User Profile: RajCaj


Member Since: March 02, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [1] March 2, 2015 at 10:20am

    Thanks for the context. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to matter much these days.

    There has been a major shift in the dynamics of communication that has been coming for a long time, but only now is out in the light, where people don’t even have to prove racial bias context was meant by the messenger any more. All that is needed to ascribe meaning to a message (verbal or otherwise) is how someone interprets it. (See ***** in the armor story with the ESPN writer)

    Fitting for an industry that trains our millennials to be hypersensitive about everything, and to assume race is the motivator for nearly ally actions. If an entire generation of people always evaluates everything through the context of race, just about any speech can be construed as racist. Couple that with the scarlet letter treatment racism gets you, you have a massive squelching of speech…innocent or not.

    I wonder how soon parents get reprimanded for teaching the old “Sticks & Stones…” moto.

  • [2] March 2, 2015 at 10:03am

    Also….one of the admins interviewed took particular exception that this was done during Black History month. Does it matter more if someone was racist during Jan or Feb?!?

    If Love is Love, Hate is Hate….and it shouldn’t matter what month it happens in. Being more sensitive to racial overtones during black history month tells a lot about how superficial race relations have become.

    But to your point teddy, most of our millennials aren’t taught to think critically and dig that deep. Critical Race Theory tells these kids that people of all races are primarily motivated by their race, and will always racially discriminate against others not of their race.

    This means that all white people (unless actively aware of their state of privilege) that do negative things toward a person of another race is done out of racial discrimination. So the motivation of these kids that dressed up wasn’t to just be silly….but to mock the opposing team’s race.

    That said, under our new race relations system…and new definition of racism, you would not have standing to be offended, or allege racism, if someone dressed up as a saltine cracker because the (assumingly) non-whites mocking your race do not have social power to back up the name calling, and therefore is not an act of racism.

  • March 2, 2015 at 9:48am

    @Gary / willy

    The racial overtones come with the meme of blacks being like monkeys….with comparisons to physical appearance & insinuation that they are also lesser functioning humans

    That said, I don’t think it’s fair to assume racially prejudiced context when there are other explanations that exist.

    School admins should have talked to the kids to investigate what the motivation might have been. If these kids had a track record of racial discrimination, or involved other props that would have made it more clear that this was designed to be a slight to black folks…then give them the appropriate consequences.

    However, if the only context to support the idea that this was racially motivated is that the alleged perpetrators are white…..that in itself is racial discrimination by assuming all white people mean every possible slight to be in context of racial discrimination.

    Anything otherwise will lead to a mass squelching of speech, racial context or not.

  • [28] February 25, 2015 at 1:07pm


    Democrats don’t worry about double standards or being outted as hypocrites because they control mass media and other hooks into pop culture that shape public opinion.

    They don’t fear setting a precedent with unconstitutional executive orders, that could potentially be used by a political opponent in the future because they will make sure the mass media calls out any transgression made by a Republican president.

    Someone on the forums mentioned yesterday that Shelia Jackson Lee didn’t believe in the separation of powers & the ability for the legislature to check the executive branch with purse strings. WRONG…she believes in those things, and would readily use what ever leverage a Democrat controlled Congress had over a Republican president….she’s just okay with ignoring that privilege now because it benefit’s her political agenda. Ends justifies the means, and all that.

  • [1] February 24, 2015 at 5:30pm

    @Zipit – Stay classy. Shelia Jackson Lee (and most elected Democrat officials) provide enough material to make a solid argument against their political ideology. I don’t know why ignorant racist comments have to be brought into the debate. Saying she did it for a banana does a disservice to the REAL reason she felt free to openly admit why the Democrats are blocking the bill.

    @jamespubliusmadison – I don’t think she believes Congress doesn’t have the power to withhold funding that supports an executive order. To be sure, if it were a Republican president that issued an executive order that a Democrat controlled Congress didn’t like….she’d be the first in line to make it known that Congress has full discretion to control the purse strings.

    And don’t be so certain that her constituents disagree with her party blocking the vote on a bill that defunds Obama’s executive amnesty. As a matter of fact, most of her voter base likely doesn’t give two turds what the Constitution says if it means that it prevents their elected officials from doing the things they want them to do. Ends justifies the means & all that. Heck, most Democrats thing the Constitution is an obsolete document that needs a complete re-write anyway. No, I think most of her voters are just fine with the Democrat party blocking a vote on this legislation.

  • [3] February 24, 2015 at 5:00pm

    How exactly does that bring Libertarians over to the Democrat party?

    The Democrats aren’t blocking the DHS funding vote because they want to reign in the size & influence of the DHS….they are blocking the vote because the bill, as written by the Republicans, seeks to defund Obama’s (illegal) executive orders on immigration.

    The Democrats are fighting for greater power & influence with this non-vote, not the other way around.

  • [1] February 24, 2015 at 4:50pm

    As you indicate, term limits are not a cure all but it is a start. It’s true, term limits would likely speed up the current corruption process….but how sustainable is that?

