About Me

Name: JDHoldem
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

Diversity = Non-White Male

Posted by JDHoldem on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:12:45 PM
The dreaded "D" word. Diversity! Our culture  bows to it like some glittering idol on the alter of righteousness. But what does it mean? Chuck Schumer on Fox this morning commenting on Obama's Supreme pick, listed qualifications a pick must meet and at the end tossed in the D. The pick must meet the mandate of Diversity. Put another way: Non-White Males need not apply. That's what it means.
 
And so our President, implicitly wrapped in the protecitve armor that comes when nominating a Non-White Male, puts forth a nominee that has some esplainin' to do. I'm sure by now most have heard this quote from the New York Times attributed to Sotomayor referencing white men: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
 
Can you imaging if Chief Justice Roberts had made a comment similar to that before being confirmed. Imagine him saying something to the effect that with the broad range of experience that comes from being white in our society, it is clear a white male is in a much better position to make better decisions that focus on white culture -- far better than a Latina."
 
Just imagine the outrage.
 
But the door of bigotry apparently swings only one way.  But what about this pariah, this White Male? Isn't this the same fellow that has given us -- oh, I don't know -- the electric light, the internal combustion engine, the air plaine, the integrated circuit, our constitution, etc, etc, etc.  That's a short list of what the dispised and reviled White Male has given society. And now for what Diversity has given us?
 
If you can think of something, let us all know.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

White House says closing Gitmo a hasty decision

Posted by JDHoldem on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:24:43 PM
Duh!! Ya think????
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

While America Slept

Posted by JDHoldem on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:52:59 PM
  Scrapping missile defense? Apparently this is under consideration by the new administration, making those with any sense of the dangers growing daily in this world shake their heads in disgust.

In case you were out of the loop, today Iran successfully tested a long-range missile, in another step to develop a nuclear delivery system. This should clearly underscore the dangers the world faces, even to the most naïve among us. And no boilerplate statements of condemnation from the U.S. State Department are going to dissuade the Iranian – or the North Koreans for that matter.

Couple this with Iranian military leaders comments the other day about their ability to destroy Israel in eleven days, and Iran's intensions are clearer than ever. Now they may be hard to take. They may not be what we'd like. But they are what they are. And no amount of negotiating and smiling and cajoling and diplomatic efforts is going to change the sick psyche of that nation's leadership.

Within this context, it is inconceivable to me that any sane person would consider scrapping a defensive system that could defend against those nuclear-tipped missiles. But apparently that is exactly what is going on.

It seems we are so caught up in the style and coolness of our new President, we haven't noticed his grave deficiencies. Millions still celebrate the victory, blithely ignoring the wolf at the door.

Perhaps it will take the loss of a major city – probably Tel Aviv – to shake us out of our self-induced slumber.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We may be doomed!

Posted by JDHoldem on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 1:26:39 PM
Some think it's a great idea to rename the Democratic party the "Nationalist Socialist Democrat" party.  Sorry to say,  they are just flat wrong -- it won't work.. Why? Because the word "socialist" has no negative meaning for millions and millions of people in this country. Instread, young adults have been educated for years by left leaning teachers touting the wonders of a utopian socialist society. If you brand the dems as socialists, they'll flock to it.
 
Sad to say, calling the dems socialist, or pointing out the ultimate treachery of Obama's thug-like power grabs won't win the day. In fact, there is very little that can be done, I'm afraid. Between a monolithic black vote, a strong union vote, and the increased Hspanic vote, and the glazed-eyed adoration of a lost generation where style trumps substance -- all in Obama's camp, I don't see how we can win.
 
When the insane outnumber the sane, the sane loose. This is why we were originally set up to be a republic. It turns out democracy is only a notch above mob rule.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Brilliant?

Posted by JDHoldem on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:49:28 PM

 

I'm so repulsed by the fawning and obvious pandering that attempt to characterize President Obama as "brilliant." Oh, you know what I'm talking about. You see it when someone is asked about him in public. Their eyes will shift and they'll start off their response with something such as, "Well, first of all, let me say that he's brilliant . . ." and it will go on from there.

And I'm not just talking about the silly unintelligensia that make up the MSM, either. I'm talking about moderate to conservative commentators as well. I just cringe, because it's so obvious they know he's not brilliant. They know he's about as intelligent as a junior associate at a moderate sized law firm. Nothing more.

And that's an honest assessment.

So why is it said? We know the answer to that. It's all meant to ward off the dreaded R word.

That's right, the word "racist."

But, just between the two of us, let's look at the facts. Here is a guy who went to Occidental and who's grades reflect an average student – at best. Then, somehow, he transferred to Harvard. How? It's not very clear. God knows he certainly not a shining star in the academic cosmos of Occidental. But, sad to say, there's evidence that he was admitted more based on his skin color than on his academic acumen, a kind of Ivy League Affirmative Action.

Follow that up by looking at his much-touted ccomplishments on the Harvard Review, and we find out they were not based on academic achievement, but on "other considerations."

SAT scores, GPA's, LSAT's? His "brilliance" won't release them.

Why not? I think we all know the reason.

Bottom line: The next time someone tries to characterize the anointed one as brilliant, what he's done that's brilliant and watch the sweat on the brow start to form.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Far Left -- You just have to laugh!

Posted by JDHoldem on Sunday, May 17, 2009 6:53:07 PM

 Okay, so our President at the last minute decides that photos detailing enhanced interrogation techniques should not be released. His change was so sudden he practically caught MSNBC's David "Let's p*mp Chel out" Shuster in mid sentence supporting the release. Opps! Talk about being hung out to dry! The pres then decides to restart tribunals for some terrorists creating this vast black hole of silence from the left. Add to this his "surge" in Afghanastan, and you've got an interesting buffet of items anathama to the vast majority of leftists.

But what do we hear from CNN and MSNBC? Mostly crickets. Or, as for example on Lou Dobb's the other day, you hear a panel waxing about how Barry is "growing into the Presidency." In other words, a complete abandonment of principle in favor of a persoanlity.
Where was the outrage at these significant changes of position. Where was the condemnation of such betrayal?  In point of fact, you heard almost nothing.
 
Which leads to a question: What exactly does the left stand for -- in principle, I mean? What are their seminal beliefs?
While Conservatives can point to the belief in individual  rights steming from Natural Law; the belief that individuals have the right to persue happiness (no gurantee);  that the role of government should be limited and powers not deliniated in the Constitution are handled by the states, to name a few. What principles do the left actually have?
 
LOL -- the answer, I'm afraid is . . . none.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »