap. There are deep-rooted, institutional barriers to success for minority groups. Not just African-Americans but also Latinos. And those barriers—some of them cultural, some of them institutional—aren’t going to go away anytime soon, unless we make some serious investments in improving our schools and opening up job opportunities and enforcing nondiscrimination laws more effectively than we have.
Posted by Irene at 8:18 PM on June 13
The following question was asked on 2-15-08 by the US News and World Report and here is Obama’s answer.
Question: Do you think that, in the end, race will be an impediment to your being elected?
Answer: Look, I have no doubt that there are some people who won’t vote for me because I’m black. There would also be some people who won’t vote for me because I’m young, because I’ve got big ears…or they don’t like my political philosophy.
This country made profound changes after 1960—I was born in 1961—essentially in my lifetime. We have made some profound changes in attitude. Now that is not to suggest that my election provides us racial reconciliation on the cheap. There are deep-rooted, institutional barriers to success for minority groups. Not just African-Americans but also Latinos. And those barriers—some of them cultural, some of them institutional—aren’t going to go away anytime soon, unless we make some serious investments in improving our schools and opening up job opportunities and enforcing nondiscrimination laws more effectively than we have.
Posted by Irene at 8:18 PM on June 13
After they killed the campaign of of Jack Ryan in his favor and his 2004 Democratic convention speech I knew who Barack Obama was….it took another four years for things to come to the surface for the rest of America to see. The mask of deception is coming off one step at the time.
E Pluribus Unum…..God bless America the shining city on the hill and last best hope for man on this earth!
Posted by Lisette at 8:28 PM on June 13
I don’t recall any promises being made to fill quotas with anybody, and I mean anybody, regardless of their qualifications as long as they’re the right color. What was supposed to level the playing field ends up nothing more than discrimination against Whites.
Can some liberal tell me why Obama is for AA for rich blacks?
Posted by at 8:52 PM on June 13
“He doesn’t think opportunity guarantees made to one group must come at the expense of another.”
Someone has to lose, MISTER obama, when a less qualified applicant is given preference — whether in academia or the workforce.
Forget the white people (who cares, right?) You’re going to make the Asian-American Minority constituents mad. Mustn’t do that! /s
Posted by at 8:54 PM on June 13
I sincerely hope that the American people are not foolish enough to vote for Obama. For all of you on this board who think voting for Obama over McCain will make a statement or be more sensible, you are wrong! Obama would be even worse than Bush and a disgrace to our Founding Fathers on top of it.
Posted by Economist at 9:09 PM on June 13
There is no “post-racial” existence in the eyes of non-whites, period. Only whites have been brainwashed into seeing themselves a-racially. No “minority” group views themselves this way, and I sincerely doubt they ever will, no matter their numbers in the population.
Posted by Hank at 9:25 PM on June 13
The national Republican Party created the Frankenstein monster called Obama when it killed the senatorial campaign of Jack Ryan, then brought in loose cannon neocon Alan Keyes as a carpetbagger from Maryland so that the voters of Illinois would have no choice but to elect a black man as their junior senator in 2004. What suicidal instinct causes the Republicans to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at every juncture? John McCain is another example of this instinct in action. McCain doesn’t even bother to lie to us and pretend to be a conservative, like both Bushes did. He says to conservatives, “I hate your guts, but you’ll vote for me anyway!” He goes to the La Raza conference and endures the boos and hisses of blacks at the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s death, but snubs the Southern Baptists by refusing to accept their invitation to address their convention last week. I think McCain is trying his best to lose the election! Maybe he’s just been out in the sun too long without a hat. The Rockefeller Republicans that have been in charge of the Party since the days of Wendell Wilkie are daring the fates to destroy them! Pat Buchanan, as the architect of the “Southern Strategy”, should be the patron saint of the Republican Party, being respsponsible for the GOP winning 8 out of the last 11 presidential contests, but instead he’s their chief pariah! As Ron and Walter Kennedy, the Mississippi authors, have noted, the Democrats are the avowed enemies of the middle class, while the Republicans are the party of betrayal and deceit. What a choice! All of this pandering to minorities hasn’t produced teacup full of votes for the GOP. No wonder the late Sam Francis called them “the stupid party”. This elephant is headed toward extinction-they can’t be saved from themselves. They seem determined to prove George Wallace the prophet of the 20th century for observing that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” between the Democrats and the Republicans.
