The Disconnect between Stated Goals and Actions Done

(The following is a paper I wrote for grad school, and I thought was an appropriate entry for this blog. Yeah, it's gonna be a lot different than my usual posts, I get it :D Of course, the pictures are added for this entry only, I didn't put them in the paper.)
 
           A never ending and ever changing part of U.S. foreign policy is which countries the U.S. give military/economic/political aid to. These gifts and transactions of goods and services are done either based on a set of principles and norms that supposedly the U.S. and the foreign country share, or, they are done to further the United States’ interests abroad. Some of these principles and norms include democracy, defense of human rights, wanting their citizens to be prosperous, and respect for international law. What is disturbing is, in many cases, the U.S. gives this aid to a foreign country that is openly hostile to these principles and norms. Policy makers in the U.S. government say that’s not the case, yet by all standards, a rational analysis of the country, records of breaking international law in relation to these principles, and reports done by human rights organizations, the foreign country does not share the principles and values that the U.S. claims to hold. Other times, the United States’ stated interest runs contrary to the values it says that it proclaims. That leads to an observation that the stated interest really is not going to establish or strengthen democracy in the foreign country. This review will demonstrate the positive results of giving military/economic/political aid to a country that does want to uphold democratic values, without bending the rules due to race, religion, or radical self-interest groups. 

             

          The first article is titled “Democratization of the State: A Global Perspective and South African Case Study” by Richard Harris. It talks about how to establish a democracy that is free to all in a country that was previously authoritarian. This is relevant because most of the United States’ military aid goes to countries that were/are authoritarian and that the United States’ supposedly wants them to become more democratic. The author says in simple terms that the way to establish democracy in a country is to establish democratic norms; to show the people in that country that these norms are the best way to do certain processes. Do not force them to do these norms, because that will just push them away from doing them, even from something that may benefit them. Show them, by example and logical/rational reasoning that these norms are what it takes to protect human rights, reduce corruption, etc.

            An important term that the author introduces in this article is “low-intensity democracy,” a term that describes a government that uses formal democratic institutions as a cover for continued authoritarian rule and/or foreign domination. This relates to a point made earlier that U.S. officials claim the countries they are giving military aid to are democratic, or at least trying to be democratic. The fact is, most of them aren’t. They’re simply low-intensity democracies. U.S. officials point to the formal democratic institutions as the basis of their claim that these countries are democratic, but upon further inspection, it is evident that these governments are corrupt, authoritarian, and extremely violent towards civilians for political gain, (terrorism).

            The second journal reviewed is titled “Compound Democracy and the Control of Corruption: A Cross-Country Investigation” by Alok K. Bohara, Neil J. Mitchell, and Carl F. Mittendorff. The journal talks about the effect democracy has on corruption. The study focused on four countries: India, Nigeria, Sweden, and Japan. It included various aspects of the countries and their governments such as GDP per capita, amount of government intervention in the marketplace, and amount of trade the country does with other countries. An important point from the journal is that the larger a government gets, the more opportunities for corruption there are. This supports the claim that less government is better for the people. Therefore, according to the article, if the American government wants to decrease corruption around the world, its policies must focus on reducing the size of government. American military support, economic support, and political support should revolve around this principle.

            Another important point is that the greater amount of government intervention in the marketplace also increases the opportunities for corruption. This point supports the same claim as stated in the paragraph above. Also, democracy helps countries win wars. The reasons for this is because the political culture of a democracy is better suited for warfare, the public’s consent is more powerful in a democracy vs an autocratic state, and the leader is accountable to the voters. The logical conclusion from this point would be that if the United States truly wants to help protect other populations’ human rights, it’s policies must support democracy around the globe because when a country can win a war, it can defend itself from aggressive wars and potential foreign occupation. Both of these types of conflicts trample on a multitude of human rights.

            The most important point this journal had was that corruption in a country’s government prevents other countries from coming to help that particular country. Any economic aid that comes to a corrupt government just gets taken by the corrupt officials, and hardly any, if any, actual aid comes to the poor population of that country. Military aid would just give more might to the army to oppress and kill their citizens for trying to exercise their basic human rights. So if the United States wants to help a country that is corrupt, it cannot give aid to the government to do so. It must identify opposition parties that are not corrupt, or other NGOs/human rights organizations/moderate secular rebels, (whatever the case may be in that particular country), and pinpoint which ones are in line with true American values, the ones this country was based on. That way, the American people would know that their hard-earned taxpayer money would be going towards an organization that was not in conflict with American values. 

             The links and commonality of these two articles is that they are two steps to understanding democracy. The first article talks about how to establish it, and the second article talks about what its effects will be once it is established. Stating how they are common also illustrates how they are different: they represent two different time periods on the road to democracy i.e. one has to happen before the other.

            The third article continues on this linear concept of democracy establishment/implementation, even though it is entirely possible to go backwards in this process. The article is titled “Implications of Globalization in the Teaching of Public Administration in Africa: The Case of Nigeria” by Robert Dibie. Its title is a clear statement on what it is about. Countries have to develop their own way of education that fits their specific needs. Simply borrowing a system from a rich Western country will not work. The author says “It became apparent in the nation that it is wrong to undermine all that is indigenous in favor of all that is western.’  

            The article answers the question “Why does Nigeria have a lack of qualified teachers and inadequate resources to have a decent public administration program to better itself?” The three answers are because of low salaries, inadequate infrastructure, and lack of security. If the U.S. goal is to help Nigeria have a decent public administration program, its policies have to solve these three problems. If it’s policies help contribute to these problems, then it cannot claim that it wants Nigeria to have the program.

            What this third article has in common with the previous two articles is that is illustrates how U.S. policy can (has) deviated from its stated goal, and has created situations that it publically says that it is against. It points to a necessary revaluation of U.S. foreign policy related specifically to the main topic of this review: U.S. military/economic/political aid and support, because by the results of the studies done in these three articles, the U.S. policies are not achieving their stated goals. It provides a starting point from which U.S. policy makers can create new policies. The articles do not say specifically what these U.S. policies are, but that is outside the scope of this review. However, a short amount of time invested in research, having the background that these articles provide, would result in finding these U.S. policies without a problem. 

            The fourth article is titled “Governance in a Globalizing World” by Jamil Jreisat. It talks about the very same issues as the third article: Governance and how globalization affects it. It specifically focuses on what are the consequences of a global power “going rouge,” so to speak. Such actions that would fall under this category would be changing the international commerce rules to benefit itself at the expense of weaker, poorer countries, making up false pretexts as an excuse for a war of aggression, and trampling on peoples’ (whether its own citizens or others), basic human rights. The article states that a constitution is the basis for democracy and protecting citizens’ human rights. No democracy does not have a constitution, whether written or un-written, although it points out that there are some authoritarian governments that do have a constitution. In other words, a democracy has to have a constitution, but just because it has one doesn’t mean it is a democracy.   

            Globalization brings many benefits to a country, including more trading opportunities, closer economic ties that can foster closer political ties, and the sharing of best practices, lessons learned, etc, in all areas of public administration. However, globalization can be severely reversed if a strong, world power country goes rogue, doing some of the actions listed in the previous paragraph. Globalization cannot happen if a powerful country has an “empire-building approach with imperial authority to put down challenges rather than to persuade and to negotiate agreements.” This means that if a world power such as the United States wants to foster more globalization between itself and other countries, it must refrain from committing actions that would severely reverse globalization. If the U.S. continuingly commits actions, on purpose, that guarantee the reversal of globalization, then one must question if the U.S. truly wants to foster more globalization or not.

