Obama: "I'm Unsuccessful. Vote for Me."

Conservative republicans have been categorizing Obama as the anti-success president. He doesn't like people who are successful. And that's what this campaign has turned into; a contest between a man who is indisputably successful vs. a man who really can only call his political career a "success", and only a marginal one at that.

Obama has never held a real job. As far as we know, he's never flipped burgers or pumped gas, let alone had a genuine career in the private sector. We know that as a child he was educated in Muslim schools in foreign countries, and even in his late teens was not expected to work as his community provided for him. We know that he didn't hold real jobs in college. He did, however, work as editor of the Harvard Law Review, despite never actually submitting any copy himself. We know that he got into schools he was unqualified for, but we don't know how. Since a bio of himself, written by himself and submitted to a publisher in the late 80's stated he was born in Kenya, it's entirely logical to assume that he applied to Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law School as a foreign student.

NOTE: I am NOT saying I think Obama was born in Kenya, or anywhere other than Hawaii. I am saying, however, that in the past Obama has decided it suited his purpose better to claim that he was born in Kenya. This cannot be denied, not even by explaining the publisher's bio as a typo (they claim they meant to say he was "raised in Kenya") because OBAMA WROTE IT HIMSELF.

We also know that Obama was apparently a "senior lecturer" (his official title) at the University of Chicago, although he refers to himself frequently as a constitutional law "professor". The actual title of "professor" was never bestowed upon him, and Obama does not have a teaching degree. Also, apparently his course load was light, "lecturing" only three times a year from 1996 to 2004, when he was elected to the US Senate. Also during that time (starting in 1997), he served as an Illinois State Senator. Prior to that he held a nebulous "position" as a "community organizer". What exactly that means is unclear, as Obama himself won't really define it, but we know that mostly it involved political activism. So, in other words, most, if not all, of Obama's jobs before becoming a senator were political in nature, and most of them he most likely held because he sold himself as a foreigner, and was therefore afforded special privilege.

For that matter, Obama's entire adult life has been an exercise in mediocrity. Nothing he did, or is doing now, has ever really gotten anything done, except promoting Obama himself. Can anyone point to a lawyer who credits "Professor Obama" as an inspiration? Can anyone name anything he did while editor of the Harvard Law Review that was noteworthy? His record in the Illinois Senate and the US Senate is entirely unremarkable, with not a single accomplishment to his name. Eight years in Illinois and three years in the US Senate and not a single accomplishment? No signature legislation, no deciding votes, no leadership skills shown. He's never even held the type of office that requires him to interact with the American people on any kind of regular basis.

His record is thinner than a greeting card. Obama is a prime example of a man who, due to knowing the right people and presenting himself falsely, has been moved up in the world despite having absolutely no successes to claim. No wonder Obama seems to despise those who are successful due to the sweat of their own brow. No wonder he seems to think that business owners can't claim to have built their businesses. No wonder he thinks privatization is wrong and that the government should own everything. It is entirely reasonable, from his standpoint. He is the exact opposite of a self-made man, other than making up a false self (but even there, this was likely a product of the kind of thinking his communist buddies were up to).

Obama has never really worked, but has instead taken on job after job where he can promote himself and parrot leftist talking points. In his chosen fields he has no career highlights whatsoever. Every piece of legislation he has ever put his name on was drafted by someone else, and is just a new form of legislation that was introduced by someone else earlier. He can't even give a speech without a teleprompter. He is, more or less, a made-up human being who can only be described as "successful" due to coasting into the White House by use of the race card and other dishonest techniques. Success is antithetical to his vision, which only requires that the right people (himself and those who handle him) are in power and the rest will have his version of "success" (that is, government dole for everyone) handed out to them as he sees fit.

And no wonder that he can so easily demonize Mitt Romney for being successful. When I was a boy, a man like Mitt Romney running against a man like Barack Obama would have been no contest; the successful man can make America successful, and back then this was considered good.

Now Obama can basically build his campaign around the idea of "he's rich, so don't vote for him." Of course, Romney is rich because he built successful businesses, and so Obama has no recourse but to try and attack that.

We used to aspire to be like those successful people. But this is the age of Obama, where mediocrity is a worthwhile goal, and failure is proof of good leadership. All one has to do is look around America to see what Obama's idea of "success" is.

A Change of Pace: A Personal, Non-Political Post

So, if there are regular readers of this blog, you may have noticed some lack of regular posting, or as regular as I used to. This is because my personal life has become far more active than normal, as I have met the woman I have been waiting for my entire life.

This comes on the heals of a relationship that could not have been more wrong, and also almost immediately after me saying to myself that I would remain single for a while. I didn't count on meeting "the one" this soon, nor was it planned, but when it's right, it's right.

