Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Obama's race-based plan to turn Congress Democratic, forever.
July 30, 2015 John Perazzo
Editor’s note: The following article is the first in a series of articles elaborating on David Horowitz and John Perazzo’s 2013 pamphlet “Black Skin Privilege and the American Dream.” “White skin privilege”—a term that has made a comeback in the last few years of racial demagoguery—was first popularized by the terror sect Weatherman in the early 1970s during its campaign to launch a race war in "Amerikka.” Although most leftists did not follow the call of Weatherman leaders Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn to join in a global race war to eradicate “white skin privilege,” the foundation of racism, the concept gradually took hold as an article of faith among all progressives as an all-purpose explanation for why the great Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s had not produced immediate equality and why such quintessentially un American policies as affirmative action were necessary. Because of “white skin privilege,” virtually ineradicable “institutional racism” continued to saturate our society even though individual racism was a thing of the past.
By its obsessive quest to find evidence of illusory “white skin privilege” the progressive left created and enshrined in our national life its very real opposite—“black skin privilege.” As David Horowitz and John Perazzo showed in their 2013 pamphlet Black Skin Privilege and the American Dream,” its effects can be seen in the presumption of guilt on the part of innocent whites (think Duke lacrosse team) on the basis of their skin color while guilty blacks (think O.J. Simpson) are often presumed innocent. Blacks can commit racist attacks on whites certain that civil rights “activists” who sift the news obsessively for black victims will either not notice or dismiss such attacks as a form of delayed “justice” for the historical oppression of black people.
The liberal media obediently follow their lead. When Trayvon Martin was killed by “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman it became a national outrage. But the media was nowhere to be found in the year afterward when there at least 14 known incidents of attacks by blacks (often citing the death of Martin as their motivation) against whites, including the brutal beating of a 78 year old man.
The result of such prejudice—there is no better word for it—is the creation of an optical illusion of deeply embedded, if largely invisible, white racism that creates vast numbers of black victims when the social facts show quite a different situation. According to statistics gathered by the National Crime Victimization Survey, for instance, blacks attacks on whites are five times greater than the opposite. When differences in relative population size are factored into the equation, a white person is 25 times more likely to be attacked by a black than a black by a white.
Such statistics are not the whole U.S. racial picture by any means. But they are a part. And they are suppressed (or shrugged off) by the media and civil rights “activists” dedicated to creating a one sided and propagandistic narrative of race in the United States. Such inconvenient facts complicate their melodrama of white guilt and black victimhood.
The presence of black skin privilege as odious as white racism was: two sides of the same coin. To illumine the complexity of racial truth in America, FrontPage Magazine will regularly present articles about black skin privilege, beginning with today’s piece by John Perazzo on how it has become a wedge into a possible totalitarian future.
To order “Black Skin Privilege and the American Dream,” click here.
*
If you're a white Republican who lives in a well-to-do, majority-Republican suburb anywhere in America, Barack Obama has huge plans for you. Why? Several reasons: (1) He resents you for taking advantage of what he sees as your unfairly acquired ability to afford life in an affluent neighborhood, while so many poor nonwhites live amid squalor and crime in the central cities of this racist land. (2) He believes that by choosing to reside in a suburb, you are selfishly depriving a nearby city of precious tax dollars which could otherwise have been used to fund the public schools and social services that minority city-dwellers so desperately need. (3) Above all else, he resents the fact that people like you tend to elect Republicans to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Thus our president has set in motion the political equivalent of “The Knockout Game,” where you're going to be blindsided by a devastating head blow that will rattle your world more dramatically than anything the government has ever previously done to you. You see, Barack Obama has lots of racial scores he wants to settle, and this one is at the very top of his “to-do” list.
Like a dutiful totalitarian, Obama has quietly been hard at work on a stealth plan to make Republican suburban communities from coast to coast disappear. It's a plan to empower Democrat-led cities to annex those suburbs and seize political control of them. How? By moving large numbers of poor blacks and Latinos (virtually all Democrats) out of the cities and into the surrounding white suburbs, where they can be much more politically useful to Obama and his party. Instead of merely being “surplus voters” who do nothing more than pad massive Democratic margins of assured electoral victories in urban districts, these transplanted nonwhite Democrats will now be utilized to help Obama tip the demographic scales in a host of Republican suburbs—and turn them Democratic.
