Featured Video

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

31 May 2012

Democrat plant in a Tea Party event

30 May 2012

Obama’s Death Camp Blunder Leaves Poland Outraged

By: Rachel Pulaski

On September 1, 1939 Adolf Hitler ordered Germany to invade Poland. Hilter established over 400 death and concentration camps in Poland including Auschwitz where the first gas chamber was installed. Over 6 million Polish citizens including 3 million Polish Jews were killed during WWII.

On Tuesday President Obama held a ceremony honoring 13 Medal of Freedom recipients including Jan Karski, a resistance freedom fighter who fought against the Nazi occupation in Poland. While honoring Karski the President shocked Poles all over the world by referring to the Nazi death camps in Poland as “Polish Death Camps”. CBS News reported:

During an East Room ceremony honoring 13 Medal of Freedom recipients, Obama said that Karski “served as a courier for the Polish resistance during the darkest days of World War II. Before one trip across enemy lines, resistance fighters told him that Jews were being murdered on a massive scale and smuggled him into the Warsaw Ghetto and a Polish death camp to see for himself. Jan took that information to President Franklin Roosevelt, giving one of the first accounts of the Holocaust and imploring to the world to take action.” (Watch video of the event at left)

Sikorski tweeted that the White House should apologize for “this outrageous error” and that Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk would address the matter on Wednesday. “It’s a pity that such a dignified ceremony was overshadowed by ignorance and incompetence.”

Alex Storozynski, president of the Kosciuszko Foundation, said Obama’s comment “shocked the Poles present at the White House and those watching on C-SPAN. … Karski would have cringed if he heard this.”

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said: “The president misspoke. He was referring to Nazi death camps in Poland. We regret this misstatement, which should not detract from the clear intention to honor Mr. Karski and those brave citizens who stood on the side of human dignity in the face of tyranny.”

Fox News reported on Poland’s reaction:

Donald Tusk said he was accepting a White House explanation that Obama misspoke but was still waiting for a “stronger, more pointed reaction” that could eliminate the phrasing “once and for all.” Tusk said it was a “matter of the U.S.’s reputation.” He hinted it should include facts about Nazi Germany’s brutal occupation of Poland.

This is not the first time Poland has received a slap in the face by this administration. In 2009 Obama denied a missile defense shield for Poland after Russia threatened military action.
The Poles were great allies to the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe that’s why he hates them?

Gallup Poll: Romney Holds Whopping 28-Point Lead Over Obama Among Male Veterans


It’s almost like the military isn’t fond of the Commander-in-Chief.

Via The Hill:

A new Gallup poll released on Memorial Day shows male veterans breaking strongly for Mitt Romney over President Obama.

The presumptive GOP nominee receives support from 58 percent of veteran registered voters surveyed to Obama’s 34 percent. Among non-veterans though, Obama holds a four point edge, with 48 percent to Romney’s 44.

Gallup says veterans make up 13 percent of the U.S. population.

The breakdown of the veteran vote also mirrors the gender gap seen among all voters and male voters are seen giving Romney a solid block of support. Romney has the backing of 60 percent of male veterans to Obama’s 32.

Keep reading…

29 May 2012

Black man says: "Black people are too ignorant "


28 May 2012

Is Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, a 1978 case rejecting academic racial quotas, the smoking gun behind Obama’s Kenyan identity?

Barack Obama has kept carefully hidden all of his college records. Many of us have assumed that this secrecy is because those papers show that he took nothing but Leftist Mickey Mouse classes and ended up with lousy grades.

Now that we know that Obama marketed himself to publishers as a Kenyan, though, we’re beginning to suspect that the papers hide, not only academic mediocrity, but the same Kenyan identity Obama was using to market himself in the publishing world. The question, of course, is why would Obama pretend to be African? After all, when it came to college admissions, wasn’t being black good enough for affirmative action purposes?

Normally, in the years since the Civil Rights movement, the answer would be “Yes, being half-black (not half-white, but half-black) should have given Obama the leg-up he needed to parlay mediocre grades and a drug habit into a shiny diploma from one of America’s best institutions of higher education.” Obama’s problem, though, was that he came of age at a very specific time in the annals of affirmative action. To appreciate this, you have to know that Obama, who graduated from high school in 1979, must have started looking at colleges in 1978.

When it comes to college admissions, 1978 isn’t just any year. It’s a very special year. It was the year that the Supreme Court decided Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) 438 U.S. 265.

Allan Bakke was a young man with an excellent academic record, who nevertheless got turned down by 12 medical schools. When he applied to the medical school at UC Davis, and was again rejected, he learned that he had almost certainly lost out on the opportunity to attend that medical school because UC had set a quota for admitting non-white people in order to meet the University’s “diversity” requirements. Bakke sued. In a deeply fragmented decision, the Supreme Court held that this race-based admission process was unconstitutional.

With that decision, Obama, who was a self-confessed slacker in high school, suddenly lost his e-ticket to a good college. He couldn’t know then (nor would it have mattered) that the various concurrences in this deeply divided opinion would eventually open the door to colleges and universities making race a “factor” in admission, so much so that this “factor-ness” eventually created a whole new quota system.

My best guess is that, denied an opportunity to use quota systems to parlay a lousy academic record into a quality college admission, Obama searched around for other means of bypassing his academic failings. It was this search that led him to announce that he was Kenyan. I’m sure that a certain amount of digging will reveal that, just when the Bakke decision came down, American universities were engaged in some sort of pro-active policy involving increasing the number of African nationals on America’s college campuses. Obama was happy to oblige the universities in this effort by co-opting his father’s nationality, and burying the fact that he was a garden-variety American black kid.

There’s the nexus — In 1978, Obama, who already then was willing to lie to achieve his goals, created a false identity to deal with the changes the Bakke decision wrought on college admissions.

UPDATE: This isn’t so much an “update,” as it is further thoughts. Although this post might explain why Obama did what he did, it’s really less of a post about Obama himself than it as an indictment showing the rot in the whole race/affirmative action system.

I actually came at the theory bass ackwards, when I was writing about the commonality between Warren and Obama. I began by looking at affirmative action’s origins as a well-intentioned paving stone on the road to Hell. In the beginning, do-gooders felt that it made sense to give the then-current generation of blacks a leg up, rather than making them wait the two to three generations it took other disenfranchised people (Irish immigrants, Italian immigrants, Jewish immigrants, etc.) to “make it” in America. After all, we had forced upon these blacks their sufferings, and it was up to us to fix it, and to fix it quickly.

Once it affirmative action became institutionalized, however, it inevitably became corrupt. From the institution’s side, it was a numbers game and a way to boast about liberal credibility, irrespective of whether the student or employee benefiting actually suffered handicaps from his or her race. (Witness the way Harvard milked Elizabeth Warren’s Native Americanism, despite the fact that, even if true, it never handicapped her upbringing or denied her educational opportunities.)

