User Profile: RajCaj


Member Since: March 02, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [16] October 20, 2014 at 4:07pm

    So in other words, they are the early voting version of the vote busses that troll around the parts of the more apathetic community and rustle up votes for their candidate in exchange for a small hand-me-out or a promise that their lives will be better / or not worse by voting for their guy?

  • [-1] October 16, 2014 at 1:37pm


    Given the folks that subscribe to “white privilege” also subscribe to Critical Race Theory, all you need to do is look at Dr. Derrick Bell’s view on what is required to create “true” equality.

    According to Dr. Bell “and CRT”, our founding documents (Declaration of Independence & Constitution) are inherently racist…because they were drawn up & approved by white people (who are also inherently racist). The inherent racism in these documents is the source of the supposed “institutionalized racism” in our system.

    That said, equal treatment of whites & blacks will not mean equality of races because the system inherently provides “one-ups” for whites….IE Blacks are playing with a handicap. (Dr. Bell thought MLK’s color blind society was full of crap)

    To reach true equality, blacks need to be given preferential treatment “their own one-ups” to balance out the “one-ups” given to whites.

    Otherwise, the Declaration of Independence & Constitution have to be completely rewritten, with input & approval from blacks…and only THEN can there be equality from equal treatment.

  • [4] October 16, 2014 at 10:04am

    …and just to follow-up on my last post….
    I work at an engineering company, with people of all races, genders, creeds, religions and nationalities…who are all wildly & equally successful. You know what they all have in common? Highly educated, highly motivated and self driven.

    I’ve also known many people of all colors, many of them white, that never did anything with their life after highschool. Many of those folks seem to always be dealing with life drama, and almost never respond in a constructive way. They never made education a priority and generally take a “woe is me” attitude on life.

    Go figure…

  • [10] October 16, 2014 at 9:56am

    In my opinion, any disparity that exists is as a result of pop culture & social dynamics within each race…not because being born with a certain color automatically gives someone a benefit or disadvantage in life.

    At the school I attended in the projects, I witnessed black kids pick on other black kids for “talking white” because they properly annunciated their words in class. I witnessed black kids pick on other black kids for “dressing white” because they had their shirt tucked in. I witnessed black kids pick on other black kids for “acting white” because they raised their hands to answer questions in class & did well on tests.

    Where this disparity comes is that adopting behaviors that increase your chances to be successful in life (speaking proper English, dressing up & putting a high priority on education) has been associated with “white people”, and adopting those behaviors is akin to betraying / denying your black race…which can get you ostracized from the community. Is it any wonder why there is a success differential among the races? Couple that, with nearly 3 out of every 4 black kids being born into a single parent household (missing the “privileges” of having two parents – resources, parenting, foundation, structure)…is it any wonder why there is a success differential among the races?

    And to Bill’s point, the Asians do it better than whites…and that’s why they earn more & generally are more successful.

  • [11] October 16, 2014 at 9:24am


    Good point….what has been lost on an entire generation are what humans are capable of, when they reach deep & give it their all. Victimhood allows rationalization of challenges life gives you, and prevents deeper soul searching about what needs to be done to be successful & fulfilled in life.

    For some, the right attitude & motivation is all that is needed to put the gears in motion and start doing what is required to have success in life. For others, their backs need to be against the wall, with survival instincts kicking in and providing the necessary motivation to do what is required. The kind of welfare that we are providing today ensures that your back is never against the wall. Couple the menial existence provided by welfare, with low expectations (victimhood), you have successfully created a class of people that are still in need of resources but feel it’s helpless to even try to play the free-market system…so they vote for the person that promises to give more.

  • [5] October 6, 2014 at 4:19pm

    @Baron Doom

    It depends on how you define a religion. I’ve had a similar conversation with a close friend that is an evangelical atheist.

    What it boils down to is that deity based religious beliefs, scientific based secular beliefs, a belief in humanity, or your nation are all organized value systems that people subscribe to, and influence how they live their lives.

