Who is Really Waging a War on Women?

Any Conservative who has been paying attention to politics for any length of time knows that one of  the fundamental truths that applies to Progressive Democrats is that whenever they get caught doing something (fill in the blank – bad, illegal, unethical, repugnant, racist, sexist, etc.) their first reaction is to accuse Conservatives of (a) doing the same thing, or (b) doing something worse. The recent fabrication by the Left: the “GOP war on women” is just the latest example of this tactic.

So, is there really a “war on women”?  And if so, who’s waging it?  I would contend that the war actually started in the Obama White House.

In an excerpt obtained by The Post, a female senior aide to President Obama called the White House a hostile environment for women.

“This place would be in court for a hostile workplace,” former White House communications director Anita Dunn is quoted as saying. “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

But of course, women White House staffers get paid the same as the men, so they really don’t have any room to complain — right?  Wrong.

President Obama has been outspoken in his criticism of “paycheck discrimination” that has women earning less than men for the same jobs, but a new report shows that female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues.

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, while the median salary for male employees was $71,000 — about 18 percent more, the Washington Free Beacon reports.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” former Bill Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Meyers told the New York Times.

But out in the general workplace, women have faired pretty well under Obama economic policies, right?  Wrong again.

The recent jobs report from the Labor Department had some alarming facts. The number of women employed in America declined last month as many dropped out of the work force, giving up on looking for work altogether. Of the 740,000 jobs lost since Obama took office, 683,000 of them were held by women. That is unsustainable.

Across America, women are feeling the pain of the weak economy—in the job market and at the kitchen table. Wives are worried about shrinking wages and rising prices as they try to make ends meet. Mothers fear for their children’s futures as the national debt skyrockets and college becomes unaffordable. Businesswomen are frustrated by the regulations and economic policies that make hiring impossible. Fewer women are working, and more are living in poverty.

And finally, the attack on Ann Romney by Democrat hack, Hillary Rosen, will almost certainly endear Democrats to stay-at-home moms – NOT.

All this begs the question, what would Obama have to do to lose support among women?


263 thoughts on “Who is Really Waging a War on Women?

  1. GMB April 13, 2012 / 7:34 pm

    Isin’t it vacation time? He has been working himself to deat with all those fundraisers and campaign events like 40k a plate dinners with hollywierdos and such. Since he is not nowhere near as taxed as he shoild be coulld he not pay for his own vacations?

    Airforce One or Southwest coach class, hmmmm?

  2. Amazona April 13, 2012 / 8:14 pm

    Once again, the PL trolls leave us with the ongoing question: Are they really that dumb, or do they just lie?

    Take the tax rate, for example. How many times have we explained the different tax rates to the dupes? To quote doof, at least 100. So when “James” whines about tax rates, that same old question pops up. Is he really so profoundly stupid that he does not understand the difference between the tax rate on dividends and that of earned income? Or is he smarter than he seems, does know it, but just refuses to acknowledge it, prefering the taste of lies?

    If Warren Buffett got paid a salary, he would be taxed at a much higher rate than his secretary. Buy he has structured his income to come from dividends on his stock, so he pays less.

    That’s fine. What is not fine is that he understands this, and he understands why this tax rate IS lower, and he still postures in a series of lies. Most of the nation looks at Buffet repeating this dishonest nonsense and feels contempt for him and his lying and his toadying and his complete lack of character. But Buffett doesn’t care—he has the adoration of the OWS types, and that seems to be all he needs.

    That and his vast riches, which by the way he holds onto with great ferocity.

    Sure, we could raise the tax on unearned income—-and throttle investment in publicly held business, choking it off and further destroying the economy.

    I sure am glad these guys are not anti-private property anti-capitalist Marxists, as they insist they are not. This does leave us with only two alternatives, though—-a level of stupidity so deep that it completely defines them, or a level of dishonesty so pervasive that it orives they are completely morally corrupt.

    Though, as we can see with “James” the two are not mutually exclusive.

