ACTION

     Are White UCLA Professors racist for correcting minority

students grammar mistakes?  - Photo Credit  Advance the Struggle

If you are a college student in Obama’s America then you are wondering if the protest at UCLA is a throwback to the 1960’s civil rights era or is it  just Affirmative Action 2013.  Whether or not racism is alive and well on the left coast at UCLA, it appears that a white professor who has been targeted by some minority students is certainly not engaged in discrimination.

What is his alleged sin?  He is accused of correcting the grammar of some minority students who did not conform to graduate level standards, reported the Young Conservatives.  Is it a crime?  Maybe it is a crime, but Professor Val Rust of the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies did not commit it.  That most onerous crime was committed by teachers of these minority students in K-12 and perhaps even undergraduate studies.

This is tragic because all too often, minority students who are not working at the graduate level standards which are expected are far too easily drawn to the post-Obama era “Somebody did this to me…and they are probably white,” sloganeering.  In a hot minute you can expect the civil rights Calvary headed to the UCLA campus in the guise of General Incompetent Al Sharpton and Colonel Rhyme-a-Lot Jesse Jackson.

Former President George W. Bush would have labeled the problems these minority students face as the soft discrimination of low expectations. After all, Rust was quite clear about his alleged issues with the student’s performances. Professor Rust explained in a letter to the department that,   ”I have attempted to be rather thorough on the papers and am particularly concerned that they do a good job with their bibliographies and citations, and these students apparently don’t feel that is appropriate.”

So what exactly are these students expecting the result to be by engaging in an endless series of 60’s era sit-ins and protests?  Are standards in graduate schools supposed to be lowered and lesser levels of achievement supposed to be acceptable?

(click to read more)

On Friday, in the closing days of the presidential election President Barack Obama encouraged his supporters in Ohio to head to the polls on Tuesday with hateful revenge in their hearts.  He shouted out that this election result must be about revenge and not about America’s noble principles, values or even future.  This runs counter to his post 2008 election, when he implored Americans to accept his word that he would usher in a new type of non-partisan presidency. 

Instead Obama’s presidency and campaign degenerated into the most partisan Chicago-style thuggish character assassination campaign mugging the nation has ever witnessed

Obama used revenge as his clarion call to battleground state, Ohio, to top off the last hours of his campaign. Is hate and revenge truly what undecided voters are searching for?  Should Americans embrace the insidious nature of his closing argument for the courtroom of the American public?  Consider how the true nature of Obama has lowly become unmasked.  His hate-filled attack ads were reminiscent of his religious mentor and teacher Rev.  Jeremiah Wright.

Why should Americans be surprised?  This president lied about being present when his religious mentor Rev. Wright spoke with venom in his voice about hate. Remember, in 2003 he shouted from his pulpit, “God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America!”  Obama after doing some fancy verbal footwork, around the issue, quickly threw Rev. Wright and his association with him, under the bus.

So, Obama is not unfamiliar with hate or with use of revenge as a useful tactic.  Contrast Obama's behavior with Romney’s revenge voter edict. Romney insisted that Americans should go to the polls on November 6^th, “to vote “for love of country!”

Imagine that, “love of country.”  Not unique for a true leader who truly loves his country.  Not unique for a presidential candidate who believes in building up a nation and its future instead of a president stumbling through  four years of mediocrity, incompetence and multi-trillion dollar deficits.

But think about it a minute.  What was President referring to when he asked supporters to take revenge to the polls on November, 6^th?   What type of revenge could he be considering?  After all the “Blame Bush” rhetoric is a dog that will not hunt anymore.  Could it be a diversion away from his unwillingness to leave no one behind in the murders of four Americans in Benghazi?  Could it be that the October surprise is that Islamic world tour apologies will no longer cut it with the American public, grown tired of excuses?

Worst yet, could President be a real life Manchurian Candidate who through is youthful foreign travels and Muslim upbringing is truly contemptuous of America as a Judeo-Christian nation?  So consider again the narcissistic placement of the word “revenge” in taking it to the polls on November.  Is Obama a possible foil for socialism or other “ism” that was hatched by his ideological mentor and admirer of Satan, Saul Alinsky?  In fact it was Saul Alinsky who gave a supportive nod in his book, “Rules for Radicals to Satan.  ( read more )

This video uncovers Obama’s radical appointees. http://youtu.be/eA2NvAFGrJM