Beullogeo's

The former black community organizer of ambiguous origin, touted by a sycophantic, anti-White media as the "post-racial" president, is anti-White. Is anybody other than deracinated Whites surprised?

In Obama team's panic over losing whites, Pat Buchanan writes:

Panic. The White House fears it is losing white America because of a false perception that it harbors a bias against white America.

Outrageous, rail those journalists who celebrated the NAACP's accusation that the tea party is harboring racists and is too cowardly to confront them.

Yet, as things perceived as real are real in their consequences, if the White House does not eradicate this perception, its lease may not be renewed. Whence comes that perception? Several incidents.

First was the startling accusation by Attorney General Eric Holder, days after Barack Obama was inaugurated in a gusher of good feeling, that we are all "a nation of cowards" when it comes to facing issues of race.

A real icebreaker for a national conversation.

Second was the instantaneous verdict of the president, when asked about the arrest of Harvard's Henry Louis Gates by Cambridge cop Sgt. James Crowley. With no knowledge of what happened, Obama blurted out that the cops had "acted stupidly."

It took a White House beer summit to detoxify that one.

A third was the revelation that Obama's first Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the "wise Latina" herself, had gone to extremes to see that the case of Frank Ricci and the New Haven, Conn., firefighters never got to the Supreme Court. Ricci and co-defendants had been denied promotions they had won in competitive exams solely because they were white and no black firemen had done as well.

The fourth was the Justice Department's dropping of charges against members of the New Black Panther Party, whose intimidation of voters in Philadelphia had been captured on tape.

When a department official resigned in protest and went to the Civil Rights Commission to accuse officials at Justice of ordering staff attorneys not to pursue such cases, that explosive charge, too, was ignored by Justice.

Came then the NAACP smear that the tea party was harboring racists, which Joe Biden explicitly rejected on national television on Sunday, before the Monday firestorm over Sherrod.

The anti-White bias of Obama, his handlers, his media cheerleaders, and his administration is crystal clear. Buchanan neglected to cite a few other major incidents in support of this perception.

Obama's disdainful remarks about working-class voters in former industrial towns devastated by job losses, i.e. Whites: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." An unabashed Obama then explained this is something "everybody knows is true", i.e everyone in his social and political circles disdains Whites.

Obama's long-term friendship and association with anti-White Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Media accusations that as a group White voters in the democratic primary and Obama's subsequent election were "racist", despite having the least skewed voting patterns of any major racial/ethnic group.

The Obama adminstration's DHS report directing fear and loathing at disaffected White citizens.

Obama's drive to reform healthcare despite widespread, predominantly White protests. The reform represents a massive transfer of wealth from disproportionally White payers of taxes and insurance premiums to disproportionally non-White free-riders.

Obama's personal appeal to "make sure that the young people, African Americans, Latinos and women, who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again."

Obama and his administration's hostile reaction to Arizona's stand against illegal immigration and his clear preference to promote the interests of non-White aliens.

All of these incidents were given fairly prominent exposure - at least in the conservative media Whites gravitate toward.

Another incident, which conservatives have been unwilling to openly criticize, is Obama's more recent nominee for SCOTUS, Elena Kagan, who has been strongly criticized by "people of color" for hiring too many "white" men. The Obama White House response was to crow about Kagan's efforts to "increase faculty diversity". Their document provides some idea who these "diverse" "whites" were:

Kagan’s hires were not just conservatives; most were liberal professors, including leading liberal academics like Jody Freeman (environmental law), Sanford Levinson (constitutional law), Mark Tushnet (constitutional law and civil rights), Noah Feldman (church-state), Michael Klarman (civil rights), and Cass Sunstein.

Even conservatives who recognize that the regime is anti-White will not question it's equally obvious favor for jews.

Transcript of Obama’s Immigration Speech.

In this treasonous speech, delivered on 1 July 2010, Barack Hussein Obama, president of the United States, advocates in favor of alien interlopers, claiming that "being an American is not a matter of blood or birth". This is not surprising coming from someone with a cloud over their own blood and birth. His view is:

It’s a matter of faith. It’s a matter of fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear. That’s what makes us unique. That’s what makes us strong. Anybody can help us write the next great chapter in our history.

In other words, potentially every person on earth is an American.

What are these shared values "we" all hold so dear? Obama takes a while to get to that, finding it necessary to first disparage the founders and their posterity who for most of this country's history haven't shared his values. Eventually he comes to what he thinks "our" values are:

Finally, we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally. They must be required to admit that they broke the law. They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship — not just because it is fair, not just because it will make clear to those who might wish to come to America they must do so inside the bounds of the law, but because this is how we demonstrate that being — what being an American means. Being a citizen of this country comes not only with rights but also with certain fundamental responsibilities. We can create a pathway for legal status that is fair, reflective of our values, and works.

We have laws, see? Any alien who wants to be an American must admit they broke the law, see? Oh, and you'll have to register, pay taxes and a fine, and learn English too. The punishment for not doing so? Well, you'll probably still get your "legal status". You just might not get to be a citizen. Maybe. But no big deal. A citizen is just an American whose fundamental responsibility is to create a pathway for "legal status" for any alien who wants it.

Obama didn't mention his relative, Zeituni Onyango, who was recently granted "legal status" by immigration judge Leonard Shapiro even though she never admitted breaking any laws. Obama did however conclude his speech by mentioning that prototypical "nation of immigrants" whose interests so often seem to be more interesting than everyone else's:

One of the largest waves of immigration in our history took place little more than a century ago. At the time, Jewish people were being driven out of Eastern Europe, often escaping to the sounds of gunfire and the light from their villages burning to the ground. The journey could take months, as families crossed rivers in the dead of night, traveled miles by foot, endured a rough and dangerous passage over the North Atlantic. Once here, many made their homes in a teeming and bustling Lower Manhattan.

It was at this time that a young woman named Emma Lazarus, whose own family fled persecution from Europe generations earlier, took up the cause of these new immigrants. Although she was a poet, she spent much of her time advocating for better health care and housing for the newcomers. And inspired by what she saw and heard, she wrote down her thoughts and donated a piece of work to help pay for the construction of a new statue — the Statue of Liberty — which actually was funded in part by small donations from people across America.

Unfortunately for Americans, Lazarus and her subversive tribemates weren't long ago forced to flee America. Their golem Obama faithfully represents their twisted genocidal idea that, for their good, America's highest value should be to displace and dispossess Americans.

Pro-Israel Highlights of Barack Obama Speech for AIPAC, 4 June 2008:

We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle, and decades of patient work. But sixty years later we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security.

Now let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable.

Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a jewish state, with secure, recognized, defensible borders.

Obama on Arizona: Presidents don't do boycotts, 27 May 2010:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama says the decision to boycott Arizona over its tough new law cracking down on immigration is for private citizens to decide, not the president of the United States.

Speaking at a White House news conference, Obama said he doesn't approve or oppose the boycotts that some cities and groups have called for in response to the Arizona law, which makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally.

Obama reaffirmed his oppposition to the law, saying it's the wrong approach. He has asked the Justice Department to review the law to determine whether it violates civil liberties.

Obama would make a great president of Israel, but he's a terrible president for my people. I want a president who serves my people and defends our states the way Obama talks about serving jews and Israel.

Contrast this...

Obama: Hasan May Have ‘Cracked’ From ‘Stress’ | The FOX Nation

On Fort Hood shooting, Obama says: Do not jump to conclusions | Jerusalem Post

with this...

Round Up Hate-Promoters Now, Before Any More Holocaust Museum Attacks - CBS News, by Bonnie Erbe.