From the point of view of ordinary Americans who were willing to say anything to advance, it became a ginormous loophole. For example, back in the 1970s, I knew a rich Jewish girl with average grades who got into Lowell, San Francisco’s academic high school, by using a dark complexion and a fake accent (~) on her lily-white name to pretend to be Hispanic. Fearing a charge of racism, the district caved and let her in, despite the fact that other students who did not run from their white heritage had better grades. Elizabeth Warren is not the first to play this game.

Thinking about this history, I asked myself why Obama didn’t just leverage himself through the system based upon his being half-black? Why did he have to be African? It was those high school memories that let me to the answer. Like me, Barack Obama, who is almost exactly my age, graduated in the shadow of Bakke. It didn’t affect me, but it sure as heck must have affected him.

Standing alone, my Bakke theory does nothing more than prove, once more, that Obama lies, which is something we’ve seen in real time over the last 3.5 years. Nevertheless, I think this theory has a larger utility insofar as it lays bare one of the rotten pillars of the Leftist race hustlers.

27 May 2012

Just How Smart Is Obama?


Over at Real Clear Politics, Jack Kelly has a long piece which says that Obama is more like a 40 watt CFL in a sea of 100 watt incandescent

Barack Obama is the smartest man with the highest IQ ever to be elected to the presidency, historian Michael Beschloss told radio talk show host Don Imus in November of 2008.

“So what is his IQ?” Mr. Imus asked. Mr. Beschloss didn’t know. He was just assuming.

Many shared that assumption. Adjectives frequently applied to Mr. Obama are “smart” (278 million hits on Google), “intelligent” (62 million) and “brilliant” (24 million).

There is little evidence to support it. Mr. Obama went to Harvard, but so did George W. Bush, who some liberals consider dumber than dirt. The president won’t release his transcripts, so we can’t judge by his grades. Mr. Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review, but when he was selected, popularity mattered more than scholarship.

Mr. Obama joined an undistinguished law firm, where he tried no cases. So no help there.

Many cite the president’s oratorical skills, but he often rambles when he speaks without a teleprompter. That’s because his brain “is moving so fast that the mouth can’t keep up,” wrote Meghan Daum of the Los Angeles Times.

Mr. Kelly provides many, many more examples of a supposed smart president who never is truly capable of showing how smart he is. The question is “is Obama really not that bright, or is he simply a smart guy who is just a boob?” 57 states. “Austrian” language. Being called an incompetent and an amateur by Bill Clinton. Insulting our allies.

Most of his legislation can’t pass. The legislation that does tends to be really, really unpopular. His signature legislation (outsourced to Congress), the Stimulus, was an abject failure, except in terms of funneling lots of money to companies that were bound to fail (Solyndra, FirstSolar, etc), but rewarded campaign contributors. His other signature legislation, ObamaCare (again, outsourced to Congress and lobbyists), is despised by a majority of Americans.

So, just how smart is Obama? Who knows. What we do know that he is a disaster. If he is smart, it’s book smart, because he sure doesn’t seem to understand what happens out in the real world. Oh, he can fake it when talk (down) to people, but his policies tend to make things worse.

Furthermore, imagine how foolish Obama would look without Joe Biden around. And now, we’re seeing that his campaign skills have eroded, making constant bad decisions by pushing his shiny distractions.

Bookworm loves the article, as he is mentioned (Doug Ross is mentioned, as well). Wake Up America points out that for such a smart guy, Obama is campaigning dumb.

Obama is not smart


Jack Kelly, the well-known columnist who writes for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio, has taken on the claim that Barack Obama is the smartest president ever. Those of us at the Bookworm Room have always derided this contention, which is built on fairy dust and unicorn horns.

I was reading through Kelly’s column, nodding my head in approval at every point he scored:

Barack Obama is the smartest man with the highest IQ ever to be elected to the presidency, historian Michael Beschloss told radio talk show host Don Imus in November of 2008.

“So what is his IQ?” Mr. Imus asked. Mr. Beschloss didn’t know. He was just assuming.

Many shared that assumption. Adjectives frequently applied to Mr. Obama are “smart” (278 million hits on Google), “intelligent” (62 million) and “brilliant” (24 million).

There is little evidence to support it. Mr. Obama went to Harvard, but so did George W. Bush, who some liberals consider dumber than dirt. The president won’t release his transcripts, so we can’t judge by his grades. Mr. Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review, but when he was selected, popularity mattered more than scholarship.

Mr. Obama joined an undistinguished law firm, where he tried no cases. So no help there.

Many cite the president’s oratorical skills, but he often rambles when he speaks without a teleprompter. That’s because his brain “is moving so fast that the mouth can’t keep up,” wrote Meghan Daum of the Los Angeles Times.

Kelly also cites to Obama’s ill-informed statements and his terrible public equity decisions.

I agree with everything Kelly says about Obama’s not-so-formidable intellect. But here’s the fun part (for me) — the part about Obama’s book:

“The book’s language, oddly specific references, literary devices and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers’ own writing,” Mr. Andersen wrote.

Biographer David Maraniss published this month his interview with Genevieve Cook, who dated Mr. Obama in New York, but bears little resemblance to the “New York girlfriend” described in “Dreams.” That’s because she is a composite, Mr. Obama said.

Yet Mr. Obama’s description closely resembles radical Diana Oughton, who was Mr. Ayers girlfriend and who blew herself to smithereens in 1970 while building a bomb intended to kill soldiers at Fort Dix, according to the blogger “Bookworm.” [Emphasis mine, of course.]

To which I say, “Woo hoo!!!”

26 May 2012

Fox News viewers least infformed?

Another ridiculous poll says Fox viewers are the dumbest, but Glenn set out on radio this morning to prove otherwise.

The study, conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University, found that NPR listeners were the most informed while FOX News viewers were at the bottom, even falling behind people who claim to not watch any news programming. The participants were judged based on answers to a series of domestic and international questions.

The study concluded:

… that media sources have a significant impact on the number of questions that people were able to answer correctly. The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly — a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all.

On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51 questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only The Daily Show with Jon Stewart could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.

The Blaze noted that the methodology oversampled Republicans “to get a better estimate of the Republican voting process,” but also increased the Republican margin of error.

What were some of the questions?

1) To the best of your knowledge, have the opposition groups protesting in Egypt been successful in removing Hosni Mubarak?

2) How about the opposition groups in Syria? Have they been successful in removing Bashar al-Assad?

3) Some countries in Europe are deeply in debt, and have had to be bailed out by other countries. To the best of your knowledge, which country has had to spend the most money to bail out European countries?

4) There have been increasing talks about economic sanctions against Iran. What are these sanctions supposed to do?

5) Which party has the most seats in the House of Representatives right now?

6) In December, House Republicans agreed to a short-term extension of a payroll tax cut, but only if President Obama agreed to do what? (Open-Ended)

7) It took a long time to get the final results of the Iowa caucuses for Republican candidates. In the end, who was declared the winner? (Open-Ended)

8) How about the New Hampshire Primary? Which Republican won that race? (Open-Ended)

9) According to the figures, about what percentage of Americans are currently unemployed? (Open-Ended)

Not convinced that FOX viewers were the least informed, Glenn invited a fan to answer the questions and unsurprisingly, he was able to give the right answers.


