Richard

What do you call hair around the anus?

Does it turn you on?

Black Americans should be exterminated because they have an ATTITUDE PROBLEM (i.e. Negroid receding forehead, wide nostrils, flat-nose, flat-face, frizzy hair, and rubber lips); they stink because they live in the inner city (stinking ghettos); they're into rap monkey music, which is completely nauseating e.g. Stevie Wonder, Negro rhythm, R&B; they do drugs; they own illicit firearms; they like to beat, rape, and kill White women and children; they are more prone to crime than any other group; they have the lowest household income; they have the highest drop out rate amongst high school and college students; and they have the lowest IQ in America.

Blacks have an ATTITUDE PROBLEM because they are more prone to ethnocentric behavior than other minority ethnic groups, and (therefore) they do not want to have sexual, romantic, and conjugal relations with White people in America.

Doesn't matter if Obama is President of the United States, because Africa is still the POOREST continent, and black people are the LEAST powerful in terms of their military capability and economic power.

African Americans are still the most disadvantaged minority ethnic group in America, which is on the basis of statistical data by the Pew Research Center in Washington DC. Accordingly, blacks have the WORST educational attainment, household income, residential area, and criminal activity in the United States: http://pewresearch.org/

Also, Blacks have the lowest recorded IQ in America: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Two_...

Consequently, the United States and NATO should attack the global black diaspora with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons to exterminated the entire Negro inferior-race in N. America, S. America, Europe, Africa, Middle East, S. India, SE Asia, and Australasia.

Barack Hussein Obama is a focking Niger, who should be strip searched and stripped NAKED as a spectacle in front of a teeming White crowd; that stinking Koon motherfocker should be hanged, burned alive, and dismembered.

White people have a SACRED DUTY to rid America of its black population; blacks should be hanged, exterminated, and wiped from the face of the earth: http://withoutsanctuary.org/

Is it true that any ethnic minority candidate who wishes to run for the US House of Representatives, the Senate, or the White House would, to some extent, be expected to act as a role model for his own group, and to act as a bridge between his own group and the mainstream, political, White majority?

Is this one of the "unwritten" rules of US elections and is it true that ethnic minority candidates are usually elected on the assumption they would satisfy such a criteria?

Is it true that any ethnic minority candidate who wishes to run for the US House of Representatives, the Senate, or the White House would, to some extent, be expected to act as a role model for his own group, and to act as a bridge between his own group and the mainstream, political, White majority?

Is this one of the "unwritten" rules of US elections and is it true that ethnic minority candidates are usually elected on the assumption they would satisfy such a criteria?

Is it true that any ethnic minority candidate who wishes to run for the US House of Representatives, the Senate, or the White House would, to some extent, be expected to act as a role model for his own group, and to act as a bridge between his own group and the mainstream, political, White majority?

Is this one of the "unwritten" rules of US elections and is it true that ethnic minority candidates are usually elected on the assumption they would satisfy such a criteria?

Is it true that any ethnic minority candidate who wishes to run for the US House of Representatives, the Senate, or the White House would, to some extent, be expected to act as a role model for his own group, and to act as a bridge between his own group and the mainstream, political, White majority?

Is this one of the unwritten rules of US elections and is it true that ethnic minority candidates are usually elected on the assumption they would satisfy such a criteria?

There are some commentators who have suggested that President Obama would never had been elected on 4 November 2008, unless he would be considered as A TRUE ROLE MODEL for African Americans. In other words, Obama could never be seen as a role model unless he would have certain ties with the Black community in America:-

(i) Prior to his bid for the White House in 2008, Obama was a longstanding member of the Trinity United Church of Christ, which is a primarily black congregation in Chicago.

(ii) Pastor Jeremiah Alvesta Wright married Barack and his wife at TUCC, which means that there is no question whatsover about Obama's African American identity.

(iii) Obama had a large number of friends and associates from within the black community throughout his childhood and adolescent years, which is evident from his autobiography: The Audacity of Hope and Dreams from my Father.

President Obama was elected by the majority of black and white voters, because he is seen to represent the interests of both communities; and at the same time, he is seen to act as a bridge between the two communities. Therefore, it is little wonder that Obama was selected as a candidate for the US Senate and White House, because he is a useful pawn to the political White establishment. Obama is useful to the establishment because it is a popular myth amongst the White majority that America is no longer a racially divided society, White people are not racist, and Obama will help to ease racial tensions in America.