    My argument to him was that even if you got rid of all deity based religions (which he believes are the scourge on humanity) you will still have behavior, from humans, that is consistent with what he believes religion is the blame for.

    Nazis killed millions of people because they rooted their belief system around their nationalism (national socialists)

    There are plenty enough progressives that would buy into population control & eugenics based on what they believe the scientific outcome of the alternative would be.

    Getting rid of religion in general will not grant utopia (as John Lennon Imagined), particularly if you banish a religion that promotes brotherly love…because people will always believe in something.

  • [9] October 6, 2014 at 4:08pm

    “Why are Atheists the only ones allowed to fully enjoy their constitutional freedom of religion, openly discuss their views, and include them in classrooms everywhere?”

    Simple, they think they are right & you are wrong.

    Ditto for just about every other left leaning idea / stance that was once only held by a small minority of people. They got those ideas mainstreamed by using the “free thought, coexist, tolerance” line in the 90s, and shut that door behind them once those ideas gained a larger following.

  • [2] October 6, 2014 at 3:59pm


    The parents, of a student that attends the school, are the ones that contacted FFRF. Wouldn’t take much for their kid to testify that the picture made them feel as a second rate citizen, and feared they’d be treated differently than other students of faith.

    But they don’t need to do that, if they use past legal precedence regarding religious symbols within, or on, publicly owned property. There was a prayer banner recently removed from a highschool on the same basis, even though the most “religious” thing about the prayer was that it was prefaced with “Dear Lord” and suffixed with “Amen”. It was bout as secular of a message as you could get, yet an Atheist student was offended an reported it to FFRF.

  • [10] October 6, 2014 at 1:57pm

    I get that they are using the 14th amendment to extend policy of the fed gov to the state & local level, but what fed policy are they leveraging?

    My understanding is that they are using legal precedent, regarding the “Separation of Church & State” interpretation of the establishment clause, from a court case back in the 70s. It was over a nativity scene on public property, and the courts decided that merely displaying a religious symbol on “public” property was akin to the “state” endorsing a specific religion.

    As best as I can find, this is when we went from the literal interpretation of the establishment clause (Congress shall create no law establishing a religion) to some sort of implied government establishment of religion by providing any benefit or quarter to any religious symbol or act, directly or indirectly, and regardless of context of said religious symbol or act.

    The FFRF representative is saying that because this symbol of some kind of religious act is in eyeshot of students entering the office, it is there opinion that the context of this picture can be nothing other than to coerce said students into a religious belief…which is an act of the government establishing a religion.

    It’s an incredibly hypersensitive, narrow & very convenient analysis that just so happens to support their view.

    You have to willfully force yourself to not critically evaluate this situation to arrive to that, and only that, conclusion.

  • [12] September 30, 2014 at 2:09pm

    Keep it classy there…

    I know it’s a stretch assumption, but I’d say she was probably assigned to cover the event by her boss.

    Calling Michelle Obama “First Wookie” makes a cartoon character out of a real person who is an extreme Marxist ideolog that thinks of herself as a Royalty.

    Just my 2 cents

  • [6] September 26, 2014 at 9:24am


    You must know there is a difference (in terms of funding our federal government) between people who either don’t work & collect max social welfare benefits or work a min wage / part time job & collect max social welfare benefits…….and the people who make too much money to qualify for any social welfare.

    There are people who need & use the welfare system for what it is (a stop gap measure for people who are incapable of providing for themselves – disabled & handicapped, and a safety net for those to need some assistance getting back on their feet)

    There are also people who exploit & game the welfare system, in a way that it wasn’t designed for (a perpetual method of sole or supplemental income for people who are capable, but not willing, to do what it takes to independently sustain themselves & their lively hood)

    The problem is that there is so much hypersensitivity around this subject, by design – from political operatives, that no one can talk about the cases of abuse without there being an assumption that the deserving crowd is lumped into that criticism of the system.