  3. GMB April 13, 2012 / 9:40 pm

    “Am I close? Oh yeah the Constitution should be followed to the letter without any flexibility for the modern age. ”

    Flexability??? LOLzer ther Fred. Its called the amendment process. You aught to look it it up. It’s in the(badabing!) constitution.

    • GMB April 13, 2012 / 9:44 pm

      Kind of interested here Fred. Just what kind of “flexibility” do you want?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 13, 2012 / 9:51 pm

        I was referring to conservatives GMB in how they would prefer to live by “the letter of the Constitution” when that’s what’s been happening for centuries amendment process and all.

      • tiredoflibbs April 13, 2012 / 11:11 pm

        “Flexibility” to the modern proggies is what they call a “living” Constitution. They expect the Constitution to “change with the times”. Of course the “change” they are looking for is what they say it is through the courts and judicial activism.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 13, 2012 / 9:49 pm

      How many amendments since 1789 (16) in how many years (182) after Amendment XXVI was certified in 1971). Amemdments don’t happen that often so it’s better to have the SCOTUS use judicial review so matters that affect all Americans can be resolved without hauling out state legislatures or trying to get the Congress (No!) to work to solutions.

      • GMB April 13, 2012 / 9:56 pm

        Only as long as they agree with your personal point of view right?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 13, 2012 / 9:58 pm

        Nope, the will of the people my friend. That’s a sword that cuts both ways. Back in 1920 an unlikely coalition of the Klan and women made the country dry. In 1933 Progressives seeing that such a rule created more crime than it save lives from temperance reversed it. I love amendments they just take quite a bit of time to get done.

      • GMB April 13, 2012 / 10:04 pm

        “the will of the people my friend.”

        Better be careful there. At one time slavery was the will, at one time universal suffarage was not the will. People are fickle, thier will can change at any moment.

        Just the kind of thing our constitution was designed to prevent. Slavery being outlawed and the granting of universal suffrage are now enshrined in our constitutuion.

        “the will of the people” Just not a lolzer but a guffaw to go with it.

        Please say hi to che for me.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 13, 2012 / 10:09 pm

        Democracies mature GMB because that is the nature of democracies. Slavery was the will of the people in the first seven decades of the Union but better people, better citizens saw it as a scourge. And the problem was solved, poorly, but it was solved. Now what didn’t come after slavery was abolished was real full citizenship and reparations for those who had suffered. That was a bridge too far for the South then and for conservatives now. In more prosperous times those reparations will come and it will be a boon to business in America. Quite possibly a new golden age in America will come out of that.

      • GMB April 13, 2012 / 10:17 pm

        Ah a golden age, a euphoric utopia in the land. I colud mention that the United States is not a democracy but you know that? Right?

        I do not owe any reparation to anyone. You want to pay, fine and dandy. You want the tax payer to pay, fine and dandy again. Pass a law and see if it survives the court challenge.

        You need some dancing lessons

      • tiredoflibbs April 13, 2012 / 11:17 pm

        freddie the forker: “In more prosperous times those reparations will come and it will be a boon to business in America.”


        Who will pay and who will receive? The slaves are all dead and so are the “owners”.

        Reparations is part of the leftist agenda to keep African-Americans on the Democrat plantation.

      • Majordomo Pain April 14, 2012 / 7:54 am

        We, Ourselves agree that reparations for the black community in America have been long overdue. However, in current times the global economy is too fragile to seek that repayment. Maybe in a decade or two that historical slight can be righted. The payment should come from the modern incarnations of the insurance companies that held policies on slave vessels. The research would be quite easy to accomplish. The last figures I’ve seen would be a payment of about $67,000 per black person over the age of 18 or roughly $2.6 trillion. Now that would be an economic stimulus.

      • Cluster April 14, 2012 / 8:55 am

        Would our “white” black president receive just half of that?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 9:14 am

        President Obama would get a full measure as being biracial in America makes him black.

      • J. R. Babcock April 14, 2012 / 9:14 am

        We, Ourselves agree that reparations for the black community in America have been long overdue.