Consequently, it's not rocket science for anybody to infer that the first Hispanic or Asian candidate to win the White House must ALSO be considered as "a true role model" for their respective communities. However, any such candidate would be RADICALLY DIFFERENT to President Obama, because historically, the black community has been long settled in the United States; and thereby, it is not necessary for any black candidate to demonstrate any close ties with the African continent to be a representative role model to the black community in America. On the other hand, a large percentage of the Hispanic and Asian communities happen to be first generation immigrants, who still have close ties with the mother country; and for any Hispanic or Asian candidate to be successful, such a candidate must be seen to represent the immigrant population, as much as represent the American-born Hispanic or Asian community.

To summarise my point: (a) A successful black candidate doesn't need to have immediate ties with the African continent because the vast majority of blacks are born in the United States. (b) On the other hand, the Hispanic and Asian communities are RADICALLY DIFFERENT to the black community, because there are significant numbers who happen to be first generation immigrants, which means that any successful candidate must be seen to represent the interests of the immigrant population, as much as represent the interests of the American-born Hispanic or Asian community. (c) Therefore, to attract the financial backing of Corporate America, any would be candidate who is either Hispanic or Asian must be seen to represent the interests of the political White establishment; which usually implies that such a candidate must be seen to represent the interests of the immigrant population, as much as represent the interests of the American-born Hispanic or Asian community. (d) Despite the numerical superiority of the Hispanic population, it is rather more urgent for the political White establishment to find a suitable candidate amongst the Chinese American population, which is for a number of reasons:-

(i) The Asian American population is the second-fastest growing ethnic minority in the United States, and the Asian community will be evermore significant to the social, economic, and political life of America; and therefore, any successful candidate must be seen to act as a bridge between the Asian and White community, which is for the purpose of improved relations between the two communities.

(ii) China's imminent rise as a global superpower in the next 20 years might be a source of friction or apprehension to some Americans, but any would be candidate of Asian background must be regarded as a "positive" role model, which would do much to allay the fear and suspicions of the political majority.

(iii) Consequently, any such candidate must be seen to represent the interests of the immigrant population, which usually implies that he must also have close ties with the ancestral country, IN ONE SHAPE OR ANOTHER.

Given that this is classified information leaked by the White House (via A.L.H. in March 2010), which the government doesn't want anybody to know, are we really therefore supposed to believe anything else that the government is now trying to tell us in regards to the nature of US elections?

There are some commentators who have suggested that President Obama would never had been elected on 4 November 2008, unless he would be considered as A TRUE ROLE MODEL for African Americans. In other words, Obama could never be seen as a role model unless he would have certain ties with the Black community in America:-

(i) Prior to his bid for the White House in 2008, Obama was a longstanding member of the Trinity United Church of Christ, which is a primarily black congregation in Chicago.

(ii) Pastor Jeremiah Alvesta Wright married Barack and his wife at TUCC, which means that there is no question whatsover about Obama's African American identity.

(iii) Obama had a large number of friends and associates from within the black community throughout his childhood and adolescent years, which is evident from his autobiography: The Audacity of Hope and Dreams from my Father.

President Obama was elected by the majority of black and white voters, because he is seen to represent the interests of both communities; and at the same time, he is seen to act as a bridge between the two communities. Therefore, it is little wonder that Obama was selected as a candidate for the US Senate and White House, because he is a useful pawn to the political White establishment. Obama is useful to the establishment because it is a popular myth amongst the White majority that America is no longer a racially divided society, White people are not racist, and Obama will help to ease racial tensions in America.

Consequently, it's not rocket science for anybody to infer that the first Hispanic or Asian candidate to win the White House must ALSO be considered as "a true role model" for their respective communities. However, any such candidate would be RADICALLY DIFFERENT to President Obama, because historically, the black community has been long settled in the United States; and thereby, it is not necessary for any black candidate to demonstrate any close ties with the African continent to be a representative role model to the black community in America. On the other hand, a large percentage of the Hispanic and Asian communities happen to be first generation immigrants, who still have close ties with the mother country; and for any Hispanic or Asian candidate to be successful, such a candidate must be seen to represent the immigrant population, as much as represent the American-born Hispanic or Asian community.