The Big Hate - NYTimes.com, by Paul Krugman.

- - -

If Major Nidal Malik Hasan were White these people wouldn't hesitate to recognize and denounce his motives. Likewise if James von Brunn had been a palestinian muslim. The one constant is that when jews perceive a threat to jewish interests, the conclusions they jump to get aired, no matter how insane, illiberal, or insensitive, and usually without any challenge or retraction. When there is no direct threat to jewish interests, as with the Fort Hood attack, then defending against indirect threats to minority privilege (the presumption that non-Whites, including jews, are disadvantaged) and dual loyalty (it's ok to be a jew or muslim first) is paramount.

There is no need to jump to conclusions about the anti-White regime. Pay attention to its reaction to any particular clash of White and non-White interests and the conclusions jump out all by themselves.

Possible Obama Supreme Court Pick Slapped Down Reverse Discrimination Case in One-Paragraph Opinion:

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, voted to deny a racial discrimination claim in a 2008 decision. She dismissed the case in a one-paragraph statement that, in the opinion of one dissenting judge, ignored the evidence and did not even address the constitutional issues raised by the case.

The case, Ricci v. DeStefano, involved a group of 19 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who filed suit in 2003 claiming that the city of New Haven, Conn., engaged in racial discrimination when it threw out the results of two promotion tests because none of the city’s black applicants had passed the tests.

Each of the plaintiffs had passed the exam. The case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The city threw out the results because it feared potential lawsuits from activist groups if few or no minority candidates were promoted. The city also claimed that in addition to potential lawsuits, promotions based on the test results would undermine their goal of diversity in the Fire Department.

The firefighters sued, arguing that New Haven was discriminating against them by deciding that the tests would promote too many white candidates and too few minorities.

Federal Judge Janet Bond Arterton rejected the firefighters’ appeal, siding with the city and saying that no racial discrimination had occurred because the city didn’t promote anyone at all.

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sotomayor issued an order that affirmed Arterton’s decision, issuing a one-paragraph judgment that called Arterton’s ruling “thorough, thoughtful, and well reasoned,”

Steve Sailer wrote about Ricci in Playing With Fire: The Obama Administration Backs Anti-White Discrimination in Ricci.

Sotomayor’s View of Judging Is on the Record from the New York Times, 14 May 2009:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life," said Judge Sotomayor

Note that if the ethnies were reversed and this came from a White mouth anti-Whites wouldn't hesitate to identify such an opinion as "racist" "anti-latino" "White supremacism". They would not only exclude such a White from consideration for SCOTUS, they would agitate to terminate whatever current employment the White enjoyed.

The penalty for Sotomayor? Nothing. It might even be a reason she got nominated. But the NYT thinks it "could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing".

How -- and why -- Barack Obama picked Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court at politico.com, today:

An Obama aide said the president, who interviewed her for an hour in the Oval Office, “was blown away by her — her personal story, her sharp intellect and confidence, and her experience as prosecutor, trial judge, litigator and appellate judge.”

As the most arguably liberal of the four finalists, Sotomayor provides the most fodder for conservative groups, which have vowed to spend millions of dollars on television advertising. Leaders hope a court brawl will help rebuild their movement.

Via Elena Kagan: Free Speech Denier comes The Case Against Sotomayor by Jeffrey Rosen, 4 May 2009:

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."

UPDATE 26 May 2009: In Sotomayor hates white people and Sotomayor hates white people, pt. 2 James Edwards covers the same subject. He concludes:

Get ready, white folks. Obama is making it as clear as he can that it’s payback time for honkies. You know how he said he wants judges who have “empathy” to be on the Supreme Court? Well, “empathy” means hatred for white people, just like “equality” and “diversity” do.

Anti-Whites call euphemisms like these "dog whistles" - though as the Wiki page describes, they think this cynical label only applies to phenomena that confirm their own one-sided view of "racism".

There is no moral equivalence between the appeal to the popular, instinctive desires of White voters that these anti-White anti-racists so detest, and the dishonest euphemisms they themselves so cherish and pretend are popular due to repetition ad nauseum by a like-minded anti-White press. But the comparison does support Edwards' blunt observation. If the "dog whistle" people think popular sympathies for state's rights or against immigration reflect White "racism", then by their own reasoning it's safe for us to conclude that their orwellian celebration of "empathy", "equality" and "diversity" means "I hate Whites".

UPDATE 27 May 2009: From the WSJ, dated 28 (sic) May 2009, Battle Over Sotomayor Heats Up:

Conservatives are focusing on a speech Ms. Sotomayor delivered at the University of California at Berkeley law school, where she said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw?" asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on his Web site. "New racism is no better than old racism."

White House aides said the comment was being taken out of context, and predicted it wouldn't put the nomination off course. Indeed, the White House believes the president is operating from a position of strength, and officials emphasized that a pitched confirmation fight isn't inevitable.

"We're all extremely pleased at how the first 24 hours went," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), who has been assigned to chaperone the Bronx-born judge through her confirmation.

"We wanted to make sure we showed the broad support she has in the community," said Mr. Wilkes [executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens], whose group has 115,000 members.

Ms. Sotomayor's critics are fighting an uphill battle, unless some unknown personal scandal emerges, because Democrats control the Senate.

Heat? Scandal? Where? She's anti-White and that's "extremely pleasing". The nomination is "right on course".

What in the world could sink her? A quip about pubic hair? Plagiarism? Unpaid taxes? Not paying an undocumented migrant ladeeenyo employee's social security? Starring on Celebrity Apprentice, killing a less wise White competitor with less rich experiences and eating his still beating heart, in prime time? Please. Can anybody imagine anything that might cause Obama or Schumer or Sotomayor herself to withdraw this "historic" nomination?

If the Israel Lobby is a myth, then why is obsequience to israel a bipartisan litmus test for US officials? "Are you now, or have you ever been, a critic of israel?"

On 5 March 2009 the Washington Times reported Foreign ties of nominee questioned:

The director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, last Thursday named Mr. [Chas W.] Freeman, a veteran former diplomat, to the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council, known inside the government as the NIC. In that job, Mr. Freeman will have access to some of America's most closely guarded secrets and be charged with overseeing the drafting of the consensus view of all 16 intelligence agencies.

His selection was praised by some who noted his articulateness and experience as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a senior envoy to China and other nations. But it sparked concerns among some members of Congress from both parties, who asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's inspector general, Edward McGuire, to investigate Mr. Freeman's potential conflicts of interest.

Why didn't these kind of questions sink Rahm Emanuel? After all:

Mr. Emanuel is arguably the second most powerful man in the country and, just a few days into his tenure, already one of the highest-profile chiefs of staff in recent memory.

Renowned as a fierce partisan, he has been an ardent ambassador to Republicans, including Mr. Obama’s defeated rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona. He has exerted influence on countless decisions; in meetings, administration officials say, Mr. Obama often allows him to speak first and last.

“You can see how he listens and reacts to Rahm,” said Ron Klain, the chief of staff to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “You can see that his opinion is being shaped.”

Emanuel has strong foreign ties. Haaretz writes U.S. Jews laud Obama pick of Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff:

"Rep. Emanuel is also a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock, davening at an Orthodox synagogue, and sending his children to Jewish day schools," Daroff concluded.

Ira N. Forman, Executive Director of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC), echoed Daroff's approval, saying in a statement Thursday that "Obama made an outstanding selection. Emanuel has been a forceful and effective leader within the Democratic Party. His voting record and leadership in support of the U.S.-Israel relationship are outstanding."

