All the data and "Common Sense" clearly shows that White Europeans are the "Fixed" Albinos of the original Black Indians (Dravidians) of India, who moved further north to Central Asia, seeking solace and less Sunlight. They are primarily of the OCA-2 type Albinism, indicated by Blonde Hair, Blue Eyes, Pale - but not White Skin, the ability to "Tan" and Normal Eyesight. But Albinism is a disease - A "Defect" if you will - and Europeans seem determined not to admit that.
Then there is the issue of "Racial Politics" since their ascension to dominance a few centuries ago, the Albinos have sought to write their former Lords out of History, and assert that THEY are the "Highest" forms of evolved Humanity. Clearly then, admitting to the defect of Albinism is absolutely "Taboo". Below, we see some of the novel ways that European Albinos have sought to explain-away their "Unnatural Lack of Pigmentation", their Whiteness. But always, with the caveat that this defect, actually makes Humans Better!
When Spieglers ruse failed: and with the coming of Genetic Science, the Albino people seem to have drifted towards simply obfuscating "Exactly what Albinism is!"
Many used different and confusing definitions for Albinism: such as defining Albinism as having defective Eyes and poor vision. This from NOAH - Quote: People with albinism always have problems with vision (not correctable with eyeglasses) and many have low vision. Yet if you simply Google "Albino", you will find VERY FEW ALBINO PEOPLE WEARING GLASSES. Certainly many Albinos DO have Eye Problems, but do all of them, as the lying European Albinos say? NO! But the tactic is useful: by constantly shifting the meaning and definition of Albino, Europeans are able to say: See, we aren't Albinos, we're not like that. The latest nonsense study done by European Albinos to obfuscate the matter is done by Hutton and Spritz, they have taken the Bold step of declaring that, in the main, only OCA1 Europeans are truly Albinos!
Here again, the European Albinos have set a very clever logical trap. A glance at the definition of OCA2 Albinism in the table below, shows us that the most TYPICAL symptoms of that type of Albinism are: BLUE EYES, and BLONDE HAIR! The European IDEAL!!!! Whereas the typical symptoms of OCA1 are: WHITE HAIR and WHITE SKIN, (sometimes Red eyes), which is actually rare. (See what they're doing here: they're saying, we are not the Albinos, THEY, those few, are, not us)! But of course only the intellectually challenged will believe such transparent nonsense. More lies and obfuscations are needed.
Then the European Albinos came upon a genius "Ploy": In order to hide the CLINICAL evidence of their Albinism, they decided to "RENAME" the gene whose MUTATION causes their condition (Albinism) to the name of their condition (Albinism). Making it appear like the gene in its "MUTATED" state, is a "NORMAL" human gene.
When debunking Albino nonsense, it is always good to accurately define what you are talking about.
"OCA" stands for Oculocutaneous Albinism.
The "OC" stands for "Oculocutaneous"
Definition of OCULOCUTANEOUS
: relating to or affecting both the eyes and the skin <oculocutaneous albinism>
Definition of ALBINISM
: the condition of an albino
Full Definition of ALBINO
: an organism exhibiting deficient pigmentation; especially : a human being that is congenitally deficient in pigment and usually has a milky or translucent skin, white or colorless hair, and eyes with pink or blue iris and deep-red pupil (In short, Albino means WHITE or WHITE like - from the Latin albus "white").
So then, if the OCA2 gene is a "Normal" human gene, then BLACKS MUST HAVE A "OCA-2" (Albinism gene) too?
Logically then: if "OCA2" means "Oculocutaneous Albinism type 2" - HOW CAN BLACK PEOPLE HAVE THIS GENE AND NOT BE WHITE?
Ha,ha,ha: that bit of nonsense could only work for European Albinos deep into denial.
Of course Black People DO NOT have a OCA2 Gene, they have a "P" gene. When the "P" gene is healthy, Black people make Black people. But when the "P" gene has "Mutated" and is no longer healthy, It CAN cause Black people to produce WHITE people (Albinos).
That is because these parents — like one out of every 75 people — are carriers for albinism. A carrier is someone who has one functional gene and one abnormal gene. (We all have two copies of all genes). Because the functional gene overrides the abnormal gene, these people do not have albinism themselves. However, they are still able to pass the abnormal gene on to their child. If the other parent is also a carrier for the same type of albinism, the offspring has a 25% chance of having albinism, a 50% chance of being a carrier, and a 25% chance of having two “normal” genes.
| Scientists said yesterday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife.
The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.
Leaders of the study, at Penn State University, warned against interpreting the finding as a discovery of "the race gene." Race is a vaguely defined biological, social and political concept, they noted, and skin color is only part of what race is -- and is not.
In fact, several scientists said, the new work shows just how small a biological difference is reflected by skin color. The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being.
"It's a major finding in a very sensitive area," said Stephen Oppenheimer, an expert in anthropological genetics at Oxford University, who was not involved in the work. "Almost all the differences used to differentiate populations from around the world really are skin deep."
