► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Democratic Party’ Category

CBS News: Too many illegal aliens in Arizona prisons

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 102 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Crime, Democratic Party, Judicial, Progressives, illegals at July 25th, 2010 - 3:00 pm

I was reading a piece Drudge linked to when I saw a link to this article that was so full of lib-speak nonsensical bullshit about the supposed unfairness of the number of illegal aliens in Arizona prisons.

It made me wonder if the clowns who run CBS News (and the rest of the state-controlled media, for that matter) realize why they’re hemorrhaging millions of viewers every year and becoming more irrelevant with each passing day.

Well, here’s a big part of the reason why:

CBS News has this piece about too many illegal aliens filling up Arizona prisons, on their website. Look at how the two libturd reporters, Laura Strickler and Jack Weingart, wrote the first paragraph:

New data from the Arizona Department of Corrections shows that undocumented immigrants are increasingly over-represented in the state’s prison population.

“Over-represented”? WTF!?!?

These two liberal morons make it sound as if prisons should have affirmative action programs to “level the playing field” for admission like so many colleges do. Maybe then our second “affirmative action” educated President can also be our first convicted felon President!

Hey libs, ever see the old 70′s TV series Baretta? Remember the theme song by Sammy Davis Jr.:

Best theme song in TV history! But I digress. Yep, “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”. Let that sink into your numbskulls, libs.

Then, just when you think these two libturds can’t write anything more stupid, they wrote the following nugget of wisdom in the second paragraph:

In June 2010, undocumented immigrants represented 14.8 percent of Arizona state prisoners, but accounted for only 7 percent of the state’s overall population according to the Department of Homeland Security.

I hate to be redundant, but again, WTF!?!?

What difference does it make what the racial make-up or citizenship status is of those incarcerated, and what the hell does that have to do with who should or should not be in jail or prison, you ignorant twits?

Here’s a breakdown of some of the crimes they committed that sent them to prison:

The new data also revealed for the first time a breakdown of crimes for which undocumented immigrants were incarcerated.

For example of all the prisoners serving time in Arizona state prisons for kidnapping, 40 percent were undocumented. Of those in prison on drug charges, 24 percent were undocumented. And 13 percent of those serving time for murder were undocumented immigrants, according to the new data from the Arizona Department of Corrections.

The number of undocumented immigrants in Arizona state prisons has also grown in recent years. In December, 2004 there were 4,098 undocumented immigrants in the Arizona state prison population making up 12.6 percent according to state data. By June 2010 the number had increased to 14.8 percent for a total of 5,983 incarcerated undocumented immigrants.

Yep, those all seem like legitimate reasons to lock up the scumbags, if you axe me. And of course, these bleeding heart lib scumbags fail to mention that just the fact that these illegal aliens are in our country is a crime, which makes them, get ready: Criminals!

But wait! It gets even better! Well, actually worse, when the libs interview another member of what Victor Davis Hanson called the “cultural elite”, a college professor to explain it all to the unwashed masses (you and I).

I wonder if it ever occurred to these two libturd dolts that we don’t need a pointy-headed liberal pseudo-intellectual who thinks he’s smarter than everybody else to explain to us why these scumbags are in prison.

We already know why they’re in prison: THEY BROKE THE DAMN LAW! Why the hell is that so difficult for these libturds to figure out?

Anyway, read this bullshit from professor James Alan Fox from Northeastern University. The condescension is so thick you have to cut it with a knife-

“You take any population that tends to be poor and you will have a higher rate of individuals in prison,” he said. “One, there is a correlation between social class and criminality and two there’s a correlation between social class and the likelihood you’ll be sent to prison for the same crime as compared to people in a higher social class.”

Fox says this is due in part to inadequate legal representation for low-income people. And he adds: “There’s a title of an old book the rich get richer; the poor get prison.”

Again, WTF?!?!

So I guess this “genius” is implying that it’s not the criminal’s fault they’re in jail, since according to the propeller head, the criminal is actually a victim also!

I’m sure the person who was murdered, robbed, or raped by these animals will feel better because the perpetrator is also a victim! You see, it’s society’s fault, not the criminal’s!

Yep, that’s it! Blame the man!

So what does being poor have to do with the propensity to break the law? The answer is NOTHING! Millions upon millions of poor people live their lives everyday as law-abiding citizens.

