THE NIGGER TRAP
Nigger. It’s just a word, right? It can’t cut you, break a bone, steal your money or take your life…unless you’re white.
If you are white and you use that word in the wrong context and you will lose your job. You can be banned from television and radio. Use that word in the wrong neighborhood, it will get you killed.
Now if you’re black, you can use the word in any circumstance without fear. You can use it jokingly. You can use it in anger. It doesn’t really matter. The fact that you are black means you can say it and get a free pass because of the color of your skin.
That pretty much sums up the debate that has emerged after Jesse Jackson was caught on tape by Fox News calling Barack Obama a nigger and saying he would like to cut his nuts off. Mind you, this is the same Jesse Jackson who beat the drums so loudly after Don Imus called a bunch of girls, jokingly, nappy headed hos, that Imus got fired. CBS was so scared of retribution from Jackson and his ilk that they fired Imus and ended up losing the lawsuit he filed. That fear cost them millions, but they figured it was worth it.
I don’t see anybody threatening to fire or ban Jesse Jackson, do you?
I watched excerpts from the view as Whoopi Goldberg explained that the black community has co-opted the word, originally meant as an insult, and turned it into something less vicious…but, she added, if you’re white, you still can’t say it. I can say it, because I’m black. You can’t because you are white, so get over it. I can understand this concept to a degree. It’s the same thing for fat people. I can joke about me being overweight, but if you joke about me being overweight, it’s hurtful. I get it.
The problem is, sometimes, very rarely, but sometimes even white people can get a pass on using the word. I have seen and heard white comedians, in front of black and mixed race audiences, use the word nigger and get howls of laughter. It’s the context I suppose. The comedian was making a joke, it was funny, everybody laughed, no harm no foul, right? Let that same comedian walk outside of the comedy club and call one of the black audience members, in anger, a nigger and he is very close to committing a hate crime.
If Don Imus was black. Would there have been any controversy? Of course not. And he didn’t even use the N-word. He just made a stupid observation using language that some people, in some circumstances MIGHT find offensive. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard girls, white and black, call each other ho and laugh about it.
The only reason white people can’t say the word is because the black activist community is struggling to find anything that they can point at to prove that racism is still a scourge on society that requires your donation to fight. In other words, white people saying the word nigger keeps Al Sharpton in business. That should be reason enough to stop using it.
Rappers sing it, comedians shout it and people use it every day…but if you’re white and conservative you better back off. It’s a trap.
I decided I can’t stand Rush
I have gotten to the point I can not stand listening to Rush Limbaugh any longer. The same rhetoric is repeated over and over. I’m not a liberal and can no longer call myself a conservative if the leading conservative is sounding so pathetic. Wednesday he went on and on several times in his broadcast about how stupid the Demorcrats are for not wanting to get even for the beheadings and loss of soldiers we have had in Iraq. We were never in Iraq to get even for current events, if we are there for that reason we will always be there since there will be a never ending supply of events to get even for. It would be impossible to have those current events had we not gone there in the first place, first grade logic. He sounds completely ignorant, and this is who we choose to represent us on a world stage. He calls himself El Rushbo for crying out loud, how much more juvenile and happy hour bar mentality can you get than that? He makes us look like a bunch of redneck idiots. Last week his comments about 1% of the the population paying the majority of taxes was just plain stupid, duh Mr. Limbaugh 1% has the majority of income. I don’t begrudge them having it, but I definitely am not concerned they are taxed on it. It isn’t going to matter if they start taxing our capital gains because we are not making millions like Rush Limbaugh therefore we will not have any capital left to tax.
Middle income hard working people are struggling to keep their homes, go to work and pay daycare because prices have gotten out of control and the best our most paid attention to spokesperson can come up with is calling a presidential nominee lord messiah over and over and over and over and over. We are not living in times where we can look at the poor and say oh well they should have worked harder it’s their own fault because we are becoming them and it’s not our fault. Could the man come up with some real solutions rather then a constant parade of what he believes is wit in running down others.