Posted by Blowtorch Mason at 12:22 AM on June 14
For the dreamers who think MLK’s dream will be reality with BomBom better to wake up now than after 11/9. This genie is as blac nationalist as they come and will go all out for blacks everywhere in the world. He only recognizes blacks. Whites will go the way of ??????????? BomBom is very dangerous and will bring USA to the pinnacle of another Zimbabwe. This is my opinion. Criminals surround him and there is absolutely no indication he will keep oath of office anymore then GW. Both ignore the Constitutional fact of National Defense is securing borders and protecting USA citizens against foreign interests/invasions. V
Posted by at 12:34 AM on June 14
“Obama supports racial preferences.”
Of course he does, all minorities do. I cannot say I have met one minority that doesn’t want Affirmative Action.
Posted by A. Windaus at 5:25 AM on June 14
It’s possible that president obama will just shake Whites out of their complacency and get them to realize just how much they are an endangered species.
Posted by at 8:09 AM on June 14
The McCainiac also supports race preferences. Vote Barr (Libertarian) or Baldwin (Constitution) rahter than the two anti-white candidates.
Posted by at 8:25 AM on June 14
“By supporting race preferences, Mr. Obama is unmistakably attaching himself to despicable ideas like Rev. Wright’s. And, if he believes in those precepts, how does he reconcile his impressive political success and that of Mrs. Clinton with this perspective? Thirty-six million Americans didn’t vote for the two of them because the majority of the American people are racist and sexist.”
Umm, no?
Like 90-95% of ALL Blacks voting for ‘the man’ Obama?
And feminists going ga-ga over Hillary, and then venting their
not-so-feminine rage, when she lost?
Oh, no. Americans aren’t ‘racist’ and/or ‘sexist’ - only in the fawning cult known as Obamanationland.
Which is an ‘E’ ticket ride, come November.
Posted by Fr. John at 8:40 AM on June 14
From Irene’s post: “And those barriers—some of them cultural, some of them institutional—aren’t going to go away anytime soon, unless we make some serious investments in improving our schools and opening up job opportunities and enforcing nondiscrimination laws more effectively than we have.”
So, serious investments must be made? Serious?? Nothing like the chump change that’s already been invested.
Posted by Cryhavoc at 10:19 AM on June 14
Blowtorch Mason:
I have one slight disagreement. It was the Illinois Republican Party that trucked in Alan Keyes. As bad as the national GOP is, the Illinois GOP is even worse. The Republican Party in Illinois is essentially run by suburban Chicago/Du Page County plutocrats, who just love racial liberalism.
Living right across the river from the state of Illinois, I have the indignity of observing their politics, campaigns and elections. The Alan Keyes campaign got so bad in 2004 that he came out for reparations.
When Jack Ryan quit, they could have gone with the second-place finisher, that being staunchly anti-invasion Jim Oberweis. Alas, no.
Posted by Question Diversity at 10:51 AM on June 14
Post-racial is code word for post-white.
Posted by Cecil Rhodes at 12:49 PM on June 14
“Look, I have no doubt that there are some people who won’t vote for me because I’m black.”
Several million people plan to vote FOR him because he’s black. Why shouldn’t I vote against him for the same reason?
At this point Obama could run against Manson, & ol’ Charley would get my vote.
Posted by JokingButNot at 1:31 PM on June 14
“I think McCain is trying his best to lose the election!”
I think so too. I think there is collusion between both parties to put Obama in the presidency. I have noticed all my life that towards the end of a presidential term, the economy suddenly gets a little better. Inflation slows, gas prices go down a bit.