The problem isn’t poverty, it’s parenting, or the lack of parenting. And that can be blamed squarely on liberal democrats, who decided, to all of our detriment, especially those they were trying to “help”, that a father wasn’t necessary to raise their kids, just a check from the government.

As the great Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote in his article from August, 2004, “The War on Poverty Revisited”:

Never had there been such a comprehensive program to tackle poverty at its roots, to offer more opportunities to those starting out in life, to rehabilitate those who had fallen by the wayside, and to make dependent people self-supporting. Its intentions were the best. But we know what road is paved with good intentions.

The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal vision of society — and of government programs as the solution to social problems. The disastrous consequences that followed have made the word “liberal” so much of a political liability that today even candidates with long left-wing track records have evaded or denied that designation.

And he also wrote this:

The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty.

In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959 — that is, before the magic 1960s decade when supposedly all progress began. The rise of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations was greater in the five years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years afterwards.

So, if just being poor were the cause of all this lawlessness, the USA should have been a war zone during the great depression. It wasn’t. As a matter of fact, not including bootlegging and the ensuing mafia wars, crime rates during the depression actually decreased:

The analysis suggests that relief spending during the 1930s lowered property crime in a statistically and economically significant way. A lower bound ordinary least squares estimate suggests that a 10 percent increase in per capita relief spending during the Great Depression lowered property crime rates by close to 1 percent. After controlling for potential endogeneity using an instrumental variables approach, the estimates suggest that a 10 percent increase in per capita relief spending lowered crime rates by roughly 5.6 to 10 percent at the margin.

► Hot Links

Another Hidden Zinger in Obamacare

by 1389AD ( 43 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Financial, Healthcare, Progressives at July 25th, 2010 - 10:00 am

In Fundamentally Transforming the United States, Phyllis Schlafly explains how the Democrat party voter base is founded upon those who get (or hope to get) their livelihood from the federal government. It goes much further than Chicago-machine patronage politics writ large; the federal government is deliberately destroying the family structure so as to make people more dependent on the federal government and the Democrat party. Unmarried mothers are a key part of Obama’s voter base. Thus, it is in his interests to discourage men and women from getting and staying married.

How do the Democrats go about attacking the family structure? The attacks go much further than promoting gay marriage and abortion on demand, or free condoms and salacious “sex education” in the public schools. Detrimental as those things are, at least they are visible. It’s the progressives’ stealth jihad against the family that I’m talking about here.

Check out this hidden zinger in Obamacare:

Marriage Penalty in Health Care

A huge marriage penalty is hidden in Obama’s Health Control Law. This law is another federal program providing financial incentives to subsidize marriage avoidance and illegitimate offspring.

Even though all evidence shows that marriage is the best remedy for poverty, lack of health care, domestic violence, child abuse, and school dropouts, federal welfare programs continue to discriminate against marriage and instead give taxpayer handouts to those who reject marriage. This isn’t any accident; it is a central part of the Democrats’ political strategy that produced 70% of unmarried women voting for Obama for President in 2008.

Here is the approximate cost in the Health Control Law for an unmarried couple who each earn $25,000 a year (total: $50,000). When they both buy health insurance (which will be mandatory), the combined premiums they pay will be capped at $3,076 a year. But if the couple gets married and has the same combined income of $50,000, they will pay annual premiums up to a cap of $5,160 a year. That means they have to fork over a marriage penalty of $2,084.

The marriage penalty is the result of the fact that government subsidies for buying health insurance are pegged to the federal poverty guidelines. Couples that remain unmarried are rewarded with a separate health care subsidy for each income.

When the Wall Street Journal reporter quizzed the Democratic authors of the health care bill, they made it clear that this differential was deliberate. The staffer justified the discriminatory treatment because “you have to decide what your goals are.” Indeed, the Democrats have decided what their goals are. They know that 70% of unmarried women voted for Obama in 2008, and the Democrats plan to reward this group with health insurance subsidies.

The House staffer told the Wall Street Journal reporter that the Democrats can’t make the subsidies neutral towards marriage because that would give a traditional one-breadwinner married couple a more generous subsidy than a single parent at the same income level. Horrors! The Democrats certainly are not going to allow traditional marriage to be preferred over couples who just shack up!

Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously and accurately explained the disastrous results of welfare back in 1965. The welfare system created a matriarchy with millions of children lacking their father in the home. It’s no wonder illegitimate birthrates are soaring and unmarried mothers now give birth to 4 out of every 10 babies born in the United States.