The work raises a raft of new questions -- not least of which is why white skin caught on so thoroughly in northern climes once it arose. Some scientists suggest that lighter skin offered a strong survival advantage for people who migrated out of Africa by boosting their levels of bone-strengthening vitamin D; others have posited that its novelty and showiness simply made it more attractive to those seeking mates.
The work also reveals for the first time that Asians owe their relatively light skin to different mutations. That means that light skin arose independently at least twice in human evolution, in each case affecting populations with the facial and other traits that today are commonly regarded as the hallmarks of Caucasian and Asian races.
Several sociologists and others said they feared that such revelations might wrongly overshadow the prevailing finding of genetics over the past 10 years: that the number of DNA differences between races is tiny compared with the range of genetic diversity found within any single racial group.
Even study leader Keith Cheng said he was at first uncomfortable talking about the new work, fearing that the finding of such a clear genetic difference between people of African and European ancestries might reawaken discredited assertions of other purported inborn differences between races -- the most long-standing and inflammatory of those being intelligence.
"I think human beings are extremely insecure and look to visual cues of sameness to feel better, and people will do bad things to people who look different," Cheng said.
The discovery, described in today's issue of the journal Science, was an unexpected outgrowth of studies Cheng and his colleagues were conducting on inch-long zebra fish, which are popular research tools for geneticists and developmental biologists. Having identified a gene that, when mutated, interferes with its ability to make its characteristic black stripes, the team scanned human DNA databases to see if a similar gene resides in people.
To their surprise, they found virtually identical pigment-building genes in humans, chickens, dogs, cows and many others species, an indication of its biological value.
They got a bigger surprise when they looked in a new database comparing the genomes of four of the world's major racial groups. That showed that whites with northern and western European ancestry have a mutated version of the gene.
Skin color is a reflection of the amount and distribution of the pigment melanin, which in humans protects against damaging ultraviolet rays but in other species is also used for camouflage or other purposes. The mutation that deprives zebra fish of their stripes blocks the creation of a protein whose job is to move charged atoms across cell membranes, an obscure process that is crucial to the accumulation of melanin inside cells.
Humans of European descent, Cheng's team found, bear a slightly different mutation that hobbles the same protein with similar effect. The defect does not affect melanin deposition in other parts of the body, including the hair and eyes, whose tints are under the control of other genes.
A few genes have previously been associated with human pigment disorders -- most notably those that, when mutated, lead to albinism, an extreme form of pigment loss. But the newly found glitch is the first found to play a role in the formation of "normal" white skin. The Penn State team calculates that the gene, known as slc24a5, is responsible for about one-third of the pigment loss that made black skin white. A few other as-yet-unidentified mutated genes apparently account for the rest.
Although precise dating is impossible, several scientists speculated on the basis of its spread and variation that the mutation arose between 20,000 and 50,000 years ago. That would be consistent with research showing that a wave of ancestral humans migrated northward and eastward out of Africa about 50,000 years ago.
Unlike most mutations, this one quickly overwhelmed its ancestral version, at least in Europe, suggesting it had a real benefit. Many scientists suspect that benefit has to do with vitamin D, made in the body with the help of sunlight and critical to proper bone development.
Sun intensity is great enough in equatorial regions that the vitamin can still be made in dark-skinned people despite the ultraviolet shielding effects of melanin. In the north, where sunlight is less intense and cold weather demands that more clothing be worn, melanin's ultraviolet shielding became a liability, the thinking goes.
Today that solar requirement is largely irrelevant because many foods are supplemented with vitamin D.
Some scientists said they suspect that white skin's rapid rise to genetic dominance may also be the product of "sexual selection," a phenomenon of evolutionary biology in which almost any new and showy trait in a healthy individual can become highly prized by those seeking mates, perhaps because it provides evidence of genetic innovativeness.
(There it is, as told by Albinos, Albinism is BETTER and Sexier!)
Cheng and co-worker Victor A. Canfield said their discovery could have practical spinoffs. A gene so crucial to the buildup of melanin in the skin might be a good target for new drugs against melanoma, for example, a cancer of melanin cells in which slc24a5 works overtime.
But they and others agreed that, for better or worse, the finding's most immediate impact may be an escalating debate about the meaning of race.
Recent revelations that all people are more than 99.9 percent genetically identical has proved that race has almost no biological validity. Yet geneticists' claims that race is a phony construct have not rung true to many nonscientists -- and understandably so, said Vivian Ota Wang of the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda.
"You may tell people that race isn't real and doesn't matter, but they can't catch a cab," Ota Wang said. "So unless we take that into account it makes us sound crazy."
For the most part, vitamin D does not naturally exist in significant amounts in the human food chain. The fact is, from an evolutionary standpoint, humans did not require vitamin D in their food supply, because, over millions of years humans, along with many animal species, evolved a photosynthetic mechanism in their skin to produce large amounts of vitamin D-3. Thus, our skin is part of the vitamin D endocrine system, and vitamin D-3 is really a preprohormone.