        And you, YOURSELVES, are a bunch of loony tunes, who, correct me if I’m wrong, don’t even live in this country.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 9:18 am

        Why is this such a bad idea JR? All the recipients are going to do is spend the money, mostly locally. And an influx of that much spending would actually create jobs. Some economists estimate that such a reparations package could create as many as 3 million jobs.

      • Cluster April 14, 2012 / 9:24 am


        So a bi racial person is considered black? Why does the black race trump the white race? In fact, why does Obama consider himself black when in fact he is half white and was raised by a white family?


        The formers need to be a collective, because on their own, they couldn’t manage their way out of paper bag.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 9:29 am

        It trumps it because in the not so recent past that was the law Cluster. Also, in a white dominated society like America they make the rules of perception. Ever heard of the one drop rule? A quote from Langston Hughes should clarify:

        “You see, unfortunately, I am not black. There are lots of different kinds of blood in our family. But here in the United States, the word ‘Negro’ is used to mean anyone who has any Negro blood at all in his veins. In Africa, the word is more pure. It means all Negro, therefore black. I am brown.”

      • Cluster April 14, 2012 / 9:27 am

        $2.6 trillion in reparations
        3 million jobs

        That’s only $1.2 billion per job which is pretty good when you use liberal math. Well done Freddy.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 9:30 am

        I’m sure that there are 3 million people out there in America that would jump at a chance for a full time job today. To them this would be not be such a bad idea.

      • tiredoflibbs April 14, 2012 / 10:18 am

        Again, bubblehead, who will pay and who will receive slaves and owners are long dead?

        Not everyone in this country are descendants of slaves or slave owners – so who specifically is going to pay and who will receive?

        Why should anyone receive reparations for a era long since gone?

        Again, reparations is a tactic used by Democrats to keep the African-Americans on their plantation.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 10:48 am

        From what I’ve been told and what I’ve ready 70% of the money would come from insurance companies like Aetna who are the only company to admit they insured slave ships, rum distillers like DeWolf, banks like Bank of America, The Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia Bank. The list of the modern versions of legacy enterprises that profited heavily from slavery is staggering. Why should anyone pay reparations? Because it is the moral and ethical thing to do.

      • tiredoflibbs April 14, 2012 / 11:40 am

        Why not make today’s slavers (all of them could be found in Africa just like 150 years ago) pay reparations? Those companies you listed – those responsible for their actions are long since gone.

        Again freddie, who would receive these “reparations”?

        Not all African-Americans in this country are descendants of Colonial Slavery.

        ObAMATEUR surely wasn’t one of them.

        Moral and Ethical? Are you kidding from a proggy? I have been to the Pitchfork. I have read the crap there. Also, those pushing for reparations are far from moral and ethical as well as their beliefs.

        These are the same people who want to keep today’s African-Americans on the Democrat “plantation” and reparations is another link in the chains.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 11:50 am

        I think slavery was more than what ended in the post bellum 19th century. What followed Jim Crow et cetera was equally if not more viscious. I think black Americans are still scarred by those events and the modern history that followed.

      • tiredoflibbs April 14, 2012 / 10:22 am

        freddie the forker: “President Obama would get a full measure as being biracial in America makes him black.”


        Of course he would. But Zimmerman was a white hispanic!

        Now for the details….

        Why would obAMATEUR receive any reparations being from a white family and a Kenyan father whose family was not a slave in this country?

        More than likely, he would have to pay since he is half white from an American family and his grand-mother was a “typical white person”.

        Again, drone you cannot think for yourself. You just go along with the mindless talking points.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 10:38 am

        Since there is no way to repay those who died on the Middle passage I think everyone subject to the brutality of white bigotry in America, that pool would all people who are considered black by the government, should get a full share. I don’t think anyone in the US considers Barack Obama the 44th white president of the US, but rather the first person of color elected to the highest office in America.

