Monday, October 28, 2013

We Better Rename The White House Or This Is A Racist Country

I find it very hard to believe that Obama had no idea that the NSA was tapping Angela Merkel's cell phone.  Either he's lying or he's asleep at the switch and should be evaluated to determine if he's fit to be President.  The denials and lies have to stop.  Time for Obama to stand up and take responsibilty like a man.  In fact, for starters I'd love to see the short list of just exactly on whom the U.S. Government/Obama Regime isn't spying.

I have to say, this idea of "political/social correctness" has become utterly absurd.  It first peaked my interest a few years ago when a friend of mine, who's son goes to Cherry Creek High School - a public bastion of white, upper middle class privilege in Denver - told me that his son, who has liberal views, happened to be in a discussion with some peers in which he disagreed with some of Obama's policies.  From that point on he was told that he was a racist because he disagreed with Obama.  Hmmm....

Ed Asner said it publicly first when he was asked why the ultra-liberal, anti-war Hollywood celebrity crowd was not coming out at all in opposition to the Obama Government's attempt to militarily - unprovoked I might add - flatten Syria and put in a puppet, to which he responded that if you oppose anything that Obama does or stands for in Hollywood you are labelled "anti-black."  His words, not mine and I'll note that he stated that he voted for Obama.

So now, and this is what provoked me to write this rant, I saw over the weekend that some actress, Julianne Hough, was heartily slammed for her Halloween costume which portrayed an African American character in the TV series "Orange Is The New Black."  You can see her costumer here:  Racist costume?  I can't even express how absurd this situation is.  I'll let the readers decide for themselves, but what it tells me is that if I were to dress up as my favorite African American NFL football player for Halloween this year, I would be branded as a racist.

What's even more pathetic is that Obama has been actively campaigning to coerce the the owner of the Washington Redskins to change the nickname of the team.  The Redskins originated in 1932 as the Boston Braves.  They changed it to Redskins in 1933 and moved to DC in 1937.  I have been avidly following football since the late 1960's.   I have never in over 44 years have ever heard any overt criticism of the use of "Redskins" as a nickname.  Yes, I do remember there was a brief period several years ago when Indian-derived team nicknames were attacked and there was a movement to get the Atlanta Braves to change their nickname and stop using the "tomahawk chop" to cheer their team.  And there was a movement to try and force the Florida State Seminoles to change their nickname.  I also recall that the Chief of the Seminole Tribe came out and strongly supported the use of the nickname.

Quite frankly, I have to believe that given all the scandals and poor political decisions - and the fact that Barack is riding the economy into a serious depression -  plaguing Obama and his incompetent administration, that Barack has much better things to take care of than wasting his time lobbying his dwindling support base for a name-change to Washington DC's dynastic NFL football franchise.  Kudos to Reskin's owner Daniel Snyder for, up to this point, ignoring the ridiculous request from Obama.

But this does bring me to my modest little proposal - with apologies to Jonathan Swift.  We have called the building in which the President resides while he is in office "The White House" since 1811, long before Obama's ancestors ever stepped foot in this country.  However, I find myself feeling like a racist every time I reference that building as "The White House."  I therefore am asking everyone to write their Congressman and to send to letters to that place where Obama lives requesting that we rename that building as something that is not racist and might be offending certain demographics.


  1. 'The Multicultural House' sounds nice. And Nero fiddled while Rome burned...

  2. the only person who can be attacked/made fun of these days is the white Christian male.

    all others are off limits.

  3. Excellent post. It's high time someone at least ventured SOME explanation for why otherwise clear-eyed "liberals" (to indulge a construct that should have been forever erased from our vocabularies when TARP passed with BIPARTISAN support on that Foul Day of Our Lord, Oct. 3, 2008). Why is it, I've often wondered, that writers like Matt Taibbi and Charles Ferguson (Inside Job), who explain Wall Street's many criminal frauds so cogently on the one hand, end up kowtowing to and even endorsing the Perpetuator-in-Chief of those same frauds on the other hand? The cognitive dissonance at work is simply staggering.

    I hadn't seen Asner's explanation before. Thanks for presenting it. There is no reason to believe Asner, a good (if--yawn--"liberal") man is lying. Has anyone in Hollywood or New York even bothered denying the truth of what he says? Or has the cowardly pretense of deafness--we can't hear you, Ed!--prevailed yet again?

    No matter. Obama's dimwittedness is apparent, as is the fact that the man is no more than a meat puppet. The question is whose? On that score, the evidence that he does the bidding of Eric Holder is pretty compelling, coming, as it has, from the mouth of the puppet himself--on 60 Minutes: (saying he's not allowed to comment on Wall Street prosecutions b/c that's the DOJ's job and then freely opining that Wall Street committed no crimes)

    The DOJ is a real problem. It is controlled by Wall Street generally and Goldman Sachs in particular, which I will demonstrate beyond the shadow of any doubt in a forthcoming youtube video about the Timberwolf case. A preview is available at the 14:48 mark of this video (about lying Jamie Dimon)...

  4. You are flat out wrong on this one. I AM a racist, but even I think it is pathetic that she would dress in a jumpsuit and put black colored skin on. There is just no need to do that, purposely inciting racial tensions for shits and giggles. Of all the costumes to wear, I am sure she could have found one where she did not need to change her skin color. Who the hell would want to voluntarily make themselves black anyway !!!

    As for the white house nonsense, you are taking something that is pathetic, and taking it to all new levels of ridiculousness. You should be better than taking cheap shots like that.

    1. Greg, this is the Golden Truth, not Huffington Post.

      If you hate freedom of speech- whether it's costumes or bloggers- you can certainly get the fuck out. I hear state owned real estate is cheap in N Korea.