Approximately 50,000 y ago, small bands of people, almost certainly darkly pigmented, migrated gradually from sub-Saharan Africa to eventually populate more northern latitudes. This migration resulted in a profound evolutionary adaptation, a gradient in skin pigmentation loss to the point of almost total depigmentation as evidenced by northern European populations. Why would this dramatic change have occurred so rapidly? The most obvious answer is to maximize the limited sunlight exposure as occurs when moving north from the equator. Darkly pigmented individuals in an equatorial environment literally would be bathed in intense sunlight year round, and thus, vitamin D-3 production would not be a problem. However, as these darkly pigmented individuals migrated to a northern sun-restricted environment, they would rapidly become vitamin D depleted, with the resulting mobility and reproductive problems associated with deficiency. For humans to survive in this new northern environment, skin depigmentation had to occur. Eskimos are an exception to this, because they retain significant pigmentation; however, their migration from Asia was relatively recent, and the Eskimos’ diet is unique in that it contains significant levels of vitamin D-3 due to the fat and oily fish content.
Given the results of these recent scientific studies that evaluated high-dose vitamin D supplementation, it appears that the current DRI for adults are woefully inadequate, misleading, and potentially harmful, placing individuals at undue risk for a number of chronic diseases. The current adult dietary recommendations of 200–600 IU/d are extraordinarily low compared with endogenous production during sun exposure. Reexamination of the requirements for vitamin D is clearly merited and may likely reveal the need for vitamin D intakes exceeding 2000 IU/d for adults.
Vitamin D Insufficiency Due to Insufficient Exposure
to Sunlight and Related Patholog
By Lana R. Johnson
Quote: Individuals with darker skin tones are naturally more susceptible to vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency. Progressively darker skin is progressively more susceptible to vitamin D insufficiency. Darker skin, which contains more melanin than relatively lighter skin, offers natural protection from UV radiation. This means that darker-skinned individuals need to spend more time in the sun before pre-vitamin D cells in the skin are prompted to produce vitamin D. According to Hall, et. al. (2010), “Melanin, the principal skin pigment, reduces but does not block cholecalciferol [vitamin D3] synthesis. Thus, longer periods of sun exposure are required for equivalent vitamin D synthesis in people of African ancestry compared with those of European ancestry.” Also, “at all latitudes the skin must have enough melanin to block harmful solar UV while letting in enough UVB for vitamin D synthesis. Since the tropical zone has intense year-round sunlight, even very dark skin can produce sufficient vitamin D for the body’s needs. […] however, when dark-skinned humans move to the temperate zone […] their skin now screens out too much UVB and produces too little vitamin D.” (Frost, 2009). According to Cannell (2008), people with dark skin need to spend 5-10 times longer in direct sun exposure than do people with light skin to achieve similar vitamin D production.
Race and Illness and Vitamin D
By Jacob Schor, ND
For years various theories have been proposed to explain the greater frequency of many illnesses among African Americans. High blood pressure is probably the best example, but there are many others. I've heard theories that range from the plausible to the bizarre to what could be called racist.
For several years the theory was that lead in blood from living in inner cities was the cause. So were higher stress levels. Even over consumption of fried foods was suggested in a "Fried Chicken Hypothesis." None of these possible explanations lasted long. Research in the last four years has finally provided a reasonable explanation that I think will prove true. The explanation is so simple; the surprise is that no one thought of it sooner.
We made our mistake in looking for complex socioeconomic differences as the main factors causing higher rates of many illnesses among African Americans. Of course socioeconomic factors contribute to the onset, late diagnosis and poor treatment of illnesses among many African Americans, and that is a vitally important issue, but the biggest difference between African Americans and white Americans, as much as we try to ignore it, is skin color. Races that evolved further from the equator have lost some of their ability to make melanin and as a result have become pale skinned.
Paler skin allows for greater penetration of the sun's rays. Humans get most of their Vitamin D from the sun. Darker skin decreases the amount of ultraviolet light that penetrates the skin and, in doing so, results in lower Vitamin D production. This is fine if you live close to the equator or are in the sun most of the day. If you live in farther from the equator and spend much of your days indoors, you make much less Vitamin D. The darker or blacker the skin, the bigger the problem becomes.
Vitamin D deficiency is a common problem for all Americans, but far more so for African Americans. When you look at the statistics the numbers are shocking. Black Americans are about ten times more likely to be Vitamin D deficient as whites.
Black women of reproductive age are twenty times as likely to be Vitamin D deficient as white women of the same age. The average white woman has twice the amount of Vitamin D in their blood as a black woman.
The list of diseases that we now associate with Vitamin D deficiency is almost identical to the list of diseases that African Americans encounter with greater than expected frequency. The following illnesses are both associated with Vitamin D deficiency and are much more common in blacks living in this country than whites: Coronary heart disease, Hypertension, Type two diabetes, Colorectal cancer, Prostate cancer, Cervical cancer, Renal disease, Metabolic syndrome, Multiple sclerosis, Rheumatoid conditions, Obesity, Periodontal disease, Rickets, and Osteomalacia.
