From a friend in Ashland KY

I understand this message.  Barack Hussein obama has set back the chance of another black becoming president by a century.  I just hope our voters use good sense beyond a benevolent spirit they showed in 2008.

SamKAT

From a friend in Ashland, Ky.

This incident is but one more in a long line of incidents that have turned me back into a racist. When I first started teaching in Greenup, I had several blacks in school because Greenup was one of the first school districts in the state to integrate. I knew the law had changed to outlaw segregation and I intended to do my part to obey the law. For a few years immediately following the Supreme Court decision of 1954 outlawing segregation, I felt things were going to be fine. However, the honeymoon didn’t last very long.

Since Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty in 1964 and the U.S. Congress’ passage of Affirmative Action in the early eighties, I have witnessed too much racism by blacks. Ever since the Bakke case in California where Bakke was denied entrance to Stanford Medical School even though he had the top score on his entrance exam, I have slowly turned to being a racist myself. Bakke’s only black mark (pun intended) on his entrance exam was being born white. Stanford, instead allowed a black to enter their medical school. That black has now had his license to practice medicine taken because he was held responsible for the deaths of 3 women. Bakke went on to graduate from the University of Michigan medical school and is now a respected Ob-Gyn.

From that case on to the many, many other cases of blacks using and misusing affirmative action, I wouldn’t go to a black doctor if my life depended on it. There is no way to tell whether the diploma on a doctor’s office wall was earned on simply given to him by affirmative action. I’m sure there must be well-qualified black doctors, but how in the hell are we to know which black doctors earned their way in and out of medical school and which were let in and out because of affirmative action. I am not willing to take that chance with my life on the lives of any of my children, grandchildren, etc.

There are still a few blacks for whom I still have respect...Allen West, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain, etc. to name a few. But these respectable blacks who have earned their respect are considered “Uncle Toms” by race baiters Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc.

I could give you a pretty long list of the racist policies of Barack Obama but I’m sure you are already aware of them. He has done more to hurt race relations than any president in our history but he would never admit it. (It’s all Bush’s fault.) One of my biggest fears is that if he is re-elected, he will appoint his current AG, Eric Holder, to the Supreme Court. Holder should be in prison, NOT on the Supreme Court.

Anyhow, I guess I should end my sermon for today. I am just getting tired of all the racism exhibited by blacks. THEY are the racists in my book.

**************************************************************************

THIS STORY IN THE HUFFINGTON POST ON AOL 8-22-12

I live just south of Cincinnati, Ohio and a local news story has caught my attention.

WHERE ARE AL AND JESSE ON THIS ONE? AS LIBERAL AS THE HUFFINGTON POST IS, I'M SURPRISED THIS CAME OUT.
Six black teenagers were bored, so they decided to attack and beat up a helpless white man who was walking down the street minding his own business. The victim had just finished some shopping at a local Ameristop and had his hands full of bags. When the attack started, he was knocked to the ground. He told the youths that he just got aid and offered them his cash, but they just laughed at him and kept on with the attack. After the attack, the victim was taken to a hospital for treatment of severe bruising, cuts, scrapes and internal bleeding.
When police arrested the teens, they told the police that they were bored and were looking for something to do.

Stingy liberals ... thanks Judi C.!

Stingy liberals
By Jeff Jacoby




http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | There are 366 major metropolitan areas in the United States, and a comprehensive new study by the Chronicle of Philanthropy ranks them on the basis of generosity -- the percentage of income the median household in each city gives to charity. According to the Chronicle, the most generous city in America is Provo, Utah, where residents typically give away 13.9 percent of their discretionary income. Boston, by contrast, ranks No. 358: In New England's leading city, the median household donates just 2.9 percent of its income to charity.
Provo's generosity is typical for its region. Of the 10 most generous cities in America, according to the Chronicle's calculations, six are in Utah and Idaho. Boston's tight-fistedness is typical too: Of the 10 stingy cities at the bottom of the list, eight are in New England -- including Springfield (No. 363) and Worcester (No. 364).
What's the matter with Massachusetts? How can residents of the bluest state, whose political and cultural leaders make much of their compassion and frequently remind the affluent that we're all in this together, be so lacking in personal generosity? And why would charitable giving be so outstanding in places as conservative as Utah and Idaho?
The question is built on a fallacy.
Liberals, popular stereotypes notwithstanding, are not more generous and compassionate than conservatives. To an outsider it might seem plausible that Americans whose political rhetoric emphasizes "fairness" and "social justice" would be more charitably inclined than those who stress economic liberty and individual autonomy. But reams of evidence contradict that presumption, as Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks demonstrated in his landmark 2006 book, .
However durable the myth, wrote Brooks (who now heads the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank), there is no getting around the data. For years, academic research and comprehensive national studies have confirmed that Americans who lean to the left politically tend to be much less charitable than those who tilt rightward. The Chronicle of Philanthropy's new report is only the latest in a long series of studies corroborating that fact.
In 1996, for example, the wide-ranging General Social Survey asked a large sample of Americans whether "the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" -- a key ideological litmus test. Thirty-three percent of respondents agreed; 43 percent disagreed. The two groups differed sharply in more than their politics. The conservatives -- those who opposed government programs to reduce inequality -- were significantly more likely to donate money to charity than the liberals. And among those who did donate, conservatives gave away, on average, four times as much money per year.
Though there is a strong link between religious belief and philanthropy, it wasn't just churches the conservatives were giving to. "They gave more to every type of cause and charity: health charities, education organizations, international aid groups, and human welfare agencies," Brooks noted. They even gave more "to traditionally liberal causes, such as the environment and the arts."
None of this was what Brooks had anticipated when he began his research. "I expected to find that political liberals � would turn out to be the most privately charitable people," he says. "So when my early findings led to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error�. In the end, I had no option but to change my views."
The Chronicle's new study, which is based on IRS records from 2008 (the most recent available), accounts for regional differences in the cost of living. It calculates charitable giving only from discretionary income -- the dollars left over after paying for taxes, housing, and food. But the economic differences are not nearly as significant as cultural differences. In parts of the country where conservative values dominate, charity tends to be high. Where liberalism holds sway, charity falls. "Red states are more generous than blue states," the Chronicle concludes. The eight states that ranked the highest in charitable giving all voted for John McCain in 2008. The seven lowest-ranking states supported Barack Obama.
Of course this doesn't mean that there aren't generous philanthropists in New England. It doesn't mean selfishness is unknown on the right. What it does mean is that where people are encouraged to think that solving society's ills is primarily a job for government, charity tends to evaporate. The politics of "compassion" isn't the same as compassionate behavior. America's generosity divide separates those who understand the difference from those who don't.