            Both the third and fourth articles talk about the latest step in the establishment of democracy, but the fourth article talks about the concept in wide, non-tangible descriptions that are not specific to one country or region, while the third article focuses just on South Africa as its example. Together, they provide a solid basis for understanding how globalization affects democracy. One without the other would not be as effective in explaining this concept. If just the third article was presented, a reader might be left wondering how the lessons learned in South Africa could apply to any other country experiencing the same problem. If only the fourth article was presented, the reader could possibly be confused as to how these abstract, non-tangible practices would actually look on the ground in a country.

            The fifth and final article is titled “Introduction: Benefit of U.S. Educational Assistance

in the Eastern European Transformation” by James McCollum and Niles Schoening. The basic premise of this journal is that the more education a country has, the more democratic it becomes. There are very few highly educated socialists and fascists. Communism, in of itself, has inherent deficiencies. The authors suggest that the U.S. should only offer educational assistance to organizations/countries that believe in democracy. Communists, or other people that believe in tyranny, would only use that education to further control and subjugate people. Therefore, offering educational assistance to them would not further the U.S. goal of spreading democracy. The last point the journal makes is that any educational program that the U.S. sends to a foreign country has to be sensitive to the local culture; it is not a one size fits all. This is the same point that the 3^rd article, the one about globalization in Nigeria, mentioned, when it said that simply using a Western educational model in a non-Western country will not work.   

            The significance of this last article in relation to the other articles goes back to the concept of democratization as a process that was talked about when linking the other articles together. To recap, the first article talks about how to establish democracy. The second article talks about the situation right after establishment: what effects democracy will have and how it will reduce corruption. The third one talks about what effects globalization will have on this young democracy, (which globalization is inevitable at this point in history, unless one is a state like North Korea). The fourth article talks about how to govern with globalization happening all around one’s country. This is very similar to the third article’s main point. And finally, the fifth article talks about the role of education, that could happen before, after, or in-between any of these points. That observation points to the value of education: it can light the spark to create democracy, it can help a fledgling democracy once it is established, and it can help a democracy combat the ill side effects of globalization at any point of the country’s level of globalization.

            In conclusion, these journals do not directly spout policy recommendations to the United States government in relation to its efforts to spread democracy throughout the world, as that is not the journals’ goal. Their goal is simply to state the facts in way that would help ignite U.S. policymakers to think in a rational, logical, and non-biased manner: “If I want to achieve goals XYZ, how would I do that?” Such policies that would come out of such a brainstorm or discussion would be: Not to give military aid/training to fascist regimes or governments that support terrorism, identifying and helping organizations that are democratic within a despotic or tyrannical country, and not breaking these policies due to the lobbying of radical self-interest groups or racial or religious bias. The government must have principles and stick to them no matter what in order to make sure their democratization efforts are effective overseas. These journals, when read together, also show what are the consequences when there is a disconnect between a country’s stated goals and actions committed in order to achieve that goal. It is outside of the scope of this journal review to directly command “The United States must do XYZ.” Instead, it focuses on a specific aspect of the U.S. foreign policy. It provides the basis for the conversation of “If the United States says that it wants to achieve XYZ, yet commits actions that will certainly not achieve XYZ, these are the consequences that will follow.” 

Works Cited

            Alok K. Bohara, Neil J. Mitchell, and Carl F. Mittendorff, (2004). Compound Democracy and the Control of Corruption: A Cross-Country Investigation. The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4, 2004.

            Robert Dibie Ph.D. (2004) Implications of Globalization in the Teaching of Public Administration in Africa: The Case of Nigeria, International Journal of Public Administration, 27:3-4, 151-169.

            Richard L. Harris (2004) Democratization of the State: A Global Perspective and South African Case Study, International Journal of Public Administration, 27:13-14, 1061-1100.

            Jamil Jreisat (2004) Governance in a Globalizing World, International Journal of Public Administration, 27:13-14, 1003-1029.

            James K. McCollum & Niles C. Schoening (2004) Introduction: Benefit of U.S. Educational Assistance in the Eastern European Transformation, International Journal of Public Administration, 27:11-12, 821-827.

Ukrainian military are pussies, here's 5 things that they need to do if they ever want Crimea back

     I am astonished that the Ukrainian military gave up all of Crimea without firing a single shot. What a bunch of pansies. Pacifism is such a good principle, right?! I mean, what's the point of having a military to defend your territory if you're not going to even use it? These poor Ukrainians have been brainwashed into thinking that they are taking the morale high ground in this conflict by not fighting. That's exactly what fascists like Vladimir Putin wants them to think, so he can take Crimea without any effort. And now Crimeans and minorities like the Tatars are going to pay the price for Ukraine's cowardliness.
     I know what critics will say "Ukraine can't possibly beat Russia militarily, so they're not even a point in fighting. Ukraine is saving their own lives by not fighting." If people would just crack open a history book once in a while, (which is essential if you want to know anything in international politics), they would see dozens of examples of much weaker countries beating a much stronger country by using guerrilla warfare.
     Ukraine will not get Crimea back by peaceful negotiations with Russia. Putin does not give a flying fuck what anyone in the world says, he will do what he wants, when he wants. He is a former KGB officer, he only understands force and violence. So, logically, Ukraine should respond in a way that Putin understands.

     Here are the things Ukraine needs to do if they ever want Crimea back:
     1. Start defending their territory by launching guerrilla attacks against occupying Russia troops and pro-Russian militia in Crimea. Ukrainian forces can use forests, mountains, and tight urban city locations to their advantage to offset the advantage Russia has with more troops, more advanced artillery, tanks, and air superiority. Remember, Ukraine doesn't need to invade all the way to Moscow to win. They just need to make it so difficult for Russian troops to stay in Crimea that it would be too costly for them to continue to occupy it. They need to do such attacks as hit and run attacks, roadside bombings, sniping, ambushes, destroying supply chains, assassinating top Russian military officers, sabotage equipment, stealing military equipment, etc, etc, you get the idea. The Russians invading are not wearing Russian military uniforms, so why should Ukraine have to? Ukrainian forces should wear civilian clothes and camouflage in the civilian population, as to offset Russia's military advantage. Under no circumstances should Ukrainian forces target innocent, unarmed civilians. They are not the enemy; Russian soldiers are. Killing civilians is a waste of time and resources, doesn't do any good to anyone, and only alienates your cause.
     2. Start over the border attacks against Russian forces on the Ukrainian-Russian border. This will force Russia to divert some of its forces to defend its border, instead of it all concentrating just on Crimea. The Ukrainian-Russian border is very long so it will be extremely difficult for Russia to defend it all. The attacks should be in the exact same style as the attacks listed in #1.
     3. Encourage other people that are also under Russian occupation to also start trying to liberate themselves from Russian fascism. The people I have in mind are the Crimean Tatars, the Chechnyans, and the Georgians. They will leap for the opportunity to shackle off their cruel oppressors, and the fact that Russia will already be fighting an enemy on two fronts, (Ukranians in Crimea and Ukrainians on their western border), will make it easier for them to fight since they will not be alone.
     4. Ask for military, political, and economic aid from the West. The West wants to see Russia weakened and not emboldened to take more territory from Ukraine or any other country. But they do not want to send in their own troops to make that happen. So, that fact that Ukraine and other people will be fighting Russia on multiple fronts will make them say "Hey, these guys are doing what we want to do but can't. Let's give them anything they need in order to beat Russia!"    
     5. Ask the West to continue their political isolation and economic sanctions against Russia. The sanctions and political isolation that has already began is a start, but it is not enough. The West needs to make Russia hurt in their wallet, to show them that wars of aggression, blatant shitty and insulting propaganda, and fascism will have a heavy price. It is a simple equation of economics: The West needs to make Russia hurt so bad that any gains they would get from occupying Crimea will be offset by the negative consequences of that action.