The only disease associated with Vitamin D deficiency not more common in blacks than whites is osteoporosis. Every other disease associated with Vitamin D deficiency is more common in African Americans.
Of the children diagnosed with Vitamin D deficiency rickets in the United States over the last 17 years, 83 percent were African American. Infants derive their Vitamin D from breast milk, but most nursing moms are so low in Vitamin D that they are unable to excrete adequate amounts into their milk. Nursing women need about 4000 IU of Vitamin D a day to make breast milk adequate for their infants. The breast milk of black women often has undetectable levels of Vitamin D. It takes a white woman about five minutes of full body sun exposure a day to make this much Vitamin D.
The only significant food source for Vitamin D is milk. The government requires dairies to enrich milk with Vitamin D. Cheese, yogurt and ice cream are not enriched and are not significant sources. White people drink more milk than any other race. Northern Europeans are among the few human races that continue to produce lactase, the enzyme needed to digest milk, into adulthood. Most other races, including blacks, often stop producing this enzyme and get moderate to severe indigestion from milk, a condition referred to as lactose intolerance. As a result blacks consume less milk and get less supplemental Vitamin D from foods than whites do
The pattern is obvious: because of darker skin pigmentation and lower tolerance and consumption of milk, black people are more likely to be Vitamin D deficient than whites and as a result are far more likely to develop a range of health problems associated with Vitamin D deficiency.
Vitamin D Fortification
Heightened interest in vitamin D research and advances in fortification technology make vitamin D a nutrient to watch these days.
Don't worry if you don't understand this study, it's meaning will become clear below.
How A Vitamin D Test Misdiagnosed African-Americans
by Richard Knox
Quote-1: "The population in the United States with the best bone health happens to be the African-American population," says Dr. Ravi Thadhani, a professor of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital and lead author of the study. "But almost 80 percent of these individuals are defined as having vitamin D deficiency. This was perplexing."
Quote-2: Meanwhile Holick, who wrote an editorial in the journal accompanying Thadhani's study, intends to keep giving his African-American patients vitamin D supplements when their blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D are low, even though they may not need the pills to maintain strong bones.
"There's no downside to supplementation, so it's not a big deal," Holick says.
But Thadhani says doctors should hold off on prescribing vitamin D until they do other tests to determine whether their African-American patients are really vitamin D deficient. Those tests include blood levels of calcium, bone density tests and parathyroid hormone levels.
There is currently no approved test for the bioavailable 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, although Thadhani and his colleagues are working on one and have filed for a patent.
He says he used to take vitamin D supplements "until I realized there are genetic differences, then I stopped. I've looked at my bioavailable levels of vitamin D. Now I'm comforted to know that I'm not deficient."
For years, the Albino people had total control of all mediums of information. Their words were the only ones that the world was allowed to hear, but things have changed, now Blacks have access to media, and now their research and discovered facts can be disseminated to a world hungry for truth and knowledge. As soon as the truth about the BENEFITS of Black skin was disseminated, the Albinos, who had for centuries promoted the concept that Black skin was inferior, sought to discredit this new knowledge by calling it "Reverse Racism".
An antioxidant is a molecule that inhibits the oxidation of other molecules. Oxidation is a chemical reaction that transfers electrons or hydrogen from a substance to an oxidizing agent. Oxidation reactions can produce free radicals. In turn, these radicals can start chain reactions. When the chain reaction occurs in a cell, it can cause damage or death to the cell.
Antioxidants terminate these chain reactions by removing free radical intermediates, and inhibit other oxidation reactions. They do this by being oxidized themselves, so antioxidants are often reducing agents such as thiols, ascorbic acid, or polyphenols.
Pro-oxidants are chemicals that induce oxidative stress, either by generating reactive oxygen species or by inhibiting antioxidant systems. The oxidative stress produced by these chemicals can damage cells and tissues, for example an overdose of the analgesic paracetamol (acetaminophen) can fatally damage the liver, partly through its production of reactive oxygen species.
As the evidence indicates, the Albino people lied to you when they taught you that there was THREE RACES:
The Black Race.
The White Race.
The Mongol/Chinese type Race.
This was just to give themselves an undeserved place of importance in the Human hierarchy.
Following the evidence, it becomes clear that there are indeed THREE RACES, but their types are different:
As we now see, Blacks with "Negroid" features, produce Albinos with Negroid features.
Blacks with "Caucasian" features, produce Albinos with Caucasian features.
(The people below are Indian Albinos).
And Blacks with "Mongol" features produce Albinos with Mongol features.
(Example only - not Himba)
As the EVIDENCE clearly shows us, as regards Races: there is the one Black Human Race.
Then there are TWO sub-races:
The Albino Race - which encompasses Whites/Albinos of EVERY Phenotype.
(Europeans insist that they are the only "True" Whites: but as is clear from the evidence, they are in no way unique).
And then there is the "MULATTO" Races: which are MIXTURES of all the above, in varying QUANTITIES.