Occupy Wall Street: Does anyone care about the anti-Semitism?

In the millions of pixels devoted to the radical Occupy Wall Streeters, virtually nothing has been said about its anti-Semitic elements. The conservative Emergency Committee for Israel is out with an eye-popping ad:

Those vile scenes have been noticed in Israel as well. Israel Today observes:

A growing number of Israelis and foreign Jewish groups are expressing concern over the anti-Semitic flavor of some of the “Occupy Wall St.” economic protests in the US. . . .
In Los Angeles, California, protester Patricia McAllister, who identified herself as an employee of the Los Angeles Unified School District (we can only hope she is not an educator), had this to say:
“I think that the Zionist Jews, who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the federal government… they need to be run out of this country.”
On the American Nazi Party website, leader Rocky Suhayda voiced support for “Occupy Wall St.” and asked, “Who hold the wealth and power in this country? The Judeo-Capitalists. Who is therefore the #1 enemy who makes this filth happen? The Judeo-Capitalists.”
One of [the] people reportedly responsible for organizing the “Occupy Wall St.” protests, Adbusters editor Kalle Lasn, has a history of perpetuating conspiracy theories that say the Jews control America’s foreign policies.
Back in New York, another protester insisted that “a small ethnic group constitutes almost all of the hedge fund managers and bankers on Wall St. They are all Jewish. There is a conspiracy in this country where Jews control the media, finances… They have pooled their money together in order to take control of America.”

This does not mean all or even most of the OWS protesters are anti-Semitic, but the prominent liberal leaders who have shown sympathy for their cause have failed to speak out, as have the other elements within the group. Israel Today reports: “More than the few Occupy Wall St. anti-Semites themselves, it is the lack of a clear and firm repudiation of their hateful rhetoric by the mainstream American media and political leaders that has a growing number of Israelis and Jews on edge.”

You will recall that reports of alleged anti-black comments (never verified) from Tea Party groups brought howls from Democrats and the media. But not this time, when Jews are the object of the vilification (documented on film) and it’s the left who is protesting and engaging in behavior that would have earned the Tea Partyers condemnation had they engaged in the same conduct.

The lefty mob is still trying to decide whether to make “demands,” so perhaps they are otherwise occupied. But for respectable politicians and media outlets, where is the outrage?

UPDATE (5:30 p.m.): The Anti-Defamation League has called on “organizers, participants and supporters of these rallies to condemn such bigoted statements clearly and forcefully.”

OWS supporters are doing a poor job of convincing me that they’re not anti-Semites

In a Wednesday appearance on the Russia Today television network, I discussed the violent confrontations between police officers and Occupy Wall Street protesters earlier this week in Oakland, California. I made it clear that I don’t condone police brutality. In fact, I am vehemently opposed to an oppressive police state.

I also explained that though I disagree with the protesters’ radical agenda, I agree that cronyism is a real problem. Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers on Wall Street, Main Street or any other street.

The segment lasted for the better part of 20 minutes. I had a spirited but friendly back-and-forth with my fellow panelist, OWS supporter Charlie McGrath. We agreed that there is no such thing as “too big to fail.” We agreed that violent rhetoric won’t help Occupy Wall Street get its message across (I still question what OWS’s message is, but certainly large-scale skirmishes with Occupiers hurling paint at police punctuated by tear gas being used on the protesters won’t make the message any clearer.)

McGrath and I also agreed that it was strange that the show’s host kept showing clips of Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello at OWS rallies and asking us to comment on what he was saying.

Despite all these areas of agreement, the OWS-supporting viewers weren’t satisfied. In fact, many were furious. While a few supported my being on the show, the majority focused on my contention that many Occupiers are anti-Semites. Note: I have not edited the below comments from the Russia Today YouTube channel.

One commenter, “largegrainofsalt,” asserted that the fact that the protesters have observed Jewish holidays proves that they aren’t anti-Semitic:

tony wasn’t just an ass, he was demonstrably wrong. the protests are not in any way anti-semetic. several of the larger protest held events for a jewish holiday recently.

His comment was surrounded by others that undermine his thesis:

Tony Katz? What kind of surname is Katz? Another Jew-Zionist pig!!!!! This should speak volumes of what his message and hidden intent is: to protect the criminal dirt-bag jew element who have been ruining the world for decades. — waddietwo

Tony Katz = hybrid cross between Rick Moranis and nerdy Gene Simmons. Like all Yids, he reminds me of someone who would steal you wallet and then help you look for it. He’d probably kill your mother for 30 shekels. — slvrizgold

Tony Katz the mouthy rodent-faced Jew at it again. — papalolita

Katz is a paid talking head to downplay the OWS and a member of the same tribe that caused this mess in the first place. Not only the jewsury the bankers have caused but the moral degradation these satanists are promoting — adampie12

Tony Katz is a Jew. Thus his siding with the police. Any questions? — kniteofzero

Also undermining largegrainofsalt’s thesis are this sign, this sign, this sign and this video, among others.

Not all the comments are anti-Semitic. Some people just hate; some specifically hate me; still others want me dead:

ill throw pain on you asswhole we have a right to do what were doin its called the first amendment … — brad97777

Tea party co-opted by big corporations — gottmedblandad


Fat bearded man needs to be taken out and shot. — Kennedy369

Fuck you Tony, you sell out liar c*nt. — wasy35

tony katz is a fat piece of shit — SUPERSTUD6000

Maybe Hillary Clinton will designate an “Open Hunting on Tony” day — like she did on the Libyan president. Let’s be ready. I’m getting the shooting iron oiled up now… — NibiruLives

If this is how OWS’s supporters behave online, I can’t help but wonder how these protests will end. What happened earlier this week in Oakland might be a clue.

Tony Katz is the host of the daily radio show “The Tony Katz Radio Spectacular” on the All Patriots Media Network. He’s also a Los Angeles tea party organizer and speaker. Find him on Twitter @tonykatz

Gallup Poll: More Than Twice As Many Americans Consider Themselves Conservative On Economic Issues As Those Who Say They’re Liberal…


Via Politico:

There are more than twice as many Americans who consider themselves conservative on economic issues as opposed to liberal, according to a new Gallup Poll Friday.

Almost half of those surveyed, 46 percent, said their views about the economy are conservative, while just 20 percent said they were liberal. About a third, 32 percent, said they are moderate when it comes to the economy.

Americans are also more likely to be conservative than liberal on social issues — 38 percent said their views on social matters are conservative, compared with 28 percent who said they are liberal and 31 percent who said they are moderate.

From 2001 to 2008, an average of 42 percent of Americans identified themselves as being conservative on economic issues. In the past four years, this average climbed to 48 percent, along with a decline in people who said they hold moderate views on the economy.

Keep reading…

For Some Unknown Reason George Soros "sympathizes" Ocuppy Wall Street Movement

The fact that they are doing his bidding has nothing to do with it.

25 May 2012

Can you increase your sex appeal by changing the position of your chin?


Girls, chin down. Guys, chin up.