    So when someone brings up a complaint regarding the abuse of welfare, opponents to that argument trot out a legitimate welfare case, and slap a scarlet letter around your neck for daring to take food out of a poor child’s mouth. (when the argument was about the able bodied 30 year old abusing the system)

  • [2] September 25, 2014 at 4:33pm


    When an entire socio-political movement tells me I’m a backward thinking sexist bigoted male (used like a scarlet letter around my neck) because I do not agree with their hyperbolic characterization of a “War on Women” here in America…I have the right to dismiss their line of argument & counter with why I think it’s BS.

    Just like that there still are racists in this country, there are still sexists that exist as well. And just like racism, I’m all for removing what vestiges of sexism that still exist.

    That said, I take issue with people & groups that use these social issues as a political tool, to gain political favor, at the expense of others they happen to disagree with.

    Again, just like race, there is a particular political ideology that thinks equality is achieved by fighting special privilege with special privilege. There is another particular political ideology that thinks equality is achieved by treating everyone equally.

    And regarding the pay inequality…do a little more digging on those stats. The popular “women make 75 cents to a man’s dollar” stat is derived by taking the total annual earnings of all women, and then getting a pay rate by dividing it by a full time # of hrs worked in a week to get a rate of pay. The same is done for men, and there you find the 25 cent difference.

    It ignores things like type of work male vs females do, how much each sex takes off, etc. Everything equal, pay rates are nearly the same.

  • [5] September 25, 2014 at 1:58pm

    Even if he isn’t picked to hold another gov position (particularly SCOTUS), he will almost certainly be employed by some lobbing activist group.

    What did Obama say about being able to affect more change outside of the gov than from the inside?

  • [3] September 25, 2014 at 10:08am

    I disagree on why radical feminist (see libs) supporters choose not to call out the more flagrant abuses of women in this world. They don’t call out what’s going on in the Middle East today for the same reason they don’t call out Lil Wayne, or the rap entertainment industry……POLITICS

    It’s in the president (and the democrat party’s) interest to play down the radical influences of Islam on the world. Since that is in the Dem party’s best interest, it’s also in the radical feminist’s best interest (despite doing so flies in the face of what they SAY they are about)

    It’s in the democrat party’s best interest to play down the misogynistic messages coming out of the rap industry, which is glorified in the rap culture, because doing so doesn’t step on the toes of one of their largest voting blocks. Since that is in the Dem party’s best interest, it’s also in the radical feminist’s best interest (despite doing so flies in the face of what they SAY they are about)

  • [7] September 25, 2014 at 9:29am


    I don’t have to be a social change advocate to be able to point out the absurdity of people trying to morally equivocate a society where any random man can chastise (and punish) a random woman on the street for showing too much nose under their hijab, and a society where women are equally treated to men, more than any other nation.

    I don’t have to be a social change advocate to point out the hypocrisy of a political entity that tries to whip up votes for a particular political party by claiming that the opposing political party is waging a war on women (over free BC for all women…regardless if they can afford it or not) but are completely silent on places on this planet…in 2014…where there is a literal war on women, and on rampant male misogyny found in the rap / hip-hop culture.

    And it’s not just NOW…it’s the radical feminist movement in general. I read an article yesterday by a feminist blogger that just went off on the idea of marriage….and discounted it as an act that supports heterosexual normality, and perpetuates a backwards patriarchal society.

    She was incensed at the idea of a father “giving away” his daughter to another man, in a wedding ceremony. THAT is the battle this advocate wants to take on…while there are millions of women who are forced to live most hours of the day under a black sheet?!?!?

    I call BS

  • [9] September 25, 2014 at 9:04am

    Ohh…so #Advocacy is good enough for some things, but not all?

    You have women leaving the US (although not as many as in Europe) to join this backwards society.

    If “awareness campaigns” are good enough to fight for subsidized birth control, isn’t it also good enough to educate ignorant & impressionable women about the dangers of living under Sharia Law?

