Tuesday, May 7, 2013
The Constitution is the rule of law, and it is the job of Good Patriots in Government to uphold the rule of law.
Nor shall private property be taken for
Monday, May 6, 2013
Hillary Clinton’s Senior Thesis was about SOCIALIST Radical Activist Saul Alinsky & Michele Obama’s Thesis was on Black Separatism
TIME FOR REVOLUTION: WE CANNOT CO-EXIST WITH THESE KIND OF PEOPLE!! THEY DO NOT WANT OUR AMERICA.
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE STEALING OUR COUNTRY HAVE RADICALLY DIFFERENT IDEAS THAN OURS. THEY WANT US TO WORK TO MAKE THEIR DREAM A REALITY.
Hillary Clinton’s Senior Thesis was about Radical Activist Saul Alinsky:
Michele Obama’s Thesis was on Black Separatism
Not only did Saul Alinsky serve as a mentor for young Hillary he
was so favorably impressed he offered her a job at the Industrial Areas
Foundation in Chicago where he was Executive Director. Letter may be
seen at the bottom of the PDF file shown below. Hillary learned her lessons well and has been a progressive/socialist/Marxist from the time she appeared on the political scene back in Arkansas.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.
The Hillary Clinton Quarterly
By Donna Schaper with Rake Morgan and Frank Marafiote contributing.
Edited by Frank Marafiote for the Internet.
(To read a PDF copy of the thesis, click here.)
With Hillary Clinton poised to win the Democratic nomination for president, questions about her intellectual and moral education abound. One of the major intellectual influences – perhaps an emotional one was well – was radical social philosopher and activist Saul Alinsky. As this story shows, Alinsky was both the ladder Hillary climbed to gain new perspectives on society – specifically the poor – and then, once there, a ladder she tossed aside when she no longer needed it.
Poor little Wellesley Rich GirlHillary Clinton was quintessentially one of these people — a Sixties person, although we would hardly have recognized her as such. That she didn’t buy her wedding dress until the night before her wedding is not just a coincidence. It was also commonplace. Her generation was mixing private rites of passage with public ones, and it seemed right to do so. Hillary Clinton was a conformist to the extent that she mixed these personal and political levels early, at a time when most of the people did likewise.
One need look no further than the thesis written by Michele Obama while at Princeton on “Racial Divide.” Michele Obama like her husband his a racist, and from its reading it is understandable why she could have uttered, “For the first time in my life, I’m proud to be an American.” It’s troubling having a black separatist as POTUS and FLOTUS.
Suggestion to the reader: Unless you are of the same ilk as these people educate yourselves before the next election. If you are to ignorant to vote why bother?
As we search for social influences on the First Lady, we have to begin in this context, in the unique mix of the public and private that served as her environment as a young woman. She was as marked by her chronological age and the Age of Aquarius as most Sixties people were — and she is probably where she is today because she was even more influenced by it than the rest of us.
It is no accident that she chose to write about Saul Alinsky for her senior thesis at Wellesley College . As a social activist, Alinsky was as much a part of the Sixties as was Kennedy and King. He was in the background creating the foreground of interpretation:
“Power to the people” is a phrase coined by him as much as by Stokeley Carmichael. Like the headband, Hillary abandoned much of what influenced her back then. But still this heavy identification with her age and THE age continued in bold form right after she completed her senior thesis.
That people stood to applaud Hillary Clinton’s commencement speech — the first one given by a student at Wellesley — is another mark of her generation that she wears in her psyche. It had to matter to her that the classes before 1960 remained in their seats, not quite sure of what had just happened. Classes before 1930 didn’t even clap. From ‘60 on people were on their feet clapping.
This literal order of approval is important to our understanding of Hillary Clinton. And surely it is one of the reasons she’s shifted from her Sixties image to a more up-to-date one. She learned early on that people interpret things by their age. No one needs the tag of the Sixties any more. Her repudiation of the tag is one of the reasons that Wellesley College , at her request, does not release her senior thesis to the public. She doesn’t want to be identified with Alinsky or the Sixties any more than is absolutely necessary. Hillary is socially and personally based in the Sixties, not in its cultural but in its political dimension.
Probably because she had enough ballast psychologically and religiously from her family and church, she did not “drug out” during the Sixties. She was not one of the period’s casualties. But most Americans, including the younger ones, don’t understand this distinction yet about the Sixties. Say Sixties, and people today think, “drugged out.” Say Sixties, they think unshowered. Perpetual bad hair days. Hillary can’t afford the negative image of the Sixties. Thus she needed to leave as much of the Sixties behind her as possible. This repudiation of the Sixties began early in her life.
It’s the confusion in the public’s mind — not hers — that accounts for the distance she’s put between herself and her formative period. Alinsky’s thought has been badgered at the image level since the sixties. Say Alinsky and people think radical, that American word that now has a bad reputation.
Alinsky thought of himself as a radical in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, John Dewey, Thomas Payne. He personified the American theory of pragmatism in his commitment to power. “Whatever works to get power to the people, use it.” That didn’t mean violence but rather serious attention to matters of power. Pact the meeting. Fill the streets. Flood the office with post cards. If that doesn’t work, find something that does, including humor.
At one point to gain attention from the Chicago city council, Alinsky threatened to flush all the toilets at O’Hare airport at once. Before the toilet flushing escapade ever had a chance to happen, the city council gave in and granted some demands. Another time, in Rochester , New York , Alinsky had a fart-in at the Eastman Kodak Board meeting. A baked bean supper had been organized for participants. Alinsky was irreverent, but that was his only real bow in the counter-cultural direction. Hillary acquired Alinsky’s pragmatism and his focus on strategy more than the humor and irreverence as a source for her own politics.
Hillary met Alinsky through the pastor at her high school church, the Park Ridge Methodist Church . Rev. Don Jones, then youth minister at the parish and running a youth program called “ University of Life ,” took his youth group to Chicago to meet not only Alinsky but also King and many of the other leaders of the Civil Rights movement.
To understand how Hillary developed her skills as an activist we have to first understand her religious back ground. One of 110 young people confirmed at the church at age 11, she had an unusually rigorous religious preparation. It was public instead of personal. That simple shift in perspective was the key foundation for her, as a Goldwater activist throughout high school and the daughter of a Republican. It allowed her to have an open heart to the suffering she saw in Chicago . Very few youth groups traveled as far as the South Side of Chicago to find God or religious formation.
Hillary acquired Alinsky ‘S pragmatism and his focus on strategy more than the humor and irreverence as a source for her own politics.
That she did, under the auspices of Rev. Jones, made not only the introduction to Alinsky possible, it also meant that she could hear firsthand what he had to say in a context that probably spoke louder than his words.