      • tiredoflibbs April 14, 2012 / 11:43 am

        You again dodge the obvious. Blacks are not the only ones to suffer bigotry anywhere in this WORLD.

        Your excuses are getting more and more pathetic. Again, you proggies want something for nothing.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 11:49 am

        Of course not I’m a Jew and my people got paid by the Germans, twice.

      • tiredoflibbs April 14, 2012 / 10:24 am

        There’s that magic 3 million jobs number again……

        So stealing $2.6 trillion out of the private sector to give to African-Americans who have never been slaves will create 3 million jobs?

        You are right cluster. There is that progressive math again – creating something from nothing.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 10:35 am

        I’ve spoken to quite a few economists who say this would be the case. It deserves more discussion even if it isn’t a present day solution.

      • Cluster April 14, 2012 / 10:31 am

        I love to watch racist liberals do mental gymnastics to give their blatant racism some kind of cover. And tired you beat me to the Zimmerman reference of where I was going. Funny how his Hispanic heritage has never been mentioned.

        Liberals, including Frederick, have zero intent of ever getting to that place that MLK dreamed of so long ago.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 10:34 am

        Cluster I do recall the media mentioning that Zimmerman’s mother is latina and his father is white. I think when someone murders a minor that race really shouldn’t be the focus. Justice should be.

        King’s dream still lives it’s just that the obstacles have taken different shapes than in the 60s 70s and 80s.

      • Cluster April 14, 2012 / 10:45 am

        You think that race should not be involved? Can you then explain the democratic congress people who have taken the floor in our capital calling it a hate crime, saying that Trayvon was killed because he was WWB, and hunted down like a dawg?

        Why would responsible elected officials do that?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 10:50 am

        That’s because, Cluster I feel that if Trayvon been a short blond 17 year old kid George Zimmerman would have backed off. I don’t know Zimmerman and I wasn’t there so I don’t know but I do know that a mother is without her son because of the actions of one person who decided to be judge jury and executioner when he could have simply walked away.

      • dbschmidt April 14, 2012 / 10:50 am


        If you actually knew anything about the Constitution you would realize that most of the founders already realized that slavery was wrong but needed to comprimise in order to get it passed at the time. BTW, the first free slave became the first free black man to own a slave. Where does that fit into your narritive?

        Maybe you should learn some history before misrepresenting it.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 10:57 am

        As should be expected I think you are oversimplifying to normalize current social correctness to fit the values of the founders that you hold dear. The 3/5ths compromise was about keeping the union together. Had these men wanted to abolish slavery they could have over time. They didn’t because it was more important at the time to keep the going concern of America, going.

      • Cluster April 14, 2012 / 10:56 am


        Your response does not address the blatant racism that politicians you support are engaged in. So again, why do democratic representatives feel the need to turn this into a race thing? Why have they used their position as an elected official to foment racial discord?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 11:00 am

        They didn’t Cluster they turned it into a Justice thing. If you want to see the worst case of pandering in the history of American politics take a look at the moving of mountains done by GOP lawmakers in the Terri Schiavo case. You can’t compare the two.

      • Cluster April 14, 2012 / 11:04 am


        Now you’re just being dishonest. Why do you hide from reality?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 11:46 am

        Cluster your reality is different than mind. Take off the milk colored glasses pilgrim.

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 11:31 am

        The whole reparations thing is insane.

        If an argument is going to be made that a 20th or 21st Century person descended wholly or in part from Africans brought here against their will 200 years ago are still suffering due to that historical event, then it would be necessary to objectively evaluate the damage done TO THESE PEOPLE by being born here, in the United States, instead of their ancestors’ native lands.

        We cannot compensate those who suffered directly, and even if we could, according to the rule of law the responsibility would have to be allocated according to responsiblity for the act. That is, some to the Africans who captured the people sold into slavery, some to those who transported them, some to those who presided over their sale, and some to those who bought them and used them as slaves.

        As every single one of those who participated in the culture of black slavery in the United States is now long dead, this would be a foolish enterprise, even if it were possible.