Obama's plan was conveniently buttressed by the recent Texas Housing v. Inclusive Communities Supreme Court decision, where the Court's five reliable left-wing activists ruled that plaintiffs will henceforth be permitted to base housing-discrimination lawsuits on mere population statistics. That is, they won't be required to show evidence of actual racial discrimination, or even of any intent to discriminate. Instead they can simply cite, as “proof” of discrimination, the racial makeup of a given neighborhood with comparatively few black or Latino residents. And even if that neighborhood is able to definitively show that no discriminatory motive or policy has ever existed there, it won't matter. “Disparate impact”—a statistical racial or ethnic imbalance in a given population—is now enough to indicate guilt.
The Texas Housing decision dovetails beautifully with the Obama agenda, as laid out in a recently unveiled 377-page document called “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” crafted behind closed doors by the nameless, unelected bureaucrats at Obama's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In this document, the Obama Administration articulates its plan to aggressively and forcibly change the demographics of majority-white suburban neighborhoods by requiring them—even in cases where housing discrimination has never even been alleged, let alone proved—to meet federally imposed quotas for the creation of government-subsidized, multi-family “affordable housing” units, and to aggressively market those units to ethnic and racial minorities.
A corollary Obama plan will be to enact a “regional tax-base sharing” scheme that diverts a portion of suburban tax money into a common regional pot, from which it is then redistributed to poor urban neighborhoods. Thus the suburbs will not only be blended into the cities racially and politically, but economically as well.
This will all take place, of course, under the pious banner of “social and racial justice.”
As Obama sees things, black or brown skin, by definition, makes people victims of white America's intransigent bigotry. And justice demands that their victimhood be addressed by a variety of compensatory measures, like the privilege of living—at taxpayer expense—in a community whose existing residents—whatever their race or ethnicity—sacrificed a great deal in order to get there.
Obama's scheme has limitless political potential because of one vital fact: Whereas Republicans constitute fewer than 40 percent of all residents in cities with populations above 500,000, the corresponding figure in the suburbs that surround those same cities is 52 percent. That's a rather slim majority, thus Obama is cocksure that he can erase it with some well-executed social engineering which he can orchestrate from his throne. All he needs to do is infuse a few dozen middle-class, suburban congressional districts with several hundred or several thousand additional nonwhite, impoverished Democrats, and he will have sown the seeds of a permanently transfigured electoral map, a permanent Democrat majority in the House of Representatives, a permanent totalitarian future of one-party rule.
If the neighborhoods targeted by Obama's grand scheme have preferred, up to now, to be zoned for single-family housing, too bad for them. It's time for a change. Washington knows best. The Democrat Party knows best. President Obama can sniff out a singular white racist at a thousand paces, without so much as a mild breeze to carry the scent.
“Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” effectively authorizes the federal government to re-engineer, through HUD, every neighborhood in America—that is, to obliterate all local zoning laws and create racial “balance” wherever and whenever it pleases.
So how will HUD decide where to focus first? That's easy: It will consult the reams of data it has been quietly and secretly gathering, without a shred of statutory authority from Congress, about the racial and economic makeup of every community in the nation. As investigative journalist and Hoover Institution Fellow Paul Sperry explains, HUD's bureaucratic beavers have been busy analyzing the distribution of “four racial groups—white, Asian, black or African-American, and Hispanic/Latino”—in “every U.S. neighborhood” and representing them as different-colored dots on “geospatial data” maps designed to “pinpoin[t] racial imbalances.” The dots on these maps will serve as the basis upon which HUD will target various communities with its demands for forced population redistribution.
And you, my fellow American, constitute a microscopic fraction of one of those dots. Makes ya real proud, don't it?
Now you may be wondering, what if some municipalities try to resist the Obama decree? Predictably, our stalwart master has already figured out how to deal with such obstinate party poopers: The government will punish them by cutting off their federal aid. And if that's not enough to gain their submission, the government will file economically devastating federal lawsuits claiming violations of fair-housing regulations.
This, then, is the grand plan that Barack Obama has so cleverly pieced together to systematically—district by district, state by state—turn one suburban congressional district after another from Republican red to Democrat blue.
“What about my personal rights and liberties?” you may be tempted to ask, rather quaintly.
Sorry, pal. To Barack Obama and the Democrats, you're just a white, black, brown, or yellow dot on a geospacial map. Your only civic duty is to sit still, keep your mouth shut, and wait for the masterminds at HUD to sprinkle you where they want you, like a grain of salt, pepper, or sand.