My end of Rush came in his commentary about a woman this week who wrote a letter to her Senator saying we need to prioritize. He spent alot of his show ridiculing her on the order she put her priorities, food being third on the list. What he doesn’t realize with his millions is that food can come third, it’s called taking the hamburger out of the spaghetti, it’s one of the few places have left where we can cut back and save a couple of bucks. I realized then he is so completely out of touch with us and what is going on because he is not us, he does not even have to consider what is going on out here because he is protected from it all with his wealth. Then it dawned on me, he is just a high paid entertainer, nothing more. He has been telling us what we want to hear for years and I’m ashamed to admit I listened and I went with it because my calf was fat and life was good. Now it’s starting to unravel and it’s not going to matter who gets into the white house. The reality is the cost of living has gone up by over 60% in eight years and it’s not going to come down, it never has and never will. And it will be a very long time before income catches up again. This is where we are and we had better come up with something better than pointing fingers, calling names, and listening to commentary of leaders or shall I say entertainers who in reality couldn’t care less about us.
WANT TO SEE YOUR FUTURE?
IN A FORETELLING OF WHAT HIS ADMINISTRATION WILL LOOK LIKE, IF HE WINS, BARAK OBAMA NOW HAS THE LARGEST CAMPAIGN STAFF OF ANY PRESIDENTAL CANDIDATE, EVER! THAT OF COURSE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE LIBERAL MEDIA.
AL GORE NEEDS SOME TIME IN A SMALL PADDED ROOM!
HOW MANY CARBON CREDITS WILL IT TAKE TO SHUT AL GORE’S MOUTH? I AM WILLING TO SELL A KIDNEY TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION. GORE’S CLIMATE CRISIS IS COMPLETE AND PURE NONSENSE. NOW THE GUY WITH THE BIGGEST ELECTRIC BILL IN THE VOLUNTEER STATE IS SAYING THAT DRILLING OFFSHORE EQUATE’S TO INVADING IRAQ?
WHAT THE NEW YORK TIMES DOESN’T WANT YOU TO READ
New York Times Op-Ed editor, David Shipley, a former Clinton advisor, has refused to accept an editorial written by John McCain. Just one week after publishing an Obama Editorial outlining the candidate’s Iraq policy, McCain’s rebuttal was refused publication by the paper because the editor wanted it changed to “mirror” Obama’s editorial. Whatever that means.
Since the New York Times doesnt’ want you to read it, and it’s available through the Drudgereport, here is McCain’s unedited piece.
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
LIBERALS: THE REAL CAUSE BEHIND HIGH GAS PRICES
No blood for oil! Bush, Cheney and Haliburton are evil!
You’ve seen the signs and heard all the protests blaming blaming Bush, Cheney, evil oil companies and Republicans for high gas prices but the real cause of rising gas prices and the faltering U.S. economy are liberals. Liberal agenda’s against refineries, oil exploration and drilling and Democratic votes in congress have taken America out of the oil production business and put it in the oil brokerage business.
Back in May oil industry executives were called before a Senate committee to testify regarding oil profits and the state oil industry and gas prices. It was basically a bunch of politicians trying to appear like they were doing something.
What was intended to be a television commercial for why big oil is bad turned out to be a lesson in world economics for anyone who cared to watch it. Consider some of the following statements made at the hearing.
John Lowe, Executive Vice President of Conoco/Phillips:
Access to resources is severely restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments. We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world’s available reserves while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible.
Stephen Simon Senior Vice President -Exxon Mobil
With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments.
To simply maintain our current operations and make needed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day.
A BILLION DOLLARS A DAY! That’s a chunk of change, but don’t be fooled by the phrase, “record profits.” It’s just flat out misleading.
The average price of gas last year was near $2.80. Approximately 58% percent of that was the direct cost of crude oil. 17% went to federal, state and local taxes, 4% represents oil company profits. That figure is relatively unchanged from the previous decade. The point is, if oil companies gave up half of their profits, that’s 50%, the price of a gallon of gas would drop about a 5 cents. If we lowered taxes by half, we could all be saving 23 cents a gallon. John McCains gas tax holiday would save you and me almost 50 cents a gallon. Obama might scoff at that as a gimmick, but my truck has a 23 gallon tank and that would save me about $11 ever fillup, which I have to do at least once or twice a week. That’s real money.
The moratoriums on off-shore drilling, insurmountable restrictions on building refineries and the daily battles that liberals wage against research and exploration for new reserves here in the United States continue to make us dependent on the likes of Hugo Chavez and OPEC for our oil. It doesn’t even make sense!
Don’t blame big oil for high gas prices. Blame liberals and Democrats for the mess were in today.