"Emanuel has deep Jewish roots and strong ties to the Jewish community. Emanuel, the son of an Israeli immigrant, has a proven commitment to Israel's security and served as civilian volunteer on an Israeli military base during the Persian Gulf War of 1991," the statement continued.

"Good irgun stock" means his jewish "faith" is very strong. His middle name is Israel.

On 10 March 2009 Foreign Policy blog The Cable posted a letter from Freeman explaining his withdrawal from the position, Freeman speaks out on his exit (my emphasis):

You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.

As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.

I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.

Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.

I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them.

Later that same day Ben Smith at Politico posted Freeman hits 'Israel lobby' on way out:

Charles W. Freeman Jr.'s abrupt withdrawal from his appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council came after he drew fire on a number of fronts - including questions about his financial ties to China and Saudi Arabia.

But the most heated opposition came from supporters of Israel - and Freeman's departure shows Obama's reluctance to signal a dramatic change to a U.S. policy in the Middle East that centers on standing beside Israel.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama jettisoned aides and backed off statements that appeared to imply a change in the Bush Administration's firm support for hawkish Israeli governments.

On 12 March the Jerusalem Post, in Freeman blames 'Israel lobby' for ouster from NIC, wrote (my emphasis):

Critics of the selection of the former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia - among them members of Congress - cited statements he had made harshly criticizing Israel, praising Saudi Arabia and seeming to side with the Chinese government over democracy advocates, as well as business and financial ties to China and Saudi Arabia, in calling for Freeman to be denied the position overseeing the compilation of the US intelligence community's National Intelligence Estimates.

In his statement, Freeman also said, "The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues."

Those questions, which rebounded through the blogosphere Wednesday, have led some to argue that Israel advocates who believe they helped their cause by seeing Freeman shut out have only scored a Pyrrhic victory.

"The perception, almost universally held, that he was brought down because he is a strong and vocal opponent of Israel's West Bank and settlement policies, is not good for the Jewish community and the pro-Israel community in particular," M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, wrote on his blog, pointing out that criticism of Freeman first surfaced in the pro-Israel community.

He told The Jerusalem Post that the community has been trying to argue that its alleged power is a myth, yet it will now be perceived as "bringing down" a top government appointee.

Prominent blogger Andrew Sullivan, not known to be a harsh Israel critic, called Freeman's "cardinal sin" his willingness to blame Israel for the situation it finds itself in in the Middle East.

"This is the third rail no one is allowed to touch and have access to real power in Washington," he wrote. "I find the hysterical bullying of this man to be repulsive."

Even some mainstream media outlets have picked up on this theme. Reuters called the controversy a "a test case for the strength of Washington's right-wing pro-Israel lobby" since remarks critical of Israel have previously been "virtually taboo in official Washington, whose elected leaders - or those running for office - tend to stress unflagging support for the Jewish state."

Still, pro-Israel groups who opposed Freeman's appointment openly welcomed the news that he would not be taking the post.

Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, said that Freeman's comments blaming the Israel lobby only proved that he was ill-suited for the job.

"I understand someone being upset if people oppose an appointment, but to lash out at what appeared to be a conspiracy in his mind was not the type of temperament one would hope for in someone in such a position," he said.

Obviously Freeman's foreign ties weren't the real problem, it was his criticism of israel. And this was true before he wrote this letter about the Israel Lobby. Rahm Emanuel wasn't subjected to a different standard. It was the same standard: "what's good for the jewish community?", as M.J. Rosenberg would put it.

Ira Forman, who was quoted praising Emanuel above, here gleefully spells out the fate of anyone who notices that what's good for the jewish community isn't necessarily good for their own. If you speak out, you'll be punished. If you object to that, you'll be smeared as "crazy". Jewish power is a myth. If you doubt that, an invisible, imaginary, non-existent jewish conspiracy will crush you.

In related news, on 11 March 2009 AP published Officials: Iran does not have key nuclear material (my emphasis):

Iran does not yet have any highly enriched uranium, the fuel needed to make a nuclear warhead, two top U.S. intelligence officials told Congress Tuesday, disputing a claim by an Israeli official.

U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Maples said Tuesday that Iran has only low-enriched uranium - which would need to be refined into highly enriched uranium before it can fuel a warhead. Neither officials said there were indications that refining has occurred.

Their comments disputed a claim made last weekend by Israel's top intelligence military official, who said Iran has crossed a technical threshold and is now capable of producing atomic weapons.

The claim made by Israeli Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin runs counter to estimates by U.S. intelligence that the earliest Iran could produce a weapon is 2010, with some analysts saying it is more likely that it is 2015.

Maples said the United States and Israel are interpreting the same facts, but arriving at different conclusions.

"The Israelis are far more concerned about it," Maples told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Blair also stood firm behind former U.S. Ambassador Charles Freeman, his pick for a top analysis job, despite strong congressional criticism.

Freeman, who was U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf war, had harshly criticized the Israeli government, the Iraq war and the war on terrorism in general.

A policy council Freeman headed also has been criticized for some ties to foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia and China. Blair's inspector general is investigating those ties while Freeman works with ethics advisers to scrub his personal finances for potential conflicts of interest.

Blair and Maples will very soon be following Freeman. Then Rahm Emanuel can tap Ira Forman or someone else Ira Forman approves of as National Intelligence Director. Then Obomba will get the "correct" intel. Then he can bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran. And then jews everywhere will live happily ever after.

American Goy notes the relative silence of the media and other curious details in Irony overload- the strange case of Charles W. "Chas" Freeman.

UPDATE 12 March 2009: On 11 March 2009 American Jewish Committee Executive Director David A. Harris issued the following statement:

Apparently, Chas Freeman can dish it out but can't take it.

Like all appointments to key national security positions, Freeman's merited public scrutiny. His views on "Abdullah the Great," on Israel, on September 11, and on Tiananmen Square were a matter of public record, and respected officials on both sides of the aisle raised legitimate concerns about them.

Ambassador Freeman could have defended those beliefs in an open debate. Instead, he chose to fire off nasty emails scapegoating the "Israel Lobby" for his own decision to withdraw.

The only "libels" and "smears" here are Freeman's tired cliches about a nefarious "Israel Lobby" that stifles debate. In truth, it's Freeman, a charter member of the Saudi Fan Club, who wanted the debate to be silenced - since he found himself on the losing side once it started.

If Freeman's conspiratorial rant reflects the quality of his analysis and his temperament under pressure, it's just further evidence that he wasn't the right man for this critical job.

This statement, and especially the last sentence, sounds just like Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, already quoted above. It's as if they're conspiring or something. But that's just conspiratorial talk.

Scapegoating, in my dictionary, means blaming someone who isn't responsible. When criticism is aimed at any other powerful entity it's called "speaking truth to power". When jewish power is criticized many jews insinuate the critic is insane, others revel in crushing the critic's windpipe, and a few "self-hating jews" affirm his criticism.

On 6 March 2009 Richard Silverstein wrote Chas. Freeman: Aipac Smells Blood in the Water (links in original):

Admiral Dennis Blair’s appointment of Chas. Freeman as chair of the National Intelligence Council becomes more troubled by the day. Not because of any real taint on Ambassador Freeman’s record, but because Aipac and its Congressional water carriers are upping the ante day by day in a campaign to oust him due to his strongly critical views about the Israeli Occupation.

His critics veil their criticism in an attack on Freeman’s close ties to Chinese and Saudi business and government interests, but make no mistake–Freeman’s sin is his outspokenness on Israel and his sympathies for Palestinian suffering.