Human faces show marked sexual shape dimorphism, and this affects their attractiveness. Humans also show marked height dimorphism, which means that men typically view womens faces from slightly above and women typically view mens faces from slightly below. We tested the idea that this perspective difference may be the evolutionary origin of the face shape dimorphism by having males and females rate the masculinity/femininity and attractiveness of male and female faces that had been manipulated in pitch (forward or backward tilt), simulating viewing the face from slightly above or below. As predicted, tilting female faces upwards decreased their perceived femininity and attractiveness, whereas tilting them downwards increased their perceived femininity and attractiveness. Male faces tilted up were judged to be more masculine, and tilted down judged to be less masculine. This suggests that sexual selection may have embodied this viewpoint difference into the actual facial proportions of men and women.

Source: "A New Viewpoint on the Evolution of Sexually Dimorphic Human Faces" from Evolutionary Psychology (2010), Volume: 8, Issue: 4, Pages: 573-585

Seven Reasons Barack Obama is not a Christian

Source Print E-mail
There is a spiritual emergency in America.

Barack Obama is in the process of trying to recreate the Christian faith in his own, very liberal and unorthodox image.

Built on a foundation of radical Black Liberation Theology, theological liberalism and post-modernism, Obama is undermining historic, biblical Christianity while claiming his is a Christian. In the process, he is defaming the Christian faith.

By declaring he is a Christian, yet denying Christianity's most essential truths and traditional morality, Obama is associating Christ with some of the most wicked practices imaginable, all of which are condemned in the Bible.

By any historic or biblical standard, Barack Obama is not a Christian.

With his incredible celebrity status, Obama's ideas about spiritual matters have become very significant, and they are very dangerous.

Now, more than ever, Christianity is under attack from without and within. We need your help to stand for Christ.

Over the next few weeks the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission will be releasing 7 short videos entitled, "7 reasons why Barack Obama is not a Christian."

If you want to receive all these timely videos, sign up for e-mail alerts on our home page.

It is critical that we spread the truth about Obama's fake Christianity so that Christians can defend the truth.

Our concern is only spiritual and we pray for Barack Obama to repent and turn to Christ and His Word.

Make sure you are signed up to receive all 7 videos and forward this vital information to your Christian friends and family.

For a more in-depth look at the campaign, click here.

OWS Walking Past Soros’ House To Protest Outside Murdoch’s Apartment

On Wednesday’s The Factor, Bill O’Reilly brought on author and columnist Ann Coulter to discuss Barack Obama being in “full campaign mode.”

As you know, Obama visited Jay Leno where he talked about, among other things, the end of the Iraq War and Occupy Wall Street.

Coulter shared that she finds Obama’s mannerisms “increasingly grating.” O’Reilly noted that a recent poll organized by Fox News found that 48 percent of respondents would be “distraught” if Obama were re-elected (Less people, O’Reilly joked, than would totally freak out were Coulter elected Commander-in-Chief. I don’t think she terribly appreciated that attempt at humor ). Coulter was dismayed that more people weren’t preparing to high-tail it to Canada given Obamacare’s impact on the economy.

On the matter of Occupy Wall Street, Coulter found Obama’s comments on Leno’s show “annoying” given that he is “buddies” with the very ├╝berwealthy, corrupt Wall Streeters the movement professes to be against. Plus, she added, it’s not as if the protest is especially committed to upholding its professed ideas across the board instead of creating a demonstration that has a much more partisan agenda:

In point of fact, these people are not against Wall Street. They’re walking right past George Soros’ house and protesting outside Rupert Murdoch’s apartment. Well, you know, the name of their group isn’t “Occupy Producers Of Products We Don’t Approve Of.”

Have a look, via Fox News.

Florida Poll: Romney 47, Failed President 41

The hits just keep on coming for Dear Leader. He’s lost the War on Women, he can’t even crack 60% running against undecided or unknowns in Arkansas and Kentucky and now he’s fading fast in the key swing state of Florida.

A new poll shows likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney moving ahead in the crucial swing state of Florida to take a six-point lead over President Obama.

Romney holds a 47 to 41 percent lead among registered voters, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll. Romney trailed Obama by 7 points in the same poll taken in March and held a 1 point lead early in May.

A majority of Florida voters surveyed said that Obama did not deserve a second term by 52 percent to 44 percent.

“Gov. Mitt Romney has slipped into the lead in Florida and that standing is confirmed by his much better numbers than the president when voters are asked whether they view the candidates favorably or unfavorably,” said Quinnipiac University Polling Institute Assistant Vice President Peter A. Brown.

The poll found voters viewed Romney favorably by a 44 to 35 percent margin, while only 45 percent viewed Obama positively to 50 negative.

But don’t worry folks, all is well according to delusional David Axelrod. Bet you didn’t know Obama’s got spending under control. In what almost appears to be a satirical Onion piece, he cites a guy approrpriately named Nutting who claims Obama’s out-of-control spending has never happened. Really.

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

So all those stories about Obama racking up trillions in debt? Never happened. Oh, and gas prices? Meh, nothing to sweat, according to Nutting. Judging by his Twitter timeline, Nutting would have been live tweeting from Hitler’s bunker that everything was rosy back in April 1945.

Occupy Wall Street Racism

Obama attended socialist event

Leftist SPLC Names New Black Panther Malik Zulu Shabazz To Its List of Right-Wing Radicals…

30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right

The last decade has seen major changes in the American radical right. What was once a world largely dominated by a few relatively well-organized groups has become a scene populated by large numbers of smaller, weaker groups, with only a handful led by the kind of charismatic chieftains that characterized the 1990s.

At the same time, there has been explosive growth in several sectors of the radical right, especially in the last few years, much of it driven by anger over the diminishing white majority (the Census Bureau has predicted that non-Hispanic whites will fall to less than 50% of the population by 2050) and the severe dislocations caused by a still-ailing economy.

An anti-Muslim movement, almost entirely ginned up by political opportunists and hard-line Islamophobes, has grown enormously since taking off in 2010, when reported anti-Muslim hate crimes went up by 50%. During the same time frame, a number of religious-right anti-gay groups, enraged and on the defensive as swelling majorities of Americans drop their opposition to same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights, have grown extraordinarily vicious in their propaganda.

Most dramatically, so-called “Patriot” groups — which, unlike most hate groups, see the federal government as their primary enemy — have grown explosively in just the last three years, going from 149 groups in 2008 to 1,274 last year. As a result of all these developments and others, a new crop of leaders has come to the fore.

Some are longtime activists of the radical right, but others have become active only in recent years. What follows is an alphabetized series of short profiles of key men and women activists of the radical right — 30 to watch. [...]

Malik Zulu Shabazz

Date of Birth: 1966
Groups: New Black Panther Party
Location: Washington, D.C.
Ideology: Black Separatist
Although he’s sometimes identified in the mainstream media as a mere “legal adviser” or “community organizer,” Malik Shabazz is a racist black nationalist with a long, well-documented history of violently anti-Semitic remarks and accusations about the inherent evil of white people. He is also particularly skilled at orchestrating provocative protests. Ousted from the Nation of Islam after he became an embarrassment even to that hard-line group, Shabazz went on to take up the leadership of the New Black Panther Party.