     So there you have it. 5 easy to read steps in ordinary English that would help Ukraine get Crimea back. Russia has a history of being beaten by weaker guerrilla forces, (Afghanistan, 1st Chechen War, etc). Will Ukraine do these steps? Based on their current actions, (they're surrendering even faster than the French usually do), I think not. They have been too brainwashed by radical liberalism. They think using violence is evil no matter what the circumstances, and somehow being a totally cowardly pussy is morally superior than fighting for your family, friends, and country. Sorry, people of Crimea. Your government and military failed you.            

Some hate that Muslims get on a daily basis

     Do you ever wonder what it's like to be Muslim in America? Well, here are just of the hate mail Muslims get on the internet on a daily basis. Imagine getting this every day for years. Imagine how this would affect your opinion on your country. Certainly not all non-Muslim Americans think this way, and these comments listed below are certainly against American values. But the problem is, the people who write this shit, to them, this is their American values. They believe that they're patriotic, that they're doing a service to their country. So you can imagine a Muslim's apprehension to be cheery and patriotic, knowing that the hate they receive is coming from the same set of values they are pressured to hold. It's like a white person being apprehensive to join a White Pride club, knowing that same set of values is used as a cover for hate and violence against non-Whites. Imagine substituting the word "Muslim" for "Black" or "women" or "Hispanic" in any of these comments, and imagine the universal condemnation that comment would receive. Yet if it's against a Muslim, they get a free pass. Is it an excuse for a Muslim not to be patriotic? No, all I'm saying is for non-Muslims to show some empathy when a Muslim isn't all 100% gun-ho America FUCK YEAH. Cuz this is why:  

(The following are taken from the disqus forum on CNN.com).

• J_R_Brown: Muslims aren't the only people who rape...but Muslims are the only culture where raping women is "honorable".
• nerokaereborn: Muslims have a society of hate. 
• vsaluki: Muslims don't have the right to defend themselves if they are being attacked. They should just sit there, do nothing, and let themselves get killed. 
• EternalCrusader: filth is asking for the MASS-MURDER of all non-muslims, lying, enslaving, oppressing them, LYING to them, stealing, raping, beating, attacking them..THAT'S FILTH! THAT'S ISLAM! imbecile!
• ScoTim: Muslims are filthy pigs. 
• Bucky Jankins: Impossible to defend that religion, (Islam). It states clearly that all infidels must die or convert. End of the story.
• BRUTAL_MASTER: Muslims do not belong in Western society. 
• BRUTAL_MASTER: they are outsiders, will remain outsiders, period! I don't give a sh!t how and where you practice your religion, I am not fond of Christians or Jews either, it is when YOU demand I ADJUST to your non-Western ways that WE have problem!! If you don't belong to the ethnic groups that built America (meaning the whole continent), then you are simply another outsider. So what if you arab types were born in the US? You remain "them", you have your culture and values contrary to Western ideals. So what if you emulate Western ways? You can put on all the cheap cologne you want, and those tacky clothes you we!rdos are so fond of, but it doesn't make you one of us! Now you know why you are not even categorized as an ethnic anything, you are "other", m eaning, we don't know who the phukkk.. you are!! I might not be as eloquent on some of my "comments", I like to slum it up to your level, it is a choice. You are foreigner, and should return to where you belong, our Western society is not for you. Look at yourself, don't you feel stupid acting like something you are not? Eff you!
• Light4u: go blow yourself up and get your 72 virginsm, 80,000 servants undeage boyus, emeralds, rubies and a dome of pearls. Oh that' sbecause your god loves that. polygamy paedophile,repression of anyone or anything against PURE evil islam go blow youself up. for your satanic god allah.
• Light4u: what liek all msulims? islam is PURE evil
  they love to lie
  they love to repress women
  they love to hate
  they love polygamy
  they have paedophilia
  they love slavery
  they love murder
  they love poisoning
  they love bombing
  they love cutting heads off
  they love kidnapping
  now go and blow youself up and do the civilization a favor
• Crysis_III: you can take a bomb and blow up yourself, your reasoning is non-sense.
• Crysis_III: I like to hear bombings everyday in Moslem world, its a music to my ear. Let them continue their good deeds.
• bondmar: Nobody, nobody , absolutely nobody kills in the name of religion excecpt islam. Your lies wont help you. All the example, u wrote in fact support the facts. The burmese buddhist are fighting against moslems bangladeshi who have no right to be there. Not a single buddhist is saying, he is fighting in the name of buddha, same goes for the mexican drug cartels, all those are crimes. However , in islam, when a jihardist kills, he kills willingly & look forwards for the reward that awaits him . He kills in the name of his sick child rapist prophet .So there lies the difference, sorry, we know the difference, islam is a sickness. 
• joeb1: You are making excuses again for islamic killers and slave masters..
  English solders have been fighting to protect afghan people.. do you understand that?
  Do you understand that english abolished slavery in law over 200 years ago? do you know that?
  Do you understand why slavery is wrong? or are you going to say slavery is ok because it is in the quran? So you are for slavery!
• JohnanthanA: CAR, (Central African Republic), is all about muslim aggression right now. Stop pretending that the Christians are doing anything but defending themselves and families from muslim aggression. 
• JohnanthanA: muslims do not want to be equal, you lie. muslims want all other muslim sects dead and when there is only one sect left, the sunnis will start working on us infidels. I know too much, cannot be lied to!

• JohanthanA: Muslims want to cleanse the area of Christians and your whining and accusations will not change the fact that Muslims are the aggressors in CAR and globally.
  To keep accusing those of us who see Muslim aggression clearly of hate is silly and juvenile and futile. Without Islam's need for total superiority over the world, there could be peace.
  Muslims do not want any other religion in the Muslim world and they continue to move to the West where they create their own ghettos for fear of mixing with the locals. 

•  GAWZ: I'm not just talking about the current conflict. Islamic countries have a history of using innocents as shields. The Iran-Iraq war would be a good example where Iran tied children together in groups to clear land mines. The kids, of course, were told that they were gong to heaven. That's how you people roll. The psychos that commandeered the aircraft on 911; told that they were going to heaven. That's how you people operate. You are by nature a bunch of cowards.

• JinntheKafir: 'They" hate us from birth because they are fed only Islam from that point. Their hate for non-Muslims comes straight from their mothers breast milk.

• Riks: All of the Syrian rebels are extremists. There are no secular rebels. 

• abcdefghij: If Muslims rebel against a tyrant that is oppressing them, that is terrorism. 

• YouCantUnderstandTheTRuth: When a Christian kills a Muslim civilian, he is only defending himself and standing up to the Muslim plague in his country. 

• Mike Dornfest: Muslim civilians who are being slaughtered by Christians in the Central African Republic DESERVE IT! 