This coordinated attack fits Aipac’s modus operandi to a tee. First, you will probably not hear the group’s name directly associated with the assault. The phone calls go from Aipac headquarters to their mostly Republican minions on the Hill. But it’s entirely possible that unlike the Manchurian Candidate, Aipac doesn’t even need to activate their operatives. They’ve been so indoctrinated that the Congress members know what is expected of them and they start the campaign themselves.

And by the by, Jim Lobe notes notes that most of the seven Congress members who signed a letter asking for an investigation of Freeman were heavy recipients of pro-Israel campaign donations closely affiliated with Aipac.

Even Chuck Schumer, now New York’s leading pro-Israel political leader after Hillary’s promotion to State, is getting in on the act. He picked up the phone to call his good friend and fellow pro-Israel Dem., Rahm Emanuel, to rail about Freeman. What’s especially significant about Schumer’s involvement is that until now the opposition was led by straight neo-con Republican forces and the pro-Israel right: Steve Rosen, Michael Goldfarb, the Republican Jewish Coalition, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mark Kirk, Marty Peretz, Jonathan Tobin, etc. Schumer is the first Democratic leader to get into the tussle.

AJC, NJDC, AIPAC, Schumer, Emanuel, ... how many more nonentities of the mythical Israel Lobby are involved here?

Read more about AIPAC at Secrecy News. Among other things you might be interested to find out more about Steve Rosen, Freeman critic and alleged spy for israel:

AIPAC Case Lingers On | Secrecy News
AIPAC Appeals Court Rules Against Prosecutors | Secrecy News
The Jewish Chronicle - Classifieds, News, Business, and Events

American Goy sums up why spying for israel isn't considered wrong:

You see, the defense team can point out to the 2008 AIPAC meeting, and show a few short films showing Obama, Clinton, McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Boehner all saying the same thing - that Israel is America's greatest friend.

Well then, since Israel is America's greatest friend, giving our greatest friend and ally, the best thing to happen to the world since sliced bread was invented, a few measly "top secret" documents stolen from the Pentagon, is not treason, nor can it be proven to cause injury to the United States.

Because Israel is our greatest friend and ally.

Because American and Israeli interests and goals are the same.

Steve Rosen's response posted 10 March 2009, Chas Freeman withdraws from NIC nomination:

Democratic Representative Steve Israel said that he spoke of his concerns last week to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and later sent him materials about the former ambassador's statements and associations. Israel, a member of the House Appropriations Committee's Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, said in a phone interview, "As I was leaving the White House this afternoon, they told me of Blair's statement" of Freeman's withdrawal. "I think Blair's defense of Freeman was indefensible, and people in the White House realized that."

Freeman is indefensible in the sense that at this point anyone who defends him will just as surely be drummed out of government by the same mythical conspiracy.

A powerful US politician whose middle name is Israel, and another whose last name is Israel, join together with a collection of well-funded, well-organized pro-Israel organizations to snuff the appointment of a critic of Israel, while a gaggle of jews waves their hands, Jedi-style, saying "it was his conspiratorial temperament".

What can I say? This is absolutely mindnumbing. The scandal is already over-the-top and the ADL and SPLC haven't even piped up to claim that it's just another example of how the poor powerless jews get scapegoated by "old canards" of "the anti-semites".

The first editorial, dated 31 Jan 2009 and titled The Nativists Are Restless, starts the witch-hunt with a bang, accusing Vdare, The American Cause, and korean-jew Marcus Epstein of the second worst crime possible in their brave new progressivist-globalist world: "white supremacism". (The worst crime being "anti-semitism", of course. Surely the Times will eventually get to that.)

The next editorial, dated 2 Feb 2009 is titled The Nativists Are Restless, Continued. It continues the assault under the guise of seeking debate, accusing Republicans of not doing enough for latinos while saluting the Southern Poverty Law Center for sniffing out non-latino Whites distasteful enough to fret about our interests and audacious enough to actually pursue them. For the record, the Times states, they do not support open borders, and never have. They're only concerned that their metaphorical "Golden Door" might be closed. They don't favor "amnesty" either. They just want a "Golden Door" big enough so "that immigrants will go through, not around". And that those who do go around get to stay. That's not "open borders" or "amnesty". It's just the common sense of anyone who wants to "destroy America’s identity as a white, European country."

The editorial dated 4 Feb 2009 is titled ‘The Nativist Lobby’. It broadens the witch-hunt to FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA, and is based entirely on the SPLC's bolshevist smear tactics. Here the pretense at debate has been replaced with a list of people to be shunned and silenced. They conclude by saying "people should know about the groups’ history, something they and their allies don’t usually like to talk about".

This from people who don't like to talk about the history of immigration or their own group's role in shaping it. People who scream ANTI-SEMITE!!! at anyone who notices their relentlessly harsh and extreme pursuit of their own racial interests. Who scream HOLOCAUST!!! at anyone who mocks their fretfulness about their own race, culture and ethnicity. Who scream RACIST!!! if anyone suggests closing the "Golden Door" they worked so long and hard to pry open in order to create the multiracial majority-minority dystopia they desire and thrive in.

The underlying assumptions made by the Times editorialists are outrageously hypocritical:

• Whites should accept a political regime which explicitly panders to the interests of everyone other than Whites.
• Whites should not express concern about non-White immigration despite the obvious hostility of those immigrants and their supporters toward Whites.
• Whites should reject and distance ourselves from anyone who does not conform to these rules.

Jews seem incapable of doing so, but we Whites have no trouble substituting "jew" for "White" in the points above and recognizing the apoplectic reaction any such attack would cause in jews.

Ever since Congress and the media, including the Times, failed to ram Comprehensive Immigration Reform down our throats in mid 2007 we haven't heard much from either source about immigration. Odd isn't it? One day the "12 million" undocumented invaders is a critical issue we just absolutely have to address, immediately and comprehensively. Then when it doesn't go the way they want the urgency evaporates and for some 18 months there's hardly a peep. It's doubly odd that this happened despite an intervening nationwide election. An election which, if the Times et al. really had been so eager to debate, would have been the perfect opportunity for Americans to debate and vote on immigration. Instead the Times, like the rest of the mainstream media and both major political parties, did their best not to talk about immigration. They quickly changed the subject when it did come up. It's been so long since they talked about it they're still throwing around the "12 million" number as if it hasn't changed!

Actually, none of this is odd once you understand that our country has been hijacked by greedy and dishonest people who either don't care about Whites or actively hate us. As Peter Brimelow says in a video the Times links at their own risk:

I think the issue in the immigration debate is not racism or xenophobia, it's treason. The people who are running current policy embarked upon a course that will destroy the United States as we know it. They have no loyalty to it, they want to transform it. So it's treason.

Well now there's a new president. The first sired by a resident alien. The first with illegal alien relatives. The first whose own natural born citizenship is in doubt. Oblivious to these notable and unprecedented firsts the Times focuses instead like a laser beam on race, "It is easy to mock white-supremacist views as pathetic and to assume that nativism in the age of Obama is on the way out." Among the views they consider pathetic in the "age of Obama" is anyone daring to mock their "Magic Negro". What else but magic could explain how so many embarassing firsts were ignored by the Times and most of the rest of the media during Obama's campaign? It makes far more sense to attribute it to jewish media influence and their self-serving interests in destroying America’s identity as a white, European country. That seems to be what frightens the Times most about Brimelow's view. If their treason becomes clear to enough people they know they're going to have hell to pay. Which they see of course as just another reason to carry through the destruction of America’s identity as a white, European country. They're committed to smothering even the most hapless, harmless Whites who fumble around trying to avoid being called "racist".