24 May 2012

Israel expels illegal immigrants


It should be fascinating to see how the "conservative" Jewish columnists who have long advocated open borders in America react to this immigration-related news out of Israel:
Illegal infiltrators threaten Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic country, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said at the beginning of the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday. Calling the issue “very grave” and a threat to the “social fabric,” Netanyahu said, “If we do not stop the entry, the problem, there are now 60,000 illegal infiltrators; could easily grow to 600,000 illegal infiltrators. This would inundate the state and, to a considerable degree, cancel out its image as a Jewish and democratic state.”

The prime minister spoke of the importance of finishing construction of the Egyptian border fence and working to send away “those [illegal migrants] who are already inside.”

Netanyahu said the latter will be done in part by punishing employers who hire illegal migrants....

Also on Sunday, Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) repeated his call to jail illegal African migrants, most of whom he said were involved in crime. “I repeat what I said – we must jail all of them or deport them with a stipend. The moment they are put in jail – others won’t want to come here anymore,” Yishai said, in an interview with Army Radio.
Now, I support Netanyahu's position, and Yishai's as well. I support it for Israel, I support it for the USA, and I also support it for the nations of Eastern and Western Europe. And for every other nation on the planet as well. Multiculturalism is not merely a failure, but a lie. So I should be very interested to hear how avid immigration advocates such as Jon Podhoretz, whose advocacy of open immigration is overtly and explicitly based on his Jewishness, explain the dichotomy between Netanyahu's position and their own. Podhoretz once said: "[A]s a Jew, I have great difficulty supporting a blanket policy of immigration restriction because of what happened to the Jewish people after 1924 and the unwillingness of the United States to take Jews in."

But why should the United States not have been any more unwilling to take Jews in than the Jews are to take in Africans? Given that some Jews are still more than willing to whine about having been deported from Spain more than 500 freaking years ago, it seems more than a little ironic that the current leaders of the Jewish state should now claim the right to deport non-Jews from their own country. If the Jewish people want to claim some sort of human right to immigrate into every country in the world, then they have absolutely no grounds for deporting 60,000 African immigrants, or 600,000, for that matter. I already know how at least one of our resident Israelis will answer, since we are of the same opinion on this issue, but I'm interested to hear what Chelm and other Jewish readers have to say about these statements by the Israeli government. Do they believe Netanyahu and Yishai are wrong, do they believe the historical expellers of the Jews were justified to expel them, or do they believe in one law for themselves and another for non-Jews?

It seems to me that if Israel is justified in deporting these African immigrants, that action will provide a powerful ex post facto justification for the many non-violent historical deportations of the Jewish people from European countries during the medieval period. I am, of course, distinguishing these non-violent deportations from the historical massacres that took place from time to time during the same historical epoch, especially in Germany and Russia, which cannot be justified regardless of what the current Israeli government ends up doing. It will also offer similar ex post facto justification for the more recent expulsion of Jews from the Arab nations. One also wonders how an excess of Africans can be said to threaten Israel's existence as a democratic state.

Now, it seems likely that Chelm will consider this post to be "dangerous", in the sense that he describes in his post entitled The Dangerous Nature of the Alternative Right. That's his call, of course, but I find his assertion that doing nothing more than pointing out incontrovertible facts and asking the questions they obviously raise is tantamount to "attempting to put together an intellectually, socially palatable basis for a more modern brand of anti-semitism" to be more than a little dubious.

After all, if it's so easy to put together a sound and popular basis for a new anti-semitism, doesn't that tend to suggest that any such anti-semitism must be based on grounds much more solid and justifiable than irrational hatred? What Chelm can't seem to understand is that if one can "undermine Israel" by simply observing what Israel is undeniably doing, it isn't the observer who is doing the undermining. Nor does he appear to grasp that when a person insists genuinely neutral people are not only lying about their lack of interest in him, but are in fact his secret enemy, his paranoid assertion is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy over time. You can only attack people for so long before they get tired of your antics and start to find you irritating. And this is as true of groups as it is of individuals.

As I have previously noted, some Jews appear to be determined to create enemies where none previously existed. And while it's certainly a profitable strategy for the likes of Abe Foxman and the Southern Poverty Law Center, I would suggest that it is a ludicrously suboptimal survival strategy for a group that currently represents around 0.3 percent of the global population.

As to Chelm's defense of referring to various non-Jews as Amalekites, I note the following from Wikipedia: "Of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) followed by Orthodox Jews, three refer to the Amalek: to remember what the Amalekites did to Jews, to not forget what the Amalekites did to Jews, and to destroy the Amalekites utterly. The rabbis derived these from Deuteronomy 25:17-18, Exodus 17:14 and 1 Sam. 15:3." Now, perhaps he's not an Orthodox Jew and was simply using the term as colorful rhetoric, but it is simply ridiculous to attempt to somehow turn this around and claim that I am engaging in any sort of psychological projection by noting that the label, at the very least, potentially implies violence.

What are the first words you should say in a negotiation?


Something very similar to what the guy on the other side of the table just said:

We hypothesized that in online, virtual formats, negotiators receive better outcomes when mimicking their counterpart's language; furthermore, we predicted that this strategy would be more effective when occurring early in the negotiation rather than at the end, and should also be effective across both independent and interdependent cultures.

Results from two experiments supported these hypotheses. Experiment 1 was conducted in Thailand and demonstrated that negotiators who actively mimicked their counterpart's language in the first 10 min of the negotiation obtained higher individual gain compared to those mimicking during the last 10 min, as well as compared to control participants.

Experiment 2 replicated this effect in the United States (with Dutch and American negotiators) and also showed that trust mediated the effect of virtual linguistic mimicry on individual negotiation outcomes. Implications for virtual communication, strategic mimicry, and negotiations are discussed.

Source: "Early words that work: When and how virtual linguistic mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes" from Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 47, Issue 3, May 2011, Pages 616-621

Jon Stewart Way Back in 2000: 'I'm a Socialist' and No One Would Think I'm 'Far Right'

23 May 2012

Student Tebowed at Graduation, Diploma Withheld by Mother

A teen Tebowing during his graduation ceremony Saturday caused his diploma to be withheld by Florida school officials, who didn't want the high school senior's actions to be an "inspiration" for other antics.

Chuck Shriner, 17, of Bishop Verot's Catholic school, was bet $5 by his friends that he wouldn't go on stage and imitate the popular pose of the New York Jets' Christian quarterback. They underestimated him; he Tebowed on stage- dropping to one knee to pray- while parents and students erupted in laughter.

"I just thought it was fun," the teen told Naples News. "I was just doing it to make graduation memorable."

School administrators took the prank more seriously, however, thinking the act could lead to more shenanigans during ceremonies.

"They said what I did would give underclassmen inspiration to do something else, that it might lead to something else," Shriner explained. They then punished the football player to "set an example."