• Richard Lopez: what i see this is just a BACKLASH because every where the Muslims always killing another religion followers, be it christian, Budhist,Hindus or even agnostics, they think all non Muslims are deserve to die and heaven belong to them, and now God told them the hard truth, why God did not help them in the wrath of the people usually they killed indiscriminately? they can pray to God for appeasing the wrath of the victim of their barbarism, and let's see if God answer them, the answer is ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! THOSE PEOPLE NEED TO BE TAUGHT A LESSON FROM BOMBING AND TERRORIZING THE WORLD TO MAKE THE WORLD MORE PEACE FULL! they need to taste THEIR OWN MEDICINE FOR KILLING THE INNOCENT EVERYWHERE INCLUDING IN THE PHILIPPINES, GOOD JOB ANTI BALAKA, YOU ARE THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORL D!!!

• Hardworker50: Islam allows child abuse. 

• Mike Dornfest: The Muslim religion is nothing but a hate filled male orientated cult that does nothing but belittle women and use "Gods Word" as an excuse to kill off everyone who opposes Muslims. After all who is going to question the "Word of God" even if a man wrote it and used that to conquer, pillage and enslave people.

• JohnathanA: When Christians kill Muslim civilians in the Central African Republic, they're only "defending themselves from Muslim aggression." 

• JohnanthanA: Saying that Muslims have the right to defend themselves from Western terrorists is "hateful." 

• JohnathanA: Muslims are taught through the q'ran that their religion must be the only religion. It is not an individual decision. Muslims through their religion do not feel equal to Christians, Jews, Hindus...they think they are superior. My comment, no matter how much or how badly you would love to twist into hate is not about hate but a realistic understanding that Muslims are not team players with other religions.

•  JohnathanA: Without Islam's need for total superiority over the world, there could be peace.

•  GIGirlfriend22: So why is it then when we try to kill these dictators....and Not poor any money into them but remove them for something better....You guys still freak out at us??? Calling us imperialist when were trying to save your sorry asses from becoming like Syria.... Its almost like you enjoy your own suffering.....And then blame us what you love to do..... Islam is hopeless.....Just like the thinking and understanding of the people involved in it.

•  Riks: Nothing can help muslims they even kill each other just because different interpretation of their holly book.. and blame non muslims for the bad thing that happens to them!!
  
  wwwDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
  ISLAM + MUSLIM = WMD!
  Islam can make your very cute young neighbor kill u for the reason that u think NEVER exist.. and can blow themselves in ANY places... and the best is there are 1.5 billion of them!!
  Check this out, this is REAL and still LEGAL until TODAY in ALL Islamic Apartheid Sharia Country (SAUDI, PAKISTAN, AFGHAN, etc).
  Islamic shariah is the REAL threat for Human Rights!..
  In ALL (dozen of countries with hundreds of millions of people) Islamic Apartheid Shariah country.. Which until TODAY discriminate people base on gender and religion, Sharia is LEGAL. 
    
•  Robert:  A belief in Allah (the cosmic pig god) is not worth a dump. I wipe myself on the words attributed to this pig.

•  JohnathanA: Your muslim brethren live and breathe death, lies, dishonour, rape, pedophilia, hate, deceit, honor killings...You are a pox on humanity.

•  Darren: Europe must cleanse itself of all Muslims, even ones that were born there, by force if necessary. Take your sick cult and shove it were the sun does not shine scum.

•  Alphabet678: Saying that Muslims have the right to self-defense is the same as advocating for the murder of all white people. Western soldiers are "supposedly" killing Muslims.

•  JohnanthanA: Islam supports apartheid. 

• gandalf134: Its cowardly and shameful that Muslims do not have enough brains to make advanced weapons. We want to move forward explore space expand science instead we are still dealing with fanatical religious retards from the 13th century.

• Marney_5: Saying a Muslim has the right to self-defense is "fanatical." 

•  gandalf134: Whats your definition of innocent are civilians don't know or care whats going on in other countries. Muslim countries the children are taught from birth to hate all non muslims there fore none are innocent.

• no_more_stone_age:  that's what we doing, killing muslim animals.
  but when al-Qaeda mixes with civilians, it's fair game.
  if you don't want civilian casualties, stay away from civilians.
  you know, for one of ours dead there's dozens of muslim animals killed, and the press doesn't even bother to mention them
  so in the end we still win, we get to send more muslim animals to meet their arab moongod and their virgin goats.
  yup, drones are good, baby, they send you to allah.

•  JohnathanA: There is nothing good in islam, it is all poisonous hate and murder.

• gandalf134: Then don't be muslim anymore and all this will go away. Obviously the world does not like you so go away become atheists ,watch sports, have barbecues treat your girls the same as boys. Stop following a religion that stole from the jews and christians which were around long before muhhamud pop out his head. Be normal and maybe then people will start liking you and there will be far less wars.

     It is absolutely mind-boggling the unbridled hate spewed in these comments, and the absolutely bizzare and dangerous conclusions these users come to. They are beyond radical. Muslims don't have the right to self-defense? They should just sit there and die whenever anyone attacks them for any reason? That's straight up genocide. I'll let you guys come up with your own conclusions, but I'll leave you with this: these people are not just radical fringe rednecks living away from society. They could be your neighbors, your co-workers, your boss. This radicalism permeates throughout almost all sections of American culture. Bottom line: There are some downright dangerous insane people all around us, really to kill what they see as the first Muslim they see the first chance they get.   

Russia done fucked up several times recently

      It's not a good time to be Russia right now. Sure, they won the 2014 Winter Olympics, but honestly, who the fuck cares about the Olympics, which is a contest to how much countries can spend on their athletes, rather than the skill of the athletes themselves, (Do you notice how it's almost always the rich countries who win? WHAT A COINCIDENCE?!?! But I digress, that is an issue for another post).
      Aside from winning the Olympics, Russia has made a series of internal and foreign policy blunders within the last couple of months. I think it's showing to a lot of people around the world that Russia is not the "good alternative" to buddying up to the U.S. Russia may talk smack about U.S. war crimes and acts of terrorism, but at the end of the day, they do the exact same thing, just to different countries. So let's go through the list of recent Russian DANG FLABBITs, shall we?

      1. Picking the wrong side in the Ukraine revolution.     
      Yep, they just bet on the wrong horse on this one. From the beginning, the Russian government supported the now deposed "President" of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. They did this because they wanted to keep their "special" relationship to Yanukovych's government. They could not tolerate even the mere chance that someone else that could run the government would not give them all the same benefits that Yanukovych did. The Russians went about the narration of the conflict with their usual pathetically weak propaganda: that the anti-government protesters were just a bunch of "Nazi pro-Western stooges." (I'm not making this up, Google it. You can't get any better than this. WHO KNEW that Ukraine had a bunch of people that are Nazis yet love the countries that defeated the Nazis, right? RIGHT?!).
     The Russians continuously backed their story that the Ukrainian "security" forces had the right to use violence against the protesters. Figures, considering they're fascist bastards. And when the evidence kept and keeps pouring and pouring in that the police were shooting unarmed people, kidnapping people out of their homes in the dead of night, torturing them, beating them, etc, etc, the Russians just had no answer for all that. They fumbled furiously for a coherent rebuttal in their state narrative, but it was hollow and thin. Everyone could see it was just complete and utter bullshit. Now Putin, even with his comrades' gold Olympic medals, is avoiding the spotlight. He's just hoping people forget the whole thing and leave him alone to hunt bears in the wilderness without a shirt on.