The poverty she saw in Chicago surely became part of the source of this person who is now running for president. Alinsky interpreted poverty with one point of view — that it is due to the lack of power of the poor. Hillary probably doesn’t believe that as much as a less sinister interpretation — that the poor are poor because of bad government policies. This tension became the tension of her senior thesis, the tension of her genuine suffering about the poor, and probably will remain the tension of her life.
In a sense, she’s still in a conversation with Alinsky, who believed that the poor could be organized on their own behalf. Hillary Clinton still seems to believe that the middle classes can do things to make life easier for the poor, and that is the lever she pulls most often. Her decision about the best way to create change ultimately led her down a path that made her a senator; had she made the other decision — to organize the poor — she would not be in government, but rather in that place where she learned so much — the “streets.”
Religion moderated the decisions she made, particularly since it was based in the suburban world of Park Ridge . Alinsky himself was not a religious man, though he depended heavily on organized religious constituencies. In Sanford Horwitt’s biography of Alinsky, Let Them Call Me A Rebel, Horwitt suggests that at many different levels Alinsky “used” religious constituencies like the Park Ridge church to legitimize serious political action. In this way, Hillary — even as a girl — was used by the movement. She added her consent later.
Alinsky’s manipulation of both the poor and the church is the most often repeated accusation against him. Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton’s exposure to his ideas took place in a relatively open setting, as a by product of the University of Life . Rev. Jones arranged a trip to a Chicago ghetto so that his youth could meet with a group of black youths who hung around at a recreation center. There the program consisted of teenagers describing their reactions to Picasso’s Guernica . The youths met several times and also read Catcher in the Rye together. For the young, Republican Hillary, the difference in reaction between suburban and city youth was a major eye opener. Once eyes like hers were opened, it wouldn’t take them long in the Chicago of that day to find Alinsky.
Alinsky frequently used similar methods of experiential education — what Paolo Friere calls the”pedago – guey” of the oppressed. Here the oppressed were the teachers of those who were not oppressed. It was vintage Alinsky, borrowed by a young seminarian. Here we see the reason she eventually left behind both Alinsky and the Sixties. Her experience taught her to go other places. That the Sixties, Alinsky and religious faith taught her to learn from experience is the deeper and more enduring social source of her behavior.
Rev. Jones told Donnie Radcliffe in Hillary Clinton: A First Lady for Our Time that his goal with the youth group was “not just about personal salvation and pious escapism, but also about an authentic and deep quest for God and life’s meaning in the midst of worldly existence.” Thanks to Jones’ emphasis on the public aspect of religion, Hillary had the chance to meet Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as Alinsky. Jones made arrangements for his group to meet King after King preached at the Sunday Evening Club in Chicago . With 2,500 other people at Orchestra Hall in Chicago , April 15, 1962, 15 year-old Hillary heard King preach a sermon entitled “Remaining Awake Through a Revolution.” To accuse her of taking this message literally would not be going too far. She has remained steadily fixed on a simple public theology and an alertness about political experience.
We unfortunately know very little about Jones’ cohort at the church, Rosalie Benziger, the Christian Education director. Surely she had prepared even deeper ground for the encounter with Chicago, Alinsky, King and poverty in the curriculum used during Sunday School. What we do know about Benziger is that she was concerned about the students’ reaction to the Kennedy assassination, and that she sent a letter to the entire 3,000 member congregation hoping that they wouldn’t begin finding Communists under every rock. “We knew that the children would be traumatized….” she had said. Benziger was right. These children were traumatized for longer than a generation. What’s significant in terms of Hillary Clinton’s development is that few Christian Education directors at the time reacted in this way, with a both political point to protect and a pastoral concern for children. The childrens’ safe world had been invaded by a larger life, and it would continue to be throughout the Sixties.
Alinsky would not have appealed to the Methodism in Hillary ‘s personality. He was much too profane, cursing a blue streak, smoking non-stop, and insulting many people who were as earnest as she was. The University of Life focused on living and on under standing experience as it came. As we know, this emphasis on experience did not mean that Sixties people shared a single viewpoint. There were serious splits among political and cultural activists. Alinsky’s own pragmatism caused him to express great disdain for the Dionysian aspects of the Sixties. He made his organizers wear ties. He kept enormous distance from the politically flamboyant aspects of the flower child movement. He was widely known as a drinker and thought of drugs as counter-culture in a ridiculous way. Alinsky was very patriotic, very pro-culture, and never really did oppose the Vietnam War. He stuck to local and domestic issues like glue and had nothing but derision for those who did not.
Any Sixties person can see some of these tendencies in Hillary. Back then she would have been considered very serious, a “straight arrow.” Alinsky would have excited these serious tendencies with his own equally serious attention to matters of strategy and tactics, and by his own serious streak, which was a red hot concern for the poor. “Poverty is an embarrassment to the American soul,” he said over and over again. That was probably his only religious statement and it was enough to make him serious allies with the church in Chicago and beyond. Alinsky would not have appealed to the Methodism in Hillary’s personality. He was much too profane, cursing a blue streak, smoking non-stop, and insulting many people who were as earnest as she was. Still, their fundamental antipathy to poverty would connect them, and finally cause him to be the topic she chose for her senior thesis.
Hillary Clinton and Alinsky disagreed over the issue of localism. She did not believe the local was a large enough context for political action. For a suburban girl who already had a national candidate (Goldwater), that viewpoint was not surprising. For the poor that Alinsky loved, even a few blocks was too much. There were aspects of her middle class up bring that shaped her under standing of Slinky and his ideas.
According to Allan Schuster, professor of Political Science at Wellesley , she chose her senior thesis topic because she had met Alinsky in high school and had heard him speak at a meeting she had attended in Boston . That meeting resulted in her organizing a demonstration in the town of Wellesley — something slinky himself would have done. He thought campus issues, which Hillary had been working on for some time, were silly. They were about the middle class, not about the poor. Hillary responded to this guidance positively. But eventually she found the town of Wellesley and the city of Boston too ”small” to matter to the poor as sites for change.
Clifford Green, then professor of biblical history at Wellesley College and now a professor at Hartford Theological Seminary in Connecticut , taught the bible course she was required to take in her sophomore year. His classes confirmed for Hillary the religious view point inaugurated by Jones — that faith had to do with life, not just with personal matters. Green remembers the surprise of the Wellesley girls that religion could be so public in its real meaning.
Weighing the two major influences on Hillary — religion and community organizing — her biographer Donnie Radcliff has it about right: religion probably meant more to Hillary than organizing. It was public religion that integrated the Sixties context and Alinsky’s focus on the poor and their suffering. The principle of public religion was also ratified by the Wellesley motto: Non ministrar sed ministrare (we are not here to be ministered to, but to minister unto). Taught early by Don Jones, sustained by Benziger, excited by King, challenged by Alinsky, Hillary Clinton was nursed by the Sixties city and the Sixties college to become a political activist with enduring power.