A very interesting phenomenon is taking place in the U.S. relating to the first Great Black Leader in several centuries: according to pollsters, President Barach Obama has only a 40-44% approval rating. That compares to 47% for Ronald Reagan at the height of his Iran-Contra scandal - in which he was caught lying about his administrations illegal activities.
For Obama, several former staffers have turned on him, seemingly everyone with White Skin is complaining that he did or did not do something, or that he did this or that badly. One pundit remarked wryly, "IS THERE ANY WAY THAT HE CAN GET OUT OF THIS? At which point the person being interviewed brought "REALITY" back to the conversation when the guest replied:
Get out of it?
Get out of What?
There is no SCANDAL!
Obama has not done anything Wrong!
And with that, we come right back to the subject of this page, White lies and White Racism:
As we shall see, it is often delusional; blinded by racial resentments and hatreds.
Think back to Obama's election - Whites were busily congratulating themselves that they had elected a Black president. It's like they were all saying: See, we really ARE good people. But the actual facts were different: The majority of Whites didn't really elect Obama, he only got about 44% of the White vote.
But back to the present:
Not only hasn't Obama done anything wrong: He has been pretty near perfect! So they make things up.
1) It was Obama's fault that U.S. intelligence didn't know about the ISIS expansion. Ya, his private spies in Syria failed, and he was trying to pass the buck, when he said that U.S. intelligence agencies failed to detect what was happening. (That's sarcasm in case you didn't know).
2) Innocent people were harmed by the 'Fast and Furious' program.
'Fast and Furious' was actually a "BUSH" program that Obama's A.G. Holder STOPPED!
3) Obama left Americans to be butchered in Libya.
Though Benghazi was nothing but an unforeseeable tragedy, made possible by the Ambassadors OWN decisions. It's occurrence was in fact Hilary Clinton's responsibility, not Obama's.
1) Nixon was to be impeached for high crimes - Watergate. (24%)
2) Carter had the U.S. embassy fiasco in Iran. (51%)
3) Reagan had the Iran-Contra scandal where he sold weapons to Iran (which had taken embassy workers) and also armed Contra rebels in Central America. (47%)
4) Clinton got caught "Coming" on Monica's dress. (49%)
As we can see, the only recent president to have lower poll numbers was Richard Nixon, who was forced to resign rather than face charges for high crimes and misnomers.
So what has Obama done?
He ended a great recession in 5 years, the likes of which even a great president like FDR could NOT do in 12 years, (WWII was needed to end the 1928 recession).
Got Passed almost universal health care - the first in U.S. history.
Got Bin laden
Ended Bush's war in Iraq - as promised.
Reacted "PERFECTLY" to each and EVERY emergency that arose. (When asked what they would do differently, his detractors have been unable to give an answer).
So why is this subject on a page about Albinism?
Because only when you consider the totality of the Albino character, of which this gives insight, can you understand what happened a few centuries back when the Albinos took power.
Back to Obama:
Do you know why the Albinos have turned on him, have come to hate him even?
They expected him to be mediocre, to fail even. But in true Black form, he has been spectacular, almost perfect. And they can't stand that; in the deepest recesses of their brains, it reminds them of the long ago past, when the excellence of Blacks meant that they, the Albinos, were routinely Lorded over. They have spent centuries trying to erase those memories, and writing them out of History. So they find every little thing to complain about with Obama, and when they can't find anything real, they make something up.
That is in keeping with a myriad of tactics they use to keep Blacks from recognizing their true selves. Note that in every conversation about Race and accomplishment, the Albinos will invariably bring up Africa. They know that as long as they can continue the myth that "ALL" Blacks are Africans, it will psychologically keep the failures of Africa as a yoke around the necks of Blacks, regardless of their actual place of origin. And in this way, give Albinos a convenient red herring for discrimination: their implication being clear, Blacks are Africans, and Africans are a backward, primative people: So then, how can you talk about the greatness of Blacks?
A clear majority of Americans describe President Obama's tenure as a "failure" according to a new poll released Monday.
The survey from IBD/TIPP indicates that 53 percent of adults in the United States now characterize Obama's presidency as a "failure," while 41 percent chalk it up as a success. Half of the people who live in states won by Obama see his tenure negatively, as do 59 percent of those aged 25-44 years old.
Some of the key groups remain solid in their support of the president, though. More than three-quarters of voters aged 18-24 see Obama's presidency as a success, as do 54 percent of single women.
By contrast, only 32 percent of married women describe Obama as a success while 58 percent of independents see him as a failure.
The survey also found that only 43 percent of U.S. adults say they would vote for Obama, who has been besieged by international crises, were a presidential election held today. Some 49 percent would favor 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
The slide in approval of the president seems to be primarily driven by concern over his economic record. While three in four Americans say they place a "high importance" on the economy and jobs when evaluating candidates, just 31 percent say Obama is doing a good job at growing the economy.