      2. Oppressing gay Russians.
      Who thought that in today's political climate was it a good idea to persecute gays? Let me be clear: It's never a good idea to do so. But doing so today, with the recent gains gays have made in equality in the U.S., and the media spotlight already in Russia because of the Olympics, is extra damaging to the Russian image.  Russian gays are fleeing the country in droves because they can't stand life there.
     Some examples of Russian oppression against gays would be:

• denying gay couples the ability to adopt Russian-born children.
• allowing policemen to arrest anyone who is "suspected of being gay" and detain them for up to two weeks. 
• Saying anything in defense of gays is considered "pornography."        
• Taking away children from their parents if the parents are suspected of being gay, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0
• Denying parade/march requests from organizations suspected of asking for equality for gays. 
• Calling homosexuality the same as pedophilia, http://www.policymic.com/articles/58649/russia-s-anti-gay-law-spelled-out-in-plain-english  

     3. Having police whip members of Pussy Riot in public.
     Even if you don't like Pussy Riot's goals and/or tactics, having policemen whip unarmed women in the streets for everyone to watch is a really fucking dumb thing to do, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10649037/Pussy-Riot-attacked-with-whips-by-police-at-Sochi.html
     Pussy Riot is a very widely known band/advocacy group. Again, with dozens of cameras rolling on them because they were performing in Sochi, it's only going to lower Russia's image around the world to publicly whip them, detain them for several hours, and then let them go because they didn't do anything wrong. This only strengthens the narrative that Russia is ruthless in repressing any criticism. They have made some gains since they were the Soviet Union, but not by much it seems.

     4. Picking the wrong side in the Syrian revolution.
     Russia has been the lifeline for the Syrian government during their attempt to squash the revolution. Sure, Hezbollah and Iran have sent men to Syria to fight the rebels, but Russia has poured and poured vast amounts of Soviet era weapons to Bashar Assad. Without the seemingly endless supply of Russian weapons, there would be no way that Assad could keep up the amount of bombardments that he has been dishing out for years now.
     But what makes Assad the wrong choice in the revolution? Well, I could write a whole paper on that, so I'll give you the short version. Assad was not elected to power; he inherited the throne from his daddy. So that makes him an illegitimate ruler, because the people did not elect him to power. Therefore, the Syrian people have the right to use force against him since he did not hold free and fair elections. It doesn't matter if there are some radical rebel elements in the many groups fighting against Assad. That doesn't take away the Syrian peoples' right to use force against Assad.
     Back in 2011, the Syrian people peacefully asked for free and fair elections. And what did Assad do? He sent his soldiers in, and they shot and killed thousands of them, they kidnapped others from their homes, tortured them, maimed them, raped them, and mutilated them. He took away their right to assemble, their right to speech, their right to choose what government rules them, their right to bear arms, right to free press, right to petition their government, right not to have soldiers in their houses, right to be secure, etc, the list just goes on and on. I mean, this guy is just fucking sick. You are fucking sick if you can see all the horrible thing Assad has done to his people and still support this dude.
     Yes, the radical rebels are bad, but Assad's crimes are 10 times worse. He has more power, so he has more opportunity to deal damage. Anything the radical rebels have done bad, Assad has already done 10 times as bad. The radical rebels have caused pain and chaos for 3 years; The Assad regime has caused pain and suffering for more than 4 decades. The Syrian people deserve the right to govern themselves. Nothing can change that fact. If they gotta beat Assad, the radical rebels, Iran, and Hezbollah, then so be it.

So yeah, that's why the Russian government, (not the Russian people), and specifically Vladmir Putin, completely suck dick.

 
      

A step in the right direction in California

      There is some good news for gun rights advocates, (really everyone because the right to life and self-defense is good for everybody), in the fascist land of California.

     Yeah, I don't get to write that sentence very much.

     A court in San Diego struck down a law saying that self-defense was "not a good enough reason" to get a concealed carry permit:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-gun-control-san-diego-court-ruling-20140213,0,6686752.story#axzz2tGYO0eUK

     Before, you had to have another specific reason to be able to get a permit, like "I have a crazy ex-boyfriend out in the streets." So, general reasons like "I want to be able to protect my family" or "I want to exercise my right to life" would not be good enough to get a permit.

     This is a step in the right direction to reshape the narrative about gun control. Gun control is about much more than just guns. It is about people being able to exercise their basic human rights of right to life and right to self-defense. Every human in the world, regardless of race or religion, is born with these rights, among many others. When you take away someone's ability to get a concealed carry permit, you take away their ability to exercise their right to self-defense. You make them a helpless sitting duck to any criminal, psycho, mass shooter wanna be, etc, etc, the like. And this country sadly has a lot of those. You can't say "Oh, that'll never happen around where I live." Well, every single person has thought that....until it did happen.

     You cannot rely on the police. The police couldn't give a damn about you. Sure, there are some good cops, but every single cop I have met in person has been a drunk with power asshole, not caring about me at all, even when I've been the one that had called them in the first place because I was in trouble!

     You should not need a specific reason to get a concealed carry permit. You are born with natural human rights that justify getting one at any time, in any situation. When you don't allow people to get one, or have a fascist "gun free zone," you are basically saying that it's okay for anyone in that zone to die, because you're taking away their only way to defend themselves. To hell with their right to life, you're a progressive liberal who is just trying to protect people from crazy gun nuts!!!!

      Maybe California will see the light in this issue, and start to roll back all their other hundreds and hundreds of fascist gun control laws. Maybe they'll get rid of their hundreds of fascist gun free zones. Maybe, I dunno, nor does anyone else. But if they do, the liberals will fight tooth and nail on every single court case to try and make sure that doesn't happen. They are petrified of an armed citizens who knows their rights.

     Fascists usually are.

The immigration reform that we actually need

    I'm probably gonna get some shit for this, (or maybe none at all cuz no one knows how to counter anything I write) but as you should know by now, I literally could not give a fuck. I'm sorry that I'm "racist," (even though I can't be racist towards half of myself), too "radical" or "extreme" for suggesting the one fucking thing that will solve a problem, while most people just skirt around the issue with PC and convoluted suggestions that won't do jack shit. This post is gonna be very short because the solution is so simple. The fact that our worthless shit faced leaders haven't solved this problem speak to their incompetence and point to the conclusion that they just don't want to solve this problem, even though they perfectly well can.
     We're talking about immigration reform here guys. Here's all we need to do to solve it:

1. The U.S.-Mexican border is 1,954 miles long. A U.S. Army or Marine can shoot a sniper rifle effectively, on average, half a mile, (some are much better but others aren't). So that's at least 3,908 soldiers we need to effectively guard the border. Factor in difficult to see terrain for some parts of the borders, plus back-up squads and support personnel, and we're looking at what, 5,000, 6,000 soldiers tops to guard the border. Maybe a little more but that just goes to show you how few soldiers we actually need to do it. 
2. A massive police and citizen nation-wide crackdown to round up as many illegal immigrants as we can find in this nation and send 'em back to where they came from. We can't get all 12 million of them but we can get a sizable number. 
3. Speed up the LEGAL immigration process. It's bogged and slowed down by excessive government red tape and micromanagement. There's no reason why it needs to take as long as it does. We have the NSA, we can find out every detail about anyone who's alive right now to do a background check in 5 seconds. My family from my dad's side came over here, legally, even though they were poor as shit. My mom's side was chilling in northern Mexico, minding their own business, and then the U.S. invaded and made the place Texas and my family just stayed there and became U.S. citizens because they wanted to stay on their land.  
4. Change U.S. culture. Oh yes, changing culture is hard and takes a long time. So we gotta start now. We have to change people's mindsets and attitudes towards illegal immigration. We have to get people thinking that yes, it is a crime to come to this country illegally. Just because your life sucks in Mexico doesn't mean that suddenly, Mexican, U.S., and international law doesn't apply to you and suddenly you can break whatever law you want. Show them that yes, the majority of illegal immigrants commit other crimes besides the crime of being in this country illegally   http://cis.org/myth-law-abiding-illegal-alien, http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/07/Exclusive-New-report-shatters-narrative-illegal-aliens-abide-by-laws-other-than-immigration-ones. Show them that no, giving illegal immigrants benefits like in-state tuition and driver's licenses does nothing to help the situation at all, it just costs taxpayer's more money to pay for benefits for criminals.