Part of the reason Nixon did so well in 1972, hsi second term is that he slowed inflation quite a bit in the last year of his first term. And the last couple years of Clinton were wonderful economically. The price of food and gasoline actually went down abut 15 percent. I was paying less for food in 1999 than I did in 1990.
But this last year of Bush’s term is an economic disaster with inflation, the price of gas and the mortgage mess.
A resonable man would conclude that both parties want Obama to win.
Posted by at 2:20 PM on June 14
Of course he does, all minorities do. I cannot say I have met one minority that doesn’t want Affirmative Action.
Posted by A. Windaus at 5:25 AM on June 14
That you have not met them doesn’t mean they don’t exist…generalzing and thinking that all black people (based on their skin color) are pittyful creatures who need help from others is a the dangerous mind-game that brought affirmative action in the being…so watch out…(sic)
Posted by Lisette at 2:24 PM on June 14
“Affirmative action is primarily at the expense of working class Whites. When it comes to college admissions, AA is an inconvenience. If you don’t get into Cornell, you can go to Colgate. But when it is applied to hiring, you don’t always have a good alternative. Every AA hire represents a White man cheated out of a livelihood.”
But the quality of the job you get coming out of college is greatly affected by what college you went to. An Ivy League graduate is going to start at a far higher salary and probably keep that advantage most or all of his or her life. They will get a better job with a better company. It also greatly affects the level of graduate school you can get into, which will greatly affect your job and starting salary also.
Posted by Victor Gerhard at 3:34 PM on June 14
Can some liberal tell me why Obama is for AA for rich blacks?
That’s really an easy one to answer (nonliberally). It’s because even the poorest Whites, on average, have higher IQ’s, reading and math scores, better study habits and work ethic, than even the richest of blacks. If that were not the case, the prosthesis of affirmative action would not have persisted so long, and it would not be required to persist into the future indefinitely.
Also, Obama is a genetic anomaly: the cross between an intelligent African male and an intelligent European female. He is actually the exception to the rule of black submentality, but, in order to desperately satisfy a genetically-inspired need for racial identity, instead projects his brilliance onto all black people. So, even if Obama didn’t inherit the submentality of Africans, he did inherit their self-centered tribalism.
Posted by HideouslyWhite at 5:17 PM on June 14
Of course Obama is for Affirmative Action.
In fact, he is the poster child for it. As many others have observed, he is our first A.A. candidate.
Posted by at 6:28 PM on June 14
Obama is the choice for president:
he is less likely than McCain to start another insane war in the middle east.
Quotas can be defeated via referendums & legal action.
No one can stop a war a president decides he wants.
Posted by elitist at 8:05 PM on June 14
obama was an affirmative action lawyer in chicago, working to put Whites out of jobs. This is his forte, and white people want to elect him to POTUS?
Posted by Lars at 11:09 PM on June 14
“That you have not met them (blacks who are against affirmative action) doesn’t mean they don’t exist.”
Posted by Lisette at 2:24 PM on June 14
Great, thanks for letting us know there are blacks out there who are against affirmative action, because it’s harming blacks…
You really proved his understanding of the situation wrong! (sarcasm)
Posted by LHathaway at 12:57 AM on June 15
Just a word or two more on affirmative action-Pat Buchanan once said that Harvard, Yale and a handful of other elite schools were the “breeding stables” of America’s leadership cadre-a quick glance at the resumes of our last few presidents and their top advisors confirms the accuracy of Pat’s observation. You won’t get Paul Wolfowitz’s job if you attended state U, even if you have a stratospheric IQ, if history is any guide. Consequently affirmative action IS a big deal-trading down to Colgate effectively takes you out of the game, Victor Gerhard. You may be able to craft a comfortable life for yourself with the credentials you get from a lesser school you’ve been forced to accept due to affirmative action, but you’ll probably be performing in vaudeville rather than on Broadway. What a shame this is, too. Think of what a hash these Harvard/Yale types have made of things since the advent of FDR’s “technocrats” in the 1930s-the rise of liberalism and its destruction of traditional American life coincides almost perfectly with the rise of the technocrats, most of whom were educated at Harvard and Yale. I personally would welcome a moratorium on hiring anyone from Harvard or Yale in the higher reaches of government employment for the next 30 years. I wish we could get a few highly intelligent types from state U. into really influential positions in government, but its highly unlikely. In fact this is probably why the smart money is choosing Obama to win over McCain-Princeton and Harvard Law beat the Naval Academy and the Hanoi Hilton!