After the incident, Shriner was told that he would be cleaning up the gymnasium where the graduation was held as penance for his actions. In addition, his mother- a mathematics teacher at the school- had pushed for the graduate to have his diploma withheld.

Like us on Facebook

"She's a math teacher there," said the student. "It was all her idea."

Apparently, she suggested the punishment to "teach him a lesson"- seniors were specifically instructed not to deviate from the normal walk across stage, but Shriner did it anyway.

"We were told not to mess around during [graduation]," said the senior.

While his diploma was withheld for a short time, eventually it was released to his mother. She also admitted to the senior what she had done, and how she had influenced school administrators to exacerbate the original penalty.

"She was really mad," said Shriner. "But I think it was worth it."

The senior's mom has at least one reason to be proud: her son is attending the University of Central Florida in the fall to study mechanical engineering. Shriner was similarly proud of his stunt, and posted it on Facebook for all to see.

"Moment in my life I'll never forget, getting my diploma taken away for doing the Tebow on stage in front of (Principal John) Cavell. So worth it," he wrote.

What's Princeton concealing for Michelle Obama?


Whichever, there's little doubt that the void in Michelle left by a lack of pride in America and gratitude for affirmative action was filled by suspicion of whites not nearly as justified as her faith in the black bloc vote going to a young black man instead of a much more mature and experienced white woman whose ex-President husband had been called America's first black President by Maya Angelou, a black female icon of the civil rights movement.

Princeton University made the former Michelle Robinson's senior sociology thesis, titled 'Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community,' unavailable to the public until after Election Day 2008.

If it simply reflected well on its author, would it be being kept from public view?

Surely not.

With (1) The New York Times publishing a scurrilous hit piece, based solely on anonymous sources, on presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, (2) The Washington Post and other newspapers NOT even telling their readers that the former Michelle Robinson, now 44-year old First Lady hopeful Michelle Obama, had solemnly said that she had never been really proud of the nation of which she wants to be First Lady until she noticed that her rookie United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama's presidential campaign was being favorably received and (3) Newsweek doing a laudatory cover story on Michelle with the title "Barack's Rock" and an implicit (but not completely fulfilled) cover promise to reveal "The Real Michelle Obama," people should demand that Princeton lift the embargo on Michelle's thesis (instead of the embargo on Castro's Cuba, regardless of which Castro brother is the dictator down there).

Candid Michelle: "I'm a statistical oddity. Black girl, brought up on the South Side of Chicago. Was I supposed to go to Princeton? No ... They said maybe Harvard Law was too much for me to reach for."

Due to affirmative action, Michelle went to both elite educational institutions.

According to Newsweek, "The Real Michelle Obama" was quite pleased to be an affirmative action beneficiary, but perturbed by her perception of white classmates at those institutions.

Newsweek: "At Harvard, she felt the same racial divide [she felt at Princeton]. Verna Williams and Michelle became friends in their first year of law school. She remembers many of their fellow black students worrying that white classmates viewed them as charity cases. But she suggests Michelle was not among them. 'She recognized that she had been privileged by affirmative action and she was very comfortable with that,' Williams recalls."

Michelle seems to be into revisionist history.

Newsweek: "Michelle recalls things differently. A campaign spokeswoman says she had an edge getting into Princeton not because of affirmative action, but because her older brother was there as a scholar athlete. She was a 'legacy,' just like any other applicant with family ties to Princeton."

Who do you believe — Verna or Michelle?

Whichever, there's little doubt that the void in Michelle left by a lack of pride in America and gratitude for affirmative action was filled by suspicion of whites not nearly as justified as her faith in the black bloc vote going to a young black man instead of a much more mature and experienced white woman whose ex-President husband had been called America's first black President by Maya Angelou, a black female icon of the civil rights movement.

Newsweek: "One senior adviser, who asked for anonymity talking about a private meeting, recalls fretting to Michelle early on that Obama's support among Southern black voters wasn't picking up quickly enough. Michelle told him to relax. 'Don't worry,' she said. 'It will be just like [Obama's Senate campaign in] Illinois. The numbers will all move our way.' As it turned out, she was right."

Newsweek on young Michelle: "She did well in school (she skipped second grade), but she was not at the top of her class. She didn't get the attention of the school's college counselors, who helped the brightest students find spots at prestigious universities.... Some of her teachers told her she didn't have the grades or test scores to make it to the Ivies. But she applied to Princeton and was accepted."

Reality: If Michelle's ancestors had come from Asia instead of Africa, she probably would not have been admitted to Princeton, no matter how good a basketball player her brother was.

Yet Newsweek accepted the notion that the Princeton that admitted Michelle was hostile to her: "Overwhelmingly white and privileged, Princeton was not an easy place for a young black woman from the inner city. There weren't formal racial barriers and black students weren't officially excluded. But many of the white students couldn't hide that they regarded their African-American classmates as affirmative-action recipients who didn't really deserve to be there. Angela Acree, a close friend who attended Princeton with Michelle, says the university didn't help dispel that idea."

Even Princeton's special efforts to acclimate minority students were perceived by Michelle as insulting: "Black and Hispanic students were invited to attend special classes a few weeks before the beginning of freshman semester, which the school said were intended to help kids who might need assistance adjusting to Princeton's campus. [Michelle's friend] Acree couldn't see why. She had come from an East Coast prep school; Michelle had earned good grades in Chicago. 'We weren't sure whether they thought we needed an extra start or they just said, "Let's bring all the black kids together."'"

White students reportedly slighted Michelle:

"Acree, Michelle and another black student... became inseparable companions. The three of them talked often about the racial divide on campus — especially how white students they knew from class would pass them on the green and pretend not to see them. 'It was, like, here comes a black kid,' says Acree. The black students tended to hang out together at the Third World Center, a social club on campus, while the white party scene revolved around Princeton's eating clubs.

"Michelle felt the tension acutely enough that she made it the subject of her senior sociology thesis, titled 'Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.' The paper is now under lock and key, but according to the Chicago Sun-Times, Michelle wrote that Princeton 'made me far more aware of my "blackness" than ever before.' She wrote that she felt like a visitor on the supposedly open-minded campus.'Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with Whites at Princeton,' she wrote, 'it often seems as if, to them, I will always be Black first and a student second.' (Today, Michelle says, not quite convincingly, that she can't remember what was in her thesis.)"

But Princeton, which is supposed to be about the pursuit of knowledge, is hiding that thesis until after Election Day 2008!

© Michael Gaynor

Is US President Barack Obama a Christian?


You asked Satan. In fact, everyone wants to know. Two news articles recently raised the question, and, in fact, answered it. First was an AP article entitled, “Obama makes rare trip to church while in Hawaii,” and, second, a Politics Daily article entitled, “Obama Tries to Reassert His Christian Bona Fides, With Words and Deeds.”

Hmmmm. . .

Question: If you have to wonder if someone is a Christian, guess what is the likely answer?

Ha ha ha ha ha. And you are probably right!

But since you asked, here is my short answer: I don’t know (for sure).