So, in the spirit of that, I've been thinking lately about ways I knew this was right, as compared to other relationships I've been in, including my ex-wife. And I decided to share with you all my thoughts on the matter.

And here they are; a few ways to tell if the relationship is wrong for you, or if you've met the right one.

The Wrong One: When you're not together, or in contact, you barely think about her, or relish the break from her.
The Right One: Every minute spent without her is a minute she's SOMEWHERE in your mind, and you can't wait for the next time you see her.

The Wrong One: When she leaves your house, you relax again because now everything can go back to normal.
The Right One: When she leaves your house, it feels like it won't be normal again until she's back.

The Wrong One: You both feel there are aspects of yourself you can't admit to the other, so you both compromise who you are for the other person.
The Right One: You can both be completely natural around each other with no repercussions.

The Wrong One: You tabulate all the favors you do each other, all the times the other pays, gifts you buy each other, etc., and carefully weigh them against how much the other is doing the same. You feel cheated if the balance ever tips in the other's favor (and feel it's entirely fair if it tips in yours).
The Right One: You do favors for each other or surprise each other with gifts because you enjoy seeing the happy look on their face, and neither of you worries about who's paying because you think of your money as each other's.

The Wrong One: Her dream man is some unattainable actor or singer with nice abs.
The Right One: Her dream man is you.

The Wrong One: You often stop to recall what your life was like before you met her.
The Right One: You can't imagine life without her.

The Wrong One: Thinks it's demeaning to be thought of as "yours", because "what am I, your chattel?"
The Right One: Joyfully calls herself yours, and calls you hers.

The Wrong One: When one of you has to move far away, due to work or another extenuating circumstance, they either expect the other to move with them without considering their needs, or they end the relationship.
The Right One: Neither of you could stand the thought of living apart for too long, and would gladly sacrifice something else to be near the other.

The Wrong One: Expects frequent ceremonial gifts or actions from you, and gets angry if there aren't enough of them.
The Right One: Appreciates every gift or action, but mostly just wants the gift only you can give her; yourself.

The Wrong One: Dismisses your hobbies and interests as irrelevant because she doesn't share them, but either fully expects you to appreciate hers, or blatantly doesn't care what you think of them.
The Right One: Your individual hobbies may be different, but you also share quite a few and the differences compliment each other's. You may even find some of the other's hobbies or interests becoming yours after a bit.

The Wrong One: The two of you may talk about marriage, but both of you have back-up escape plans in case things go wrong.
The Right One: You both understand what "forever" means, and talk of marriage comes up because you'd gladly give each other "forever."

The Truth on Racism in America Today

“Racism: The assumption that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another which is usually coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to domination over others.”
Or in other words, being more concerned with the color of one's skin, or one's original nationality, than what they do or say.

Often times, racism expresses itself negatively. As in the example above, it often follows that a believe that races differ from each other can also be coupled with a belief in genetic superiority. But it doesn't have to.

Quite often in western society, the open racism we see exemplifies the first part of that definition but leads into something quite different from a need to dominate that race. Instead it leads to a kind of pity for, and infantilization of, that other race.

When the Left uses the term "racist", they conjure in their heads a kind of person who hardly exists anymore except in movies and on TV; a white male (for some reason, they're always male) who has only white friends, lives in an all-white neighborhood, and resents any and all times they're forced to interact with people of other races. This person, much like Archie Bunker, likely believes all stereotypes about black people (or anyone of another race) that he's ever heard, and will call the police if he sees a black man walking down his street, because as far as he's concerned, that person can't be up to anything good. He'll naturally assume that any latino is a gang member, any oriental person can't drive but knows his computer inside and out, Italians don't bath, etc. This guy, when he goes into a 7/11 and sees a guy behind the counter who's of a different race, immediately winces and thinks "of course".

The thing is, the image they have of this guy is not only not very prevelant anymore (do YOU know anyone like this?), but other ideas they have about him are wrong. The belief, for example, that such a person would, and could, only vote Republican. People caught expressing views like those above are almost unfailingly Democrats. See Joe Biden and his comment about not being able to go into a Dunkin' Donuts without a slight Indian accent, or Bill Maher suggesting that a "real" black president would solve the BP oil spill problem by threatening BP executives with a gun. Rush Limbaugh, who is regularly called a racist by leftists who refuse to listen to him, has never said anything like that.

Another problem is one of extrapolation; leftists see all-white neighborhoods and immediately decide they exist because of racism. And because these all-white neighborhoods have nice houses and cars in them, the people living there must be rich, and we all know Republicans are all for the rich, so therefore these racist people must also be Republicans, therefore all Republicans are racist.