    Pardon my brain & it’s use of logic, but it’s hard to take groups like NOW seriously when they gin up imagery of a literal war on women, because there is a significant population in our country that doesn’t want to pay for every single women’s birth control (particularly when most are capable enough to purchase their own), but are completely silent when women across the pond are literally getting their lady lumps chopped off & are forced to cover nearly 100% of their body because it might trigger an “unclean” thought by an on-looking jihadi man.

    Fine, those women are a world away…and NOW is focused on the low hanging fruit, domestically, where they can affect “real change”.

    Why isn’t NOW protesting production studios that shoot rap music videos?

    Why isn’t NOW camped out at Lil Wayne’s mansion? (You know, the guy that makes millions talking about fornicating every girl in the world, and literally compares a woman’s vagina to a piece of meat)

    Because NOW isn’t about fighting for women’s rights, they are a political entity. It’s all about politics…and that’s why I can’t buy what they are selling.

  • [7] September 12, 2014 at 4:40pm

    …and to continue on my last statement.

    The truth of the matter is….EVERYTHING these days has some form of government subsidies associated with it. Remember the “You didn’t build that” mentality by the Elizabeth Warrens?

    The FFRF groups are just picking the low hanging fruit right now (roadside crosses, Nativity Scenes on small town city hall property, etc)

    If you played the logic they are using to it’s conclusion…could they prevent anyone who lives in section 8 housing from putting a cross on their door? Would someone who collects welfare be prevented from religious expression because they are receiving tax payer dollars?

    I find it interesting that there are two efforts going on concurrently….1) establish a rule that anyone / anything that receives any benefit from the gov cannot reference any religion in any form 2) Make everyone / everything receive some sort of benefit form the gov.

    Things that make you go hmm…

  • [1] September 12, 2014 at 4:30pm


    I may be misunderstanding macpappy’s post, but I don’t think he is supporting the logic / court precedence being used by the FFRF to win these cases where religious symbols are being removed on the basis of “separation of church n’ state”. I actually thought he was making the opposite point, by quoting the actual 1st Amendment clause (Congress shall create no law…)

    The stick the FFRF groups are using to beat down all these religious symbols is from a court case in the 70s regarding the display of the Nativity Scene on government property.

    An activist judge ruled in the case that by a government agency allowing a religious symbol on public property (which is paid for by public dollars) it was akin (or equal to) congress creating a law to establish one religion over another. Put simply….it was a hell of a reach, by an activist judge, to connect public dollars being spent (even indirectly) on a religious symbol with the actual reading of the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause.

    Since then, the new legal standard is that no religious symbol shall be on, within, or included in any piece of land, building, or any asset that either directly or indirectly receives public funding.

    Hence, why a state college that receives some of it’s funding from the gov is prohibited from displaying any religious symbol…regardless of the context of said religious symbol.

  • [14] September 12, 2014 at 4:16pm

    Exactly…welcome to the new age of politics….where the two factions have politicized everything under the sun, and there shall be no common ground between. As such, any opinion or preference held in high regard to one party is despised in the other. Meaning, saying the pledge of allegiance is a “Republican thing”, and we most certainly cannot offend Democrats because they should be against it.

    They also might be fearful of a lawsuit from the FFRF….you know CBS is regulated by the FCC & sends it’s content over “the peoples” airwaves….and as such there can be no mention of the word God because it would be an infringement of the separation of church n’ state. (don’t laugh, it’s coming)

    Responses (1) +
  • [8] September 11, 2014 at 9:35am


    William Jefferson is in jail. That said, taking bribes, while wielding the power of a state official is a much different offense than organizing more than the allowable financial contributes to a political campaign are worlds apart.


    Dinish Is American, jumping through all the hoops & paying all the money required to be a legal citizen in this country. His guilt is not in contention here.

    The debate is regarding the sentencing. Should he serve over a year in jail for donating $15,000 to a political campaign, instead of $5,000, while there are countless examples of other more severe lawlessness going unchecked? If his political affiliation were any different, would the prosecution be as aggressive?

    That is the question.

123 To page: Go