Our post racial president thinks al-Qaeda is racist.

Barack Obama was caught without his teleprompter and was asked about the Al Qaeda attack in Uganda that killed over 70 innocent people, including white missionaries from America:

Speaking about the Uganda bombings, the president said, “What you’ve seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organizations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself. They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains.” …

Explaining the president’s comment, an administration official said Mr. Obama “references the fact that both U.S. intelligence and past al Qaeda actions make clear that al Qaeda – and the groups like al Shabaab that they inspire – do not value African life. The actions of al Qaeda and the groups that it has inspired show a willingness to sacrifice innocent African life to reach their targets.” … “In short,” the official said, “al Qaeda is a racist organization that treats black Africans like cannon fodder and does not value human life.”

The President refuses, again, to see that extremist Islam is the problem – not racism. Besides, he is wrong on the facts. AQ has Africans in its ranks. One is one of its up and coming leaders “the next Osama.” Blacks masterminded the Embassy bombing and how about the attempted Christmas airplane bomber who was a black Nigerian who wanted to take down a plane filled with white people (was that racism, by the way)? Furthermore, black Muslims in Nigeria have no problem killing black Christians in that nation.

Does Barack Obama give a fig for facts?

Does this president see everything through a racial lens, regardless of the facts? Why is he always so quick to blame racism for others actions (for example, the Harvard incident between the policeman and Professor Gates)? He seems to impute racism where there is no racism.

So much for our post-racial President. We should have known that by now.

The Graduate Tax

Politicians are ever on the lookout for new sources of revenue for their bloated governments. The new coalition government in the United Kingdom is scrambling to find new and creative ways to increase revenues.

A proposal made by Vince Cable, Business Secretary of the current British Government, represents a new and insidious methodology of effective indentured servitude if someone is foolish enough to obtain a university degree in the United Kingdom.

In essence this graduate would pay a lifelong tax each year until death emancipates him or her. The tax will be solely based on the fact of obtaining a degree and would be based on a percentage (yet to be determined and subject to the whims of future parliaments) of one’s income. As it stands today, higher earners could pay up to $24,000.00 per year.

Theoretically this revenue would be designated to keeping tuition costs down as the new funds would subsidize the universities. But as history has shown, whenever there is a subsidy from government cost containment is rarely on the agenda for any institution. No to mention there is no guarantee that future governments would cease the subsidy and simply add the new revenue to general expenditures.

Now that the Washington D.C. has fully taken over the student loan program will this kind of thinking soon appear in the halls of Congress, as they too are desperate for new sources of revenue?

NAACP Direct Tie to Black Panthers

In the past 24 hours, more than a few pundits and writers have noted that the NAACP resolution accusing Tea Partiers of racism is hard to swallow when the NAACP seems unconcerned with the New Black Panther voting intimidation case. Their points would be valid by analogy only. Their points are even more valid, though, because of a direct, rather than just analagous, tie between the NAACP and the Panther case.

It was first reported here at the Washington Times that “Kristen Clarke, director of political participation at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in Washington, however, confirmed to The Times that she talked about the case with lawyers at the Justice Department and shared copies of the complaint with several persons. She said, however, her organization was ‘not involved in the decision to dismiss the civil complaint.'”

Ms. Clarke testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights a few months back that that account was wrong. But J. Christian Adams, the main lawyer who built the case against the Black Panthers, contradicted her when he testified to the commission on July 6. Here is the exchange between Mr. Adams and commission general counsel David Blackwood:

MR. BLACKWOOD: During the decision making process about the Panther case, did you hear that anyone at the Department was consulting with any outside groups such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund?
MR. ADAMS: Well, I did, but we were also consulting with outside groups. We visited the Southern Poverty Law Center. We visited the Anti-Defamation League and would have probably hired them as an expert in this case if it had gone forward. Because of course the Black Panthers, they’re a militant, anti-Semitic group. They’re not just black nationalists. They hate Jews. And the ADL has an extensive database on this organization.
MR. BLACKWOOD: But the — Your communications with the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center I assume were related to the substance of the case.
MR. ADAMS: That’s correct.
MR. BLACKWOOD: Do you know whether anybody was consulting as to whether to proceed or the merits of the case with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund?
MR. ADAMS: Well, listen. This is not firsthand. But I was told by section management that NAACP members or staffers were talking with the Voting section attorney in March of 2009 and asking, “When is this case going to get dismissed” which, of course, is interesting to hear for the first time that someone’s even thinking about dismissing the case that you’re in the middle of building. And that was — It seemed strange. But it didn’t really give me much pause other than to think that’s a really strange request.
MR. BLACKWOOD: Well, all press reports indicated a conversation between Kristen Clark of the Legal Defense Fund and a Laura Coates of the Department. Who is Laura Coates?
MR. ADAMS: She is a line attorney in the Voting section, no relation to Christopher Coates.
MR. BLACKWOOD: And according to the press reports Laura Coates reported this contact, this conversation, with Kristen Clark of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund “to her superiors.” Do you know whether that occurred?
MR. ADAMS: I do. And if Mr. Coates were able to comply with his subpoena and testify under oath I’m quite confident that he would be able to share the full details of those communications as conveyed to him.
MR. BLACKWOOD: But you’re not in the position to do that.
MR. ADAMS: Other than they existed and you accurately — and that I characterized them as a request as to when the case was going to be dismissed as conveyed to me by Mr. Coates.

Read more here.

New Black Panthers, You’re Free To Go — Not So Fast, Arizona

So I guess all that hysteria about the Arizona immigration law was much ado about nothing. After months of telling us that the Nazis had seized Arizona, when the Obama administration finally got around to suing, its only objection was that the law was “pre-empted” by federal immigration law.

With the vast majority of Americans supporting Arizona’s inoffensive little law, the fact that Obama is suing at all suggests that he consulted exclusively with the craziest people in America before filing this complaint. (Which is to say, Eric Holder’s Justice Department.)

But apparently even they could find nothing discriminatory about Arizona’s law. It’s reassuring to know that, contrary to earlier indications, government lawyers can at least read English.

Instead, the administration argues, federal laws on immigration pre-empt Arizona’s law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Read more here.

9 States Back Arizona in U.S. Immigration Suit

DETROIT — States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona’s immigration law.

Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.

The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there’s a reasonable suspicion they’re in the U.S. illegally.

President Barack Obama’s administration recently filed suit in federal court to block it, arguing immigration is a federal issue. The law’s backers say Congress isn’t doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it’s the state’s duty to step up.

“Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state’s efforts to protect its own borders,” Cox said in a statement.

Arizona’s Republican
Gov. Jan Brewer, in a statement released by Cox’s office, said she was thankful for the support.

Read more here.