     So there you have it. The problem could be solved in a few months, but our politicians don't want to solve it, because they benefit from illegal immigration, the drug war in relation to our current border situation, and get votes from the Hispanic-American community by not doing anything I suggested. Suck it.

     P.S. So am I racist to half of myself? Is it my right side of my body or my left side of my body that is the Hispanic part that I hate so much because apparently anyone who suggests anything I suggested is OBVIOUSLY racist towards Hispanic people, right?!?!?!!   

People are obsessing over the wrong type of diversity

     It seems everywhere I turn, people, (mostly young dumb clueless liberals who think of their whining as "activism"), are nerd raging about how so and so institution needs to hire more minorities, how such and such place needs to have more women leading the place, how this and this school needs more minorities taking classes from it, how that and that business has too many white men working for it, etc, etc, the list goes on and on but they are all along these lines.
     While any business or institution needs to be fair to every race, gender, religion, etc, and while diversity is an important aspect of any group, it is not the main goal of the business/group.
      A car shop's job is to fix cars. A car shop's job is not to make sure it hires enough Hispanic people so liberals won't call it a racist business.
      The minute a business or organization starts to care more about "being diverse" than to deliver the product or service it is designed to give, that is when their quality of work goes down. That is when they don't perform as well. That is when they're not doing as good as they could. And this is one of the many contributing reasons why our country is starting to suck more and more. It isn't by far the main one, but that's not the topic of this post. Let me show a simple and quick example to illustrate what I mean.
      Let's say 2 grocery stores wants to hire 6 cashiers. 10 people apply to it, and the business ranks them by how good cashiers they are. 1 being the best cashier out of the 10, and 10 being the worst. Next to each number is the race of the person. For the simplicity of the argument, out of the 10 people, all of them are either Black, White, or Hispanic.
     1. Black
     2. White
     3. Hispanic
     4. White
     5. White
     6. White
     7. Black
     8. White
     9. Hispanic
     10. White

      Grocery store #1 has been brainwashed by liberal media. They think having a diverse staff is more important than being a good cashier. So they hire 2 people of every race, being "fair." So they hire numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9.
     Grocery store #2 respects all races, and doesn't give a flying shit what race you are. They want good cashiers, so they do the logical thing and hire numbers 1-6.
      Now compare the two stores. Grocery store #1 skipped persons 5 and 6, even though they were better cashiers than 7 and 9. They passed up better applicants to be more diverse. So they end up with a worse workforce vs grocery store #2.
     Worse workforce=less work=less products/services= crappier products/services=worse company.
      Now, this one example might not seem like it can cause America to become a less desired place to live. But picture thousands of companies doing this for decades and decades. Over that time we have a huge percentage of the working population who are doing their job worse than someone else who applied. We have people entrenched in their positions who are lazy, rude, horrible workers who lower the quality of a company or organization. You wonder why the government can't get anything done? You wonder why the local restaurant consistently fails to do basic things like have a schedule for their workers, know of their own hiring process, have rude and horrible waiters, yet is still standing?  You wonder why the store clerk can do things slowly on purpose just to irritate you, and talk to you in a demeaning tone, yet still is able to keep his/her job throughout the years? You wonder why the office worker is head of her/his department yet takes an hour everyday to log into his/her computer because that simple task completely bewilders them everyday?!
     It's because we have people in their positions not because they were qualified for their jobs, but because of the color of their skin. By definition, that is racist: judging someone by the color of their skin. It's exactly what Martin Luther King. Jr deplored and spoke out against for years. And now people who claim to be inspired by him are doing the one thing he worked so hard against.
      Absolutely fucking disgusting.   
   

     

    Now let's move onto the second part of this post. Does anyone know why diversity is important in a company, organization, school, etc, whatever the case may be? Because people coming from different walks of life have different ways of solving problems, different outlooks on things, different ways of approaching a goal or challenge, different personalities, etc, etc, you get the idea. This leads to people being exposed to ideas, concepts, outlooks, etc, that normally they would not be exposed to if they were in a group of everyone who was the same. 

     More choices: a better opportunity to choose a better choice. Diversity brings increased worker productivity, increased profits, higher worker morale, etc, etc, because they are able to do things better, faster, more efficiently, due to the diverse pool of thought and ideas that they have available in their workforce. 

      Look at history. The high points of many countries and empires were at the time that they had many immigrants come together within their borders. This diversity brought profit and power. Islamic Caliphate, Roman Empire, Renaissance Italy, America in the 20th century, all had extremely diverse populations. These people brought their different experiences, life lessons, perspectives, etc, to the important industries: science, manufacturing, the arts, math, which made the country/empire more prosperous. 

     The problem with today's society that throws that diversity concept out the window is the emergence of total near encompassing, mainstream, bandwagoning culture that the vast majority of Americans are included in. So today, a company might have a diverse employee base by race, but by diversity of the mind, they are near monotonous. They all have the near exact same political beliefs, near exact same hobbies, near exact same way of thinking, near exact same personality, near exact same outlook on life, near exact way of working, etc, etc, the list goes on. 

     That is a workforce that doesn't think outside the box, that can't come up with a minority dissent on an issue, that everyone gets stumped on the exact same problem because they all think the exact same way and they can't picture thinking any differently, that is not adaptive, that cannot have a different opinion on an issue that is not the mainstream opinion, etc, you get the idea. 

     Monotonous workforce=less work=less products/services=crappier products/services=worse company. 

     In conclusion, you notice how I didn't put up any links or citations for anything I wrote. That's because I don't need to. You can understand everything I wrote using logic, reason, and a rational and linear thought process. Any verifiable facts can be easily found using a simple Google search. To reiterate, my two main points in this post are:

1. It is NOT the goal or requirement of an organization or business to have a diverse workplace. It's goals is to provide the product and/or service it was made to provide. If the best workers I can hire happen to be mostly of one race, I'm going to hire every single one of them, and not hire other people who aren't as good but are of a different race. That is not racist at all, it is common sense business practice.  
2. Diversity of the mind is WAY more important than diversity of race.             

P.S. Not all white people are racist. Not all white males hate everything that is not male and white. Not all males wake up every day and think "Oh how can I keep women down today?" Judge people by their statements and actions, not their gender or the color of their skin.

Why does Australia want to punish it's citizens for fighting against despotism?

     The Australian government is seeking to pass a law that would strip their citizens of their citizenship if they go to Syria and fight against the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad.

http://muslimvillage.com/2014/01/22/48932/australians-fighting-in-syria-risk-loosing-citizenship/

     There are already Australian laws making fighting in Syria, (for any side), illegal for Australian citizens or dual Australian/Syrian citizens as well.

http://muslimvillage.com/2012/08/29/27701/australian-citizens-fighting-in-syrian-conflict-illegal-australian-government/

      There are a number of things wrong with these laws/proposals.
      1. This conflict does not concern Australia or the Australian government, so why do they feel like they have the right to regulate it? What gives them the right to tell their citizens "You don't have the right to fight to protect people who just want basic human rights"?