    Lobbyists would not be able to continue to cash in on old favors with long time politicians, and would essentially have to keep the juice flowing to cover fresh faces that have less history of favors to repay. Private interest bank rollers would have to fork out a substantially greater amount of money over time because all prior investments walk out the door with a term limited politician. Just like high turn-over costs a company more money to retrain new employees than retaining old ones….corrupting politicians with payouts in a high turn-over system will cost them more money.

    Also, politicians having to speed up the rate at which they change legislation would work against progressivism. Progressivism works so well because it’s slow, subtle and requires politicians have enough time to build up influence over time to push legislation through. Think of the “how do you cook a frog…turn the heat up slowly” analogy. Giving politicians a smaller window to “change the world” would prevent them from amassing influence & control over other legislators, and would likely mean the legislative changes in each congressmen’s term will outpace the rate of acceptable change by the electorate.

    The real fix is to distribute some of that power back to the states, but good luck with that!

  • [3] February 24, 2015 at 4:31pm

    It doesn’t matter….its just preaching to the choir now.

    The people that are politically aligned with the likes of Shelia Jackson Lee think the Constitution is an old rag that is obsolete at best, or an obstruction to progress toward a more perfect society at worst. As such, they’d gladly give a like minded president full discretion to break through the gridlock within the legislative branch and create / execute laws they see fit.

    People who are on the other side of the political fence are outraged & beside themselves that members of the legislative branch would willingly hand over their power to create law to the executive branch in the name of furthering the agenda of a specific political party.

    No hearts, minds or political stances are changed with Shelia’s admission…and that’s why she did it.

  • [1] January 29, 2015 at 2:42pm

    I think the ignorant masses that subscribe to progressivism think that way….but the deeper thinking & educated believe that religion (particularly a deity based religion with consequences in the eternal or afterlife) as a guiding force for how someone lives their life is dangerous because they are more resistant to change they think is required to reach a more perfect society.

    In other words, it’s harder to convince someone to change the way they think about something if their motivation is based on banishment to eternal damnation for thinking differently….than if their motivation is based on whatever the latest scientific research paper says (which changes all the time…see studies on the effects of coffee, global warming)

    This isn’t a problem if the religious belief system is compatible with civilized society (see Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism), but can be problematic if the religious belief is off the reservation (see strict practice of Islam)

    That said, the social engineers at the top ranks of academia have a fear of religion as a whole, and quite frankly…Christians represent the low hanging fruit for anti-theists & secularists. There is a significant enough population & enough “cracks” in the spiritual integrity of the Christian faith system that they see that attacking Christianity first would have the largest impact on Western society.

    That’s my 2 pennies anyway…

  • [4] January 29, 2015 at 2:24pm

    Good points AvengerK…

    In Psychology / Sociology classes, you learn about Maslow’s Hierarchy…which essentially is a triangle with layered subsections that cover the priority of needs. The further down the hierarchy you go, the more base or primal your needs are. Also, the further down the hierarchy you go, the more resistant to change behaviors related to those needs are.

    The idea is that living one’s life based off of religious teachings taps into more of the base primal needs that are more resistant to change than living ones life off of what the latest scientific study says about something, or even what a governmental agency says about something.

    Because living ones life based on religion is more ingrained in the bedrock of your being, Atheists and other progressive minded types argue that being so resistant to change prevents “progress”….or makes people less malleable to what the “powers that be” decide are best practices of societal behaviors.

    There is truth to that, but not wavering in your moral foundation is beneficial(so long as the moral foundation is good willed and compatible with a civilized and sustainable society)in that it is what protects humans from the whims of fads, pop culture, or other untested social theories & experimentation.

    Some change is good, some change is bad. Most progressives I know are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water, and think all change is good.

    This is at the root of progressivism & conservatism

    Responses (3) +
  • [8] January 28, 2015 at 1:35pm


    The reason there are no libertarian socialist candidates is because the name is an oxymoron.

    Libertarians (or classic liberals) seek to maximize INDIVIDUAL liberties. For a society that provides it’s citizens to have maximum freedoms, there must also be maximum personal responsibility.

    Socialists seek to maximize the STATES liberties. Socialist societies attempt to leverage individual gains & losses across the collective. The only agency that can (theoretically) manage this is the State, with all the freedoms and liberties it needs to force people to do one thing or another.

    Freedom & Liberty among the individual & the state is a zero sum game. Both cannot have maximum freedoms without infringing on the other. Socialist governments cannot be free to force an individual to forfeit their earnings while an individual is free to earn as much as they want. An individual cannot be free to eat what they want, if the socialist government is free to dictate to the individual what they can & cannot eat…in the name of effectively managing socialized health care.

  • [8] January 28, 2015 at 1:23pm

    Calling democrat candidates “far superior” is obviously subjective to one’s own ideology.

    Obama was raised by socialists & communists, studied progressive operatives in college, taught what he learned from those progressive operatives in college, worked as a community organizer attorney for a few years….was elected to state senate for a few years….was elected to federal senate for a few years and then became president.