Posted by Ramar of the Jungle at 2:09 AM on June 15
It’s because even the poorest Whites, on average, have higher IQ’s, reading and math scores, better study habits and work ethic, than even the richest of blacks.
Posted by HideouslyWhite at 5:17 PM on June 14
Scientist have argued that IQ determines economic success in society. Because of their hideous claims that black people based on their skin color have an inferior IQ the social engineers ran with it and created Affirmative Action to give black people a so-called leg up in society. If your claim that even the poorest Whites have an higher IQ than even the richest of blacks it makes me wonder why the poorest Whites are poor in the first place…..which brings me to the point like I have said many times before that this superior and inferior IQ argument is totally bogus. Those who worship these theories to play the got ya game are bigger fools who need to check their own IQ because there is way more to the story than eyes can see…..and even Charles Murray the author of the Bell Curve agrees with me on that.
Posted by Lisette at 8:20 AM on June 15
And those barriers—some of them cultural, some of them institutional—aren’t going to go away anytime soon, unless we make some serious investments in improving our schools and opening up job opportunities and enforcing nondiscrimination laws more effectively than we have.
Why should whites and taxpayers keep making the investment? How about some investments from blacks? Individual blacks should consider investing as much in their children as they expect society to. Schools cannot be improved as long as liberal wackos in charge, most of them minority. They want to spread an agenda, not educate. And the only discrimination that happens in the workplace is against the white male. Get out of la-la land, and realize where the problems really lie. The majority of the black race does nothing to help itself. It expects another program to be created by tax dollars to help them.
Posted by Kellie at 8:35 AM on June 15
I think that a good chunk of Obama’s support comes from people who are just sick and tired of the neocon policies of the GOP and see John McCain as simply a surrogate for a third Bush Junior term. When the libs refer to McCain as “McSame,” they have a point, although the terms “McKennedy” and “McInsane” are better.
If the voting public decides to elect Obama, even though he has numerous far-left policies and social connections, the Republicans will be to blame. They had their chance and they blew it, big time. They turned their back on the principles that helped Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan become GOP icons.
The Republican Party needs to be gutted and reformed. Too bad it will be Barack Hussein Obama who does the gutting.
Posted by Old Victorian at 11:51 AM on June 15
“After they killed the campaign of of Jack Ryan in his favor and his 2004 Democratic convention speech I knew who Barack Obama was….it took another four years for things to come to the surface for the rest of America to see. The mask of deception is coming off one step at the time.
E Pluribus Unum…..God bless America the shining city on the hill and last best hope for man on this earth!”
Posted by Lisette at 8:28 PM on June 13
I don’t like Barack Hussein Obama, but I hope he creams McCain in the general election.
The GOP is like a spoiled child in need of harsh discipline. Hopefully, 2008 is the year that they get the spanking they so desperate need.
Posted by Old Victorian at 12:24 PM on June 15
If your claim that even the poorest Whites have an higher IQ than even the richest of blacks it makes me wonder why the poorest Whites are poor in the first place….
But you are wondering the wrong thing - instead you should wonder why the richest of blacks are rich in the first place. In almost every case, they were handed money earned by poor and middle-class whites, money which these blacks did not earn and do not merit.
Posted by HideouslyWhite at 2:12 PM on June 15
Lisette, black people do have inferior IQ’s to those of whites. This is not disputable; evolutionary isolation worked negative wonders on Sub-Saharans. No black country has the capacity to rule itself much less lead or prosper in any meaningful sense. The 21st century has no use for black Africans; soon, China will simply colonize and depopulate much of Africa so it may make intelligent use of the land and resources. As to how it may depopulate it is anyone’s guess. The Chinese government is not constrained by the same ethical system as we have. They look at Africa and say “these people cannot organize,sustain, or defend themselves and we need their land. The world needs their land. Goodbye, incompetents.”