        So the next thing would be to evaluate the harm done, generations later, as the direct result of those people being enslaved and brought here two centuries ago.

        Fine. We have DNA testing now. We can probably determine the general area of Africa from which the ancestors were taken. Then it would be a simple matter to compare, in general terms of course, the average quality of life of one born in any given year in the past 75 years, say, in an identified nation with that of the descendant born in the United States that same year.

        If it is determined that there was an advantage to being born in any of the native African lands—-better access to nutrition, education, opportunity, or even in the case of so many African nations the simple ability to survive—-then it would be time to evaluate the nature and extent of deprivation experienced by the descendant as the direct result of being born here instead of there.

        Why don’t you guys get to work on that, and get back to us?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 11:41 am

        “Still suffering?” The Japanese weren’t still suffering and they got paid.

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 11:38 am

        Are you kidding? Digging up poor Terri Schiavo to roll around on her corpse for a while?

        All anyone wanted to do was extend the right to life to a woman whose ability to communicate had been severely damaged, probably by the same man who then insisted on the help of the State to finish killing her.

        After he succeeded, aided by the ghouls who howled for her death, the autopsy (lyingly misstated by those trying to justify their bloodthirstiness) showed the area of the brain which controls speech and voluntary movements was severely damaged, but the part in which resides comprehension and understanding was nearly intact.

        In other words, the testimony of the nurses who said she panicked and fought them when they removed her feeding tubes as if she knew they were preparing to starve her to death was supported by the findings of the pathologist. She knew and understood the meaning of the removal of the tubes, she was terrified, and she was helpless.

        This is the stuff of nightmares, analogous to being buried alive, and this is what some ghouls still celebrate as a victory, while they lie and claim that efforts to simply extend to her the basic right to life was some kind of political manuevering they were obligated to thwart.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 11:41 am

        Amazona it was a political ploy to deflect attention from the Iraq war which was in freefall at the time. It was red meat for the Right and it worked as your voluminous answer shows.

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 12:08 pm

        In other words, Fred, you are not addressing any of the facts I laid out, merely dismissing them as too wordy.

        Quite analytical.

        And then you fake-respond by reciting some silly Leftist talking point about IRAQ, of all things!

        Allow me to insert a fact here. It was, first of all, not a political matter. It was a simple civil matter. A man wanted to kill his wife, and had the legal authority to do so, based on his claim that she was nothing but a “vegetable”. Her family disagreed, saying that while her vision and speech were severely damaged, they believed she could not only recognize them and respond to them and show that she was still alert, they believed that therapy (which had been denied to her by her husband) would lead to improvement in her condition.

        The argument on the husband’s side was basically “Just look at her—she ain’t right!” and the opinion of a couple of hired guns who wrote her off.

        The arguments on the family’s side were that she convinced them that she recognized them and valued their company, responded to them with the impression of intellect and understanding, that when the caretakers had ignored the instructions of the husband and provided theraputic treatment she had responded and improved, that her caretakes testified that she did recognize people and could swallow and indicate taste preferences, the testimony of an expert in physical therapy who had examples of people in her condition who had made dramatic improvement, and the desire of the family to assume all responsibility for her care including all medical costs.

        It grew into a national awareness of the significance of allowing one person to put another to death based on inconclusive evidence, and this evolved into taking sides, which basically put right-to-life people on one side and kill-em-if-they-don’t-meet-our-criteria on another.

        People ignorant of the actual meaning and defintion of politics, who can’t even be bothered to study and learn the factual differences between Left and Right and are quite satisfied with the superficial labels fed to them by their chosen talking heads, will assign terms like Left and Right to this tragic case.

        And now these talking heads have evidently decided to expand the strident demand for legal extermination of those who cannot defend themselves to a sinister political conspiracy.

        Oh, my. The willful gullibility seems infinite.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 12:13 pm

        No a man who had the right to end his wife’s suffering did so it was a private matter until the GOP made it national news by trying to use the power of government to intrude in the daily lives of private citizens. All the examinations of Schiavo have shown her brain was nearly half liquid. You bought into the sparkle pony show Amazona, but it’s okay.