To summarise my point: (a) A successful black candidate doesn't need to have immediate ties with the African continent because the vast majority of blacks are born in the United States. (b) On the other hand, the Hispanic and Asian communities are RADICALLY DIFFERENT to the black community, because there are significant numbers who happen to be first generation immigrants, which means that any successful candidate must be seen to represent the interests of the immigrant population, as much as represent the interests of the American-born Hispanic or Asian community. (c) Therefore, to attract the financial backing of Corporate America, any would be candidate who is either Hispanic or Asian must be seen to represent the interests of the political White establishment; which usually implies that such a candidate must be seen to represent the interests of the immigrant population, as much as represent the interests of the American-born Hispanic or Asian community. (d) Despite the numerical superiority of the Hispanic population, it is rather more urgent for the political White establishment to find a suitable candidate amongst the Chinese American population, which is for a number of reasons:-

(i) The Asian American population is the second-fastest growing ethnic minority in the United States, and the Asian community will be evermore significant to the social, economic, and political life of America; and therefore, any successful candidate must be seen to act as a bridge between the Asian and White community, which is for the purpose of improved relations between the two communities.

(ii) China's imminent rise as a global superpower in the next 20 years might be a source of friction or apprehension to some Americans, but any would be candidate of Asian background must be regarded as a "positive" role model, which would do much to allay the fear and suspicions of the political majority.

(iii) Consequently, any such candidate must be seen to represent the interests of the immigrant population, which usually implies that he must also have close ties with the ancestral country, IN ONE SHAPE OR ANOTHER.

Given that this is classified information leaked by the White House (via A.L.H. in March 2010), which the government doesn't want anybody to know, are we really therefore supposed to believe anything else that the government is now trying to tell us in regards to the nature of US elections?

There are some commentators who have suggested that President Obama would never had been elected on 4 November 2008, unless he would be considered as A TRUE ROLE MODEL for African Americans. In other words, Obama could never be seen as a role model unless he would have certain ties with the Black community in America:-

(i) Prior to his bid for the White House in 2008, Obama was a longstanding member of the Trinity United Church of Christ, which is a primarily black congregation in Chicago.

(ii) Pastor Jeremiah Alvesta Wright married Barack and his wife at TUCC, which means that there is no question whatsover about Obama's African American identity.

(iii) Obama had a large number of friends and associates from within the black community throughout his childhood and adolescent years, which is evident from his autobiography: The Audacity of Hope and Dreams from my Father.

President Obama was elected by the majority of black and white voters, because he is seen to represent the interests of both communities; and at the same time, he is seen to act as a bridge between the two communities. Therefore, it is little wonder that Obama was selected as a candidate for the US Senate and White House, because he is a useful pawn to the political White establishment. Obama is useful to the establishment because it is a popular myth amongst the White majority that America is no longer a racially divided society, White people are not racist, and Obama will help to ease racial tensions in America.

Consequently, it's not rocket science for anybody to infer that the first Hispanic or Asian candidate to win the White House must ALSO be considered as "a true role model" for their respective communities. However, any such candidate would be RADICALLY DIFFERENT to President Obama, because historically, the black community has been long settled in the United States; and thereby, it is not necessary for any black candidate to demonstrate any close ties with the African continent to be a representative role model to the black community in America. On the other hand, a large percentage of the Hispanic and Asian communities happen to be first generation immigrants, who still have close ties with the mother country; and for any Hispanic or Asian candidate to be successful, such a candidate must be seen to represent the immigrant population, as much as represent the American-born Hispanic or Asian community.

To summarise my point: (a) A successful black candidate doesn't need to have immediate ties with the African continent because the vast majority of blacks are born in the United States. (b) On the other hand, the Hispanic and Asian communities are RADICALLY DIFFERENT to the black community, because there are significant numbers who happen to be first generation immigrants, which means that any successful candidate must be seen to represent the interests of the immigrant population, as much as represent the interests of the American-born Hispanic or Asian community. (c) Therefore, to attract the financial backing of Corporate America, any would be candidate who is either Hispanic or Asian must be seen to represent the interests of the political White establishment; which usually implies that such a candidate must be seen to represent the interests of the immigrant population, as much as represent the interests of the American-born Hispanic or Asian community. (d) Despite the numerical superiority of the Hispanic population, it is rather more urgent for the political White establishment to find a suitable candidate amongst the Chinese American population, which is for a number of reasons:-

(i) The Asian American population is the second-fastest growing ethnic minority in the United States, and the Asian community will be evermore significant to the social, economic, and political life of America; and therefore, any successful candidate must be seen to act as a bridge between the Asian and White community, which is for the purpose of improved relations between the two communities.