    In all of that, his only political experience was spent in the legislative branch where his primary objective was to get people stuff in exchange for support….not one iota of executive experience in his private or public life….and he’s elected to arguably the highest executive job available on the planet.

    Romney wasn’t a beauty queen, but the guy atleast knew what it was to make payroll and delegate effectively. Romney has more experience with micro & macro economics in his left pinky that Obama has in total.

    But again…its all about your prerogative. If you want a president to use the executive branch to give people a bunch of crap…he’s your man. But to call him far superior, that’s a joke.

    Al Gore & John Kerry were almost presidents….LOL

  • [52] January 28, 2015 at 1:08pm

    To be fair to O’Riley….Palin did actually have a reality show for a while…as does Trump. All three of the potential candidates that O’Riley mentioned have what you’d call a “colorful” track record in the public eye.

    Sarah has made her share of polarizing comments, as has Christy & Trump. Much of it was made into a bigger deal that what it probably deserved….mostly aided by the media & the Democrat Party.

    To that point, (right or wrong) I think it’s fair to say that the media will have a field day with these 3 candidates….and with that said, Bill isn’t exactly wrong with his comment.

    Is highlighting that particularly helpful for Sarah, or the other 2 candidates…probably not. And Sarah is absolutely right in the fact that Democrats are far less likely to eat their own….and that has paid them dividends during election cycles.

    Responses (1) +
  • [17] January 28, 2015 at 12:59pm

    Palin isn’t clean as the wind driven snow, nor is any candidate….but I don’t think you can discount her ability to lead.

    Folks seem to forget she started her political career from scratch… uncle or aunt state or federal senator connected her politically for the governorship of Alaska. She didn’t get political backing by being a popular entertainer, or by graduating from one of the ivy league political farm leagues.

    She ran for a seat on her local city council and won…twice. She did such a good job at that, she was able to convince enough people in her city to elect her Mayor. She did such a good job at that, she was able to convince enough people to elect her as governor of Alaska. She bucked the good-ole-boy system at the state level, and was was convincing enough of a leader that the Republican presidential ticket tapped her as their VP. And in that role, she even bucked the status quo line she was asked to walk under the McCain campaign.

    You might not like her politics, or even her character as a person….but I think it’s a little ignorant to say that Palin doesn’t possess leadership qualities.

  • [8] January 26, 2015 at 11:54am

    Obviously you’re being a bit sarcastic here, but unfortunately what you’re saying is true. Had the cop not followed-up on the call & someone at the wedding got shot by this guy, the only news the media might have taken away from that tragic event was about guns killing people.

    You wont hear a single word regarding how / why someone decided that threatening a group of people, and ultimately killing someone, at a wedding was a reasonable idea.

    If the gun narrative didn’t fly, not a single person at these black brunches would be reciting this woman’s name because it was black on black violence, born out of thug / gang culture.

    Even with a shoulder camera exonerating the cop, the grief pimps will still grind the axe.

  • [8] January 23, 2015 at 8:40am

    Don’t the refs handle the ball on every down? Aren’t the refs employed by the NFL?

  • January 21, 2015 at 5:33pm

    Actually, FOX does do news…but only at a local affiliate level. Where I’m from, there is a local news broadcast on FOX at 9:00pm.

    That said…FOX News is closer to CNN (24hr News Network) than broadcast stations like CBS, NBC, ABC….where they do national news part time, to all the other pop-culture tripe that airs throughout the rest of the day.

    I tend to give people the benefit of doubt, but I feel pretty confident that some hyper-partisan recent college grad staffer thought themselves to be clever, with a slight to Fox News by not printing “News” on the place card.

    And all Shep did was feed the troll by acknowledging it on national news. Viewers of Fox News aren’t surprised and cheap shot will earn the political hack street cred in their tribe

  • January 19, 2015 at 6:23pm

    True…they keep mentioning MLKs name, but in the same breath advocate tactics held by Malcolm X, and see the world through the eyes of Derrick Bell. Both of those guys thought MLK was a fool for thinking working within our system & treating everyone equally across all races would end racism.

    I heard / read today more people complain about white privilege than mention a goal of a color blind society

  • January 19, 2015 at 6:18pm

    Same for me….and spot on regarding the “color blind” bit. All I’ve heard all day, from all of the MLK specials & programs across the TV & Radio dial has been nothing but Malcolm X & Derrick Bell.

    It’s a facade….they pimp MLK’s achievements and tell everyone we need to adopt MX’s tactics & adopt Derrick Bell’s Critical Race Theory….without every mentioning MX or Derrick Bell.

    I wonder how many people know that the father of the current mindset regarding race relations thought MLK was a fool and his vision of a color blind society was a load of crap?

  • [2] January 16, 2015 at 8:42am


    It’s not hypocritical if you’re up to speed on the “NEW” definition of racism that’s being taught.

    An act can only be racist if said act comes from a person of a race that holds a systemic power dynamic over the race of the person the act is directed toward.

    In other words, whites in America can be victims of racial discrimination, but cannot be victims of racism (due to the supposed power structure whites hold over people of other races)

    So if you buy into all of that, all of those contradictions you pointed out are allowed.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love