Not only is the conclusion ridiculous, the whole premise is reliant on supposition that may or may not be true. First, you don't know that the neighborhood is all white because of racism. That's just an assumption. It may be all white simply because the area has a low black population. This isn't an unreasonable assumption. Black people make up about 12% of the population of the USA. The fact that there are still areas where a majority, or even totality, of the residents are white proves nothing about endemic racism. It says far more about a person who would make that assumption.

It also could be an all- or mostly-white neighborhood thanks to another kind of racism; one that nobody in that community can help. But I'll get to that later.

Then there's the assumption that just because everybody in that neighborhood is rich, they all vote Republican. Where does this assumption that rich people vote Republican come from? Last I checked, Warren Buffett was a Democrat, as are Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, George Soros, and a number of others. Not to mention that the entertainment and music industries, and most news organizations (comprised of mostly millionaires and billionaires) unfailingly support the Democrats and describe themselves as liberals. If you don't believe me, prove me wrong. Find an affluent white neighborhood and knock on each door, pretending you're a surveyor and asking only what party they affiliate with. I can guarantee you'll find that more than a few are Democrats, and probably that in some areas like this (especially in blue states) you'll find that Democrats actually outnumber the Republicans.

But, with the image of the affluent white conservative who lives in an all-white neighborhood and hates (or at least is uncomfortable around) people of other races in their heads, liberals apply this kind of label even to people it doesn't fit.

When a white man from a lower or middle-class area is on TV talking about the young black man that stole his car, leftists see the white skin and assume "White. Most likely rich. Probably votes Republican. Racist." When they hear reports of a black man beating up a white man, they think "Well, the white man was probably racist and deserved it." In fact, black Democrats have been heard saying on many occasions that they assume all white people they meet are racists unless they prove otherwise. Lord knows what that means, considering that apparently even using someone's first name is now considered racist.

In Mobile, Alabama, a white man named Matthew Owens asked a group of black boys not to play ball directly in front of his house. It was a Saturday night, and he told the kids they were making too much noise, and to please play elsewhere. In return, he was visited by a mob of black adults who beat him with bricks, chairs, pipes and paint cans until he had to be hospitalized. His sister, who witnessed the event, reported that one of the men, while walking away from Owens's broken, bleeding body, shouted over his shoulder "That's justice for Trayvon!"

Unless you're living under a rock, you know who "Trayvon" is. But you might not know he's not the victim of a racist attack. Again, more on that later.

Now, the attack on Owens was brutal, and horrific, and there's no chance such an attack wasn't motivated by race. Consider that all Owens did was ask the kids to move elsewhere; not an unreasonable thing to ask on a Saturday night when someone is bouncing a ball around and yelling directly in front of your home. The next thing this man knows, on his own front porch he is surrounded by an all-black crowd, who beat him within an inch of his life for the crime of asking kids to move. If there's any doubt that the attack was racially motivated, the "justice for Trayvon" remark should clear that up.

In fact, black on white crime is much higher in the USA than white on black crime, but you'd only know that if you bothered to look up the statistics for yourself. If you watch the news, and formed your opinion straight from there, you'd assume that any black man who walks past more than two white people at a time is in danger of being murdered. But real life can show you this isn't true. There's a reason the Trayvon Martin case made national news; it was one of the only known instances of "white" on black fatality where the reason for the killing was not immediately evident. So naturally it was due to racism and is proof of widespread racism still being a "thing" in America today. Nobody reporting on it or reacting to it paused to wonder why we haven't heard about a hundred similar deaths each month, if what they're saying about widespread white racism is true.

What we should also be asking is, why cases like Owens's above are so under-reported. I'd guess that if you walk down the street and ask a random person if they've heard the name "Trayvon Martin", most would say they have, and I'd say most of them would know where from. But ask them the name "Matthew Owens" and they'd probably say "Now him I don't know" or even "Was that the name of the killer? I forget" or probably even "Why, is he another black boy killed by racists?"

That's because he was white, and his assailants were black. The media didn't report it because it could get people asking about how many other vigilante acts were committed in Trayvon's name (at least three thus far, none of which got even a third of the coverage the Martin case got), or even (gasp) independently researching just how many other such incidents happen per year. However, confront a leftist with that story and I know what the response would be. "He was probably a racist. He deserved it." The logic behind that thought process? He's white.

So right there, there's two kinds of racism; one an example of positive assumptions, the other an example of negative. If a large group of black men attack a white man, they're freedom fighters fending off a racist. If a white man is attacked by a large group of black men, he must have deserved it.