Schecter says that Alinsky recognized her talents as an organizer during the Wellesley period and offered her a significant position after college. He didn’t offer these jobs to many women, nor did he offer them without a serious, often disturbing assessment of the person’s abilities. Caesar Chavez is a well-known example of an Alinsky disciple, chosen and hewn by the master. But whereas Chavez bought the localism of the Alinsky method, Hillary did not.
Schecter also confirms Donnie Radcliffe’s belief that Hillary turned Alinsky down because her senior thesis convinced her that his methods were not “large” enough. She believed, according to Schecter’s interpretation of the thesis, that Alinsky’s tactics and strategies were useful at the local level, but that even if an activist were successful in local organizing, systemic policy matters on the national level would prevent actual power from going to people. She chose to work at the macro-level of law rather than the micro-level of community because of this analysis. Many Alinsky disciples acknowledge that this is a serious and frequent argument made against him.
Hillary Clinton went to law school in order to have an influence on these larger and more difficult issues. Her motivation may have been religious in that uniquely public way that Jones taught her. She was not satisfied with the “right personal faith” and was far more serious about finding a way to put that faith into action. The University of Life approach is what has remained. This way of learning from the street was also a fundamental aspect of Alinsky’s teaching. In this way, we can see that Hillary was influenced by a powerful mixture of experience and theory. Then the credentializing began. She may not have known just how much Alinsky hated lawyers, but he hated them with a severity that makes her career choice all the more interesting.
For a young woman to turn down this extremely macho man, and to stand against him in theory as well as in practice, is astonishing, particularly given the times and her young age. Her assertion to Alinsky that confrontational tactics would upset the kind of people she grew up with in Park Ridge , thus creating a backlash, was either naive or brilliant. He surely told her what he is reported to have said — “that won’t change anything.” It couldn’t have been said with respect. She apparently countered, “Well, Mr. Alinsky, I see a different way than you.”
Perhaps this exchange explains why so many people find Hillary too assertive and aloof. She emulates Alinsky in the seriousness with which she accepts her mission — thus embodying his best teaching — and at the same time she distinguishes herself with her own point of view. As Schecter pointed out, she understood early on that poor people needed not just participation, but also structure and leadership. That she thought Alinsky could not provide that is surprising, but that is what she thought at that time. To have much more political sophistication in an 18 year- old would have been scary. Her thesis concluded that “organizing the poor for community actions to improve their own lives may have, in certain circumstances, short-term benefits for the poor but would never solve their major problems. You need much more than that. You need leadership, programs, constitutional doctrines.”
That analysis ultimately led to law school and not back to the University of Life or to Alinsky’s streets. In extensive correspondence with Rev. Jones during college, she began the shift from Goldwater conservatism to a more liberal viewpoint. “Can one be a mental conservative but a heart liberal?” she asked him at one point.
One example in a real political context shows her legal and activist mind at work. Marshall Goldman, a Wellesley professor of Russian economics, suggested that students had mixed up tactics in boycotting classes. He wanted them to skip weekends because that was sacrificial. Hillary responded quickly in The Wellesley News, “I’ll give up my date Saturday night, Mr. Goldman, but I don’t think that’s the point. Individual consciences are fine, but individual con sciences have to be made manifest.” Not only do we see her rational and argumentative mind here, but also the nearly literal interpretation of public religion that has integrated her political action and her life.
In the speech she made at her Wellesley commencement, she quoted a poem by a fellow student, Nancy Scheibner, called ”The Art of Making Possible.” Hillary Clinton and Alinsky are fellow travelers here. The pragmatism of a politician joins the fundamentalism of a certain kind of true believer: this marriage is what has taken Hillary beyond her senior thesis. She does exactly what Alinsky would have taught her to do — to read, continuously, from experience. She also stays very close to what Jones and Wellesley would have her do — to express her faith in public action. Both politics and religion keep her safely in the Sixties realm and do so in unusual, personally appropriated ways. She moves beyond her senior thesis, but continues to put much of what she learned during that period into practice today.
Michelle Obama’s Black Separatist Background: What Does It Mean for All Americans?
The
following are the facts about Michelle Obama’s, and the Barack Obama
campaign’s, efforts to prevent public access to her thesis, as best as I
have been able to reconstruct them from reliable media organs and web
sites. Jonah Goldberg’s blog on National Review Online for February 19th
of this year reported
“that a reader in the know informs me that Michelle Obama's thesis,
"Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community," is unavailable
until November 5, 2008 at the Princeton library. I wonder why?”A more detailed report was published by Politico.com a few days later, which stated that the thesis “has been ‘temporarily withdrawn’ until after this year’s presidential election in November” (Numerous other web reporters have confirmed
that November 5th, one day after the Presidential election, had been
listed on the Mudd Library web site as the date on which public access
to the thesis would be restored.).
According
to Politico.com, “Attempts to retrieve the document through Princeton
proved unsuccessful, with school librarians having been pestered so much
for access to the thesis that they have resorted to reading from a
script when callers inquire about it. Media officers at the prestigious
university were similarly unhelpful, claiming it is ‘not unusual’ for a
thesis to be restricted and refusing to discuss ‘the academic work of
alumni.’ Politico.com also reported on February 23rd that “the Obama
campaign, however, quickly responded to a request for the thesis by
Politico,” which placed it on its web site. It is still there in PDF
format, and has been placed on other sites as well. However, Princeton
University did not resume making copies of the thesis available to the
public again until March 25th, a month after the Politico web posting. I
have still not been able to determine when the block was placed on the
thesis in the first place by Princeton.
When
I called Princeton University on June 23rd and again on June 25th to
inquire about the availability of the thesis, and the previous
restrictions on it, I found that even after the passage of more than
four months ”media officers at the prestigious university” were just
as “similarly unhelpful” as they had been four months earlier. I was
told by “Communications” officer Emily Aronson, to whom Princeton’s Mudd
Library referred me, that the block on public access to the thesis had
been placed “for a credible reason,” which she declined to give, and for
“a limited period of time,” which she declined to specify. She also
declined to say whether or not the ban had originally been placed with a
termination date immediately after the November election. Ms. Aronson
said that the block on public access to the thesis had been requested by
“the Obama campaign,” but declined to answer whether or not it had been
requested by Michele Obama herself (another Princeton employee,
however. told me that restrictions on public access to a Princeton
theses can normally be placed only by the author of the thesis, or
someone legally authorized to act on his/her behalf). She directed me to
Michelle Obama’s spokesperson, Ms. Katie McCormick Lelyveld, for any
further information. In short, this “Communications” officer was
singularly uncommunicative.