(ii) China's imminent rise as a global superpower in the next 20 years might be a source of friction or apprehension to some Americans, but any would be candidate of Asian background must be regarded as a "positive" role model, which would do much to allay the fear and suspicions of the political majority.

(iii) Consequently, any such candidate must be seen to represent the interests of the immigrant population, which usually implies that he must also have close ties with the ancestral country, IN ONE SHAPE OR ANOTHER.

Given that this is classified information leaked by the White House (via A.L.H. in March 2010), which the government doesn't want anybody to know, are we really therefore supposed to believe anything else that the government is now trying to tell us in regards to the nature of US elections?

Is Congress and the United States government presumptuous to assume that foreign nationals who are non-US citizens supposedly owe allegiance to the United States?

Where, in the Constitution, does it say that foreign nationals supposedly owe allegiance to another sovereign entity, which in this case is the United States?

Does Congress and the United States government realize that America has no sovereign presence or rights in the EU, Russia, and China; and it would not be easy to win a nuclear exchange with any sovereign power which has nuclear submarines?

Does the Pentagon, CIA, and the United States government realize that a relatively small country such as France and Great Britain has more than enough nuclear weapons to deter a much bigger and stronger military power such as Russia, China, and the United States, and America could not easily win a nuclear exchange without incurring heavy loss in terms of military, industrial, and civilian casualties? Needless to say, are they aware that America could not easily win a nuclear exchange against China without incurring even greater collateral damage in terms of military, industrial, and civilian casualties?

Given that this is the case, is Congress and the United States government presumptuous to assume that foreign nationals who are non-US citizens supposedly owe allegiance to their god-forsaken country, whereas, they could just as easily kill US troops and civilians in the event of a major military conflict with Russia, China, and N. Korea?

Is President Obama, Bush, and Clinton presumptuous to assume that out of all the 62.262 million total population in the UK, that most of them would supposedly want to live in the United States; and are they naive to assume that the political ideologies of non-White people in Great Britain is any different from the White majority, which would make them more susceptible to US propaganda? What percentage of the total population in Britain do they seriously think would want to live in the United States? What could the United States possibly offer to people in Great Britain that they don't already have here in this country? Why should British people (and Europeans, generally) owe allegiance to the United States, which is a foreign sovereign power, which will always be foreign in the eyes of the British people?

By definition, the First Amendment implies that foreign nationals who are non-US citizens have a right NEVER to set foot on American soil, which is a non-negotiable right; but does Obama, Bush, and Clinton realize that this is a valid, sound, and correct interpretation of the Constitution?

By definition, the First Amendment implies that foreign nationals who are non-US citizens have a RIGHT to fight for whichever country they happen to choose in the event of a major war with the United States, and they have a right to kill US troops and civilians, which is a non-negotiable right; but is the President aware that this is a TRUE interpretation of the Constitution?

Moreover, is the President aware that the United States is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, by definition, implies that no alien would ever be bound by any lawful duty of allegiance to the United States; and is he aware that the Universal Right of Self Determination implies that any alien who is a non-US citizen has a RIGHT to declare his allegiance to a hostile sovereign power in the event of a major military conflict with the United States e.g. Iran, China, N. Korea, and the Russian Federation?

Is the President aware that the recent changes to the US Immigration and Naturalization Act 1965 is futile and meaningless to foreign nationals who do not wish to apply for a Waiver of Ineligibility, nor do they wish to ever live in the United States? Is the President presumptuous to assume that foreign nationals with criminal records would supposedly stoop to ask for clemency from a country to whom they have no allegiance? Is the President presumptuous to assume that aliens who are non-US citizens would supposedly pay US attorneys an exorbitant fee of $6,000 to $10,000 to obtain a Green Card which they do not wish to have, and to live in a country which they dislike?

Based on the law of probability, what are the chances of success for Congress, CIA, and the Government to entice reluctant foreigners who have no wish whatsoever to apply for a visa to live in the United States?

Is Congress and the United States government presumptuous to assume that foreign nationals who are non-US citizens supposedly owe allegiance to the United States?

Where, in the Constitution, does it say that foreign nationals supposedly owe allegiance to another sovereign entity, which in this case is the United States?

Does Congress and the United States government realize that America has no sovereign presence or rights in the EU, Russia, and China; and it would not be easy to win a nuclear exchange with any sovereign power which has nuclear submarines?