Both assumptions are...racist! Assuming only good motives (or at least "pure" if still illegal and violent) of black people is racist because it's absurdly patronizing, or it comes from a place that says "black people can do no wrong." It looks at race first, and decides the right-ness of the actions based solely on that. Any way you slice it, that's racist. For that matter, assuming the white man must be guilty of racial discrimiation himself is racist.

In the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, racists around the country pounced on this story, assuming two things. 1) that Zimmerman is a white man who killed Martin because Martin was black and 2) that the police were also white and racist, and approved of Zimmerman ridding their neighborhood of one more black kid, so they let him go. And they reacted with anger and threats of violence. As you can see from the example above, they were ready to carry out those threats, too.

Both assumptions made were racist assumptions. First of all, Zimmerman isn't "white", he's of mixed heritage that is primarily latino (he's also part black, which has gone criminally under-reported). He also isn't racist; he was involved in a petition against his local police because they didn't arrest a local cop's son for beating up a black homeless man, and he mentored a young black man for a while and treated him like a son. For that matter, he was not just a member of a neighborhood watch; he was the founder of it, and there had been a series of break-ins in the neighborhood when Zimmerman spotted Martin wandering around his neighborhood and looking at the houses.

When you learn more details of this story, it's impossible to believe that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon in cold blood, or that it was racially motivated. Well, it's impossible if you yourself aren't racist and are actually able to look at the facts objectively and not be blinded with rage. (As an aside, many were incited to anger at Zimmerman thanks to a malicious edit by ABC News of Zimmerman's 911 call, where it sounds like he think Martin is up to no good because "he looks black", and CNN's garbled version of it, where it sounds like he says "fucking coon". In fact, in the un-edited version, we can hear Zimmerman saying "he looks black" in response to the 911 operator asking what color he was. Also "fucking coon" becomes "it's fucking cold" when played without the intentional garbling of the recording.)

There's a lot more I could say about this case, as new revelations that show Zimmerman not to be guilty of murder are coming out all the time, but this has been covered quite extensively by other blogs, and I don't have much new to say about it. However, this all speaks to another form of racism that I alluded to earlier.

That is, black-on-white racism. "Oh, but blacks can't be racist!" I hear you cry. You believe this because you've been raised in a society that is patronizing toward black people. It automatically assumes that racism is only racism if it comes from whites. Blacks can commit the same actions, but they are justified, because they are black.

Remember the hypothetical all-white neighborhood? Remember I said that there could be another reason no black people live there? Well, it could be because the black people in that city look at that area and think "I can't live there, because that's whitey's neighborhood. If I were to live there I'd have sold out. I wouldn't be authentically black anymore."

That's a racist attitude. If being "authentically black" means you must live in slums with other black people and refuse to congregate with whites, you're just as racist as a KKK member. Maybe worse, because you expect that people will be okay with this entirely racist attitude.

Unfortunately, it's an all-too prevelant attitude in today's society. White people walking through black neighborhoods are justifiably afraid they'll be attacked...because it happens all the time. Of course, they'd never admit to it because to do so, they're told, is racist.

On the other hand, black people can attack white people for being white, even tweet about it, and expect that no one will bat an eye for fear of being accused of racism. All while claiming that black people are attacked and killed in great numbers by racist white people. Any person with eyes to see and ears to hear and common sense can tell you that's nonsense.

Face facts; we live in a country where the head of the justice department (the same man who has sued Arizona for enforcing existing immigration laws and sued a Florida fire department for what he saw as "racist" standardized tests; the same man who dropped the case of voter intimidation by Black Panthers; the same man who is responsible for Operation Fast & Furious which has put guns in the hands of drug cartels and killed border patrol agents and hundreds of innocent Mexicans; the same man who says voter ID laws are not necessary and could "disenfranchise" black voters) is on record saying hate crimes do not apply to black people. Got that? In America, a crowd of black attackers beating a white man halfway to death for asking children to move their play is not a hate crime, but a single person, who increasingly appears to have been acting in self-defence, shooting a single black kid is not only a hate crime, but direct proof of widespread racism still prevelant in America today.

If America were truly racist, not only would we have never elected President Obama, but Holder would not hold the job he does. However, because the left is racist, not only has Obama not been impeached, despite his Cordray "recess" appointment when congress was still in session (an impeachable act all by itself), his sudden declaration of amnesty for illegal immigrant children raised in America (which is illegal), and his own involvement in OF&F, but Holder, who has done his best to make America a dangerous place to be white, who has made our borders less secure, directly caused the death of border patrol agents and Mexican citizens while arming drug cartels and has not done anything remotely approaching his job since taking office, is not only still employed but not behind bars, where he belongs*. It is the left's endemic racism ("you can't impeach or suspend either man because they are black") that allows this.