Ms.
McCormick Lelyveld proved equally unhelpful. She also refused to say
when the block had been placed or when it had been withdrawn, and
whether or not November 5th was the day to which the block originally
was to have continued. She would say only that the block had been in
place “for a very short period of time.” She attributed the block to a
joint decision of the Obama campaign and Princeton, but like the
Princeton “Communications” office declined to say what Michelle Obama’s
role had been in this decision. She said that the reason for the block
placed on the thesis was the desire of both the Obama campaign and
Princeton to “sort out” and “filter” the large number of requests for
it. She gave no indication as to which requests the Obama camp wished to
“filter” or “sort”, nor any explanation as to why this process would
need to take until precisely November 5, 2008! Ms. McCormick Lelyveld
complained that the story was “old news,” asked why I had not inquired
with her about it in January “when the story broke,” and asked why I
considered it news at all.
To
answer Ms. McCormick-Lelyveld’s question: obviously, a ban on public
access set to expire immediately after the presidential election could
only have one purpose - to prevent information that Michelle Obama and
or others in the Obama campaign thought could lose their candidate
votes. The attempt to prevent the public from reading Ms.
Robinson-Obama’s thesis is also significant to the extent that it
indicates that the Obama campaign has no scruples about hiding documents
that it considers unhelpful to his candidacy, even those normally
available to the public such as college senior theses. So much for the
transparency and openness of the Obama campaign.
But
the contents of the paper are of greater interest. They shed some light
on the ideological background of the woman who may soon be the
principal advisor to the next President of the United States.
Michelle
LaVaughn Robinson’s thesis is obsessed with the distinction between
“Blacks” and “Whites.” The words ““American” and “Americans” appear
rarely in it, - seven times by my count; the expression “U.S.A.” occurs
once, and “ U.S. ” once. The word “America ” does not appear in it at
all. But the words “Black” and “White,” always capitalized, and always
referring to racial groups, appear by my count 475 times and 181 times,
respectively - in every case, judging from the context, referring to
Blacks and Whites in the United States. There are no references at all
to Hispanic, Asian or Amerindian Americans! It would be hard to find a
more dramatic way for the author to indicate that her feeling that the
United States consists of two nations, not one, and that the 20-30
million Americans who are not a part of either the “Black” or the
“White” nation do not exist at all.
The
thesis paper consists of 64 pages in the main body of the text, plus
seven pages of prefatory material and an appendix of 27 pages. Despite
occasional grammatical lapses and ambiguous language, for the most part
the composition shows an impressive command both of the English language
and of sociological terminology for a college senior. The thesis is
organized around a questionnaire that Michelle Robinson sent to 400
Black graduates of Princeton, of whom 89 sent replies (no Whites or
other non-Blacks were polled), and Robinson’s analysis of the results.
Its stated goal is to discover the correlation between the “time” that
the graduates “spent” with other Blacks “as opposed” (and the word
“opposed” is used), to the time they spent with Whites, as well as the
“ideology” of the graduates on the one hand, and their commitment to
“benefit the Black community”, and “help the Black lower class” on the
other. Her initial “hypothesis,” was that Blacks who spent more time
with other Blacks than with Whites, and who adhered to a
“separatist/pluralist” ideology, would be more eager to benefit the
Black community and help the Black lower class than those who spent more
time with Whites and supported an “integrationist/assimilations”
philosophy. Not surprisingly, her analysis of her poll data results
confirms her initial hypothesis.
The
thesis implies that Black college graduates who wish to “benefit the
Black community” and to help the Black “lower class” should spend more
time with Blacks than with Whites, whether in their professional work,
family life or recreational activities, and adhere to a
“separatist/pluralist” ideology as opposed to an
“integrationist/assimilations” philosophy. This amounts to a rationale
for Black separatism.
Michelle
Robinson-Obama argues that when Black people “spend time” with Whites,
they lose their commitment to “benefiting” the Black community and
“lower class Blacks.” She describes Blacks who have integrated into the
larger society as “ignorant” of and “unmotivated” to help the Black
underclass. Ironically, the only evidence from her survey of Black
Princeton graduates that she cites to support her conclusion that
“integrationist/assimilations” Blacks lack motivation to help the Black
lower class is that they reported feeling less “helpless” about the
plight of this group of Black Americans than did Black separationists!
Even
the involvement of Black Princeton graduates with their professions is
seen as detracting from their commitment to the black community. The
author posits a zero sum game - any time spent with Whites means less
time spent with, and hence less commitment to help, Blacks. The
commitment of some Princeton graduates to benefit “the American
community at large” is mentioned only once in the thesis, and is
promptly dismissed with the remark,” which is, of course predominantly
White.” The author by implication rejects the idea that Black Princeton
graduates have any obligation to help “the American community at large,”
and even implies that such a commitment amounts to a sell-out to
Whites.
The
future Mrs. Obama does not present any evidence to support her claims
that “Predominantly White universities like Princeton are socially and
academically designed to cater to the needs of the White students
comprising the bulk of their enrollments,” and “Activities organized by
University groups such as Student Government rarely, if ever, take into
account the diverse interests which exist at a University that is not
100% White.” She immediately undercuts her own complaint that “there is
only one major University recognized organization on campus designed
specifically for the intellectual interests of Black and other Third
World students.” (a heavily qualified “only”) by referring in the next
paragraph to four other Black organizations that were active on campus -
at least one of which, the “Princeton University Thoughts Table,”
certainly seems to have been aimed specifically at addressing the
“intellectual needs” of Black students (Were these organizations
“recognized” [whatever that means by this word] by Princeton or not? The
author does not tell us). She complains that “presently Blacks comprise
only about 10% of total enrollment,” at Princeton, without mentioning
that this is “about” the percentage of Black Americans in the American
population as a whole!
Since
Princeton and other major American Universities, at the time that the
thesis was written (1985) were making energetic efforts to recruit Black
students, and were admitting large numbers of Black students who did
not meet the academic standards required for admission of White students
(Robinson-Obama herself was one such student),
her complaints of discrimination against Black students at Princeton
and other “Ivy League” colleges don’t ring true. Rather, they sound like
the fashionable whining of a privileged young woman.
