Reflections From a Murky Pond

Plenty of Americans are sick of the racial hypocrisy of our nation’s domestic enemies, the Liberals, Progressives, and their minority sharecroppers. As such, we tend to jump up and point out the vile hypocrisy of how these vermin treat dislike of specific individuals of non-White genetic backgrounds, e.g., Dr. Ben Carson and Barack Obama.

The thing is that I don’t think America’s domestic enemies are being hypocritical. I think they’re attacks upon Dr. Carson combined with their defense of Obama are merely unintended honesty on their part.

The Unintended Honesty and Consistency of Liberals & Blacks

Yes, the Left’s and the Blacks’ disparity of response to people liking or disliking Dr. Carson or Obama is completely logically consistent and honest because, insofar as their logic is concerned – and I think they’re right in this – being a Black is a matter of culture, cultural mores and norms, and ideology, not a matter of inherited genetic traits. In other words, Dr. Carson isn’t Black whereas Obama is.

It’s seems hard to believe that when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State that she could determine which of her emails were classified. Frankly, most of us probably thought and still think that she just said, “What difference does it make.”

However, it could just be that Hillary has issues with threat assessment and identifying terrorists…

Why Hillary Can’t Tell If Her Emails Were Classified

If the bitch can’t properly identify a terrorist or other threats to the nation, it’d be quite hard for her to identify which emails contained material that was classified.

In Hillary’s defense, however, as a presidential candidate her issues with identifying terrorists is a huge step up from the Obama Regime, it’s sycophants and cronies, and the Liberals, Progressives, and their ghetto sharecroppers who make up the Regime’s faithful. Each and every one of them would have instantly pointed to the picture on the right as being the terrorist, identifying the one on the left as a poor, oppressed freedom fighter who needs and is entitled to their material aid and comfort.

I’m really not sure how many, measured in numbers or by percent of the population, Americans really believe that the ending of the Obama Regime will solve our nation’s problems. Frankly, I don’t want to know because it’d probably depress me too much.

Removing Obama Is Palliative At Best

The end of Obama is nothing more than palliative care for our sick nation. The boy can be described as either a symptom or an opportunist parasite infecting our weakened country. He’s not the underlying disease. At most he’s a secondary infection.

No. The disease plaguing America is a moral and cultural cancer. It’s tumors are the Liberals and Progressives whose oikophobia and moral turpitude have caused them to attack the basic cultural mores and norms of America. And, given that this cancer has metastasized, any treatment for America with a decent chance of success is going to be a harsh one akin to aggressive chemotherapy and radiation treatment combined with excising of diseased and dead tissues.

It seems that “Uncle” Joe Biden aka “The Gaffmeister” is considering running for the Democrats’ nomination in the 2016 Presidential elections. Reactions to this rumor have been mixed…

Reactions To Biden Entering 2016 Race

Of course the Lamestream Media’s reaction to the possibility of Biden’s running will be how to support his rhetoric while condemning Trump’s…and how to do so while not using the same words, e.g., folksy or rustic, with the same load of sarcasm and derision that they used with Sarah Palin.

Hillary’s ideas about what constitutes America’s values seem a bit skewed away from both the normative and the Liberals’ and Progressives’ antithetical counter-values.

Of course Hillary is infamous for her “floating point” values and for “triangulating” them to fit her audience and to what will benefit herself the most at that time.

Still, her campaign’s position on the longstanding term, “anchor babies” is a departure from Hillary’s normally carefully crafted to be meaningless positions and rhetoric.

During a press conference today, Jeb Bush tried to outdo Donald Trump and other Republican presidential candidates by doubling down on the hateful term ‘anchor baby’ when referring to the U.S. born children of immigrants.

It’s a disgrace to see these candidates attack a group of American citizens who not only have the same rights as everybody else in this country but also represent the very values this country was built on.

So, apparently Hillary’s campaign believes that criminally violating a sovereign nation’s borders and breeding within them to ensure that one will not be forcibly ejected are very values this country was built on. That’s a sharp, leftward departure from the traditional American view.

It’s also a broad drift from her Leftist base’s normal position as well since the only things even remotely resembling illegal immigration and the breeding of anchor babies that has ever been condoned or accepted by the American people is the original colonization of America by European immigrants and our later westward expansion, both of which resulted in the destruction of the continents original, indigenous peoples. Last I heard, those Liberals and Progressives were pretty dead-set on stridently reviling those bits of history.

As usual, Hillary’s views of America’s values are her own and don’t match up with the normative stance. At least not when her mouthpiece to the Hispanics, Lorella Praeli – herself an anchor baby – is speaking to a group of Hispanic agitators, most of whom are illegal immigrants, anchor babies, or accessories to illegal immigration.