At a speech last week at Northwestern University, Obama looked to reverse those perceptions, arguing it was "indisputable that our economy is stronger today than it was when I took office." Obama said progress "has been hard, but it has been steady, and it is real."
In the address, Obama acknowledged that there were persistent frustrations with the economy, but blamed congressional Republicans for blocking policy ideas he argues would have helped the middle class reap more benefits from the recovery.
"When push came to shove this year, and Republicans in Congress actually had to take a stand on policies that would help the middle class and working Americans — raising the minimum wage, enacting fair pay, refinancing student loans, extending insurance for the unemployed — the answer was 'no,'” Obama said.
Republicans blasted back, saying Obama had killed middle class jobs through regulation and blocking construction projects like the Keystone XL pipeline.
LET'S COMPARE WHAT WHITE PEOPLE SAY ABOUT OBAMA ABOVE, WITH REALITY!
THIS IS A CHART OF THE U.S. ECONOMY.
(Note that is has been flying like never before: (since Obama became President during the greatest recession since the 1928 Crash).
THIS IS A CHART OF THE U.S. STOCK MARKET.
(Note that is has been flying like never before, Dow closes at record high of 17,156 on 09.17.2014).
THIS IS A CHART OF THE U.S. DEBT.
Note that though Albinos shut down Obama's government because they said that it was out of control.
The truth is actually quite different: It has been going down at historic speed.
All of the charts above are from Bush's last years, just before Obama took office at the start of the Great Recession of 2008.
NOTE THAT TODAY, ALL MAJOR INDICATORS ARE BETTER THAN BUSH'S LAST YEAR!
NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY HAS EVER ACHIEVED SUCH GREAT RESULTS IN SUCH A SHORT TIME!
YET EVEN ORDINARY ALBINOS ARE HATING HIM.
But even more amazing, even supposedly friendly "Liberal" Democratic and nonpartisan Albinos are a part of the plot to demean and delegitimize Barack Obama's Presidency.
Today Ronald Reagan is considered in many quarters, one of the greatest U.S. Presidents of all time, (40th President of the United States (1981–89), and served as the 33rd Governor of California (1967–75) prior to his presidency). Gallup polls in 2001 and 2007 ranked him number one or number two when correspondents were asked for the greatest president in history. His memory is almost universally loved in the Southern U.S., and many places and things are named in his honor. Ronald Reagan reshaped the Republican party, led the modern conservative movement, and altered the political dynamic of the United States. More (White) men voted Republican under Reagan than ever before. The so-called "Reagan Democrats" were a result of his presidency, ("Reagan Democrat" is an American political term used by analysts to denote traditionally Democratic voters, especially white working-class Northerners, who defected from their party to support Republican President Ronald Reagan in both the 1980 and 1984 elections).
These "Reagan Democrats" (often Unionized Workers) were unhappy that the Democratic party was paying far too much attention to Blacks and the poor. Feeling that the Democratic party would no longer uphold their Racial Supremacy" they defected. Geraldine Ferraro, vice presidential candidate of Walter Mondale in 1984, famously asked a "Hard Hat" as they were called, why he voted against his own self-interest to support Ronald Reagan. The Hard Hat replied that at least with Reagan, he could stand proud: (what he didn't say was) "Of being a White Man". After failed presidential campaigns in 1968 and in 1976, Reagan finally won the nomination and general election in 1980, because he hit on the salient issue of the time, maintenance of White supremacy. In essence, Ronald Reagan was elected president because he made it clear to Whites that he would put Blacks back "In their Place".
One of the results of the Reagan presidency was the continued decline of the "Rust Belt". The Rust Belt is the informal description for a postindustrial region straddling the Northeastern and the East North Central States, referring to economic decline, population loss and urban decay due to the shrinking of its once powerful industrial sector, brought on by business desire for cheaper labor costs, and perhaps to avoid Black political influence in those areas.
At the same time, Reagan's presidency saw the rise of the "Sun Belt" in the Southern U.S. This growing region conflicted sharply with the concerns of the Rust Belt, a deteriorating region with labor unions, high taxes, and populated by many minority groups. The Northeast and Midwest had remained more committed to social programs and more interested in regulated growth than the wide-open, sprawling states of the South and West. Electoral trends in the regions reflect this divergence—the Northeast and Midwest have been increasingly voting for Democratic candidates in federal, state and local elections while the South and West (West does not include the West Coast) are now the solid base for the Republican Party. (Southerners were originally Democrats - Lincoln was a Republican - but with the advent of the Civil Rights movement championed by Democrats, White Southerners in-mass, defected to the Republican party). Now they had the company of White Union Workers in the North.
Of course, voting against one's own self-interest is never a good idea, so in spite of their ardent support, Reagan and the Republicans continued their anti-union, anti-worker programs. Soon the industrial North was plagued by tremendous decline and very high unemployment. The work of Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg is a classic study of Reagan Democrats. Greenberg analyzed white ethnic voters (largely unionized auto workers) in Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 66% for Reagan in 1980. He concluded that "Reagan Democrats" no longer saw Democrats as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: i.e. the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos, and other groups.