Robinson-Obama asserts that “there is a distinctive Black culture very
different from White culture. Elements of Black culture which make it
unique from White culture such as its music, its language, the struggles
and a ‘consciousness’ shared by its people may be attributed to the
injustices and oppressions suffered by this race of people which are not
comparable to the experiences of any other race of people through this
country’s history [not even American Indians?]. However, with the
increasing integration of Blacks into the mainstream society, many
‘integrated Blacks’ have lost touch with Black culture in their attempts
to become adjusted and comfortable in their new culture - the White
culture. Some of these Blacks are no longer able to enjoy the qualities
which make Black culture so unique or are unable to openly share their
culture with other Blacks because they have become so far removed from
these experiences and, in some instances, ashamed of them as a result of
their integration [p54].” Surely, she exaggerates the cultural
differences separating Americans. After all, White Americans have
enthusiastically embraced numerous musical styles that originated in the
Black American community - spirituals, gospel, the blues, ragtime,
jazz, big band, rock and hip-hop, to name only a few. The active
participation of White musicians in some of these styles, most notably
jazz and rock, has also greatly narrowed the cultural gap between these
two American communities. For the most part, Black and White Americans
eat the same foods (even allowing for Black ethnic specialties), watch
the same movies and television shows, and play the same music videos and
computer games. And they speak the same English language - albeit
sometimes with different accents. A distinctively American culture
that comprises, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, American Indians and
members of other groups does exist. And there is no evidence at all
that Black Americans who successfully integrate into the larger society
lose their interest in Black culture or are ashamed of it. For that
matter, millions of White Americans enjoy the cultural productions of
Black Americans, and feel no shame in doing so.
Robinson
Obama’s thesis was written 23 years ago, and of course the views of a
21-year-old college senior are not necessarily those of a 44-year-old
professional such as Michelle Obama is today. However, there are
disturbing indications that her view of the United States and
Black-White relations in our country has not changed all that much in 23
years. Her remark
during a campaign speech as recently as February 2008 that “… for the
first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels
like hope is finally making a comeback,” suggests underlying negative
feelings about American society that have remained unchanged since her
“adult life” began. And is it a pure coincidence that this “adult life”
began around 1985, when her senior thesis was written?
There
are also indications that Barack as well as Michelle Obama have
continued to adhere to the two-American-nations-and-peoples doctrine of
Michelle’s thesis until quite recently, if not until the present moment.
Jeremiah Wright, who was Barack Obama’s pastor
for 20 years, and Michelle Obama’s for at least 15, and who married the
couple in October 1992, has on numerous occasions expressed views
similar to those found in the Robinson-Obama thesis. Barack Obama has
praised Wright and described him as his “spiritual advisor” on numerous
occasions, and even borrowed the title of his book The Audacity of Hope from one of Wright’s sermons; he only disassociated himself from Wright in May 2008, under enormous pressure from the media.
The
Trinity United Church of Christ, of which Wright was the pastor for 37
years, has published an advertising video that describes it as a “Black
church,” (implicitly discouraging Whites, Hispanics and other non-Blacks
from joining), and that identifies the “country” of its members as
“Africa,” not America. Barack and Michelle Obama did not resign as members of the church, “with some sadness,” until May 31, 2008 - two months after Wright stepped down as its pastor.
Instead
of dismissing the Princeton thesis as “old news’” while saying nothing
of its contents, Michelle and Barack Obama should candidly discuss these
contents with the American people, and explain just how their present
views differ from those Michelle expressed in 1985. I see no reason why
Barack Obama should be entrusted with the most powerful office in the
United States if he and his “ears” (as her spokesperson
Ms.McCormick-Lelyveld characterizes Michelle Obama) are unwilling to do
so.
A
First Lady who believes, to paraphrase Rudyard Kipling, that Black is
Black and White is White, and never the twain shall meet, does not bode
well for America’s future.
TIME FOR REVOLUTION: WE CANNOT CO-EXIST WITH THESE KIND OF PEOPLE!!
Friday, March 22, 2013
Professor Makes Students “Stomp on Jesus”
By Todd Starnes
A Florida Atlantic University student said he was punished after he refused a professor’s directive to stomp on a piece of paper with the word “Jesus” written on it. The university, meanwhile, is defending the assignment as a lesson in debate.
FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS. CLICK HERE TO JOIN!
“I’m not going to be sitting in a class having my religious rights desecrated,” student Ryan Rotela told television station WPEC. “I truly see this as I’m being punished.”
Rotela, who is a devout Mormon, said the instructor in his Intercultural Communications class told the students to write the name “Jesus” on a sheet of paper. Then, they were told to put the paper on the floor.
“He had us all stand up and he said ‘Stomp on it,’” Rotela said. “I picked up the paper from the floor and put it right back on the table.
The young college student told the instructor, Deandre Poole, that the assignment was insulting and offensive.
“I said to the professor, ‘With all due respect to your authority as a professor, I do not believe what you told us to do was appropriate,’” Rotela said. ‘I believe it was unprofessional and I was deeply offended by what you told me to do.’”
Rotela took his concerns to Poole’s supervisor – where he was promptly suspended from the class.
Poole did not return calls seeking comment.
According to his university profile, he has a PhD from Howard University and is authoring a book titled, “Obamamania: The Rise of a Mythical Hero.”
A university spokesperson told they could not comment about Rotela’s case due to student privacy laws.
However, the university is defending the instructor’s assignment to stomp on the name of Jesus.
“As with any academic lesson, the exercise was meant to encourage students to view issues from many perspectives, in direct relation with the course objectives,” said Noemi Marin, the university’s director of the school of communication and multimedia studies.
“While at times the topics discussed may be sensitive, a university environment is a venue for such dialogue and debate,” Marin added.
The lesson on bashing the name of Christ is included in a textbook titled, “Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach, 5th Edition.”
Fox News obtained a synopsis of the lesson that got Rotela in trouble.
“Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper,” the lesson reads. “Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.”
Paul Kengor, the executive director of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College, told Fox News he’s not surprised by the classroom lesson.
“These are the new secular disciples of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’ – empty buzzwords that make liberals and progressives feel good while they often refuse to tolerate and sometimes even assault traditional Christian and conservative beliefs,” Kengor said.
Kengor said classes like the one at Florida Atlantic University demonstrate the contempt many public institutions hold for people of faith.
“It also reflects the rising confidence and aggression of the new secularists and atheists, especially at our sick and surreal modern universities,” he said.
The university did not explain why students were only instructed to write the name of Jesus – and not the name of Mohammed or another religious figure.
“Gee, I wonder if the instructor would dare do this with the name of Mohammed,” Kengor wondered.
Rotela said the idea of stomping on the name of Jesus was beyond his comprehension.
“Any time you stomp on something it shows you believe that it has no value,” he told the television station. “If you were to stomp on the word Jesus – it says the word has no value.”
************************************************************************
LEST STOMP THIS NIGGER DISBELIEVER WHO IS APPARENTLY WRITING A BOOK ON HIS MESSIAH.. OBAMA....