Posted by mark at 2:49 PM on June 15
“Scientist have argued that IQ determines economic success in society.”
Posted by Lisette at 8:20 AM on June 15
Something tells me that at your day job, you don’t refer them as ‘scientists’.
Posted by at 2:53 PM on June 15
Headline: Obama is no ‘Post-Racial’ Candidate
No, he most certainly is not. And in the midst of all this Obamania, we can only hope that, one by one, millions of white people from coast to coast are coming to the same realization as the author of this article.
There may be no stopping the lemmings-like Obamalovers of the committed left who are determined to vote for a black man no matter how radical, but I believe there are far more white Americans who might at first have been considering The Magic Mulatto, but are having their confidence seriously shaken by his wacko preacher, his bomb-tossing buddies, and the candidate’s own speeches and policies. I would not automatically refuse to support a black or bi-racial candidate — but I sure refuse to support THIS one.
The situation prompted me to update a corny old joke from when I was a child. Except instead of “A newspaper,” the punchline would now be “Barack Obama”:
“What’s black and white and red all over?”
Posted by The Incredible Shrinking White Man at 3:06 PM on June 15
he is less likely than McCain to start another insane war in the middle east.
posted by elitist @ 8:05 on June 14
Are we to infer form your post that President Bush started an insane war? First, that war was started by Sadam Hussein by his violating the terms of his surrender in the Gulf War. That was the reason for invading Iraq. The assumption of his having weapons of mass destruction was one of the reasons that the Iraqi Freedom Act was signed in 1998 (while Bush was still governor of Texas). Second, there is nothing insane about freeing a nation from an insane dictator. There is nothing insane about engaging our terrorist enemies away from U.S. soil.
There is nothing insane about using the same plan implemented after WWII-that is building up the defeated nation in order to gain an ally rather than an embittered enemy (i.e. the Marshall Plan). Even the Bush-hating liberal press grudgingly admit that al-Quada (not sure of that spelling) has been devastated by the surge.
Posted by middle-aged magnolia at 4:28 PM on June 15
It’s hardly news that Obama favors affirmative action. Just like McCain and Clinton. He also voted for the illegal alien amnesty. Just like McCain and Clinton. Our system of “democracy” is designed to give the illusion of choice. The powers that be make sure there is never any real choice.
Posted by WR the elder at 12:58 AM on June 16
This is a quote from Paved With Good Intentions by Jared Taylor.
“In fact, white children from families with incomes of $10,000 to $20,000 get better SAT scores than black children from families with incomes of $70,000 or more. Even Asians from poor families, many of whom are newcomers to the United States and are from genuinely different cultures, score slightly better than black children from the wealthiest families.”
Posted by george00 at 3:37 AM on June 16
Only conservatives are dumb enough to believe Obama is really a “post-racial” candidate.
Obama is a post-WHITE candidate for a post-WHITE America, which is exactly what these two idiots want.
Both Connerly and Wickham want a post-white America, they just disagree with Obama on how to get one.
Posted by Cecil Rhodes at 6:09 AM on June 16
To middle-aged magnolia at 4:28 PM on June 15:
Yes, we can only hope that our next president has the level-headedness to continue our present visionary policies in the Mid-East. May our country not founder when it no longer has Mr. Bush’s firm hand upon the helm, and when our rhythms of daily life can no longer attune to the resonant cadences of his speech.
What a privilege it has been to live in such a time of national glory and luminescent leadership.
Posted by H. Dumpty at 6:36 AM on June 16
There will never be a “post-racial” black-white society. There can be are post-racial Asian-white societies because these races share similar levels of intelligence, values, and cultural norms.
Blacks and whites sadly, on average, do not.
Posted by john at 11:30 AM on June 16
But you are wondering the wrong thing - instead you should wonder why the richest of blacks are rich in the first place. In almost every case, they were handed money earned by poor and middle-class whites, money which these blacks did not earn and do not merit.