You also have black liberals openly stating their racism. New Black Panther member Minister King Samir Shabazz is on record (and video) as stating "I hate white people! All of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate 'em...You want freedom? You're gonna have to kill some crackers! You're gonna have to kill some of their babies!"

Flip this around and imagine a KKK member shouting this stuff through a bullhorn on a crowded sidewalk about black people. Imagine the media circus that would result. He would be in fear for his life (as he should be) and the police would likely arrest him (as they should). That speech contains calls for violence, open hatred of white people, and murder. Murder of babies. What's the response of the liberal media? Same as Matthew Owens; crickets. Oh, and did I mention that Obama shared a public stage with this man, and at no point repudiated him or his incendiary language? Now imagine George W. Bush sharing the stage with a KKK grand wizard. Hoo boy.

Other examples of racism, which would easily be recognized as such if the races were reversed:

Former DC mayor Marion Barry openly stated that black neighborhoods need to kick out Koreans and their "dirty" shops so they can replace them with black businesses.

Actor Samuel L. Jackson, who I've always liked, openly stated that he voted for Obama because he is black. He also accused white people of always voting white, and for the same reason. Um...Sam? If that's true, Obama would never have won, since as I've already said, black Americans make up about 12% of the populace. You can't win just on that vote alone.

Black radio host Tom Joyner apparently agrees with Jackson, calling on blacks to vote for Obama again this year. Why? Because he's black. "Stick together, black people."

Another black radio show host, Thaddeus Matthews, had as his guest GOP congressional candidate Charlotte Bergmann, who is also black. When she would not acknowledge any direct connection with the Tea Party, Matthews lost it on her, calling her all sorts of awful racist names, accused her of being a "token" and then told her he wouldn't even shake her hand because he was afraid "the whiteness might rub off."

And through all of this, black racists like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson want us to believe that black people are under attack. They want us to think that it's the 1950's all over again (Congressional Black Caucus member Andre Carson even said Republicans and Tea Partiers want to see blacks "hanging on a tree"). They want us to believe that peaceful, orderly Tea Parties are in fact mobs of violent racists simply because there are more white people in attendance than black.

And this goes back to that hypothetical all-white neighborhood. When the left sees a predominance of whiteness among people they despise, they decide based on less than even circumstantial evidence that the purpose of this group must have hidden racial motives. However, a group they approve of can be mostly white (and also violent and criminal) yet receive no criticism from the left at all for their lack of racial diversity (witness the Occupy movement or any Bush protest).

Racism is indeed alive and well today, but it doesn't reside in the hearts of wealthy white Republicans. It thrives within the liberal black community and all those who seek to keep those liberal blacks liberal and angry, and hating the white man.

It is black racism toward whites that threatens America most today. Not the other way around.

*Note: Since this writing, Holder has been found in criminal and civil contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with their investigation of OF&F, and could likely be facing criminal conviction.

Five Ways from This Year Alone that Obama Cost Himself the Election

1. The Romney personal attacks. Listen, when you yourself have a past that is shrouded in mystery, but we do know that you spent a lot of it outside of America, were raised by an unrepentant communist, ate dog meat, abused cocain, bullied a young girl because of rumors you were dating her (that she didn't start), joined a communist party in college, wrote a publisher's bio in which you described yourself as being born in Kenya, and many other disturbing things, nobody's going to care that your opponent once bullied a kid while in high school, or put his dog in a carrier on the roof of his car in a time period where everyone was doing that and no one thought it was cruel.

2. The Bain Capital attacks, despite having no proof. If you're going to attack a man's record, attack HIS record, not the record of a company he once ran that fell on hard times after installing a CEO who would later become a pretty big bundler for...uh...you.

3. Calling Romney a felon. Like "racist", the word "felon" shouldn't be a word you just throw around. Of course, since literally all of your defenders use the word "racist" the way others use "guy" or "woman", then it shouldn't be surprising that your campaign manager can bring that word up as casually as she would reference that Romney is "rich".

4. "The private sector is doing just fine." This statement more than anything else makes Obama appear to be Nero with his lyre. He wants to accuse Romney of being out of touch and then says this? The economy is in the worst state it's been in since the Great Depression, and joblessness is at an all-time high. The country looks at the president for his plan to create jobs, only to essentially be told by him that they should quit whining, because they're all doing fine.

5. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that." And the heads of every business owner in America did a simultaneous double-take, followed by a collective "WTF?" I honestly believe that statement may be the final nail in the coffin of Obama's 2012 hopes.