Deandre Poole teaches courses in intercultural communication, ethnicity and communication, leadership and communication, and organizational communication. His research focuses on the role mediated messages play in shaping individual attitudes and beliefs concerning issues of justice and inequality, and examines how leaders, organizations, and other influential authorities dominate and oppress marginalized groups of people. Currently, he is authoring the book, Obamamania: The Rise of a Mythical Hero, to be published by the Edwin Mellen Press. In addition to his academic pursuits, Dr. Poole is actively engaged in various community service projects throughout Palm Beach County.
*********************************************************************
REACH THIS SHITBAG.. Deandre J. Poole
Instructor
Email: dpoole3@fau.edu
GIVE HIM HELL....
PATRIOTS....IF WE DO NOTHING TO FIGHT BACK EXCEPT COMPLAIN AND HOPE THAT " the next election cycle" we will take back our country"... WE ARE DELUSIONAL. ITS THIS DELUSION THAT WILL DESTROY OUR COUNTRY...
REVOLT...DETHRONE ... OR SECEDE !! WE CANNOT CO-EXIST !! THEY WANT US TO SO THEY CAN SUCK US DRY... SO BARE YOUR TEAT... OR PICK UP A GUN...!!
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
How Long do you want to be a Bitch working for the Progressive Pimps!!
REVOLUTION OR SECEDE PATRIOTS WE CANNOT CO EXISTS WITH THIS MADNESS!!!
THE PROGRESSIVES HAVE WON THE DIALOG... NOW WE NEED TO SEPARATE OURSELVES FROM THESE PEOPLE!!
1) Only in America could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.
2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black
3) Only in America could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
4) Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
5) Only in America would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just 'magically' become American citizens.
6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."
7) Only in America could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.
10) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
THE FACEBOOK NAZIS BANNED ME FOR 30 DAYS AGAIN... APRIL 6 2013
The OBAMA HOMO LOVING LEFTY LIBERALS AT FACEBOOK FEAR MY ANGRY TAKE NO PRISONERS CONSERVATIVE VIEW POINT!!
SO THEY BANNED ME AGAIN...FOR ANOTHER 30 DAYS. If you are my friend on Facebook please let all my Friends Know!
4/6/13 THIS PICTURE OFFENDED THE ASSHOLES....
ON
3/17/13...This is the Picture that offended the PANSY SHITS at FACEBOOK... REALLY ?? AND THEY BANNED ME FOR 30 DAYS
SO THEY BANNED ME AGAIN...FOR ANOTHER 30 DAYS. If you are my friend on Facebook please let all my Friends Know!
4/6/13 THIS PICTURE OFFENDED THE ASSHOLES....
ON
3/17/13...This is the Picture that offended the PANSY SHITS at FACEBOOK... REALLY ?? AND THEY BANNED ME FOR 30 DAYS
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Top US Federal Judge Assassinated After Threat To Obama Agenda..Target was NOT Gabby Gifford
We are looking at the wrong file. The target was not Gabby Gifford....
A Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin states that the top US Federal Judge for the State of Arizona was assassinated barely 72-hours after he made a critical ruling against the Obama administrations plan to begin the confiscation of their citizen’s private retirement and banking accounts in order to stave off their nations imminent economic collapse, and after having the US Marshals protecting him removed.
According to this SVR report, Federal Judge John McCarthy Roll was the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona who this past Friday issued what is called a “preliminary ruling” in a case titled “United States of America v. $333,520.00 in United States Currency et al” [Case Number: 4:2010cv00703 Filed: November 30, 2010] wherein he stated he was preparing to rule against Obama’s power to seize American citizens money without clear and convincing evidence of a crime being committed.
The case being ruled on by Judge Roll, this report continues, was about bulk cash smuggling into or out of the United States that the Obama administration claimed was their right to seize under what are called Presidential Executive Orders, instead of using existing laws. The Obama administration used as support for their claim before Judge Roll, the SVR says, the seizing of all American citizens’ gold, in 1933, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s signing of Executive Order 6102, which was ruled at the time to be constitutional.
Should the Obama administration win their argument to seize their citizen’s money by Executive Order without having to abide by the law was made more chilling this past week when reports emerged from the US stating that President Obama and his regime allies were, indeed, preparing to rule America by decree since their loss this past November of their control over the US House of Representatives, and in the words of the Washington Posts columnist Charles Krauthammer: “For an Obama bureaucrat … the will of the Congress is a mere speed bump”.
Since taking office in early 2009, Obama has completely overturned the once free United States through his use of Executive Orders that asserts his power to put anyone he wants in prison without charges or trial forever and his right to assassinate any American citizen he deems a threat.
The most chilling of these powers Obama has asserted for himself, however, are contained in Executive Order 13528 he signed nearly a year ago (January 10, 2010) creating a Council of Governors he has hand-picked to rule over the United States in place of its elected representatives when their next “disaster” strikes and orders them to begin “synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities”.
Going from the chilling to the outright scary, about whatever “disaster” the American regime is preparing their people for, is Obama’s Homeland Security Department, through their Ready.Gov organization, beginning to air this past week a public service television commercial titled “World Upside Down” that shows a typical family sitting in their home suddenly losing all of its gravity and warning all who watch it to begin preparing.
Interesting to note about the assassination of Judge Roll is that it is being blamed on a “lone gunman” said to be mentally unstable (aren’t they all) said directed at a US Congresswoman named Gabrielle Giffords, who survived this mass killing, and that killed at least 5 other innocent people, including a 9-year-old girl named Christina Taylor Green “curiously” born on September 11, 2001 (9/11).
Equally interesting to note about the assassin, a 22-year-old man named Jared Loughner, is that he is being described by the propaganda media organs in the US as an “anti-government” type individual who prior to this mass killing is said to have left “crazed rantings” on the Internet, but whose “handler”, described as a white male between 40-50 years old with dark hair, is still being sought after.
The circumstances surrounding Judge Roll’s assassination by Loughner, also, mirror those of Farouk Abdulmutallab (aka The Underwear Bomber) who “used cash to buy a one-way ticket to the United States at the last minute while carrying no luggage and being on a terrorist watch list. Incredibly, his father had communicated to the US Embassy in Nigeria in November that Abdulmutallab had been radicalized and may be planning a terrorist attack.
At least one witness—passenger Kurt Haskell—claimed that a well-dressed Indian man had escorted Abdulmutallab to the ticket counter and told a ticket agent that Abdulmutallab didn’t have a passport but needed to get on the plane.”