Does the Pentagon, CIA, and the United States government realize that a relatively small country such as France and Great Britain has more than enough nuclear weapons to deter a much bigger and stronger military power such as Russia, China, and the United States, and America could not easily win a nuclear exchange without incurring heavy loss in terms of military, industrial, and civilian casualties? Needless to say, are they aware that America could not easily win a nuclear exchange against China without incurring even greater collateral damage in terms of military, industrial, and civilian casualties?

Given that this is the case, is Congress and the United States government presumptuous to assume that foreign nationals who are non-US citizens supposedly owe allegiance to their god-forsaken country, whereas, they could just as easily kill US troops and civilians in the event of a major military conflict with Russia, China, and N. Korea?

Is President Obama, Bush, and Clinton presumptuous to assume that out of all the 62.262 million total population in the UK, that most of them would supposedly want to live in the United States; and are they naive to assume that the political ideologies of non-White people in Great Britain is any different from the White majority, which would make them more susceptible to US propaganda? What percentage of the total population in Britain do they seriously think would want to live in the United States? What could the United States possibly offer to people in Great Britain that they don't already have here in this country? Why should British people (and Europeans, generally) owe allegiance to the United States, which is a foreign sovereign power, which will always be foreign in the eyes of the British people?

By definition, the First Amendment implies that foreign nationals who are non-US citizens have a right NEVER to set foot on American soil, which is a non-negotiable right; but does Obama, Bush, and Clinton realize that this is a valid, sound, and correct interpretation of the Constitution?

By definition, the First Amendment implies that foreign nationals who are non-US citizens have a RIGHT to fight for whichever country they happen to choose in the event of a major war with the United States, and they have a right to kill US troops and civilians, which is a non-negotiable right; but is the President aware that this is a TRUE interpretation of the Constitution?

Moreover, is the President aware that the United States is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, by definition, implies that no alien would ever be bound by any lawful duty of allegiance to the United States; and is he aware that the Universal Right of Self Determination implies that any alien who is a non-US citizen has a RIGHT to declare his allegiance to a hostile sovereign power in the event of a major military conflict with the United States e.g. Iran, China, N. Korea, and the Russian Federation?

Is the President aware that the recent changes to the US Immigration and Naturalization Act 1965 is futile and meaningless to foreign nationals who do not wish to apply for a Waiver of Ineligibility, nor do they wish to ever live in the United States? Is the President presumptuous to assume that foreign nationals with criminal records would supposedly stoop to ask for clemency from a country to whom they have no allegiance? Is the President presumptuous to assume that aliens who are non-US citizens would supposedly pay US attorneys an exorbitant fee of $6,000 to $10,000 to obtain a Green Card which they do not wish to have, and to live in a country which they dislike?

Based on the law of probability, what is the likelihood of Congress and the Government enticing reluctant foreigners who does not wish to apply for a visa to live in the United States?

Given that oil is the main source of revenue for the oil rich Arab nations, what will happen to those countries once the global supply of oil is depleted? Is there any evidence at all to suggest that these countries will be broke once they have depleted their supply of fossil fuel? Or is there evidence to suggest that these countries have the ability to develop an alternative source of revenue, such as tourism (as in the case of Dubai) and manufacturing/exports as in the case of Korea, China and Japan?

Given that oil is the main source of revenue for the oil rich Arab nations, what will happen to those countries once the global supply of oil is depleted? Is there any evidence at all to suggest that these countries will be broke once they have depleted their supply of fossil fuel? Or is there evidence to suggest that these countries have the ability to develop an alternative source of revenue, such as tourism (as in the case of Dubai) and manufacturing/exports as in the case of Korea, China and Japan?

Given that oil is the main source of revenue for the oil rich Arab nations, what will happen to those countries once the global supply of oil is depleted? Is there any evidence at all to suggest that these countries will be broke once they have depleted their supply of fossil fuel? Or is there evidence to suggest that these countries have the ability to develop an alternative source of revenue, such as tourism (as in the case of Dubai) and manufacturing/exports as in the case of Korea, China and Japan?

Given that oil is the main source of revenue for the oil rich Arab nations, what will happen to those countries once the global supply of oil is depleted? Is there any evidence at all to suggest that these countries will be broke once they have depleted their supply of fossil fuel? Or is there evidence to suggest that these countries have the ability to develop an alternative source of revenue, such as tourism (as in the case of Dubai) and manufacturing/exports as in the case of Korea, China and Japan?