| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - D'Sousa, bias against Conserv. Minorities
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


D'Sousa, bias against Conserv. Minorities

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3073
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: D'Sousa, bias against Conserv. Minorities
    Posted: 06 Jun 2018 at 00:30
President Trump pardoned Dinesh D'Souza for illegal campaign contributions to a friend of his.  Whereas, I do not know whether the Obama regime wanted to make an example of him, it is quite plausible.  Dinesh D'Souza is conservative and of Indian (India) descent.  Like Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell who are often called "uncle Toms," he is probably considered by many to be a traitor to his race.  Not by other conservatives or people on the right, but by people on the left.  D'Souza and Thomas, and Sowell are considered traitors by people who cannot imagine that anyone (of their 'color') would take an opinion different from them.  It is a kind of racism that comes out of the very heart of the liberal argument, for it shows that people can differ from left and not be racist, in fact not only are they not racist, but they condemn many of the mantras of the left _as_ racist.  
So it is quite plausible that the Obama administration would have wanted to make an example of D'Souza, for he struck at the heart of the Obama myth, going to Kenya, and interviewing Obama's relatives there.  But, more likely is that a democratic prosecutor in the Justice Department and a liberal judge took it on themselves to go after D'Souza and throw the book at him.  Sentencing him within the law, but with a severity more strict than is normal.  Now, D'Souza states that it was Obama and his administration that had it out for him, and specifically went after him, and that now, unlike at the time, he has the evidence.  Of course, Anderson Cooper of CNN is not interested in what evidence he has now that confirms his suspicions then (according to D'Souza).  All Cooper seemed to care about is that D'Souza plead guilty at the time and didn't (couldn't) pursue it.  There is no sympathy for the guilty, if he was a murderer or a thief, the radical would make excuses for him.  But, he is not, he is a minority who is betraying the great rainbow alliance of the Democrats.  A truly diverse world need not apply.  Remember that everybody should stay in their "place," and not make waves. 
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3542
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2018 at 07:19
I think the great irony of the modern age is that everyone is after Trump (whom I can't really stand) for being a totalitarian who is somehow going to use the state to persecute his political enemies, when we watched the Obama administration do just that for the past eight years. It isn't that I think that Obama necessarily sicked the implements of the state on Dinesh and others; only that he permitted a culture that led to it happening. And he certainly didn't do anything to discourage it once it was apparent.

And yes. It is readily apparent that there is a double standard in these cases when it comes to the media and the established intelligentsia. Those on the right are treated much more harshly, and according to a different set of rules than those on the left. It is so readily apparent that I honestly don't even bother arguing with people about it anymore. If they don't have the ability or the honesty to have perceived it by now, they are likely never going to have either. Most of my friends on the left were rather taken aback, and it took Trump and the reaction to him to make them see it for what it was, but they eventually did. One thing the last campaign gave us was honesty in bias, for those who weren't wedded to their ideologies.

Where do we go from here? I honestly don't know. And I increasingly don't care.

-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1607
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jun 2018 at 16:18
We wanted transparency and we have it. Pretty sickening right? LOL
Better than waiting until everyone involved is safely removed from the politics. Only for those who want to see it:


It is past time to cut these losses by releasing all relevant documents to the public, classification notwithstanding. Any damage to U.S intelligence that might ensue from such insights into “sources and methods” as these documents convey is tiny compared to what officials’ gamesmanship continues to inflict on America’s body politic. Besides, their leaks to their favorite media outlets have already confirmed - in direct violation of the laws, notably section 798, 18 U.S, Code - what the informed public already knows about the targets and technologies involved.

Here are some examples:
The legality of requests to surveil Carter Page under FISA, turning as it does on the FBI’s degree of candor to the court about the requests’ basis, is the least of the issues and the most easily resolved by releasing the requests themselves and all documents that went into their preparation. Knowing what the surveillance actually yielded - the “take” as it is called - is far more important, because it will show what those who made the requests were really interested in seeing, other than Mr. Page’s inherently meaningless doings. What was the point of it all? National security? Politics? Stupidity?

It is even more important to make public the so-called incidental “take” from surveillance carried out by FBI and NSA on Trump associates in contact with Russians under Section 702 of FISA. This includes stuff on former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. If “incidental” collection turns out to have been the operation’s principal objective, then the officials who carried it out were criminally perverting the law. Whether they were doing this or just doing their jobs can be ascertained easily enough by releasing all the take from those operations, as well as documents on what they did with every item in it.