To if this Loughner is able to join the long list of CIA/US Military “mind controlled” assassins there appears to be no doubt as his actions, past, present and future, shows his fitting the “profile” of these maniacs as detailed in the massive lawsuit currently wending its way through the US Federal Court system [United States District Court Northern District Of California, San Francisco Division Case: CV-09-0037] filed against the US government by hundreds of veterans, and as we can read as reported by the Raw Story news service:
“It’s well known that the CIA began testing substances like LSD on soldiers beginning in the 1950s but less is known about allegations that the agency implanted electrodes in subjects. A 2009 lawsuit claimed that the CIA intended to design and test septal electrodes that would enable them to control human behavior. The lawsuit said that because the government never disclosed the risks, the subjects were not able to give informed consent.”
To if the American people will ever be told the truth about Loughner and his assassination of Judge Roll there seems little doubt as the Obama regime is fighting with everything it has to keep the information on these “mind controlled” assassins secret, and as we can read as reported by the Courthouse News service:
“The Central Intelligence Agency in January (2011) will argue for dismissal of Vietnam veterans’ claims that the CIA must provide them with information about the health effects of chemicals used on them during Cold War-era human experiments. The CIA also claims it is not obligated to provide the veterans with medical care for side effects of the drugs. It’s the CIA’s third attempt to get the case dismissed.
“In a 2009 federal lawsuit, Vietnam Veterans of America claimed that the Army and CIA had used at least 7,800 soldiers as guinea pigs in “Project Paperclip.” They were given at least 250 and as many as 400 types of drugs, among them sarin, one of the most deadly drugs known to man, amphetamines, barbiturates, mustard gas, phosgene gas and LSD.
Among the project’s goals were to control human behavior, develop drugs that would cause confusion, promote weakness or temporarily cause loss of hearing or vision, create a drug to induce hypnosis and identify drugs that could enhance a person’s ability to withstand torture.
The veterans say that some of the soldiers died, and others suffered grand mal seizures, epileptic seizures and paranoia. The veterans say the CIA promised in the 1970s to compensate those who were made guinea pigs, but the 2009 complaint states that the government “never made a sincere effort to locate the survivors.”
In its 32-page motion to dismiss the group’s third amended complaint, the CIA claims it has no legal obligation under the Administrative Procedures Act to provide the veterans with notice of the drugs’ health effects and that the veterans’ notice claim “rests solely on state common-law duty.”
The CIA claims that the law on which the veterans base their claim for health care compensation stems from the Department of Defense and Army regulations, “which do not purport to have a binding affect on the CIA.” And it claims that the Defense Department “never intended nor committed to providing medical care for service member participants in the test programs.”
Based upon the CIA’s assertion that the US Defense Department “never intended nor committed to providing medical care for service member participants in the test programs” clearly shows their knowing of the existence of these “mind control” assassins, like Loughner, leading one to wonder how many more of them are out there, and even worse, when they will strike next.
One can only hope that there is some “power” in America today able to stop the madness currently taking over that once great nation before all is truly lost, we hope it is much sooner than later for all of the worlds sake.
A Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin states that the top US Federal Judge for the State of Arizona was assassinated barely 72-hours after he made a critical ruling against the Obama administrations plan to begin the confiscation of their citizen’s private retirement and banking accounts in order to stave off their nations imminent economic collapse, and after having the US Marshals protecting him removed.
According to this SVR report, Federal Judge John McCarthy Roll was the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona who this past Friday issued what is called a “preliminary ruling” in a case titled “United States of America v. $333,520.00 in United States Currency et al” [Case Number: 4:2010cv00703 Filed: November 30, 2010] wherein he stated he was preparing to rule against Obama’s power to seize American citizens money without clear and convincing evidence of a crime being committed.
The case being ruled on by Judge Roll, this report continues, was about bulk cash smuggling into or out of the United States that the Obama administration claimed was their right to seize under what are called Presidential Executive Orders, instead of using existing laws. The Obama administration used as support for their claim before Judge Roll, the SVR says, the seizing of all American citizens’ gold, in 1933, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s signing of Executive Order 6102, which was ruled at the time to be constitutional.
Should the Obama administration win their argument to seize their citizen’s money by Executive Order without having to abide by the law was made more chilling this past week when reports emerged from the US stating that President Obama and his regime allies were, indeed, preparing to rule America by decree since their loss this past November of their control over the US House of Representatives, and in the words of the Washington Posts columnist Charles Krauthammer: “For an Obama bureaucrat … the will of the Congress is a mere speed bump”.
Since taking office in early 2009, Obama has completely overturned the once free United States through his use of Executive Orders that asserts his power to put anyone he wants in prison without charges or trial forever and his right to assassinate any American citizen he deems a threat.
The most chilling of these powers Obama has asserted for himself, however, are contained in Executive Order 13528 he signed nearly a year ago (January 10, 2010) creating a Council of Governors he has hand-picked to rule over the United States in place of its elected representatives when their next “disaster” strikes and orders them to begin “synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities”.
Going from the chilling to the outright scary, about whatever “disaster” the American regime is preparing their people for, is Obama’s Homeland Security Department, through their Ready.Gov organization, beginning to air this past week a public service television commercial titled “World Upside Down” that shows a typical family sitting in their home suddenly losing all of its gravity and warning all who watch it to begin preparing.
Interesting to note about the assassination of Judge Roll is that it is being blamed on a “lone gunman” said to be mentally unstable (aren’t they all) said directed at a US Congresswoman named Gabrielle Giffords, who survived this mass killing, and that killed at least 5 other innocent people, including a 9-year-old girl named Christina Taylor Green “curiously” born on September 11, 2001 (9/11).
Equally interesting to note about the assassin, a 22-year-old man named Jared Loughner, is that he is being described by the propaganda media organs in the US as an “anti-government” type individual who prior to this mass killing is said to have left “crazed rantings” on the Internet, but whose “handler”, described as a white male between 40-50 years old with dark hair, is still being sought after.
The circumstances surrounding Judge Roll’s assassination by Loughner, also, mirror those of Farouk Abdulmutallab (aka The Underwear Bomber) who “used cash to buy a one-way ticket to the United States at the last minute while carrying no luggage and being on a terrorist watch list. Incredibly, his father had communicated to the US Embassy in Nigeria in November that Abdulmutallab had been radicalized and may be planning a terrorist attack.
At least one witness—passenger Kurt Haskell—claimed that a well-dressed Indian man had escorted Abdulmutallab to the ticket counter and told a ticket agent that Abdulmutallab didn’t have a passport but needed to get on the plane.”
To if this Loughner is able to join the long list of CIA/US Military “mind controlled” assassins there appears to be no doubt as his actions, past, present and future, shows his fitting the “profile” of these maniacs as detailed in the massive lawsuit currently wending its way through the US Federal Court system [United States District Court Northern District Of California, San Francisco Division Case: CV-09-0037] filed against the US government by hundreds of veterans, and as we can read as reported by the Raw Story news service:
“It’s well known that the CIA began testing substances like LSD on soldiers beginning in the 1950s but less is known about allegations that the agency implanted electrodes in subjects. A 2009 lawsuit claimed that the CIA intended to design and test septal electrodes that would enable them to control human behavior. The lawsuit said that because the government never disclosed the risks, the subjects were not able to give informed consent.”
To if the American people will ever be told the truth about Loughner and his assassination of Judge Roll there seems little doubt as the Obama regime is fighting with everything it has to keep the information on these “mind controlled” assassins secret, and as we can read as reported by the Courthouse News service:
“The Central Intelligence Agency in January (2011) will argue for dismissal of Vietnam veterans’ claims that the CIA must provide them with information about the health effects of chemicals used on them during Cold War-era human experiments. The CIA also claims it is not obligated to provide the veterans with medical care for side effects of the drugs. It’s the CIA’s third attempt to get the case dismissed.
“In a 2009 federal lawsuit, Vietnam Veterans of America claimed that the Army and CIA had used at least 7,800 soldiers as guinea pigs in “Project Paperclip.” They were given at least 250 and as many as 400 types of drugs, among them sarin, one of the most deadly drugs known to man, amphetamines, barbiturates, mustard gas, phosgene gas and LSD.
Among the project’s goals were to control human behavior, develop drugs that would cause confusion, promote weakness or temporarily cause loss of hearing or vision, create a drug to induce hypnosis and identify drugs that could enhance a person’s ability to withstand torture.
The veterans say that some of the soldiers died, and others suffered grand mal seizures, epileptic seizures and paranoia. The veterans say the CIA promised in the 1970s to compensate those who were made guinea pigs, but the 2009 complaint states that the government “never made a sincere effort to locate the survivors.”
In its 32-page motion to dismiss the group’s third amended complaint, the CIA claims it has no legal obligation under the Administrative Procedures Act to provide the veterans with notice of the drugs’ health effects and that the veterans’ notice claim “rests solely on state common-law duty.”
The CIA claims that the law on which the veterans base their claim for health care compensation stems from the Department of Defense and Army regulations, “which do not purport to have a binding affect on the CIA.” And it claims that the Defense Department “never intended nor committed to providing medical care for service member participants in the test programs.”
Based upon the CIA’s assertion that the US Defense Department “never intended nor committed to providing medical care for service member participants in the test programs” clearly shows their knowing of the existence of these “mind control” assassins, like Loughner, leading one to wonder how many more of them are out there, and even worse, when they will strike next.
One can only hope that there is some “power” in America today able to stop the madness currently taking over that once great nation before all is truly lost, we hope it is much sooner than later for all of the worlds sake.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes: Listed by Size of Tax Hike
Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes: Listed by Size of Tax Hike
Complied by Americans for Tax Reform
WASHINGTON, DC -- Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses. Arranged by their respective sizes according to CBO scores, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, their effective dates, and where to find them in the bill.
$123 Billion: Surtax on Investment Income (Takes effect Jan. 2013): A new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income:
*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross
income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive
income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not
include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those
do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or
business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through
entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does
not apply to non-resident aliens. (Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page:
87-93)
$86 Billion: Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Current law and changes:
$65 Billion: Individual Mandate Excise Tax and Employer Mandate Tax (Both taxes take effect Jan. 2014):
Individual: Anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance as defined by Obama-appointed HHS bureaucrats must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following
Employer: If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least
one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay
an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees.
Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee
actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the
employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a
waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax
per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346
$32 Billion: Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956
$23.6 Billion: “Black liquor” tax hike (Took effect in 2010) This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105
$22.2 Billion: Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Took effect in 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980
$20 Billion: Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986
$15.2 Billion: High Medical Bills Tax (Takes effect Jan 1. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995
$13.2 Billion: Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389
$5 Billion: Medicine Cabinet Tax (Took effect Jan. 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959
$4.5 Billion: Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994
$4.5 Billion: Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Took effect in 2010): This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113
$2.7 Billion: Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Took effect July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399
$1.4 Billion: HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959
$0.6 Billion: $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000
$0.4 Billion: Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Took effect in 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004
$ Negligible: Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Took effect in 2010): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971
$ Negligible: Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Took effect in Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957
AND OBAMA HAS SEEN TO IT THAT HIS FAVORITE GROUPS HAVE BEEN GIVEN WAIVERS...
ONLY REGULAR WORKING AMERICANS..WILL PAY THESE TAXES!!
WASHINGTON, DC -- Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses. Arranged by their respective sizes according to CBO scores, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, their effective dates, and where to find them in the bill.
$123 Billion: Surtax on Investment Income (Takes effect Jan. 2013): A new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income:
| Capital Gains | Dividends | Other* | |
| 2012 | 15% | 15% | 35% |
| 2013+ | 23.8% | 43.4% | 43.4% |
$86 Billion: Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Current law and changes:
| First $200,000 ($250,000 Married) Employer/Employee |
All Remaining Wages Employer/Employee |
|
| Current Law | 1.45%/1.45% 2.9% self-employed |
1.45%/1.45% 2.9% self-employed |
| Obamacare Tax Hike | 1.45%/1.45% 2.9% self-employed |
1.45%/2.35% 3.8% self-employed |
Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93
Individual: Anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance as defined by Obama-appointed HHS bureaucrats must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following
| 1 Adult | 2 Adults | 3+ Adults | |
| 2014 | 1% AGI/$95 | 1% AGI/$190 | 1% AGI/$285 |
| 2015 | 2% AGI/$325 | 2% AGI/$650 | 2% AGI/$975 |
| 2016 + | 2.5% AGI/$695 | 2.5% AGI/$1390 | 2.5% AGI/$2085 |
Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants,
prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian
tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page:
317-337
(Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion)
$60.1 Billion: Tax on Health Insurers
(Takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative
to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually
until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993$32 Billion: Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956
$23.6 Billion: “Black liquor” tax hike (Took effect in 2010) This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105
$22.2 Billion: Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Took effect in 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980
$20 Billion: Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986
$15.2 Billion: High Medical Bills Tax (Takes effect Jan 1. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995
$13.2 Billion: Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389
$5 Billion: Medicine Cabinet Tax (Took effect Jan. 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959
$4.5 Billion: Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994
$4.5 Billion: Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Took effect in 2010): This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113
$2.7 Billion: Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Took effect July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399
$1.4 Billion: HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959
$0.6 Billion: $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000
$0.4 Billion: Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Took effect in 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004
$ Negligible: Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Took effect in 2010): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971
$ Negligible: Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Took effect in Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957
AND OBAMA HAS SEEN TO IT THAT HIS FAVORITE GROUPS HAVE BEEN GIVEN WAIVERS...
ONLY REGULAR WORKING AMERICANS..WILL PAY THESE TAXES!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)