Despite the Times' attempt to guilt-trip us, we know that Juan "CIR co-sponsor" McCain's best efforts to woo black, latino, asian, and jewish voters failed miserably. It failed because the non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for the non-White:

Sailer provides the numbers in Exit Polls:

Obama	McCain	Other
White (75%)	43%	55%	2%
African-American (13%)	96%	4%	N/A
Latino (8%)	67%	31%	2%
Asian (2%)	63%	33%	4%
Other (3%)	66%	31%	3%

The Jerusalem Post reports on the jewish bias:

Jews voted for Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers, refuting speculation that Republican John McCain would peel away Jewish support due to concerns about the Democrat's stance on the Middle East and other issues.

Obama picked up 78 percent of the Jewish vote in comparison to McCain's 21% haul, according to exit polls. That rate is about two points higher than what former Democratic candidate John Kerry received in 2004 and similar to the numbers Al Gore and Bill Clinton garnered in previous elections.

Whites don't deserve the blame for the lopsided non-White vote. The non-Whites do. After decades of legislated preferences for non-Whites, non-White immigration (legal and illegal), poisonous anti-White media propaganda (the NYT in the vanguard), forced integration, non-White on White violence, and piles of danegeld extorted from Whites and transferred to non-Whites by government mandate - after all this the hostility and resentment between non-Whites and Whites has only grown. The jewish-led, jewish-funded assault on Whites has only become more intense. The Times blames it all on Whites.

We have good cause to be angry. The harm done to us is by now crystal clear. Our country, as we knew it, seems doomed. What our enemies are doing now is trying to ensure that no one will be punished for the crime. The crime is genocide - a deliberately pursued policy to harm Whites. The editors of the Times and anyone who agrees with them are genocidalists. Their paranoia about what Whites might do to immigrants, or themselves, does not excuse them. Their response to White objections to the injustice inflicted upon us by immigration is not only unsympathetic, it is openly contemptuous and repressive. Their foot is on our throats. They meet our pleas to stop with derision and push harder. What they could in 1965 pretend was immigration, justified and debated on the basis of how many should be admitted in the best interests of the natives, has been revealed as a culture-killing invasion and alien colonization. Now we are told by our erstwhile dictators that it is expressly for the benefit of the immigrants, the cost to us irrelevant. It is a premeditated and coldly executed program to replace us, and the more we resist the more they pretend they are justified to dislike and fear us.

It may seem to the Times like a good time to once again discuss immigration. After the aforementioned 18 month quasi-blackout on the subject Pew recently announced that public concern for immigration is "slipping". Never mind that every other issue people claim they are more concerned about is directly impacted by immigration. That the Times would advocate in favor of millions of alien interlopers just now, when so many natives are struggling to find jobs, confirms the malice and distain with which they regard us. I don't believe this is a blunder. The Times considers it their duty, representing a combination of latino and jewish interests, to broach this subject now. They are preparing the ground so their Magic Negro and plutocrat-owned Congress can have another sham debate about the "12 million", this time following the fast-track bailout bill template. In that they hope to secure the future of the non-White immigrants while definitively destroying America’s identity as a white, European country.

They hate us so much they can't wait to forget we ever existed.

I haven't the time or energy for a cohesive post-election essay, but I do have a collection of links and some comments to share.

First, the title. The Obama shills are inordinately fond of this refrain. I think we can expect it to morph into many new and snottier forms even as the election itself recedes from memory. The Obamen seem to believe that they and their man are now beyond all criticism.

Back in September Obaman Jack Cafferty wrote:

Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it's one that nobody's talking about.

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn't be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn't make sense…unless it's race.

Cafferty then cites Michael Grunwald, speaking in code about the evils of speaking in code. Decoded, this is what Cafferty and Grunwald are saying: hordes of unthinking, racist Whites stand between them and Utopia.

Race is the elephant in the room of the 2008 campaign. In West Virginia's primary, one out of every four Hillary Clinton voters actually admitted to pollsters that race was a factor in their vote; that may be an Appalachian outlier, but even in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio the figure was a troubling 1 in 10.

Ooooo scary. Except we can see clearly now in retrospect that this was all alot of guilt-tripping nonsense.

Nobody was talking about race? Lots of people were talking about race, even in the mainstream media. What was most notable was that most of them were trying to lay the same race-based guilt-trip on Whites as McCafferty and Grunwald. Harold Meyerson and Ron Rosenbaum are two particularly ham-handed examples I've cited previously. It's easy to find others.

In the wake of the election we're hearing a new variation: yes Whites are racist, but not enough to make a difference. John Judis writes that "many white Americans still harbor degrees of conscious or unconscious resentment against blacks" but "it didn't matter enough to decide the election". In Judis' opinion Obama should have done better than Kerry did in 2004, but since he didn't (in some places) Whites therefore deserve to be taken to task in yet another guilt-tripping editorial.

The fact is that race really did matter to many voters, in fact we can see now looking back that it mattered much more to non-white voters than it did to Whites. Sailer provides the numbers in Exit Polls:

	Obama	McCain	Other
White (75%)	43%	55%	2%
African-American (13%)	96%	4%	N/A
Latino (8%)	67%	31%	2%
Asian (2%)	63%	33%	4%
Other (3%)	66%	31%	3%

The Jerusalem Post reports on the jewish bias:

Jews voted for Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers, refuting speculation that Republican John McCain would peel away Jewish support due to concerns about the Democrat's stance on the Middle East and other issues.

Obama picked up 78 percent of the Jewish vote in comparison to McCain's 21% haul, according to exit polls. That rate is about two points higher than what former Democratic candidate John Kerry received in 2004 and similar to the numbers Al Gore and Bill Clinton garnered in previous elections.

This narrative that you have to worry about Barack Obama just didn't fly when they saw Barack Obama up close and they saw his relations with the Jewish community," he said, pointing to the extensive Jewish outreach campaign in states like this key swing state, where Jews make up a statistically significant slice of the electorate.

He noted that it was the first time a campaign had Jewish vote coordinators in all of the key battleground states, with Florida particularly notable for the size of the outreach, surrogate events and third-party efforts.

"There are nagging doubts in the Jewish community about Barack Obama and where he stands on important issues," he asserted.

Green, though, assessed that such concerns were outweighed by those on the Republican ticket, namely regarding the vice presidential nominee.

"There was contrary tendency," he said. "There were Jews who expressed skepticism about Obama but even more about Sarah Palin."

Note that what is called "nagging doubts" in jews is called "racism" in Whites.

What kind of guilt-tripping would Whites get if we voted in a bloc of 96%, 78%, 67%, or 63%? Our vote is objectively the least attributable to racial bias, and yet we get all the critcism for being biased. The most reasonable explanation for this is that our critics simply hate us.

As an aside, the JPost article also contains a handy "almost-complete list of the new Jewish congressional caucus: An all-time record of Jewish reps in Congress." The senate is 13% jewish, the house about 7.3% (32/435).

Jews may have had their doubts about Obama, but that was washed away by their fear and loathing for Sarah Palin and the unconsciously White Christian voters who flocked to support her. I'm not aware of anyone in the mainstream press making an attempt to guilt-trip jews about this. Quite the opposite. Here's Jacques Berlinerblau, associate professor of Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University and author of "Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics". He thinks Palin just needs to try harder:

The Palin Effect: Two of the speakers observed that John McCain's selection of a running mate may have turned away Jewish voters who were once supportive of him. On Wednesday, I pointed out that this apparent "Palin Effect" has occurred despite the fact that the Governor of Alaska has made no egregious errors in her dealings with the Jewish community and has, in many cases, said the right things and cultivated the right relationships.

In short, 2008 has demonstrated the strategic importance of having skilled advisers and operatives in the domain of faith-based politicking. Accordingly, nothing precludes Palin from someday reversing negative perceptions among Jewish voters. And while she's at it she might find a receptive audience because . . .