      2. By doing this, they are telling their citizens that the ideal of fighting to protect other people is not the correct thing to do. This reeks of neo-liberalism because it the regulation of morality, and that the liberals in government know what's best for us, even better than we do.

      3. By doing this, the Australian government is establishing the norm that violence is an 100% automatic "radical and extreme act," (except when the Australian government and/or military does it, of course). How did I come to this conclusion? A logical path following the government's statements on this. The Australian government said that the reason they already have these laws, and why they seek this new proposal, is because they are worried about "Australians becoming extremist and returning home." If they were truly worried about this, they had better come up with something else, because this law will not address that worry at all.
      Just because an Australian goes over to Syria to fight, does not mean that they will become radicalized. Violence, in of itself,  is not an extreme or radical action. On the contrary, it is rational, logical, and in line with human psychology, (which is why you have to train or be indoctrinated to be a pacifist, because non-violence is against the primal psychology of humans). Risking yourself to save another person has historically been seen as selfless, brave, and noble. Now, the Australian government seeks to turn that norm upside down. Now, risking yourself to save someone else is seen as "radical" and "extreme," not to mention illegal.     

      4. The laws and proposal insinuate that ALL Syrian rebels are extremists, and that by simply fighting alongside them, you will be brainwashed by their radicalism, and become extreme.
      One only need to do a simple Google search to see that not all of the Syrian rebels are religious extremists. The rebels are not one monotonous group, as many racist and bigoted Americans would want you to believe. There are religious radicals under the ISIS, (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), umbrella, who are linked to Al-Qaida. The other rebel umbrella is the FSA, (Free Syrian Army), which is a secular and moderate organization. Saying that all Syrian rebels are terrorists is a simpleton's cop-out of looking at the conflict, and not reflective of reality at all. Saying so is an insult to the FSA, as they make a point to distinguish themselves from the ISIS in ideology and fighting tactics. It is also an insult because hundreds of FSA combatants have given their lives fighting against the ISIS, to prevent the radicals from hijacking the revolution, killing civilians, imposing a twisted version of Islam upon a population who doesn't want it, etc, etc. For more on this, you can do a simple Google search or visit the Institute for the Study of War's blog entry:

http://iswsyria.blogspot.com/2014/01/syrian-rebels-attack-isis.html

      5. The Australian government, by doing this, is pushing another disturbing neo-liberalist norm: That dictatorships, oligarchies, and fascism is okay, but democracy, universal human rights, and freedom is not. By not allowing people to fight as rebels against Assad, (whose government is all three of those descriptions: a dictatorship, an oligarchy, and a fascist regime), the Australian government is saying "Assad's way of government is acceptable to us."

      So there you have it, 5 reasons why these Australians laws and proposal are stupid all the way around. It only ends up hurting the Syrian people, who need every combatant they can get to protect themselves, and gives the Australian government Not only that, it is against traditional Australian values, which is all the more reason why we should disapprove of these laws. Australians are a people that pride ourselves in ideals like freedom and democracy, and also helping our fellow man. The country has a history of individual Australians traveling to fight in foreign wars that they believed were justified. All of a sudden, the current Australian government is calling that historical tradition wrong, illegal, and not noble. Australians serving in the British Army volunteered to fight in the Russian Civil War in 1918-1919, Australian citizens volunteered in fighting in the Spanish Civil War, (mostly on the Republic's side but there were some on the fascist's side as well), the Boer War, and the Rhodesian military, just to name a few. These volunteers were regarded as heroes and patriots. Now suddenly the same action gets you branded a terrorist and a traitor to your country! How does fighting in a war that your government is not involved in considered a traitorous act?! It has nothing to do with Australia! Which is the exact reason why the Australian government should just BUTT THE FUCK OUT OF THIS AND FUCKING MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING GOD DAMN BUSINESS AND STOP TRYING TO CONTROL EVERYTHING!            

People admire Obama for WHAT?!

     The mindless drones that are Obama worshipers continue to adore him, even as he fucks them over again and again. This is evident in the poll that shows that Barack Obama is the most admired man in the world for the 6th year in a row. 

  http://www.gallup.com/poll/166646/obama-clinton-continue-reign-admired-man-woman.aspx

      The insanity of this is mind boggling. These people conveniently ignore and do not mention the numerous horrible, atrocious, and sickening actions that Obama does year after year, and turn all of those actions into good, helpful, noble actions. They defy logic. They clash against rationale. When I mention these awful crimes that Obama does, his lovers simply cannot respond. They have no response when challenged on their beliefs. The set of morals and values one must have to admire Obama is completely nauseating.

      Let's go through a list of all the crimes, horrible actions, and acts of terrorism Barack Obama has done while in office, shall we???

      1. Enacted policies that benefit the 1% and the Wall Street cronies.
      Obama acts like he's a friend to the poor, a protector to the most vulnerable of our society, when in reality, he couldn't give a flaming fuck about us. He's a servant to the 1% of our country, those fat greedy fucks whose sole mission in life is to gobble as much wealth as they can, and damn anyone who gets in their way. This article says it all:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/11/24/obamas_policies_have_helped_wall_st_fat_cats_120768.html

      The stock market has had it's best year in several years, despite the fact that the economy is still in ruins, thanks to “quantitative easing” (money creation) by the Federal Reserve Board. This has helped Wall Street while destroying the middle class, because near zero interest rates undermine savings. Despite ample evidence of fraud, Obama has protected all Wall Street executives. Not a single one has been prosecuted for fraud or completely destroying the economy in 2008. He's also given fat cats a break such as in this example he "signed a stimulus bill that spent $165 on bonuses for AIG executives." 
     During George Bush's presidency, the top 1% percent earned 65% of the national income. Now, they earn 95% of it. Wall Street investment banks also get from federal loan guarantees what amounts to an $83 billion subsidy. And guess where the money from that subsidy comes from? Yeah, the sweat of us hard working Americans. President Obama has “redistributed” more tax dollars to crony capitalists than to the poor. From the $787 billion “stimulus” that didn’t stimulate, to subsidies for “green” companies that produced more corruption than energy, to Obamacare, every “investment” he has made has produced a windfall for the politically connected but hasn’t helped ordinary Americans.
     The evidence is overwhelming, and this is just from one article. There are literally dozens and dozens of other examples out there that all point to the same conclusion: Obama hates poor people, and loves the mega-rich. He says he's all about "reducing income inequality," yet he enacts policies that increase income inequality. 

     2. Enacted policies that directly hurt poor people.
     Remember that whole story about Mitt Romney paying less in taxes that his secretary? Well, guess who was the president during that time that approved that tax plan? Oh right, it was Obama. Obama makes the poor people pay more and more in taxes every year, while, percentage wise, he makes the rich pay less and less. I can just look at my paycheck from year to year and see the negative impacts the fat greedy politician has cost me. (I'm not going to tell you how much I make, rest assured, it's close to nothing).  In the first half of 2012, I paid 4.3% in all taxes combined. In the last half, I paid 9.1%. That's almost doubling my taxes in 6 months. Now, I pay a whopping 20.6% in all taxes. That's 1/5 of everything I make. That may not seem like a lot, to you people who make a lot more money than me. But when you don't make a lot of money, each percentage increase is felt more because poorer people need every dollar they make.
     Not only has Obama raised taxes directly on the vast majority of Americans, he's added more indirect taxes and taxes on things people buy. Obamacare alone put 21 new taxes on the American people. He gloats about it on it's own fucking website:

 http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-taxes.php

     3. Enacted fascist policies, such as the NDAA, the renewal of the Patriot Act, and the continuation of Guantanamo Bay.
     Liberals who cried and cried when George Bush, (I hate him just as much as Obama), enacted the Patriot Act were strangely silent when Obama signed the NDAA into law, which gives the government the right to kill you without having to give any reason at all. It also allows the government to indefinitely detain you, no trial, without charging you with anything, and without giving you access to a lawyer. Mussolini and Franco would be jumping with joy if they were in charge of a government with that legal power. The government can now basically do whatever it wants to the American people, and justify it as "fighting terrorism."
     Obama is perfectly clear: He hates the American people. He has declared war on the American people. He could not care less if you died right fucking now.