Posted by HideouslyWhite at 2:12 PM on June 15
If money from poor and middle class whites is handed down to these inferior IQ richest of blacks I would like to know if you wondered who concocted this scheme? Since black people have an inferior IQ they don’t have the smarts to come up with such a grand and morally corrupt scheme…so you go figure where it comes from…I would love to hear it.
Posted by Lisette at 12:14 PM on June 16
Lisette, black people do have inferior IQ’s to those of whites. This is not disputable; evolutionary isolation worked negative wonders on Sub-Saharans. No black country has the capacity to rule itself much less lead or prosper in any meaningful sense. The 21st century has no use for black Africans; soon, China will simply colonize and depopulate much of Africa so it may make intelligent use of the land and resources. Posted by mark at
2:49 PM on June 15
You talk about Africa but I prefer to stay closer to home….communist China is not only colonizing Africa but it is also making it’s way into the good ole USA and other superior white nations….what does that tell you about the superior IQ of whites over the inferior IQ of blacks….the same thing it’s not about IQ at all it is about more than eyes can see…you don’t but I do….because I learn my lessons from the past. History is simply repeating itself with different actors. Like many other people it seems that you are playing the blame-game and obsessing about things that in the end will not matter one IOTA…..
Posted by Lisette at 12:28 PM on June 16
The GOP is like a spoiled child in need of harsh discipline. Hopefully, 2008 is the year that they get the spanking they so desperate need.
Posted by Old Victorian at 12:24 PM on June 15
I am in agreement with you that the GOP needs a good old spanking to get out of the coma and clean house…..I look forward to it.
Posted by Lisette at 12:34 PM on June 16
It suddenly occurred to me (dullard that I am) that Obama might be the Gorbachev of America. Gorbachev we will recall, changed the status quo so much in the Soviet Union that the USSR collapsed. I recall back then the idea that “We are just five years behind.” It appears that we were more like 20-30 years behind. The U.S. has been strategically reaping the rewards of “Winning the Cold War,” through the expansion of NATO, a wider world presence as “peacekeepers” and acting as the de-facto leader of the G-8. However Bush’s ambitions and tactical mistakes have opened the door for Obama just the way the stale old Soviet leaders set up the fall of the USSR.
So the election of Barak Obama will likely be more than the great achievement short list of historic firsts that are so popularly pointed out today. He will likely sit on top of a socialist transition that will be radical enough to send the U.S. Stockmarket into a steep tumble and perhaps a crash. If the world center of capitalism is no longer essentially a capitalist state, the support that Europe and even China uses for their unrealistic economies will begin to disappear. We will experience a similar period that Russia did in the 1990s. But the big question is whether we will find some economic savior like the large oil and natural gas reserves that have allowed Russia to re-assert itself. The world that shapes up around this new set of instabilities will be very different and probably a lot less stable than during the late 20th century. (Which was a fairly short period).
I may be wrong. Obama may turn out to be a lying politician who will do little but shore up AA and spend a bit more on education while enjoying “rock star” status a’ la Bill Clinton.
At least American will have a president who can dance, right?
Posted by Whiteplight at 2:11 PM on June 16
“Are we to infer form your post that President Bush started an insane war? First, that war was started by Sadam Hussein by his violating the terms of his surrender in the Gulf War. That was the reason for invading Iraq. The assumption of his having weapons of mass destruction was one of the reasons that the Iraqi Freedom Act was signed in 1998 (while Bush was still governor of Texas). “
I am not “elitist” but I think I can answer some of these assertions readily enough. First yes, the Iraq war was uneccessary, we had a fly over programs and a “no fly zone” going that was containing Saddam just fine. Second, We had an international inspection team that told us over and over that there were no violations of the treaty and Bush choose to ignore them, even going so far as to call their credentials into question while accepting what turned out to be a forged report by an out of work Italian journalist that got sold to a yellow paper publisher in Italy. The list of disingenous political fraud goes on and most of it is well documented if not daily recalled. I can even remember that the first Gulf War was precipetated when Saddam was given a green light by an American diplomat for his invasion of Kuwait. It was then used by GH Bush for a quick status elevating war win for him. (If only he hadn’t said that “Read my lips” thing…)
I agree with you about the Marshall Plan. However, we did not cause WW2 or prompt it. The Gulf situation has been set up and manipulated since the fall of The Shah of Iran to regain American business interests in the region. It was Cheny’s Haliburton corp that was to carry out your new Marshall Plan in Iraq on U.S taxpayer money enjoying a decades long windfall. Well, Iraq 2, turned out different than Iraq 1 and Haliburton is long gone from Iraq. The easy grab of Iraq’s oil and the reshaping of Iraq into a “friendly” ally, may turn out to be the downfall of America because it allowed a leftist radical to become the U.S. president.
