Questions about the shooting abound, but not in the minds (and I use that term loosely) of the anti-colonial black activists, some of whom are named below:
Al Sharpton, a cheap suited impostor as a pastor, Jesse Jackson who announces "blacks are under attack," Sheila Jackson, Federica Wilson, Maxine Waters, the Congressional Black Caucus,** Louis Farakhan and the Nation of Islam calling for this matter to be taken "to the streets," the New Black Muslims, posting a $10,000 reward for Zimmerman to be taken into custody "dead or alive," Spike Lee and his "ignent" supporters, hoping to incite riot against the family of George Zimmerman with his release of their [wrong] address and doing it twice.
 |
| Congresswoman Wilson in her workday costume |
**Understand that the Congressional Black Caucus, driving much of this racially based idiocy, has come out in support of Fidel Castro (years ago) and continues to praise his godless/dictatorial regime to this day.
The one thing that unites radical black opinion [emphasis on "radical"] is their disdain for the very roots of our [American] national dream. The founding documents were written by "colonialists" bent on the furtherance of a white bias, or so goes the opinion of the Angry Black Man. Blacks were considered less than human in the beginnings of this nation (and that really was the prevailing opinion of the day). For the likes of Eric Holder, Barack and Michelle Obama, Al Sharpton, those mentioned above and more, the founding documents are not part of their history and I am speaking from their point of view. These people come from an immature mentality that ignores the fact that all minorities have had to deal with prejudice - even the crackers of this world. Certainly the native Indian population is no less a blight on the white man's sensibilities than is the mistreatment of American blacks. But there is money to be made in the continuance of black anger, and, more than this, the anti-capitalist, One World agenda is greatly benefited by Black Angst as expressed in the black power movement .
 |
| This book details the history of the black anti-colonial movement that seemingly died out with the end of the cold war. I (this blog's editor) suggest the movement is hardly dead. |
The patriot nation:
At the other end of black leadership are the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr. (assassinated in 1968) - pastor and conservative Republican leader of the modern day civil rights movement, General Colin Powell - a moderate Republican with no ties to radical black leadership, Col. Allen West, Michael Steele, Herman Cain (falsely accused by a corps of women who have slithered away without a word), Jesse Lee Peterson, the New Black Vanguard, Bob Parks, Project 21, Doneen Borelli (a very well known female black conservative activist working with Fox News, Project 21 with appearances on CNN, MSNBC, the BBC and C-SPAN), Ak'Bar A. Shabazz, Tara Setmayer, Starr Parker, J.C. Watts, Larry Elder (conservative talk show host), Tim Scott (Congressman, South Carolina) - I could easily add 40 more names to this list of black conservatives if time and space permitted.
As is the case with all things, nothing stays the same. And, the conservative patriot movement is about to experience an unavoidable change, as well. A new and younger generation is coming to the front, more attuned to the cultural changes of the day, more diversified on an ethnic level, with a greater population of academics and professional types, than was the case with the leadership of old. Most of these "new conservatives" have never lived on a farm. Few have any ties to the world before electronics. Global economies and One World evils lay at the door to their world and have been there since they could remember, ready to destroy the legitimacy of the American Dream and condemn it as something from the ancient past.
The tragedy that is the death of Trayvon Martin should never be lost to any of us. But neither should the fact that there are those who would use this tragedy to advance the collapse of the American experiment. What is sadly "funny," is the fact that the "replacement" to the American Dream is not a new and different world order, but one that has been around since the beginning of time - a world order that seeks to enslave and demoralize and dehumanize us all.
"Fairness" is the battle cry of the cretins of Marxism. "Fairness" is the pursuit of all that works against freedom at every level. If I am free to own property and you have none, the forced resolution of that supposed inequity is the limitation of my property "rights." If I am free to earn wealth and you are not qualified to that end, the redistribution of that wealth makes us both poor. If my God serves me well and you have no god, my God is destroyed in the name of fairness as expressed in the public square. If my business succeeds and your does not, the government must decide how fairness is attained . . . . . and on and on. Besides being stupidly wrong, "fairness" as applied to all levels of our lives, is insanely out of touch with the nature of a dynamic organism, whether that organism be a member of a evolutionary tree of life or a body politic.
In the end, "Trayvon Martin" is about the fundamental transformation of this great nation as envisioned by those who would bastardize The Dream.
Michelle Obama states the purpose of this new anti-colonialist radicalism with these words:
Here is the full quote from May of 2008:
MICHELLE OBAMA: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."
If "anti-colonialism" is not the best way to frame the intentions of Barack and the advancing hordes of cretins, perhaps the disagreeing reader could enlighten us all as to what is --- blog editor (J Smithson).
____________________________
End notes:
I have lost the link to this article, but you might benefit from it review as you consider the theme of this post:
Why Obama is an anti-colonialist
By Dinesh D'Souza
Friday, October 8, 2010 Washington Post
If you want to understand what is going on in the White House today, you have to begin with Barack Obama. No, not that Barack Obama. I mean Barack Obama Sr., the president's father. Obama gets his identity and his ideology from his father. Ironically, the man who was absent for virtually all of Obama's life is precisely the one shaping his values and actions.
How do I know this? Because Obama tells us himself. His autobiography is titled "Dreams From My Father." Notice that the title is not "Dreams of My Father." Obama isn't writing about his father's dreams. He is writing about the dreams that he got from his father.
In his book, Obama writes, "It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself." Those who know Obama well say the same thing. His grandmother Sarah Obama told Newsweek, "I look at him and I see all the same things -- he has taken everything from his father . . . this son is realizing everything the father wanted."