     4. Obama has increased the debt more during his first 3 years than George Bush did in his entire 8 years.
       Obama loves spending over peoples' money just as much as he hates them. His spending is completely and utterly out of control. We are trillions and trillions of dollars in debt. The deficit is skyrocketing. He  spends more in government handouts, spends more on the military industrial complex, spends more in foreign aid to dictators and terrorists, spends more in bloated government bureaucracies, more More MORE! It's never enough for him, he just has to out-do himself every year. Inflation is rising so much faster than people's wages, it's constantly decreasing peoples' spending power, making them poorer and poorer. He's just running this country into the fucking ground.

 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

      5. Has killed hundreds of unarmed innocent civilians through his terroristic drone program, while trying to cover up how many civilians the program has killed. 
       God, does this make my blood boil. I can't stand it. I cannot stand my tax dollars being used to kill unarmed civilians WHO AREN'T FUCKING BOTHERING ANYONE. It's the very definition of terrorism. He is deliberately killing civilians in these countries so these governments will politically do whatever he tells them. It is no different than Al-Qaeda slamming planes into buildings to try and make the US do what it wants. In fact, Obama is worse than Osama Bin Laden could ever hope of being, because the US is a trillion times stronger than a dozen men in a cave. Thus, their capacity to do damage is a trillion times bigger than Al-Qaeda's. The US oppresses and kills more people than Al-Qaeda ever will.
     People try and skirt around this issue. They conveniently don't mention it when they are flattering Obama. Well, just because you don't talk about it, doesn't mean it isn't happening!!!! According to the definition of terrorism, Obama is a terrorist. It is not un-American to say so, in fact, it's in line with our American morals and values to tell the truth, to not judge Obama differently because of his nationality or position. Now matter what race, religion, occupation, or nationality a person is, we have a duty to say that if that person is killing unarmed people on purpose, that person is a terrorist!
      Look at just this one website, with all its examples, all its evidence, all its data on the terroristic drone program. It's completely overwhelming, it leaves no doubt at all. The Obama lovers simply have no response for this: "What? Obama kills innocent people? But....but...liberals like him love everyone!"

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/

      The whole purpose of the program is to kill innocents, so people in Yemen, Pakistan, etc, will get mad at the US. Rightly so, they have every right to take up arms against the US to protect themselves. It is logical and rational, not driven by religious hate, as the neo-cons would have you believe. So when these people attack the US, the neo-cons can stand up and cry "Oh see how they hate us! They won't stop attacking us! We have to spend more on our military empire, more drone strikes, more intervention, more killing, more death, more misery, more suffering, and most of all: MORE AMERICAN TERRORISM! 

     6. Gives money and weapons to dictators, terrorists, and oligarchies, so they can kill even more unarmed people.
     Obama's endless blood-thirst isn't satisfied with the amount of the civilians the US kills directly, oh no, that wouldn't be nearly enough. So he gives billions and billions of dollars every year, our hard earned tax dollars, and gives them to governments, saying "Oh, I know you guys kill civilians on purpose, and oppress your people, and suck their wealth dry, and have a completely incompetent government full of crooks and cronies.....so here's 2 billion dollars to buy more weapons and tanks and missiles and jet fighters with. Have a nice day!"
      Just look at the top ten recipients of US foreign aid in 2012:

 

     
     Is that the type of governments you want running around with weapons bought with your money?! Selling weapons to terrorists is in of itself, an act of terrorism. The majority of these countries have terroristic governments. By definition, the US government is committing an act of terrorism by giving these governments money. Just Google these countries' human rights records and list of war crimes. You can go to HumanRightsWatch.org or AmnestyInternational.org or any of the hundreds of sites you will get in a Google search with any of these countries' human rights record. You could spend days reading all of them. It's sickening. We are financing the suffering of literally millions and millions of people. Why don't more people care? Just because they aren't Americans doesn't make them any less a people than we are. You and I could've just as easily been born in one of these countries as we could've in America.

     7. Supports the fascist NSA and their Orwellian policies and practices.
     Do I even need to say more? Every month or so we get a new revelation about how the NSA tramples all the fuck over our 4th amendment rights. It never stops. Just when you think it couldn't get worse...it does. Again and again. The NSA is the most fascist un-American institution out there. It's all about total and utter control of the American people. It doesn't do what it does to protect you, it doesn't give a flaming fuck about you or me. It just wants one thing: control.
     Here's just a few things the NSA does to you and me on a daily basis:

• Steals your emails, (over 75% of all Internet traffic). 
• Steals your phone calls, (Over 50% of the entire amount of cell phone calls made in the world. Reported by the Washington Post on December 5th , 2013). 
• Infects computers with viruses and malware to get information.
• Infects companies' computers and networks with viruses and malware in retaliation when the company doesn't hand the NSA the information it wants. 
• Bribed companies with millions of dollars to get information.
• Steals your Internet history. 
• Can track your movement via your phone. 
• Spies on foreign citizens, governments, journalists, and other news media. 
• Broke it's own rules about surveillance 2,776 times. (They must be fucking retarded, or they simply don't care. Or probably both. What other company or business would still be running if they broke the rules 2,776 times?!) 
• They intercept computers mid-shipment and install spyware on them. 
• Snoops in on online video games (Oh yeah, gotta catch all those terrorists that play World of Warcraft online all the time huehuehue).
• NSA leaders routinely lie about what they do/what they do not do, and lie about statistics about these programs. 
• Secret courts "authorize" the NSA to do these programs, and the government tries to keep these courts secret so the public won't know what the NSA is authorized to do. 
• Shares American's private information with Israel, (reported by the Guardian on September 11th, 2013).   

And guess what? Even the fucking god-damn piece of shit White House says all of these programs has not prevented a single terrorist attack! (White House panel, reported by NBC news on December 20th, 2013). So for all this bullshit, the program does not even attain the stated goal whatsoever.    
 
     Conclusion

      People love Obama for this sick shit. They think he's the greatest thing to happen since Clinton. They think he honestly cares about the American people, but it's just those nasty Republicans who limit how much good he can do! How the hell can you admire a thief, a terrorist, a thug, a crook, a fascist, a rich elitist scumbag?!   
      Oh, I know the NSA looks at this website. I post provocative, anti-government posts all the time. I know they're all over this. They're probably gonna charge me with some bullshit charge like "online terrorism," even though I've never endorsed violence against civilians, and I has always spoken out against terrorist acts, no matter who the perpetrator is. Even if it's the President himself! Fine, let them spy on me, let them harass me, I don't care. I know I'm doing the right thing by speaking out against terrorism and criminals. If doing that gets me in trouble, then I'll wear it like a badge of honor.
      The stupidity of the American people is the #1 source of suffering for people in the entire world.
     And for you personally Mr. Obama:

FUCK YOU!