After it is all over and we count the dead on both sides - and many innocent and undeserving dead among Iraqis as well as the waste of our best American men and women, historians will note how so little was gained for so large a cost. Another paralell to the fall of the Soviet Union as well as the fall of Rome.
Posted by Whiteplight at 2:35 PM on June 16
Obama not only supports racial preferences, but he also supports redistribution of wealth on an international scale, in which more money (Senate bill 2433, the “Global Poverty Act”) would be extorted from working American families by the heavily-armed US government and handed over to the UN, a parasitical Communist front organization that refuses any sort of accountability to the people coerced into paying it’s bills. His wife Michelle has repeatedly unloaded some of the foulest vitriol I’ve ever heard a citizen of any nation direct against their own country, even though neither of the pair appear to know quite how many states their country has.
McCain is no better, though. He believes habeus corpus is a priviledge - not a right - that can be suspended at will by the government, a 900-year setback to human rights. He supports illegal alien amnesty, and in fact hired Juan Hernandez, a former Mexican government official and Hispanic radical reconquista activist. He supports ratifying the Kyoto Global Warming Hoax Treaty, which would strictly limit the amount of clean, abundant natural gas America can burn while allowing China and India to burn all the coal they want. As a POW, he collaborated with the North Vietnamese every way he could, and even did propaganda work for them, while many of the less cooperative American captives never got to go home. Both this Manchurian Candidate and the Obamanation running against him support the continuation of a morally unjustifiable war in Iraq, the starting of which recently earned our sitting President 35 Articles of Impeachment.
American politics have seen some truly despicable creatures rise to prominence in the past, like Joseph P. Kennedy Sr, who became filthy rich during Prohibition running liquor and manipulating stock prices before - in a grotesque twist of irony - being first made Chairman of the *Securities Exchange Commission* and then Ambassador to Britain. Robert S. MacNamera, the individual who while at Ford made the insane decision to restyle the popular and attractive Thunderbird sports car into a hulking four-door tuna boat, was given the opportunity as Lyndon Johnson’s Defense Secretary to grotesquely micromanage and mishandle our intervention in Vietnam so thoroughly that it became America’s first lost war, when the British, with their successful intervention in Malaysia, had already shown us how to do it right. He should have been sued into penury by Ford’s shareholders instead of receiving a government job that would cost 57,000 Americans their lives and tens of thousands more their arms, legs or eyes. These individuals were once rare, however *neither* mainstream party could bring itself to nominate Presidential candidates this year who do not instill loathing and disgust in responsible Americans. Has moral depravity become a prerequisite for the Oval Office, instead of the revulsion and public approbation it once endendered?
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 3:24 PM on June 16
So what? McCain supports affirmative action too. So does Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush. Ronald Reagan did too. It’s not like Obama is any more anti-white than ALL the other nationally prominent politicians from both parties.
Posted by Joe at 5:22 PM on June 16
Even the Bush-hating liberal press grudgingly admit that al-Quada (not sure of that spelling) has been devastated by the surge.
Posted by middle-aged magnolia at 4:28 PM on June 15
I am no fan of the liberal media, but that doesn’t take away from Bush Junior’s failures. He may get brownie points from the Fox News/New York Post group of neocons for simply being a Republican, but not from me.