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 12:17 pm

        “Still suffering?” The Japanese weren’t still suffering and they got paid.

        Oh, my goodness, Fred, you need to learn the Rule of Holes.

        Beloved Lefty icon Franklin D. Roosevelt (and this is a factual description, not a silly superficial identity thing—study HIS ideology and his administration for an analytical look at the man and his politics) arbitrarily imprisoned American citizens, stripping them of their homes, their businesses, their personal property, and forcing them into prison camps where they lived lives of misery.

        In 1968, nearly two dozen years after the camps were closed, the government began reparations to Japanese Americans for property they had lost.

        In 1988, the U.S. Congress passed legislation which awarded formal payments of $20,000 each to the surviving internees —60,000 in all. This same year, formal apologies were also issued by the government of Canada to Japanese Canadian survivors, who were each repaid the sum of $21,000 Canadian dollars.

        Read more: Japanese Internment in World War II — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/internment1.html#ixzz1s2244nAq

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 12:19 pm

        And your point is? Why weren’t reparations paid to black former slaves in 1898, or 1908 or 1928 for that matter?

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 12:34 pm

        Oh, Freddy Freddy Freddy—do pay attention to that Rule of Holes advice.

        You need to realize that those talking heads who fill you full of crap and sent you out to be intellectual cannon fodder don’t CARE that you make a fool of yourself! You don’t matter to them. Your sole purpose is to provide noise.

        You claim the GOP made it national news by trying to use the power of government to intrude in the daily lives of private citizens.

        OK, I can accept your contention that the only people who believe in Constitutional protections are the GOP. If that’s the way you see it that’s the way you see it. And you may very well be right.

        And if you think enforcing the rule of law, such as the basic right to life of an innocent person who has committed no crime is an “intrusion in the daily lives of private citizens” then you get to have that odd conviction. It says a lot about you, but then so does your conviction that no female should ever have any responsibility for her sexual activity, should not only be given the “choice” to screw recklessly without making any effort to prevent conception but should then be allowed to kill the result of this recklessness.

        (Didn’t you claim in another thread that you have a moral core? Looks like it’s time for another definition.)

        To paraphrase Obama, an unelected man made the decision to end the life of a possibly sentient human being who had committed no
        crime, denying even a complete evaluation by objective professionals not committed to killing her, and ignoring sworn testimony by professionals and caregivers who testified that she was sentient.

        All the examinations of Schiavo have shown her brain was nearly half liquid.

        No, they didn’t. This is what happens when you trust your minders to send you out with facts. They pack your head with lies.

        i read the patholgist’s report on Schiavo’s brain, and I referenced it accurately. You get to choose toxic Bill Maher as your go-to guy for facts, but he lies.

      • dbschmidt April 14, 2012 / 12:36 pm

        What about the internment camps in WWI under Wilson which housed nationals of Germany, the Austro-Hungarian and Turkish empires. Oh, yeah, and those that just disagreed with his policies of all nationalities including American born citizens.

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 12:45 pm

        Freddy, digging frantically away, bleats And your point is? Why weren’t reparations paid to black former slaves in 1898, or 1908 or 1928 for that matter

        Gee, Freddy, I don’t know! Why don’t you hop into your WayBack machine and go ask them?

        Funniest thing about this country—one of its founding principles was that of personal responsibility. That is, each person is responsible for his or her decisions.

        And a founding principle of the Left is that of collectivism. Our very own President has said that his salvation is dependent upon the salvation of the nation.

        So instead of arguing about whose descendants should pay for whose ancestor’s sins, why don’t we eliminate the confusing details and talk about individual vs collective guilt, responsibility, and redemption?

        I know, I know, that skirts way too close to that ‘ideology’ thing that spooks you so, but it lies at the heart of the issue.

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 1:02 pm

        King’s dream still lives but now it lives in the hearts and minds of white people who still believe in a colorblind society where a man is judged on his character and not on the color of his skin.