Jews are going Republican?: Speaker Ira Forman of the National Jewish Democratic Council pointed out that rumors about Jews defecting from the Democrats to head over to the GOP have been around since the time of McGovern. He views this as a "man bites dog story," of great interest to the media if only because it is so counter-intuitive. The truth of the matter is that Jews are solid, true-blue Democrats who have given the party more than 75% of their ballot in the last 4 elections.

That's right. The truth, which negates Berlinerblau's blame-Palin argument, is that most jews just won't support someone Whites find appealing even if only unconsciously for racial reasons. It doesn't matter if that hapless White pol promises to nuke iran and send Whites to die to protect israel. That's not good enough now that jews have Bushes, Obamas, Bidens, and McCains who will do all that and more.

Berlinerblau concludes with a little disinformation:

Is the Jewish vote really that important?: Professor Yossi Shain of Georgetown's Government department made the provocative argument that polling data on Jewish voters is highly problematic and misleading. Drawing a distinction between Jewish citizens of the United States and eligible Jewish voters, Professor Shain cited the number of 2.8 million in the latter category--a number that decreases their already minor electoral significance.

Shain's observation corresponds with one that I have been making here: we should study and contemplate American Jewish voting behavior in all of its glory. But we should not overestimate its electoral import. At less than 2% of the American population (and only 3.6% of the population of Florida) Jewish-Americans do not stand to dramatically affect the outcome on November 4th.

Tsk tsk. They're neglecting the effect of money and media on modern campaigns. Now why would they do that? They must know that Jewish campaign contributions and media influence have an impact far larger than a measly 2% of the votes. Every politician knows this, which is why they all have special outreach programs for jews, make promises to AIPAC, and make pilgrimages to israel.

JPost: "Sarah Palin may be hurting McCain among Jewish voters":

"Palin is totally out of step with public opinion in the Jewish community" on domestic issues and has "zero foreign policy experience," the organization wrote in a fund-raising letter sent out last week. It also started an on-line petition asking: "McCain: What were you thinking when you selected Palin?"

Earth to Berlinerblau. For some strange reason plenty of jews expect politicians to think of jews first and not the far more numerous Whites.

In the days before the election I gathered many links that revealed a race-based hatred directed towards Sarah Palin. Whether or not Whites supported or opposed her on principle it was obvious by contrast that the animosity of "the left", and especially jews, came from a fear and loathing not so much for anything Palin herself had said or done, but for the White Christians instinctively drawn to her. Palin was treated like a blank sheet of paper on which non-whites (and self-loathing Whites) could finger paint whatever dim visions they pleased. Then they hated her for being whatever boogeyman they imagined her to represent.

Florida Congressman: Palin 'Don't Care Too Much What They Do With Jews and Blacks':

Florida Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings pointed to Sarah Palin on Wednesday to rally Jews to Obama.

"If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention," said Hastings. "Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."

Hastings, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, made his comments in Washington, D.C., while participating in a panel discussion sponsored by the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Black Florida congressman apologizes for Palin comments:

"The point I made, and will continue to make, is that the policies and priorities of a McCain-Palin administration would be anathema to most African Americans and Jews," he said in his statement.

The point I will make, and continue to make, it that the current regime, before and after this election, is anathema to Whites. I can quote example after example of pro-black, pro-jew, pro-latino, pro-anything-non-white government officials and media pundits bashing Whites and suffering no substantial consequences. Whites on the other hand mustn't say they care for themselves or are fearful of or distrust other groups, in spite of self-interested members of those groups telling us repeatedly how much they fear and distrust us.

Comic's Appeal to Jewish Voters for Obama Is Careful:

The reason Obama may yet still get 60% of the Jewish vote and at least one reason why Florida is so close now is because the Jews like Biden and are scared by Palin.

Jewish voters may be wary of Palin:

“There is almost always an inverse proportion between a candidate's popularity among conservative Christians and secular Jews,” said Jeff Ballabon, a Republican lobbyist long active in Jewish politics who supports McCain.

An illustration of that gap came just two weeks ago, when Palin’s church, the Wasilla Bible Church, gave its pulpit over to a figure viewed with deep hostility by many Jewish organizations: David Brickner, the executive director of Jews for Jesus.

Secular jews plus jews hostile to Jews for Jesus equals a pretty broad range of jews.

“I find her offensive”:

“I was leaning towards McCain,” growled Marvin Weinstein, 74, as he strode to an appointment in a doctor’s office. “But I think his choice of her has turned me off.”

“What I hear is she’s an awful anti-Semite,” George Friedberg said as he sat curbside in his Escalade. “She won’t be getting my vote.” Friedberg’s wife, Florence, appeared at the passenger-side door, shopping bags in hand. “I was leaning towards McCain, but after he selected her I’ve ruled him out completely. I find her offensive.”

Koch: Obama is my guy — Palin is scary:

One foreign policy issue that particularly concerned me in 2004 was the security of Israel. I thought in 2004 that issue was better left to President George W. Bush, and I believe I was right. President Bush understood the need to support the security of Israel and did so. I did not feel that way about Senator John Kerry.

That is not an issue in this election. Both parties and their candidates have made clear, before and during this election campaign their understanding of the need to support Israel and oppose acts of terrorism waged against it by Hamas and other Muslim supporters of terrorism.

So the issue for me is who will best protect and defend America.

Note that defending America comes after Koch's concern for israel. Though to be fair he may see them as the same thing.

Palin Pick Puts Many Women on the Verge:

Senator McCain's selection of Governor Palin of Alaska as his running mate, which was hailed in some quarters and met with skepticism in others, is sparking intense reactions from some New Yorkers, who report being driven to fits of rage and even all-consuming panic.

"All of my women friends, a week ago Monday, were on the verge of throwing themselves out windows," an author and political activist, Nancy Kricorian of Manhattan, said yesterday. "People were flipping out. ... Every woman I know was in high hysteria over this. Everyone was just beside themselves with terror that this woman could be our president — our potential next president."

"What I feel for her privately could be described as violent, nay, murderous, rage," an associate editor at Jezebel, Jessica Grose, wrote just after the Republican convention wrapped up. "When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull."

Ms. Grose was not alone. More than 700 comments poured in, many from women who said they were experiencing a visceral hostility to Mrs. Palin that they were struggling to explain.

Ms. Kricorian said some of the agitation was because women felt Mr. McCain was pulling off a political trick, using the novelty of selecting a woman to hide her conservative social and religious views. "The women thing is a ruse. ... She was chosen because of the evangelical thing," the writer said. "It's weirdly stealthy that she's not talking about it."

It's not weird at all that these White-haters so unselfconsciously project their dishonesty onto us and so freely express their homicidal rage. They only struggle to explain how exactly it's all our fault that they hate us so.

In What Hollywood Jews think of white Americans James Edwards quotes Larry David:

The debates were particularly challenging for me to monitor. First I tried running in and out of the room so I would only hear my guy. This worked until I knocked over a tray of hors d’oeuvres. “Sit down or get out!” my host demanded. “Okay,” I said, and took a seat, but I was more fidgety than a ten-year-old at temple. I just couldn’t watch without saying anything, and my running commentary, which mostly consisted of “Shut up, you prick!” or “You’re a f**king liar!!!” or “Go to hell, you c**ksucker!” was way too distracting for the attendees, and finally I was asked to leave.

If Obama loses, it would be easier to live with it if it’s due to racism rather than if it’s stolen. If it’s racism, I can say, “Okay, we lost, but at least it’s a democracy. Sure, it’s a democracy inhabited by a majority of disgusting, reprehensible turds, but at least it’s a democracy.”