The neocons are just as complicit as the liberals when it comes to our current economic/foreign policy conundrum.
As I said, harsh discipline is what the GOP desperately needs.
Posted by Old Victorian at 6:42 PM on June 16
Al Qaida may have been devastated by the “surge”; viewed objectively, they made far too many enemies by targetting Shi’ites, which along with Sufis and Druzes, the Wahabbist Sunis in Al Qaida consider heretics. The punishment for heresy, the Wahabbists believe, is death. Another consideration of course is that Al Qaida would not even be in Iraq had we not invaded and created a power vacuum there.
Saddam Hussein was a very good vice-president in the early days, and a truly aweful president, and his sons were absolute psychopaths, but give him his due - he had his security forces summarily execute Abu Nidal and then report the multiple gunshot wounds as a “suicide.” Secular Middle-Eastern leaders, with the exception of Ghaddaffi are typically not very big on freelance terrorism, as they tend to find themselves on the receiving end of it, like Egypt’s Sadat and Pakistan’s Bhutto.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 5:36 AM on June 17
My point …to Lisette…is this: “Racial” political quandaries are an American problem and of no interest to the major Asian powers.They have real agendas, like building the prosperity of their countries tenaciously and permanently. The race issue is no concern to them because they figure, correctly in my opinion, that racial dislikes are a mundane and ineradicable part of human society and not worth getting worked up about. Do you think the University of Tokyo (or Beijin or Taipei or its Indian counterpart) would ever admit students who don’t academically qualify because of ethnic reasons? No, they would never do so…although the University of Michigan did. This issue alone is a good case study in the terminal decline of the USA. And the Chinese WILL colonize Africa. Their agenda is to develop a China that is the dominant power in the world and they will do it, because they plan for the long haul.The ditherings and babblings of Obama cause no end of hilarity amongst the educated in Asia. I’m sure the Prime Minister of China will just be knocked out by his Chicagoan brilliance when they meet.
Posted by mark at 10:20 AM on June 17
The lessor of two evils is still evil. What is it about this simple truth that the American public fails to understand?
Posted by at 1:18 PM on June 17
A democratic Iraq was not originally the vision of President Bush; it was the vision of the Iraqi National Congress who appealed to the U.S. for support. As a result, the Iraqi Liberation Act was passed in 1998. Pres. Clinton did not implement the act although he signed it. Perhaps he was to busy bombing Iraq, Yugoslvia, Somalia, and Sudan. There were, however, possible idealogical, strategic, and legal reasons for Pres. Bush to implement it. My point to Elitist - although he/she may not agree (and perhaps I don’t either) with these reasons, it is not accurate to characterize the war as “insane”. That is just a knee-jerk emotional response.
And to you, my dear Humpty, sarcasm is never clever, it is just rude.
And Mr. Scott, thank you for your insight.
Thank you, Whiteplight, for your polite, intelligent response.
Posted by middled-aged magnolia at 4:52 PM on June 17
This shouldn’t be a surprise. I believe VDARE had some very good articles on Obama’s plans to expand (yes, expand) current “Civil Rights” legislation and minority entitlement programs complete with a beefed up Gestapo arm to enforce his wishes. So much for the belief that Obama is the evenhanded tan everyman.
This country has serious problems but in Obama we have someone who has a strong identification with his race and will spend an inordinate amount of time and energy on addressing “black issues” to the detriment of the country. Before it’s all said and done Obama will probably make Bill Clinton look like GL Rockwell. We can only despair that our elites don’t identify with us.
If elected, it could be the longest four years of our lives.
Posted by Super Dave at 9:18 PM on June 17
“The lessor of two evils is still evil. What is it about this simple truth that the American public fails to understand?”
Posted by at 1:18 PM on June 17
You’re right! Unfortunately, there are many conservative lemmings out there who still believe the GOP talking points, like Bush is misunderstood, McCain is a maverick, and so forth.
The only choices worth considering in 2008 are Barr or Baldwin.
Posted by at 7:26 PM on June 18