        ….it’s just that the obstacles have taken different shapes than in the 60s 70s and 80s. Yes—now the obstacles are those created, fostered and promoted by black people who encourage other black people to engage in thoughts, beliefs and actions that will forever block their access to the American Dream, and will lock them into a stereotype of mindless savagery and ignorant prejudice.

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 2:19 pm

        “milk colored glasses ”

        Racist code for “white”


        Racist code for people whose ancestors did not come here on slave ships.

        Freddy, Freddy, Freddy, you bigot and racist you! For shame!

  4. Cluster April 14, 2012 / 11:02 am

    Frederick displays the classic liberal mindset and that is of an avenger of all victims, perceived or real. Without victims, there is no liberalism, thus keeping people on the plantation for them to “protect” is essential to their existence. It is a revolting form of bigotry.

    • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 11:51 am

      It is, Cluster, the shortcut to the Higher Moral Ground.

      It requires no effort, no action, no personal sacrifice, no personal responsibility, to be able to preen over the imagined moral superiority of being “FOR” something that, superficially, might appear to be generous or tolerant.

      And it carries with the the bonus of assuming that those who do not agree with your conclusions are, therefore, AGAINST the good, AGAINST the generous, AGAINST the tolerant. This has the added advantage of widening the perceived moral gulf, making the FOR people even better than the AGAINST people.

      It is analogous to voting for Obama not because of belief in the ideology he represents as the best way to govern the nation but to make a statement of being FOR acceptance, diversity, tolerance, whatever. And of course anyone who voted for McCain had to be equally driven by emotion, never by an objective analysis of political philosophy, which in the simplistic mind of the HMG people means we were AGAINST. Not against a collectivist political model based on expansion of the federal government and it scope and power, but against tolerance, diversity, and basically All That Is Good.

      Have you ever used the posterizing ability of some programs like PhotoShop? You scan in a picture, and no matter how complex and nuanced and detailed it may be, this application will reduce it to four or five colors, with no subtlety or detail. When I look at the primitive and limited analysis of events and politics that the Left constantly exhibit here, I am always reminded of this function, and the way they posterize everything into just blobs of general perception.

  5. Amazona April 14, 2012 / 12:56 pm

    Being “scarred” by something that did not happen to you is a choice.

    I am sure that I had Irish family members enslaved by raiding Britons, and that I had Russian family members raped and killed by rampaging Cossacks. I’ll bet some Czech ancestors suffered at the hands of both Germans and Russians.

    More recently, I have had bad things happen TO ME. I have been denied good well-paying jobs because I am a woman, I have had people I trusted lie to me and steal from me. I have made the choice to move forward, to learn from my personal experiences but not let them define or restrict my iife, and certainly never considered nurturing grievances based on what other people did centuries ago.

    Too many black people have had the same attitude, looked at themselves as individuals and not defined by anything but their own characters, intellect and ambition, and succeeded quite well, for the imbedded victimhood mentality of others to be very convincing as legitimate explanations for their conditions or their pathology.

    Those with a hive mentality, looking for excuses to justify negativity by becoming part of a surly and resentful collective, unable to break free unless some collective penance is paid, are making the choices to be hate-filled, angry, and to be losers.

  6. Amazona April 14, 2012 / 2:39 pm

    I am starting to wonder if all of Freddy’s declared persona is bogus. Sure,the silly letters after his name are nothing but juvenile posturing, and are meaningless, but the claim of being a Jew while being such an apologist for black racism, and a name that means “black” leads me to believe that while his defense of black racism is legit the rest if his story is BS.

    So hard to tell with these demons with so many lives. Is he dead now, or just was dead? Is he black in this life, or a past life? How many of the people he is/was are writing now? Do any of them have a clue?


    • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 2:56 pm


      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 3:00 pm

        In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery “a moral and political evil.” Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically.

        The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

        The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

        In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).

        According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country’s leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

        To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

        The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

Comments are closed.