OK. That was directed at McCain, not Palin. But Larry David obviously hates McCain, our little Juan McCain, because he imagines that McCain represents White interests. And he thinks of us as disgusting, reprehensible turds. Keep this in mind now - the regime not only lets this guy make nationally broadcast primetime TV shows, they pay him to do so.

Pissed about Palin
McCain's running mate is a Christian Stepford wife in a sexy librarian costume. Women, it's time to get furious.
By Cintra Wilson

Sarah Palin and her virtual burqa have me and my friends retching into our handbags. She's such a power-mad, backwater beauty-pageant casualty, it's easy to write her off and make fun of her. But in reality I feel as horrified as a ghetto Jew watching the rise of National Socialism.

She is dangerous. She is not just pro-life, she's anti-life. She is the suppression of human feeling and instinct. She is a slave to the compromises dictated by her own desire for power and control.

Notice how the nazi bugaboo has a way of popping up whenever jews don't like a White. Even when it's absurd because the person they're talking about isn't saying or doing anything remotely nazi-like. That's because to them "nazi" essentially means "anti-jew", thus it is only natural that it has become a jewish code word for White.

Here's another example. Heather Mallick, a liberal Canadian editorialist, wrote a couple of somewhat infamous fulsome little turgid screeds concerning Palin.

The Alaskan who went 'outside':

Small towns are places that smart people escape from, for privacy, for variety, for intellect, for survival. Palin should have stayed home.

One hundred thousand Canadians visit Alaska every year, and we like to pass by in cruise ships. But it never goes further than that. Alaska is our redneck cousin, our Yukon territory forms a blessed buffer zone, and thank God he never visits. Alaska is the end of the line.

CBC’s Mallick: ‘White Trash’ Palin Has ‘Porn Actress Look,’ ‘Smart People’ Flee Small Towns refers to an especially fulsome screed. The original document got flushed down the memory hole, but fortunately some leftist was particularly fond of it and saved a copy.

In the face of reader outrage Mallick did what any White basher normally does. She wrapped herself in philo-semitism and bashed the evil racists who criticized her. After all, she reasoned, only an evil racist White could object to her bashing Whites.

Canadian columnist's diatribe against Palin stokes anger in the U.S.:

The Toronto-based Mallick admits she's been shaken by the violence suggested in hundreds of e-mails similar in tone to Jones's, but adds the messages have simply served to underscore her point about the bigotry and small-mindedness of some Republican supporters.

"The violent and obscene threats against me were one thing — it's easy to filter those — but the anti-Semitic hate mail was very troubling. I am not Jewish but I am honoured to be taken for one. I consider it a great compliment."

What a hero. Curious, I reached back into Mallick's past columns to get a grasp on her pro-jewish sentiments. Here's an interesting column where she rails against racism. The subtlety of words: Are you Canadian or Canadian-born?:

Antonia Zerbisias is a brave unstoppable media critic for Canada's best and biggest paper, the Toronto Star. She took issue with a columnist named Christie Blatchford, who was objecting to the police statement that the accused men came from "a variety of backgrounds," for writing the following in a front-page column in the Globe and Mail: "The accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the Taliban fashion. They have first names like Mohamed, middle names like Mohamed and last names like Mohamed. Some of their female relatives at the Brampton courthouse who were there in their support wore black head-to-toe burkas … which is not a getup I have ever seen on anyone but Muslim women." Despite Blatchford's comments favourable to the majority of Canadian Muslims, I find the quoted material horrifying.

I didn't read the sentence as Mohamed this and Mohamed that. I read it like this:

The accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the Jewish fashion. They have first names like Yehoshua, middle names like Ariel, and last names like Morgenstern. Some of their female relatives wore typical Jewish garments, black and alien, their hair covered in typical Judaic fashion, not a garment I have ever seen on anyone but Semitic women.

Blatchford did not write this. I'm sure she never would write this. But people do write things like this when they believe it is popular. Racism is lumping a people together as if they were all the same. Thus the alleged sins of one are the sins of the group and this is when the bully pulpit and the violence join forces. This is how it begins.

Whether or not Mallick is jewish she sure sees the world as if she were. My old foil Larry Auster certainly does and so do his "conservative" jewish buddies. Hymowitz on Red State hysteria

I'm less and less alone. Here is yet another Palin-critical conservative. Kay Hymowitz ... casts a cold eye on the conservatives who have lost their minds over Sarah

Conservatives lost their minds? If anybody lost their minds over Palin surely I hope it's clear from all of the above it was jews. And by the way, I don't believe Auster, in all his many words on Palin, wrote anything at all about that.

If all of the above wasn't clear enough then it's a good thing I saved the worst for last.

The Sandra Bernhard monstrosity

Sandra Bernhard: Palin Would Be Gang-Raped By Blacks in Manhattan

You really should go read for yourself the vile hatred Bernhard expressed. The stunning thing about her invective is that it came not in some one-off drunken outburst, ala Mel Gibson, but instead was professionally produced and performed repeatedly in a mainstream jewish theater as entertainment for profit.

Ari Roth artistic director of Theater J was unsympathetic and unapologetic:

In fact, the play wears its politically VERY correct heart on its sleeve with its indictment of America as “A Man’s World, It’s a White Man’s World, It’s a Fucked Up White Man’s Racist World” and can only be suggested to be racist in its content if one is hell-bent on protecting White Folk for Sandra’s blistering indictment.When Sandra warns Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers, she’s being provocative, combative, humorous, and yes, let’s allow, disgusting. The fact that the show has a few riffs like this does not — to my mind — make it a “disgusting show.” there’s too much beauty, variety, vitality, and intelligence to label the entire show as “disgusting.” I’ll agree with you that we produced this show because we did find it to be edgy — because we wanted to give right wing conservative Jews a good run for their money by being on the receiving end of some blistering indictments from Sandra.Does it go over the edge sometimes? On the gang-rape joke, yes. Sure. Not much else. It goes over the edge and then comes right back to the cutting edge.Finally you ask, “where is the Theater J staff and council? Where is the DCJCC administration?” They were all there on opening night, one night before you came. We partied together after. There were three members of Theater J staff at the show last night, and there’ll be more of us this weekend when we present three shows — soon to be all sold out. I was teaching a political theater class last night, but I’ll be back for everything this weekend.We’re proud of our producing - proud of Sandra’s sense of timing - taking the fight out to the house and to the street beyond, channeling so much of our rage and frustration at the bizarre recent twists of fortune since Karl Rove trotted out Sarah Palin for John McCain to briefly meet and then get in bed with.Sandra’s face is hanging 10 feet tall in a banner over the DCJCC steps and we’re proud that she’s a new emblem and ambassador for our theater and our center. She’s not the only one who represents us. But her large heart, her generous talent, and her big mouth are all a big part of who we are.

About Theater J:

Hailed by The New York Times as “The Premier Theater for Premieres,” Theater J has emerged as one of the most distinctive, progressive and respected Jewish theaters on the national and international scene. A program of the Washington DC Jewish Community Center, Theater J works in collaboration with the four other components of the Washington DCJCC’s Morris Cafritz Center for the Arts, which include the Washington Jewish Film Festival and Screening Room, the Ann Loeb Bronfman Gallery, the Program in Literature, Music and Dance, and Nextbook.

Theater J produces thought-provoking, publicly engaged, personal, passionate and entertaining plays and musicals that celebrate the distinctive urban voice and social vision that are part of the Jewish cultural legacy.

Isn't that special?