Greenberg periodically revisited the voters of Macomb County as a barometer of public opinion until he conducted a 2008 exit poll that found "nearly 60 percent" of Macomb County voters were "'comfortable' with Mr. Obama," Greenberg then goes on to make some rather silly conclusions about America's evolving relationship with race: Instead please Google articles titled "Obama’s race to save the Rust Belt". For those weary of Race and Racial politics, Macomb County serves as an abject lesson that Racism only Ends: when No Benefit can be derived from Racism. One final note on Ronald Reagan: by the end of his first term, and throughout his second term, Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's disease - he was not of sound mind!
To help understand the context of the love the White U.S. Male had for Ronald Reagan, we must understand what happened (as relates to presidents), before Reagan and after Reagan.
Richard Milhous Nixon (Republican) - 37th President of the United States from 1969 to 1974: Failed - Resigned in lieu of Impeachment for Watergate.
Gerald Rudolph (Republican) - 38th President of the United States, serving from 1974 to 1977: Caretaker
Jimmy Carter (Democrat) - 39th President of the United States from 1977 to 1981: Failed - Iran takeover of the U.S. embassy in Teheran.
Ronald Reagan (Republican) - 40th President of the United States (1981–89): Subject.
George Herbert Walker Bush (Republican) - 41st President of the United States (1989–1993): Failed - could not improve the Economy.
William Jefferson Clinton (Democrat) - 42nd President of the United States (1993 to 2001): Very successful Presidency, but was impeached by the House of Representatives austensibly for his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, but in actuality because of his close relationship with Blacks.
Clinton drew strong support from the African American community and made improving race relations a major theme of his presidency. In 1998, Nobel laureate Toni Morrison called Clinton "the first Black president", saying, "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas". Noting that Clinton's sex life was scrutinized more than his career accomplishments, Morrison compared this to the stereotyping and double standards that blacks typically endure.
George Walker Bush (Republican) - 43rd President of the United States from 2001 to 2009: Failed - failed to investigate warnings of Terrorists plans to attack the U.S., Started two Wars that he could not end, ruined a once prosperous U.S. economy.
Barack Hussein Obama II (Democrat) - 44th and current President of the United States
Orlando Liberal Examiner
December 3, 2011 7:32 PM MST
If you ever happen to come across a Republican on television these days, chances are that you will hear the name Ronald Reagan. Recent Republican debates are the perfect example of the love fest that the current Republican party has for Reagan as each candidate name drops the former president at every turn. If you only listened to conservatives you would think that Jesus Christ was the only person above Reagan on the totem pole of conservative love. They talk about his love of low taxes, less government and conservative family values.
The problem is that when you step out of the conservative dream and come back to reality, you find that not only was Ronald Reagan a bad president, but he was one of the worst presidents we've seen in modern times. Reagan's policies have destroyed the United States for three decades, and here are 10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime.
1. Reagan cut taxes for the Rich, increased taxes on the Middle Class -
Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it. When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. As Reagan gave the breaks to all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal government. In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office. One example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class.
2. Tripling the National Debt -
As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.
3. Iran/Contra - (I break this down in more detail in the article linked here)
In 1986, a group of Americans were being held hostage by a terrorist group with ties to Iran. In an attempt to free the hostages, Ronald Reagan secretly sold arms and money to Iran. Much of the money that was received from the trade went to fund the Nicaragua Contra rebels who were in a war with the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. When the scandal broke in the Untied States it became the biggest story in the country, Reagan tried to down play what happened, but never fully recovered.
4. Reagan funded Terrorists -
The attacks on 9/11 by al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden brought new attention to international terrorism. All of a sudden, Americans coast to coast wore their American flag pins, ate their freedom fries and couldn't wait to go to war with anyone who looked like a Muslim. What Americans didn't realize was that the same group that attacked the United States on 9/11 was funded by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Prepping for a possible war with the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan. With billions of American dollars, weapons and training coming their way, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden took everything they were given and gave it back to the United States over a decade later in the worst possible way imaginable.
5. Unemployment issues -
When Ronald Reagan came into office 1981, unemployment was at 7.5%. After Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, he began raising taxes on the middle and lower class. Corporations started to ship more jobs out of the United States while hiring cheap foreign labor in order to make a bigger profit. While corporations made billions, Americans across the country lost their jobs. As 1982 came to a close, unemployment was nearly 11%. Unemployment began to drop as the years went on, but the jobs that were created were low paying and barely helped people make ends meet. The middle and lower class had their wages nearly frozen as the top earners saw dramatic increases in salary.
6. Ignoring AIDS -
By the time the 1980s came around, AIDS had become one of the most frightening things to happen to the country in recent memory. No one understood what AIDS and HIV really was and when people don't understand something, they become scared of it. The fear of the unknown was sweeping across the country and Americans needed a leader to speak out about this horrible virus, that leader never came. Instead of grabbing the bull by the horns and taking charge, Reagan kept quiet. Reagan couldn't say the words AIDS or HIV until seven years into his presidency, a leader not so much.