  5. How about, "The Out House"? "Half-Way House"? "The Big House"? "The Big Teepee", in tribute to our Native American friends? "The House of Cards"? "The Full House"? "The Flush" (cards)?
    "The Flush" (Kohler)? "Tara"? "The Center for Balanced Partisanship"? "The Supreme Court"?
    "The House of Nebulous"? of Greek mythology? Forget it. I'm no good at making decisions.

    But I digress.

  6. I can't believe that I took the time to read and respond to this. Really ?

  7. So a man (especially a white man like myself) is not permitted to criticize the President's policies, lest he be labelled a racist, is that right? Which means that Obama is to be treated with utmost reverence and high praise on every occasion because of the color of his skin, is that also right? Hmm, I'm glad to see there's nothing racist about a setup like that, which dictates that a man's thoughts, words and actions be circumscribed on the basis of race, but since that's the way things are in this brave new world of ours, then you had better know straight up that I am probably as racist as they come (but only if one accepts that a**holes are a race). No, I'm not talking about your garden variety a**hole or the majority of us, myself included, who occasionally slip up and stray into a**hole territory (we've all done it from time to time). No, I'm talking instead of those who occupy that realm 24-7, meaning a majority of the politicians in DC, yourself included, Mr President. But since very few in this PC world appear willing to subscribe to my definition of racist, I guess that makes me just a plain old racist and it's all because Obama is black. Whatever. I'll tell it to my black girlfriend.

    As per the Washington Redskins, I agree with Obama on that one. They should change their name as quickly as possible since I find it highly disagreeable and utterly offensive. Might I suggest, instead, the Georgetown Redskins of the Potomac Redskins? Really, that Washington part of the name has to be dropped and the sooner done, the better. It's horrible.

    Per the White House, how about The Diversity House? Or the Heterogeneous House? (no, scratch that 2nd choice; it has the prefix "hetero" in it and certainly wouldn't pass muster).

  8. While Defenders Cry Foul, JPMorgan Chase’s $13 Billion Banking Settlement a "Screaming Bargain"

    YVES SMITH: I’ve seldom seen a financial story where there’s been so much misreporting. For instance, the amount that’s going to be paid is still a bit in flux, but only $3 billion of that is actually going to be a fine. The overwhelming majority is for contract violations where the various banks, both JPMorgan itself and the two banks it acquired, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, did what amounted to promise investors that they were going to get steak, and instead it sold them hamburger—and, in fact, many times hamburger that was beginning to turn green. So, these claims are actually contract claims that are the liability something in the range of $200—or, sorry, $100 billion to $200 billion they’ll be getting rid of. That portion of the settlement is only going to be around $10 or 11 billion. So they’re getting out of that part at under 10 cents on the dollar. This is actually a screaming bargain.

  9. Criminal Investigation of Madoff and JPMorgan Shines Harsh Light on NYU

    Last week the business press reported that the U.S. Department of Justice may assert charges against JPMorgan Chase for its role in perpetuating the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme which defrauded investors out of $17 billion in actual funds and $64 billion in paper losses based on the falsified values shown on client statements. Unnamed sources said the Justice Department may agree to a deferred prosecution agreement in exchange for an outside monitor or, in the alternative, charge JPMorgan’s banking division with violations of the Bank Secrecy Act for failing to report its Madoff suspicions to Federal authorities. Interestingly, JPMorgan did report its suspicions to a government regulator – in the United Kingdom, not in the U.S.

    Lipton is a founding partner of the Wall Street law firm, Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, which served as legal counsel to JPMorgan to fight a lawsuit brought by the Madoff Trustee assigned to secure funds for defrauded investors. This was at a time when both Lipton and top executives of JPMorgan served on the Board of NYU units that had themselves been defrauded and could have benefited from monetary clawbacks from JPMorgan.

    Dimon and Miller’s business relationship goes far back. The two were part of Sandy Weill’s empire building operation at Travelers Group, which merged with Citicorp to become Citigroup in the late 90s, forcing the eventual repeal of the depression era investor protection legislation known as the Glass-Steagall Act. When Dimon was pushed out of the merged behemoth by Weill, Miller eventually followed Dimon to Bank One Corp., which was purchased by JPMorgan in 2004.

    Rumors of a Justice Department settlement with JPMorgan over the Madoff fraud comes in the same month that the Madoff Trustee, Irving Picard, has filed a scorching outline of his case against JPMorgan with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to overturn an Appellate ruling against him.

    In his petition to the Supreme Court, Picard says JPMorgan stood “at the very center of Madoff’s fraud for over 20 years.” Picard bases this claim on his well-documented district court filing that showed JPMorgan was well aware that Madoff was claiming to invest tens of billions of dollars in a strategy that involved buying large cap stocks in the Standard and Poor’s 500 index while simultaneously hedging with options. But the Madoff firm’s primary bank account at JPMorgan, which the bank had intimate access to review for over 20 years, was devoid of evidence of stock or options trading.

    The petition to the Supreme Court reads: “As JPM [JPMorgan] was well aware, billions of dollars flowed from customers into the 703 account, without being segregated in any fashion. Billions flowed out, some to customers and others to Madoff’s friends in suspicious and repetitive round-trip transactions. But in the 22 years that JPM maintained the 703 account, there was not a single check or wire to a clearing house, securities exchange, or anyone who might be connected with the purchase of securities. All the while, JPM knew that Madoff was using the account to run an investment advisory business with thousands of customers and billions under management and knew that Madoff was using its name to lend legitimacy to his enterprise…”


    “Justice is no longer blind, she is a cheap whore whose price is well known.” — kdtroxel

  10. Divide and conquer Dave. This is a non-issue that should be ignored by anyone with an ounce of brains.