Surprised? You shouldn’t be. Unlike God (Blechhh!) I am not omniscient. I don’t know everything, and I cannot see into people’s hearts and minds and determine the state of their spiritual health. In this respect I am no different than you; I can only infer from what I see and hear.

Of course, I have much more experience judging inner conviction by outward evidence, so here is my longer answer:

For the most part I judge a man’s heart the same way God does and you should: by the fruit of his life on earth.

But I have been known to be wrong. On more than one occasion someone I felt sure I would welcome through the gates of Hell went the other way, never to be seen by me again. But more often than not I see those who appear to be religious on earth, going through all the right motions and acting the saint, only to find them come tumbling into my eternal domain, moaning and groaning and acting surprised.

Often I hear the earthly self-righteous screaming pitifully: “But Jesus, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?” It seems there are many fools who do not believe in God, and many fooled who do!

Of course, I have helped make both the fools and the fooled.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

I have spread many lies on earth about how to get to heaven. I have spread the lie that one need not be a Christian at all; there are many paths to God as long as one is good and believes in love. I have spread the lie that one “need not go to church” to be a good Christian. I have spread the lie that going to church makes one a good Christian. I have spread the lie that good works alone will get one to heaven, and calling oneself a Christian is a mere label and nothing else. I have spread the lie that belief systems that deny the deity of Christ are Christian.

Lies, lies, lies. Ha ha ha ha ha. And so many believe my lies and believe themselves to be Christians.

But the biggest lie of all is that man can make God in his own image, so that becoming a “Christian” is an exercise in semantics, where one’s self-identification as a Christian is deemed sufficient for the actual fact of being a Christian, and God otherwise is molded to be what man wishes him to be.

In fact, a Christian is a very unique being on earth. A Christian is one who has been reborn spiritually, becoming alive and free, having escaped by God’s grace from my death, sin, and destruction. That is why I hate Christians. They have experienced a supernatural work of God in their hearts, a work that I am powerless to stop and which bears fruit in one’s actions that I am equally at pains to stop.

One can fake the actions, but one can’t fake the rebirth.

Sometimes the fakers fool even me. So that is why I hesitate to declare definitively on Obama’s Christianity. But let me tell you what it looks like from my view.

I have many hundreds of years watching human beings, and watching Christians. I almost always know a true Christian. A true Christian has a humble dependence on God that is expressed unambiguously in word and deed, in public and in private. A true Christian has experienced a life-changing encounter with a living God that results in the Christian’s trading slavery to sin for slavery to righteousness; that is, a true Christian seeks to live every moment of every day in regenerated righteous obedience to God as revealed in his word, the Bible.

A true Christian is not one who merely self-identifies as one. An unregenerate self-identifier is merely a lying sinner.

A true Christian seeks to destroy my kingdom. And his words and actions make his intentions clear. I oppose true Christians at every turn, seeking to thwart their every effort at advancing God’s kingdom on earth.

Now, answer me this: would a true Christian cover up Christian symbols while speaking at a Christian university? Obama did.

Would a true Christian vote unambiguously and without apology for laws that make killing an innocent human being legal? Obama did. More than once.

Would a true Christian refer to people in communities as bitter, and as clinging to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them”? Obama did.

Would a true Christian support the homosexual political agenda, in clear opposition to Biblical Christianity? Obama does.

Would a true Christian support same-sex marriage, for example by using tax dollars to fund same-sex lifestyles? Obama did.

Would a true Christian “forget” to include the reference to a “creator” when quoting his nation’s founding document’s most famous line? Obama does. Repeatedly.

Would a true Christian “forget” his nation’s own motto of “In God We Trust” and quote a different motto instead in a major speech to Muslims? Obama did.

I could go on forever (literally!).

But think for yourself, my servants. You can see the same behavior I see. What you may lack is a clear understanding of what a Christian is.

But if you rationally juxtapose what a true Christian looks like with what Obama looks like, there is only one reasonable answer to the question “Is Obama a Christian.”

From my viewpoint, the answer is clearly no. And I back my words up with actions; I rarely find myself needing to oppose a speech, a vote, a policy, or any other action of President Obama’s.

But I have been known to be wrong.

22 May 2012

Good News For Romney: Team Obama Is Panicking

It's easy to tell when Democrats are in full-panic mode.

They just use more extreme rhetoric.

Take the latest line of attack against Bain Capital, for instance. Rather than recognizing that the anti-Bain strategy has been a failure, they just double-down on it and then make even more ridculous statements about the subject rather than cutting their losses.

Which leads us to James Clyburn.

Appearing on Jansing & Co. this morning, Mr. Clyburn characterized Romney's work at Bain Captial as "raping companies".

And that's how you know Romney is winning.

If there are 5 stages of grief concerning recognizing failed campaign strategies, then Democrats are still in the first stage: Denial.

They just can't believe that most Americans don't hate private equity firms as much as they do.

That is, when they're not taking cash from them.

Oh, it gets better.

Clyburn also characterized Romney's work at Bain as a "war on womeny" way of doing things.

So apparently Mr. Clyburn also didn't get the memo that the "war on women" strategy was another failure for Democrats.

The Democrats have, in fact, spiraled so low in their use of extreme rhetoric during this campaign season that we expect them, at any moment, to campaign against Republicans by saying that the GOP wants to reinstate slavery.

Don't laugh, Whoopi Goldberg went down that road in 2008.

Obama's misterious past

Barack Hussein Obama - International Man of Mystery

What - you expected to know as much about the life of our current president, Barack Obama, as you do about the lives of Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Joe the Plumber and now George Zimmerman?!? Well the media has a term for that...

And oh yeah: Barack Obama's biographical brief was edited repeatedly over 17 years. And guess when his birthplace finally got changed from Kenya to Hawaii? Hint: It rhymes with 'residential erection'.

20 May 2012

Young Feminists: Strong, Confident, & Single — Dating Distresses of a Young Feminist

By Christina Cherel

They say good men are hard to find and that sailing through the dating waters can be rough. I’ve found that, for an outspoken, pro-choice feminist woman in her early twenties, the pool of eligible bachelors is even shallower.

I have publicly self-identified as a feminist for about five years now. Even before my official declaration, dating was difficult — to say the least. I never purposefully attempted to emasculate prospective partners but, for some reason unknown to me, my opinions on legal abortion, access to reproductive health care, and women’s rights in general seemed to scare away even the most promising suitors. Our dates were enjoyable, we had good chemistry, and then the inevitable “F” word would find its way into our conversations — and that was it. Relationship over. It appeared as if the right to form my own opinions and beliefs was acceptable only as long as doing so did not empower me or other women.

My strong connection to feminist ideas are at the very core of who I am and yet I found myself minimizing the importance of feminism to me in order to appease the men I was dating. I did not want to scare them away by demonstrating my unwavering dedication to women’s rights and justice — so instead, for a time, I dismissed their meaning in my life. Relationships require a certain degree of concessions and balance, but I realized that sacrificing the part of myself I most loved was not a compromise I was ready to make. As realization took hold that these men would never truly appreciate and love my whole self, I ended whatever relationship we had. It may be difficult to imagine spending a cold winter evening without a significant other, but being forced to downplay how important feminism in my life would be even harder for me.