7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million Undocumented Immigrants -
In today's GOP, the idea of any immigrant staying in the United States whether they are legal or illegal isn't something that conservatives embrace. What might shock them is that in 1982 Ronald Reagan gave nearly 3 million undocumented workers amnesty. The biggest reason for undocumented workers coming to the United States is because corporations hire them at a cheaper rate than they would an American citizen. All the laws that would have cracked down on companies who hire undocumented workers were, of course, removed from the bill.
8. His attack on Unions and the Middle Class -
The Republican war on unions and the middle class has been heating up in states like Wisconsin and Ohio, but it has been going on for a long time. Unions are formed to give a united voice to the workers in an attempt to create fairness between the corporations and their employees. On August 3rd, 1981, PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) went on strike in an effort to get better pay and safer working conditions. Two days later, taking the side of business, Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 workers for not returning to work.
*Bonus reasons against Reagan*
9. Reagan raided the Social Security Trust fund -
With Ronald Reagan cutting taxes so drastically, the U.S government was beginning to starve. Reagan added to the government and didn't make enough spending cuts to offset the tax cuts, so the money needed to come from somewhere. Ronald Reagan knew that his polices would create economic bubbles, unemployment would drop and some jobs would be created, but in time the bubble would burst leaving the economy in ruins. In order to counteract his own economic policies, Ronald Reagan needed to find somewhere else to get revenue.
Listening to Alan Greenspan and other advisors, Ronald Reagan raided the Social Security Trust Fund and replaced it with glorified IOU's. Ronald Reagan raised the Social Security tax rate which did add to the revenue, but because there is a cap on Social Security, currently no income over $113,700 is taxed for Social Security, the wealthy didn't feel the tax increase and the pain was pushed to the middle and lower classes.
10. Endless worship and never-ending praise -
Ronald Reagan left office in January of 1989 and nearly 25 years later he is held up high by the modern Republican party. As nearly three decades have gone by since Ronald Reagan was in the White House, reality and history has faded with time. Conservative figures like anti-tax Grover Norquist created the "Ronald Reagan Legacy Project" with a goal of memorializing Reagan in all 50 states. As stated in this article, Ronald Reagan did a lot to hurt the United States, not just while he was in office, but in the years that have followed. What's scary about today's current Republican party is that while Reagan was one of the worst presidents this country has had to endure over the last 100 years, he would be considered too moderate to be nominated by today's conservative standards.
By STUART TAYLOR Jr., Special to the New York Times
Published: September 9, 1987
Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court, in a highly unusual public criticism of a sitting President, has said in a television interview that Ronald Reagan ranked at ''the bottom'' of United States Presidents in terms of the rights of blacks.
In the interview, to be broadcast Sunday, Justice Marshall said of Mr. Reagan: ''Honestly, I think he's down with Hoover and that group. Wilson - When we really didn't have a chance.'' The word ''we'' was a reference to blacks.
Justice Marshall confirmed today that he made the remarks in an interview with the columnist Carl T. Rowan. But he did not elaborate on his criticism of Mr. Reagan.
The 79-year-old Justice, once a leading civil rights lawyer, is the only black ever to sit on the Supreme Court. In his Supreme Court opinions, he has sharply differed with the Administration's positions on civil rights and other issues.
Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism. Each interpretation of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions too wide or narrow.
One common definition of the term focuses on three concepts: the fascist negations of anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism; nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; and a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership. According to many scholars, fascism — especially once in power — has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far right.
Roger Griffin describes fascism as "a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism". Griffin describes the ideology as having three core components: "(i) the rebirth myth, (ii) populist ultra-nationalism and (iii) the myth of decadence". Fascism is "a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism" built on a complex range of theoretical and cultural influences. He distinguishes an inter-war period in which it manifested itself in elite-led but populist "armed party" politics opposing socialism and liberalism and promising radical politics to rescue the nation from decadence.
(Sounds like the anti-Obama U.S. Right Wing, doesn't it)?
Umberto Eco, Kevin Passmore, John Weiss, Ian Adams, and Moyra Grant, mention racism (including anti-semitism) as a characteristic of fascism; i.e. fascistic dictator Hitler idealized German society as a racially unified and hierarchically organized Volksgemeinschaft.
Nationalism is the main foundation of fascism. The fascist view of a nation is of a single organic entity that binds people together by their ancestry, and is a natural unifying force of people. Fascism seeks to solve economic, political, and social problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth, exalting the nation or race above all else, and promoting cults of unity, strength, and purity. European fascist movements typically espouse a racist conception of non-Europeans being inferior to Europeans. Beyond this, fascists in Europe have not held a unified set of racial views. Historically, most fascists promoted imperialism, although there have been several fascist movements that were uninterested in the pursuit of new imperial ambitions.
One of the most common and strongest criticisms of fascism is that it is a tyranny. Fascism is deliberately and entirely non-democratic and anti-democratic.
|Click for Realhistoryww Home Page|