Blacks are polling 95-1 for Obama, but a black commentator at CNN.com assures us: Black vote isn't monolithic. Which sounds about as plausible as Ian Jobling's assertion that jews aren't ethnocentric.

The explanation for any apparent bias can presumably be found only in the minds of hate-filled racist Whites. That's the way Harold Meyerson sees it. Blacks flock to Obama and somehow he blames it on deracinated Republicans.

Brace yourselves. For the forseeable future any criticism of Obama will be called racism. His smallest failures will be blamed on racism. His smallest successes will be proclaimed as great triumphs over racism. What remains of the constitution will be shredded in the name of halting the scourge of racism. Racism will ruin the economy, kill our soldiers, and make our children stupid. AIDS and cancer will be found to be caused, in part, by racism.

As Georgetown University sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson recently said, "black people don't vote for candidates just because they are black. If Clarence Thomas ran for president, he would get five black votes."

This is like saying, "jewish people don't vote for candidates just because they are jews. If Israel Shamir ran for president of israel, he would get five jewish votes." Shamir would lose for the same reason as David Duke. Because jews are intensely aware of and motivated by their collective interests, not because they aren't.

Likewise with blacks. Colin Powell would be a fairer comparison to McCain, both being RINOs, but it's not hard to imagine even Clarence "Uncle" Thomas getting more black votes than any White opponent he faced. Blacks would certainly cross party lines to vote for any black Republican over any White Democrat, just as they are crossing the other way in this election. The black votes Thomas wouldn't get would be those who don't trust him because he thinks and acts too White. Thomas' ratio of black votes would only differ from Obama's in quantity, not quality.

Whites had a similar choice with Clinton vs Obama and now with McCain vs Obama. In both cases White-haters denounce us as racists because we don't vote 95-1 against the White candidate. The double standard is so blatant that even deracinated Whites are beginning to notice. When they start asking questions some of them are going to find out that not only are they "racists", they're "anti-semites" too. Uh oh.

Rather than trying to deny our "insane hate" I think more Whites will, like me, recognize such ridiculous rhetoric as a reflection of our critics' ethnocentric character, not our own. These Whites will grow a shell and their heretofore reflexive apologetic reaction to accusations of "racism" and "anti-semitism" will disappear.

(Image by INCOGMAN.)

A black and white version of this photo was on DrudgeReport Wednesday morning with the caption "LANDSLIDE" just below. I didn't have time to save Drudge's image or read the story he linked, but it did occur to me how manipulative it was to make the image black and white, deliberately modifying it in a way that left the messianic dimension intact while obscuring the racial dimension.

Later I was able to find the original full-color version. According to the source the photo was taken on 6 July 2008. Since then it has apparently bounced around the internets via secret brotha chain email. Sorta like the Obama-is-a-muslim meme and worse have been bouncing around the jewish internets.

Oddly enough I'm not in either social circle, so I didn't see this picture until just now. After searching for it. Doesn't the media usually monitor and report on popular phenomena like this? The full-color image sure does make a dramatic impression. It's Pulitzer material. Why should Whites be shielded from the graphic reality this race is revealing about race? Oh, that's right. We're not supposed to think about race.

Until you read the next headline. And the next. And the next...

- - -

Also from Drudge Wednesday: Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word for black:

The "socialist" label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

. . .

McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

Drudge's headline, "PAPER: 'Socialist' label called 'old code word for black'...", made the any-criticism-of-Obama-is-racism meme transparent enough. The hilarious thing about the article's actual argument is that in the "old days", before reality-twisting honesty-smothering political correctness came to power, nobody used code words for blacks. People spoke plainly and simply said "negro" or "colored" when they meant negro or colored. "Socialist" might be a new code word for blacks, but it isn't an old one.

On the other hand "socialist", or more precisely "communist", was indeed an old code word for jews. Even as early as 1917 many Whites were afraid of the stigma attached to being called "anti-semite". Many of these Whites, even the ones in government whose job it was to defend us from enemies foreign and domestic, couldn't bring themselves to actually say out loud what they could plainly see with their eyes. That's because their brains knew what would happen to their wallets if they didn't bite their tongues. Just as it works today, only the "social pricing" was not as expensive.

There were men who spoke out anyway. Henry Ford. William Dudley Pelley. Charles Lindbergh. They all paid a price.

By 1972 even presidents dared to express anti-jewish thoughts only in private. Today we're told by our enlightened elite that Nixon was an anti-semite, because he must have been imagining the jewish influence that only an anti-semite can imagine has since become ever more pervasive and obvious. And it's just in our wild imaginations that the country seems to be going down the drain, just as Billy Graham and Nixon feared. But that's just more raving. Here's what's really important:

There's no way to settle whether Nixon was an anti-Semite—not just because you can't peer into someone's soul, but also because there's no litmus test for anti-Semitism. No, Nixon didn't hate all Jews personally, nor did he use unreconstructed Henry Ford-style anti-Jewish appeals—though, of course, virtually no major public figure in the last 50 years has. Yet clearly he thought and spoke of Jews as a group, more or less united in their opposition to him, possessing certain base and malign characteristics, and worthy of his scorn and hatred. You don't have to call that anti-Semitism if you don't want to. But there's no denying it represents a worldview deserving of the strongest reproach.

Never mind that you can find in the media virtually every day - without looking hard - opinions expressed about Whites as a group (sometimes coded), as more or less racist and possessing certain other base and malign characteristics, and worthy of scorn and hatred. Never mind that Ford's warning is almost 90 years past, not 50. In jewish minds Ford inspired Hitler to almost exterminate their race just yesterday, and today's rising crescendo of White-bashing from on high isn't a crime at all. It's not even happening. La la la la la. And if it is happening, so what? It's justice. And if you notice any jews bashing away it isn't because they're "deserving of the strongest reproach". No. It's because you're an anti-semite throwback - like Ford, Nixon, Graham, Pelley, Lindbergh, ... Knuckledragging jackbooted ignoramuses one and all.

- - -

Among the things Lindbergh mentioned in Des Moines was how smears and slurs are used to manipulate us. Here's a contemporary example. It concerns Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota who "appeared on Hardball and pounded away at Barack Obama’s associations with his long-time minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and bomber Bill Ayers, suggesting that the media should be investigating these associations with very anti-American voices". This prompted Mike Malloy, the former CNN news writer, to say:

She represents a district in Minnesota, she's a Republican of course, and she’s a hatemonger. She’s the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps. She’s the type of person who would have had no problem sending typhoid smeared blankets to Native American families awaiting deportation to reservations. She’s the type of person that I’m sure believes that the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam was good and the use of depleted uranium in Iraq served a purpose. This is an evil bitch from hell. I mean, just an absolute evil woman.

Note that Malloy implies that Whites who oppose Obama are not just guilty of being "racist", and we're not just guilty of genociding jews and indians. No. Now we're also guilty of genociding the poor vietnamese and iraqis.

Imagine what Whites will be accused of after four years of Change. I bet genociding somalis and latinos will be on the list. Read that link and see how those jews and socialists "fighting for equality" really get around. Somehow racist Whites will get the blame. You can bank on it. In fact you can build a Rube Goldberg-style business based on loaning somebody else's money to other somebodies you know will never repay while collecting a fat fee and selling the loans to other somebodies who will get screwed later. When that plays out you can get your distant relative in the government to "rescue" you with more money from some other people, so you can get out of that old used-up business and into another. Cha-ching.

If that "getting" and "making" stuff of Ford's is starting to make sense it's either because you're a loser who needs a non-White scapegoat to blame, or because it makes sense.

- - -

Such is the fruit of 60+ years of pretending race doesn't matter. Tastes a bit fecal, doesn't it?