Can You Say HYPOCRITE? What We Have Here Is A Pot-Kettle Situation!

"UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama told world leaders on Wednesday to stop blaming America and join him in confronting challenges like Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs and the war in Afghanistan." and "The U.S. leader, enjoying a global spotlight, urged international leaders to move beyond "an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction."

These words were uttered by none other than B.O. himself, at the annual U.N. General Assembly gathering, to the representatives of 190 nations of the world. The same Barack Obama who recently finished his "Blame America First/Apology World Tour". Perhaps others in the world would be less inclined toward criticizing the United States, if our own president hadn't taken every opportunity since his inauguration to enthusiastically point the finger of blame at us!

The bought-and-paid-for world media obviously lacks the courage to use the word hypocrite when describing our "leader". Perhaps in the eyes of the media, "hypocrite" is too direct, too blunt, or too honest to describe the words of a man who says a certain thing and then chastises and cautions the rest of the world not to say those same things? How can we be more PC in our description of this "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy? Where did the president "misspeak"? Was it during his personal criticisms of the United States of America, as he traveled the globe osculating the derrieres of other national leaders... or, was it at the U.N. General Assembly meeting, where he found fault with others who may have pointed out areas in which they thought we needed some improvement? It really makes no difference, the concept is the same.

To blame others, for that which you yourself have done, is the epitome of hypocrisy! Did Obama say what he initially said during his world tour simply to impress other leaders with how understanding he is of their animosity/hatred/jealously toward the U.S. without believing it himself? Or, did he caution the 190 member states of the United Nations against finding fault with the U.S. without believing it himself? A hypocrite is a hypocrite! It's also very difficult to vote "present" as the President of the United States of America. The president cannot be seen as vacillating on the issues - domestic or international. He is expected to be decisive. Obama's administration is - just as he promised - transparent. I can see right through it and evaluate it for what it truly is... and I don't like it!

You can put lipstick on a political appointee, or a tax supported NGO like ACORN, but it's still POLITICAL PORK!

If you think I could be wrong about this, you have either forgotten how to think, or you have been so mesmerized, so brainwashed by Obama's oratorical skills, that he now tells you what to think. As Euripides said, "A man is known by the company he keeps." Open your eyes and look at Obama's cabinet and Czar appointments. The vast majority of those presidential appointees are, unsurprisingly, left-wing, socialist-progressive, death-to-America radicals.

THAT IS THE COMPANY HE CHOOSES TO KEEP!

Voter Intimidation Okay As Long As You Do It For The Favorite

According to the May 29,2009 issue of the Washington Times, the Obama "Department of Justice", headed by Eric Holder, has directed it's legal staff to drop the civil charges against three members of the "New Black Panther Party". If you recall, on November 3rd, 2008, there were complaints about one polling place in Philadelphia, where it was reported that the entrance to the building was being blocked by members of the NBPP.

The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15, at the direction of "unnamed political appointees". The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. (And what's with Jerry Jackson - how come he didn't get one of those really cool names? Or, was Shabbigg Shaddummy already taken?) Prosecutors also say Shabazz "supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews." Sounds like a thug to me!

My first question would be - why was this a "civil action" in the first place? Voter intimidation is civil rights violation, and a criminal act under federal law. Maybe that particular section of the United States Code is only enforced if you "encourage" people to vote for the wrong candidate.

I realize that it's not PC to imply that anyone outside the white race could possibly be a racist, but that is precisely my point. It's just that the media and others have an unwritten, informal, handshake agreement to ignore the fact that there are racists of all creeds, colors and ethnicities. Yes, folks, there are black, brown, red and yellow racists. "Whitey" does not have a corner on ignorance or prejudice. There are people who will hate you just for your skin color... or because you're a Jew, Muslim, Christian, or Atheist... or because you are a Liberal, Conservative, or politically non-affilliated. You can be hated for having a better job than somebody else - like it's your fault! And, if they can't find a better reason to hate you, they will hate you just because you are. You may rest comfortably in the knowledge that somewhere in the world there is somebody to hate everybody for any ridiculous reason.

Apparently though, racism is only bad when white individuals and private white organizations (KKK, Aryan Nation, Skinheads, the Council of Conservative Citizens, etc.) practice it. When the government practices racism (and yes, reverse racism and preferential racism is still racism), or minorities indulge in racist behaviors, it's expected to be acceptable. Racism is primarily a philosophy and practice of the ignorant. Nobody likes to look down the ladder of success, and see there are no lower rungs than the one upon which they are standing. Seeing oneself as being powerless (and perhaps, in reality, just too lazy) to do anything about improving their position, it prompts many people to create - if only in their mind - their own verison of "nigger". They do this using any/all of the preceding criteria, or perhaps additional/unmentioned criteria. Some people cannot stand being on that bottom rung - they then have to create what they see as an "inferior being" to look down upon. Their "nigger" isn't necessarily black, either - this "nigger" is an ego-saving concept, not a skin color or race. It could easily be folks that some people refer to as "white trash". And you don't necessarily have to be poor to be "white trash".

That's the truth as I see it. However, I could be completely wrong about this whole thing. What's your truth?