Meanwhile, Obama and the Democrats are having one heckuva good laugh over your meaningless little lives, which are so pathetically insignificant in comparison to the glorious utopia they're busy erecting behind your backs.
Segregated from the great "unwashed masses" in a secured walled and fenced compound guarded by men with guns that he would hypocritically deny all other American citizens.
Segregated from the great "unwashed masses" in a secured walled and fenced compound guarded by men with guns that he would hypocritically deny all other American citizens.
Has he taken away anyone's guns? I guess I missed that. You missed a comma there, btw.
The more correct question is, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, "has Odumbo tried?"
Has he been successful, you bloviating turd? Has he? You'd be the lying, miscreant who fails to mention that It was Feinstein who put forth a bill in 2013 banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. It also provided for the grandfathering in existing weapons owned by citizens. So no weapons would be 'taken away' as you erroneously claim, you gruberised odumbo shitstain. Here's the man in his own words. He is not against guns. He is against military grade assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. The public has no use for those.
Obama, Sept. 9, 2008: I just want to be absolutely clear, alright. So I don’t want any misunderstanding. When ya’ll go home and you’re talking to your buddies, and they say, “Ah, he wants to take my gun away,” you’ve heard it here — I’m on television so everybody knows it — I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away. … So, there are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away. So if you want to find an excuse not to vote for me, don’t use that one. Cause that just ain’t true.
And again, after the Gifford's shooting
Obama, March 13, 2011: I know some aren’t interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody’s guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.
But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word “commonsense” isn’t a code word for “confiscation.” And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.
Looks like he knows you, IB chicken dick, when he mentions that people will use it as an excuse to put forth some idiotic scheme about Obama coming for your guns. It's bullshit, you're bullshit and you're done.
Has he been successful, you bloviating turd? Has he? You'd be the lying, miscreant who fails to mention that It was Feinstein who put forth a bill in 2013 banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. It also provided for the grandfathering in existing weapons owned by citizens. So no weapons would be 'taken away' as you erroneously claim, you gruberised odumbo shitstain. Here's the man in his own words. He is not against guns. He is against military grade assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. The public has no use for those.
Obama, Sept. 9, 2008: I just want to be absolutely clear, alright. So I don’t want any misunderstanding. When ya’ll go home and you’re talking to your buddies, and they say, “Ah, he wants to take my gun away,” you’ve heard it here — I’m on television so everybody knows it — I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away. … So, there are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away. So if you want to find an excuse not to vote for me, don’t use that one. Cause that just ain’t true.
And again, after the Gifford's shooting
Obama, March 13, 2011: I know some aren’t interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody’s guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.
But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word “commonsense” isn’t a code word for “confiscation.” And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.
Looks like he knows you, IB chicken dick, when he mentions that people will use it as an excuse to put forth some idiotic scheme about Obama coming for your guns. It's bullshit, you're bullshit and you're done.
Didn't he fuckin' try, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas? Isn't he still bitching because he wasn't fuckin' successful, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas? Doesn't his security detail employ the very weapons he wants to deny ordinary Americans, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas?
Quote:
Odumbo made a direct and personal call for bolstering gun control laws from the White House. (June 30, 2015, CNN)
Didn't he fuckin' try, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas? Isn't he still bitching because he wasn't fuckin' successful, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas? Doesn't his security detail employ the very weapons he wants to deny ordinary Americans, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas?
Private citizens don't need high-powered assault rifles, jackass. You said he did. He did not. Then when that was shot down, you backed off to 'didn't he try'. You're an inveterate liar who shifts when his shit is denied. You're a shifty faggot cocksucker. Now go ahead an post all the times where I said gay shit, trolling your stupid ass. I know you've got them in that special folder.
Private citizens don't need high-powered assault rifles, jackass. You said he did. He did not. Then when that was shot down, you backed off to 'didn't he try'. You're an inveterate liar who shifts when his shit is denied. You're a shifty faggot cocksucker. Now go ahead an post all the times where I said gay shit, trolling your stupid ass. I know you've got them in that special folder.
Per the Second Amendment, private citizens don't need supercilious, lib-retarded jackasses like you telling them what they do and do not need, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.
BLACK SKIN PRIVILEGE: TO BE THE WEDGE FOR THE TOTALITARIAN FUTURE