But who was Barack Obama Sr., and what did he want? Do the views of the senior Obama help clarify what the junior Obama is doing in the Oval Office? Let's begin with President Obama, who routinely castigates investment banks and large corporations, accusing them of greed and exploitation. Obama's policies have established the heavy hand of government control over Wall Street and the health-care, auto and energy industries.
Some have described the president as being a conventional liberal or even a socialist. But liberals and socialists are typically focused on poverty and social equality; Obama rarely addresses these issues, and when he does so, it is without passion. Pretty much the only time Obama raises his voice is when he is expressing antagonism toward the big, bad corporations and toward those earning more than $250,000 a year. I believe the most compelling explanation of Obama's actions is that he is, just like his father, an anti-colonialist. Anti-colonialism is the idea that the rich countries got rich by looting the poor countries, and that within the rich countries, plutocratic and corporate elites continue to exploit ordinary citizens.President Obama also regularly flays the rich, whom he accuses of not paying their "fair share." This seems odd, given that the top 10 percent of earners pay about 70 percent of all income taxes. Yet the president would like this group to pay more.
I know about anti-colonialism because I grew up in India in the decades after that country gained its independence from Britain. And Barack Obama Sr. became an anti-colonialist as a consequence of growing up in Kenya during that country's struggle for independence from European rule. Obama Sr. also became an economist and embraced a form of socialism that fit in well with his anti-colonialism. All of this is relevant and helpful in understanding his son's policies.
Consider the article "Problems Facing Our Socialism" that Obama Sr. published in 1965 in the East Africa Journal. Writing in the aftermath of colonialism, the senior Obama advocated socialism as necessary to ensure national autonomy for his country. "The question," he wrote, "is how are we going to remove the disparities in our country, such as the concentration of economic power in Asian and European hands . . .?"
Obama Sr.'s solutions are clear. "We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now." He proposed that the state seize private land and turn it over to collective cooperatives. He also demanded that the state raise taxes with no upper limit.
Just in case the point is unclear, Obama Sr. insisted that "theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 percent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed." Absurd as it seems, the idea of 100 percent taxation has its peculiar logic. It is based on the anti-colonial assumption that the rich have become rich by exploiting and plundering the poor; therefore, whatever the rich have is undeserved and may be legitimately seized.
Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father's history very well, has never mentioned this article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no media coverage of a document that seems directly relevant to the current policies of the junior Obama.
Yet when the senior Obama's article is placed side by side with the junior Obama's policies, it seems evident that the father's hatred of those on top, and his determination to confiscate their wealth, is largely replicated in the son.
Dinesh D'Souza is president of King's College in New York City. His new book is "The Roots of Obama's Rage."
In his book, Obama writes, "It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself." Those who know Obama well say the same thing. His grandmother Sarah Obama told Newsweek, "I look at him and I see all the same things -- he has taken everything from his father . . . this son is realizing everything the father wanted."
But who was Barack Obama Sr., and what did he want? Do the views of the senior Obama help clarify what the junior Obama is doing in the Oval Office? Let's begin with President Obama, who routinely castigates investment banks and large corporations, accusing them of greed and exploitation. Obama's policies have established the heavy hand of government control over Wall Street and the health-care, auto and energy industries.
Some have described the president as being a conventional liberal or even a socialist. But liberals and socialists are typically focused on poverty and social equality; Obama rarely addresses these issues, and when he does so, it is without passion. Pretty much the only time Obama raises his voice is when he is expressing antagonism toward the big, bad corporations and toward those earning more than $250,000 a year. I believe the most compelling explanation of Obama's actions is that he is, just like his father, an anti-colonialist. Anti-colonialism is the idea that the rich countries got rich by looting the poor countries, and that within the rich countries, plutocratic and corporate elites continue to exploit ordinary citizens.President Obama also regularly flays the rich, whom he accuses of not paying their "fair share." This seems odd, given that the top 10 percent of earners pay about 70 percent of all income taxes. Yet the president would like this group to pay more.
I know about anti-colonialism because I grew up in India in the decades after that country gained its independence from Britain. And Barack Obama Sr. became an anti-colonialist as a consequence of growing up in Kenya during that country's struggle for independence from European rule. Obama Sr. also became an economist and embraced a form of socialism that fit in well with his anti-colonialism. All of this is relevant and helpful in understanding his son's policies.
Consider the article "Problems Facing Our Socialism" that Obama Sr. published in 1965 in the East Africa Journal. Writing in the aftermath of colonialism, the senior Obama advocated socialism as necessary to ensure national autonomy for his country. "The question," he wrote, "is how are we going to remove the disparities in our country, such as the concentration of economic power in Asian and European hands . . .?"
Obama Sr.'s solutions are clear. "We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now." He proposed that the state seize private land and turn it over to collective cooperatives. He also demanded that the state raise taxes with no upper limit.
Just in case the point is unclear, Obama Sr. insisted that "theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 percent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed." Absurd as it seems, the idea of 100 percent taxation has its peculiar logic. It is based on the anti-colonial assumption that the rich have become rich by exploiting and plundering the poor; therefore, whatever the rich have is undeserved and may be legitimately seized.
Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father's history very well, has never mentioned this article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no media coverage of a document that seems directly relevant to the current policies of the junior Obama.
Yet when the senior Obama's article is placed side by side with the junior Obama's policies, it seems evident that the father's hatred of those on top, and his determination to confiscate their wealth, is largely replicated in the son.
Dinesh D'Souza is president of King's College in New York City. His new book is "The Roots of Obama's Rage."
No comments:
Post a Comment