The men who comprise my recent dating history are by no means “bad” men, but they clearly did not respect or reciprocate my desire for independence and equality — socially, politically and financially — for myself and all women. Admittedly, I voiced my passion for these issues quite vocally but, for me, this was the same as discussing my favorite band or sports team: a piece of myself I wanted my partner to understand. I would discuss at length the importance of copay-free birth control access and programs to promote gender equity, but my dates never could comprehend why these were more than just ideological beliefs for me. They didn’t get that these beliefs form the basis of both my professional and my personal life, and are not matters on which I am ready to compromise.

Turns out, I’m not alone in thinking that feminist men are hard to find. While women may unite and rejoice in the opportunities and advancements feminism has afforded us, men are not as quick to do so. According to one survey conducted in the United Kingdom, 50 percent of men reported feeling unappreciated or undervalued; an astonishing 82 percent of men reported feeling that their traditional role in society has been usurped. Undermining men’s traditional role as “family breadwinner” and making them feel unappreciated is not the goal of feminist ideology, but maybe it’s become an unintended effect. Though fewer women are dependent on men to provide economic security and physical protection, feminism does not eliminate the basic human desire to love and to be loved in return. Accepting women as equal human beings with the same rights, responsibilities, and desires and being in a loving, mature relationship should not be treated as mutually exclusive entities.

Perhaps men’s fear of the growing ubiquity of feminism in popular culture and among younger women isn’t completely unjustified. Although women still only earn 73 cents to every dollar men earn (even for the same job), we are becoming more financially self-reliant and, as a result, are marrying later in life. Women have substantially increased both their education and wage earning levels, so marrying to gain financial security has become a way of the past for many women. It may be that for some, feminism, and ideals of social equality generally, may cripple men’s spirits as much as it empowers women’s.

On the way home from work recently, a friend and I discussed a rally I’d attended at the Supreme Court building to defend women’s access to contraceptives. As I described my disenchantment with the numerous anti-choice supporters who were also protesting that day, an older gentlemen sitting across from me gave me a puzzled glance. He asked me if I found it hard finding men to date who were not intimidated by my strength and dedication to feminist ideals. At first, his question amused me; how could my dedication to equality intimidate any well-educated, socially-conscious person? I had never given much thought to the way my passion for women’s right and reproductive freedom may threaten others — especially men.

He clarified by explaining that he thought it must be hard for a young woman with such strong beliefs in feminism — which is sometimes, albeit falsely, perceived to be anti-male — to date. I realized that he’s right. Dating can be difficult and frustrating; it can make you want to give up on love entirely — and those are on the good days! Attempting to find a man who not only accepts my own feminist beliefs, but also endorses them himself feels almost impossible at times. According to my dating history, men view feminism as an unknown force to fear, not as the source of empowerment and sisterhood I’ve experienced.

Is it too much to ask that a partner understand and respect my views as a feminist? Women have undoubtedly achieved major strides in economic, political, and social sectors, but how meaningful are those achievements if a self-proclamation of feminism still intimidates men? I envision a dating world where my strength, perseverance, and dedication to social justice are what attracts a man to me, rather than being attributes he’s willing to overlook. Marching in DC at women’s rights rallies, supporting feminist women’s health organizations, and never relenting in the fight for affordable and accessible health care for all women are among my greatest passions. Participating in these events with other women (and men!) make me feel alive and that I can accomplish anything. It is hard to envision my life without these wonderful elements, and yet I have not yet had success finding a man willing to not only accept that them as part of my life forever, but also be proud of my strength and commitment.

Feminist men exist and have certainly grown in numbers over the years. But, the sad reality is that there just are not enough men who are comfortable admitting to being a feminist, whether out of fear of the unknown or false perceptions of what feminism means. While the long-term dating potential of most men I meet now may be limited, I continue to hold out hope for a caring, intelligent, AND feminist man to complement my social activism and very busy life!

Christina Cherel is a former NWHN intern; she is currently working on her Masters in Public Health in Epidemiology at Boston University.

18 May 2012

Obama's literary agent says he was 'born in Kenya'. How did the mainstream media miss this?

Conservatives claim that Obama manipulated his Kenyan roots to gain attention

Whatever you think of Breitbart.com’s punishing vetting process, it has exposed just how little work the mainstream media did in investigating candidate Obama back in 2008. Not all of Team Breitbart’s revelations have been election-deciders, but they have often been stuff that a simple Google would have uncovered. If they revealed tomorrow that he’d had his own cross-dressing-themed sitcom on primetime TV in the 1980s, I wouldn’t be surprised.

The latest find is a fascinating inversion of the birther conspiracy. Breitbart.com has discovered that in 1991 Barack Obama’s literary agent (who also represented New Kids on the Block) published a booklet that included a biography of the future President. The audience was “business colleagues” in the publishing industry and it was designed to promote Obama’s anticipated first book (later abandoned) called Journeys in Black and White. Here’s how it describes the author’s origins.

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation.

The key phrase here is “was born in Kenya" – and this bio line was apparently being used as late as 2007.

Today, the President has satisfied all right-minded folk that he was in fact born in Hawaii. Breitbart.com itself has always rejected the absurd cult of birtherism. In fact, this story is really the opposite of birtherism – Breitbart infers that in the past Obama encouraged people to think that he was born abroad in order to establish an identity as an authentic, exotic voice in the debate on racial politics.

Obama’s old literary agent has issued a terse statement to the effect that the wording was all her fault and she never consulted her client. If that’s true, she’s a bad agent. A different agent, quoted by Breitbart.com, disagrees. He told the website “that while ‘almost nobody’ wrote his or her own biography, the non-athletes in the booklet, whom ‘the agents deal[t] with on a daily basis,’ were ‘probably’ approached to approve the text as presented.”

If we accept that Obama didn’t provide the biography, it would seem highly unlikely that he didn’t get a chance to vet it. Accepting that he didn’t do that either, it’s incredibly strange that the literary agent approached by Breitbart.com does not remember Obama calling the agency to register a complaint and make a correction. My mother spent a lot of her childhood in Grenada. If my literary agent told people I was born in the Caribbean, I’d at least pick up the phone to set the record straight.

Look beyond the sordid details and the big story here is that this nugget wasn’t part of the wider discussion had back in 2008 about Obama's background and credentials. And why not? The documents were easy to find – the one that showed that “born in Kenya” was still being used in 2007 was on the Internet.

As for Obama, the vetting continues and Republicans have yet more to play with – with the focus, sadly, once more on race. For those who think that the Tea Party media is being obsessive and nasty, think of this as an exercise in levelling the playing field. If The Washington Post is going to write about how Mitt Romney once cut the hair of a guy it presumes was gay (because, well, his hair needed cutting), then Breitbart.com probably thinks it has every just cause to shout about every occasion that Obama ate a dog or told someone he was half-Phoenecian to get their vote. Tit for tat, although the Rightwing's tat is a little better researched.



Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More