Which high intelligence officials briefed the New York Times and Washington Post on their conclusion that U.S communications intelligence showed that the Trump campaign had collaborated with the Russian government? By so doing, they revealed the fact that the U.S government was listening in on conversations before transmission as well as in transit. Diaries of several officials’ activities and communications during days preceding these publications of relevant stories in the media should be made public.

What do former FBI director James Comey’s notes on his conversations with President Trump say? Comey himself arranged to deliver them to friendly reporters. Now the FBI refuses to release them to Congress. Why treat them as national secrets rather than as the partisan political instruments they are? Perhaps because some hope that differences between them and Trump’s recollection might be a basis for charges against Trump?

Abuses of secrecy have been covering for our intelligence and justice systems’ focus on parochial interests and neglect of the public services for which they exist. Organizations that have been unable to discover where the money that financed 9/11 came from or who mailed the anthrax letters, that paid no attention to warnings about the Boston Marathon bombers and the other “known wolves” who strike us, that neglected multiple warnings from the wives of Russian spies and from people who have flagged mass murderers - such organizations have forfeited the stewardship of secrecy.
The president of the United States has the executive responsibility to decide what secrecy is and is not in the national interest. Time for him to exercise it.[URL=http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/02/21/stop-intelligence-games-over-russia-release-documents.html]
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3073
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jun 2018 at 03:00
Yes, Akolouthos, I think we agree, Dinesh D'Souza was made an example, whether or not it was Barack Obama directly, it was the "liberal" left which in the sense of "classical liberalism" is not liberal at all.

There was a book called "Bias," I forget the secondary title but it was from a former anchorman from CBS(??).  He said that it was not a matter of the media being on the left against the right.  It is a matter of the media of thinking the right are beyond the pale, and those on 'center,' the left and radical left as being normal ordinary folk.  I think a much earlier example of this is the American philosopher John Dewey thinking that Leon Trotsky was a great guy, instead of murderer who just didn't get the opportunity that Stalin made for himself.  Trotsky would have taken the opportunity, but Stalin was quicker and more strategic.  Or how young people were later enamored with Che Guevara, or Mao's "Little Red Book."

Jean Kirkpatrick wrote an essay in 1979, and I think that it addresses these points pretty well.  Called, "Dictatorships and Double Standards," it was about how Jimmy Carter abandoned traditional autocracies (dictatorships) as "against" American interests in exchange for worse dictatorships that really were against American interests, giving away the Panama canal to a dictator in the name of self-determination, sacrificing the Somoza regime for the Sandinistas (and greater trouble for Central America), and throwing the Shah under the bus, creating the problems with Iran that haunt us even today.  Reagan read Kirkpatrick's essay, and appointed her ambassador to the United Nations.  Carter thought that the Cold War was over (remember detente), Reagan foresaw what Carter's world of (Soviet supported) radical revolutions was not the utopia Carter thought it would be, and RR. changed the equation, leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But, some people did not get the message or want to rewrite the past, some are well meaning, wanting to believe in progress and that everybody is good, some are not so well meaning (Putin, his favorite Beatles song is "Yesterday." 
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 2018 at 15:00
Agreed, akolouthos. I can't add anything to your eloquent post.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3073
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jun 2018 at 21:06
In the 2008 election, there was voter intimidation of whites by Black Panthers (not you;) ) at a precinct in Philadelphia (by hoodlums).  Barack Obama and Eric Holder decided against prosecuting them, or perhaps it should be phrased as Barack Obama and Eric Holder never considered prosecuting them.  From what I remember, I do not think there was any justification given for not pursuing it.  I think it was just ignored by the Obama administration until the news cycle made it go away.  I think it was a case where Obama didn't mind and for him it did not matter.  So, you have with D'Souza someone on the right who seemed to have the book thrown at him for illegal voter contributions, and you have black hoodlums (I would not say that they are on the left) who are threatening and trying to intimidate white voters from voting, a voting issue, a civil rights issue, a race issue and a violence issue, who are just boys being boys?  I wonder if pressing the matter would have ruined Obama's 'street cred.' (street credibility).
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1607
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jun 2018 at 05:35
A former Obama administration employee has just written a book. He talks about Obama being "stupefied for days" after the election. Obama felt that he must have been 10 years too early and everyone was just falling back into their "tribe."

Hahaha... he was the worst in a long time. Obama didn't care about America. It was about what his father and Saul Alinsky wanted for the world. And the white, bitter- clingers were going to pay for everyone's lunch.


Edited by Vanuatu - 16 Jun 2018 at 16:26
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.