SUNSTEIN SAYS AMERICANS TOO RACIST

BUT HEY WAIT, there's more, this Sunstein fellow says that Americans are too racist FOR SOCIALISM. And he defends communism and the welfare state but says that this nation's 'white majority' opposes programs aiding blacks and Hispanics. What about all those obese out of work white folks still clinging to guns and religion? Guess they don't even figure into the race-baiters wealth redistribution strategies.

Methinks, of course, we need a new deck. That race card is so frayed, we can see it coming, and it's ALWAYS coming, from the bottom of the deck, from the top of the deck, from somebody's cuff-linked sleeve, yes, it's always coming from somewhere, no matter how skewered the results...

Socialism? This despite the fact that nearly every former socialist nation, including those in western Europe, are warning the US that socialism isn't all it's cracked up to be, as even they are moving away from the organizing system that suffers from too much rampant idealism and not enough bootstrap periphery.

In "The Second Bill of Rights," WND reported, the self-professed communist Obama aide Cass Sunstein proposed a new "bill of rights" in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. Among his mandates:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

The Obama czar's controversial comments were made in his 2004 book "The Second Bill of Rights," which was obtained and reviewed by WND. On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."

Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments." WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.

Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement, which openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.

Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."

That's rich. Notice how Sunstein in his first amendment says that everyone should have the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation. He didn't mention that everyone has the "right" to a publishing contract, or a paying gig in the arts, a cush talking head job, or a gravy train in politics.

Rather, he intends his own brand of segregation touting a system that demands that everyone participate in this new slavery, the new feudalism, enunciated and controlled by the prestigious oligarchy of beautiful and bright, hand-picked elites who know to toe the party line, and are amply rewarded with entry into the gated communities of government from on high.

Notice also, the usage of the word "decent" when describing certain guarantees this new world order claims to represent. Who gets to decide what is decent or just shy of Shantyville? Who tells me that what I choose to attain or acquire or inherit is too extravagant, and what in all this decision-making is based on criteria other than the equalitarian limits of the open marketplace? We've all seen this movie before. From the September 29 issue of New York Times, itself a bastion of liberal pretentions:

"Even in the midst of one of the greatest challenges to capitalism in 75 years, involving a breakdown of the financial system due to “irrational exuberance,” greed and the weakness of regulatory systems, European Socialist parties and their left-wing cousins have not found a compelling response, let alone taken advantage of the right’s failures.

German voters clobbered the Social Democratic Party on Sunday, giving it only 23 percent of the vote, its worst performance since World War II. Voters also punished left-leaning candidates in the summer’s European Parliament elections and trounced French Socialists in 2007. Where the left holds power, as in Spain and Britain, it is under attack. Where it is out, as in France, Italy and now Germany, it is divided and listless."

No matter what methodologies these aggressive statists intend to use in cutting the materialistic pie, we are told that we will be guaranteed decent jobs, decent health care, decent wages, decent lives. Meanwhile why are these cut-throat millionaires doing all the talking, doing the deciding for us? As constitutional Americans we are already guaranteed an equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, within the realms of moral responsibility. We are not guaranteed a bowl of soup, a box of rocks, a diamond ring, or a job, but we are at liberty to pursue any and all of these things.

But a totalitarian statism is like a skin disease which encompasses all and threatens to spread to every organ in the body, and I respond with a deliberately loud and progressive—NO THANK YOU!

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
—Norman Thomas, Socialist

As for me, I would rather fail completely while chasing a dream, embrace my aching inner hobo, and take my God-given liberty to my grave than to play with the scorching fires of committed communism. The founding fathers knew what they were talking about as they studied man's history in dealing with other men. We were warned. And now, perhaps, the greatest threat to America as a freedom-seeking nation since the Civil War is upon us.

That peculiar stealth threat is already upon our shores. While Mister Obama signs away our rights of freedom of speech to the OIC-dominated United Nations, we must ponder how quickly and where the enemy may pounce next.

UNMASKING THE MONSTER

Here is a short, simple, straight to the point essay penned by Steve Bussey on ResistNET, a visibly patriotic website dedicated to stopping, then rolling back the move to abolish the US Constitution inch by inch, word for word, and with it the freedom and liberty that so many have fought to preserve and enjoy for well over 200 years.

This is a site I've only recently discovered, so I am still treading lightly, trying now to rustle too many leaves before I find myself somewhere I do not wish to be. But Mr. Bussey's article offers a clear idea of what is simmering beneath the surface tension that passes for political dissection discussion all across this great land of ours. Our nation's free citizenry and our elected leadership seem to have lost their way, and have been on this false path for several decades now.

I HAVE HEARD THE MODERN tea party movement mischaracterized and slandered over the past several months, and seen yellow journalism about vocal protestors disrupting town hall meetings hosted by politicians. These and other crocodile tears are shed by journalists, politicians and pundits who are either too stupid to understand, or are intentionally trying to villainize the new conservative activism.

Some of the knocks I hear against the tea party movement are that they are racist because they didn’t protest during the Bush years, but only now when there is a black president; shut up and pay your taxes; or cries of hypocrisy because tea party protestors love big government in the form of military spending, interstate highways, or the Veteran’s Administration and oppose programs that would help the poor and downtrodden - all hogwash.

Discontent among conservatives and libertarians has been festering for several decades since George H.W. Bush succeeded President Reagan and began to walk back conservative advances. Contrary to popular belief, that is the primary reason he was a one term president.

The discontent swelled with the advent of the Clinton Administration and his largest tax increase in the history of the free world, as well as Hillary’s attempted take over of our health care industry. The Republican Revolution lead by Newt Gingrich, however, temporarily tamped down the discontent. Enter George W. Bush.

Conservatives and libertarians began to squirm in their seats with Bush’s unconstitutional federal intervention into our local schools with No Child Left Behind. The squirm turned into foot-tapping and nail biting with the Medicare prescription drug bill, and we stood and began shouting at our televisions with the expanded State Children’s Health Program and TARP – all unconstitutional expansions of federal tyranny over sovereign States and free enterprise. Enter President Obama.

President Obama has removed the mask from the monster once and for all and exposed the true Progressive agenda for America—a reshaped America based on a new foundation – his words, not mine, by taking over car companies, insurance and investment companies, Cap & Trade and a national health care plan. With his actions there can be no further debate concerning the direction Progressives in America, Democrats and Republicans, wish to take.

Why is there a modern tea party movement? Is it racist? There is a modern tea party movement because as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “. . . all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable. . .”

It began before President Obama, but certainly with him and his programs, evil in the form of federal infringement upon our liberties, Progressive disrespect for our Constitution, American history, traditions and political philosophies, has become insufferable.

They may name their movement "tea party" to invoke and evoke our Founding Fathers, but the movement is much more profound than just taxes. The movement is about freedom and liberty. It is about legalizing and respecting our Constitution once again.

Yes, indeed, Mr. Bussey. We must also remember that both the 43rd president and the current Obama administration have led us—the American people—to believe that government first resides with the executive branch. Each administration also believe, the other two branches participate at the President's discretion. The problem this presents is that few constitutional scholars or free citizens agree with them, since the Constitution clearly states otherwise. Afterall, by 43rd and 44th's way of thinking, the law is just a 'guideline', and can be ignored when it gets in the way. We can think of too many dark scenarios of how this progression will eventually lead to a person to try to remain in power.

HENRY GATES IS A SHOW-OFF

LIVING AMONG THE BROKEN GLASS and junkyard battlegrounds of ordinary American life for ample portions of my fifty plus years I've come across many a hustler, thief, or druggie who can deport themselves as if scripted by a charm school mistress. I agree with the others above that Henry Louis Gates is wrong in this case. I have followed the career of Prof. Gates with some interest over the past decade or so.

Seems he often desires to approach the racial issue with detachment and intelligence, but he often tends to slip under pressure, thus proving he still labors under the racialist spell, and he just can't shake loose of it. This incident is just more proof. Doesn't make him Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or less a human being than I am, or the Harvard professor that he is, but it does show just how incredibly difficult it is to shed a grievance we as Americans, black and white, male and female, young and old, rich and poor, revolutionary or saint, individuals all, have been indoctrinated by society great or small to embrace.

Gates is not being reasonable in his post-arrest comportment either, because this incident was not racial profiling. His self-regarding notions of "how he comported himself" were almost immediately betrayed when he began to yell and scream in succumbing to disorderly conduct when faced with procedural requests for ID which he didn't present.

He did present a Harvard ID, but the record apparently shows that he offered nothing with his address on it. Thus, this appears like he was spoiling for a scene—some fresh data for his class or this documentary he has already announced.

Had he just quietly and politely provided his proper identification and answered all the questions the police officers had every right to ask, chances are damn good this Harvard professor would not have been arrested.

Class warfare in America? Yes, and Henry Louis Gates showed he had no class.

THE SPECTACLE OF RACE TWITTERING

In the national debate on Islam, oops, that's right there is none, but here is an honest perspective by Mark Quinn who frequently comments on what most in the West ignore—the obvious nasty nature of Islam.

ONE OF THE MOST frustrating things about the whole debate about Islam and its destructive influence around the world is this notion of racism, perpetuated by the extreme left (liberals) and the extreme right (Muslims), who as we know are all in bed together in some unholy union.

No, it is not correct to call Islam a race. However, if you take a look at the originators of Islam, the Arabic people, you will find no greater example of culture-wide and institutionalized racism. Most of us are extremely frustrated, for instance, when we see the speed with which Islam is growing among people of sub-Saharan African decent. We listen to their naive claims, planted by Muslims, that Islam is the true faith of Africa. We tell them the Arab people enslaved them for centuries, that the entire slave trade itself would have been nil if not for the Arab brokers who started it all. And yet they don't want to listen. The Arabs did far more than practicing "racism" against African people. It was a lot closer to genocide.

And yet, here we are, people who see a legitimate threat from Islam, and we have to endure being called racist when in fact we're the most liberal, modern people in the world. By "we" I mean people in western societies. We intermarry with each other on a fairly regular basis, we provide equal opportunities for people of all races, religions and genders, and generally speaking, we're happy to pull all the strengths of all the cultures of the world to make ours better and unique. I don't think there are too many of us on this forum who would throw a fit if we saw a member of our own race dating a member of another, or if we were working alongside someone from another race.

Now go and try to date a young Muslim woman. Best case scenario, the father would forbid it. Worst case scenario, your bride would be a head shorter.

I'm not so naive to think racism is non-existent in the world. I've seen a lot of prejudice among east Asians with regard to interracial dating. I myself come from an Italian-Irish background, and I know a lot of Italian-American fathers who wouldn't even allow their kids to have black friends come over. But two points on this. First, every decade that seems to fade more and more. Second, there's no such thing as institutionalized "honor killing" in the world at large. Islam might not have strict guidelines about racism, but I think I've made a point about their gross intolerance.

That's why this whole debate is so frustrating. If it wasn't for terrorism, if it wasn't for Jihad, if it wasn't for calls for Sharia Law, if it wasn't for endless demands for special treatment and consideration, if it wasn't for riots over cartoons, any of us would welcome the Muslim people into our societies with open arms.

How many Muslim societies would welcome us, even if we settled in their countries and conducted ourselves more quietly and unobtrusively than so many mice? Go ask the Copts that question, or the Kurds.

So here we are, having to endure this ridiculous argument that we're racist or intolerant, when in fact we've made a gargantuan effort to appease anyone and everyone who settles in our part of the world. Meanwhile, Muslims are an affront to everyone they encounter, and even as they plot our demise in their mosque services and literature, they preach about how horribly intolerant we are.

You almost feel like banging your head against a wall. It's like living in the Twilight Zone.

THOSE STILL PUFFING ON RACISM

SO, IT'S TRUE. FINALLY. After all these years the word is out—everyone is a little bit racist. Somebody needs to tell the Obama administration that it owns a chunk of nasty racism itself, all by its lonesome. The firestorm over Eric Holder's astonishing remark is an apt response to his patronizing notions. But I'll stop here, and put on my NATIONAL COWARD cap I grabbed off the air, and give a nod to Suzy Rice whose assessment of Holder, Clyburn, and Pelosi are nothing short of barbed wire retributions. No coward is Rice.

MORE RED STATE HILARITY

THESE LADS CRACK ME UP. Guess that makes me a racist, a cracker, a redneck, and a punk rocker all rolled into one stupid-looking snod. Just ask any Obama supporter.

Here's a funny I pulled from a comment at the American Thinker early this morning:

The young 20-somethings have led us to believe that they're completely free of any of the racism that has always existed all over the world. Let's hope that they can now work on overcoming their incivility. After that they can work on their gullibility.

Just had to laugh.

SAD THOUGHTS, TRUE THOUGHTS

A totally diverse nation is not a nation in any meaningful way, for the concept of a nation is a shared language and culture. For all practical purposes, a common culture means a common religion or national character.

It is interesting but maudlin to note that the desire to socially engineer a "diverse nation" is only prevalent among the political elite of the West. Nowhere else is such a pedantic idiocy given any currency.

Personal identity, and by natural extension, one's "herd identity" is one of the most arresting, and primary psychological compulsions of human consciousness. It functions as both keel and rudder for the personality when the seas are calm as well as rough. When this identity is fractured by opposing forces, the personality as a whole suffers, and the struggle of that personality oscillating within the now competitive but often unrewarding environments of the self and citizen tends to distort those common grounds promised to and now expected by the personality.

In its aim to socially engineer a "diverse nation", the political elite in Europe and even here in America are debilitating the West, modern civilization, and in the near future in a neighborhood near you, creating the conditions for a global war.

No doubt, many will cite "racist" attitudes for the preceding paragraphs. When all else fails, just accuse someone of being racist, the most feared and hence the most preferred albatross to hang around the neck of anyone willing to contradict one of the many dubious spirits of this sorry age. But as noted earlier, it is only the Western dreamy-eyed neo-Marxist rascals who come to this conclusion, and practice multiculturalism with vim and vigor without insisting on the slightest reciprocity by its enemies, as if multiculturalism were a punishing commandment from God, or perhaps, Karl Marx himself.

"What's the difference between an old Marxist and a neo-Marxist?" asks the young eager to please student of his master.

"Not much. Same idealism. Different lies."

But let me be plain here. Global Marxism, or heaven on earth is probably in humanity's future, if man doesn't destroy the earth before we get there. But when? A hundred years from now? A thousand?

That should not concern us. Instead, we must ask ourselves, how do we get from here to there? That is the major question of our times. Planet Earth is simply not ready. We cannot force "our own" idealism upon the world, no matter how righteous it appears to us. Limited force is all-corrupting. All out force is limited to the survivors of such idealism. Even in the 1920s artists and visionaries understood the wide chasm between the dystopian nightmare and any sustainable peace of utopian paramours. Today's ideologues, hell-bent on "serenity now" not just for themselves, but for their distant neighbor too, even if it takes all the force the state can muster, seem to have flung every caution to the wind, all the while muttering, "Peace, now!"

As if thrusting a wish upon a bright star ever really resulted in ushering forth a tooth fairy...