Means-tested welfare programs already cost taxpayers close to $1 trillion a year (even more than national defense!), and Obamacare is projected to add another $2.5 trillion after all its provisions take effect. There’s no end in sight to the increasing costs of these entitlements. In one year, the Obama Administration will spend more taxpayers’ money on spreading the wealth to non-taxpayers than George W. Bush spent on the entire Iraq war.

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a liberal firm that consults for clients such as Bill Clinton and John Kerry, admitted: “Unmarried women represent one of the most reliable Democratic cohorts in the electorate . . . leading the charge for fundamental change in health care.”

It used to be that a husband was responsible for the financial support of his wife and children, but the feminists’ agenda calls for replacing husbands with Big Brother Government. The feminists call their movement “women’s liberation,” and Obamacare is one more way to help them achieve their goal.

Feminists keep tightening their control over the social policies of the Democratic Party, and Obamacare will be his third payoff to the feminists. The first bill Obama signed as President, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, enables women to sue employers years many years after any alleged workplace discrimination (when no one is still alive to defend against allegations), and the second payoff was getting Obama to give the majority of taxpayer-paid Stimulus jobs to women even though men have suffered the big majority of job losses.

Read it all.

The scavenger hunt is on

I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant nor a “policy wonk” (whatever that is supposed to be). Sorting through the huge pile of paperwork that makes up the Obamacare bill, or for that matter, the recent financial regulatory bill, and piecing together the hidden “zingers” that are poised to harm each sector of our economy and society, is beyond my capabilities. This is not a one-person job. I would like to urge everyone who is able to do so, to help complete this task by researching how those bills will affect their community and their sector of the economy, and submit that information to 2.0: The Blogmocracy.

The scavenger hunt is on, and the only prize is preserving your freedom.

► Hot Links

The ICJ Ruling and the Quisling Regime in Serbia

by 1389AD ( 127 Comments › )
Filed under Islamic Invasion, Kosovo, Serbia, Tranzis, United Nations at July 24th, 2010 - 1:30 pm

Kosovo is Serbia graphic, in English

In ICJ Ruling: Blow to Serbia, Boon to Tadic, noted author and scholar Srdja Trifkovic explains that the current government in Serbia is, in effect, nothing but a puppet regime that is selling out the Serbian people, and Judaeo-Christian civilization in the Balkans, to jihadi forces in the Balkans.

The back story is that, ever since Reagan left office, the US, NATO, and the EU have worked to assist the jihadis to form a Muslim stronghold in the Balkans. Obviously, this is counter to the interests of the US and of the nations that form the EU. (See Bosnia and Kosovo export Muslim terrorism everywhere.) But our politicians and State Department bureaucrats do the bidding of Middle Eastern oil interests, George Soros, and other nefarious individuals and groups such as Muslim narcoterrorist drug gangs, who covertly bankroll prominent members of the elite in politics, academia, think tanks, the media, and other areas of influence.

As I have pointed out before, the UN is thoroughly corrupt. Just about all NGOs do the bidding of this transnational elite. That obviously includes supposedly “neutral” entities such as the ICJ. The bureaucrats who enjoy cushy jobs at NGOs know what side their bread is buttered on, and they also know what the consequences of defying their masters inevitably must be.

Because the current government in Belgrade is nothing but a powerless American puppet that does nothing to protect the interests of the Serbian people, it is no surprise that the Tadic government will use the decision of the ICJ as a way to try to sell the Serbian people on the idea that they had better give up Kosovo, and continue to throw the remaining Serbs stranded there, under the bus – or else.

As Dr. Trifkovic points out, the time frame is much longer than anybody in Washington or The Hague is capable of comprehending. Kosovo has been Serbian as long as the Serbs have existed, the truth will eventually come out, and God is not mocked.

ICJ Ruling: Blow to Serbia, Boon to Tadic
By Srdja Trifkovic
Thursday, July 22, 2010 – 13:20

Ever since the U.S. intervened in Serbia’s domestic politics two years ago and helped the current coalition take power in Belgrade, Boris Tadic and his cohorts have been looking for a way to capitulate on Kosovo while pretending not to. The formula was simple: place all diplomatic eggs in one basket – that of the International Court of Justice – and refrain from using any other political or economic (let alone military) tools at Serbia’s disposal. On July 22 the ICJ performed on cue, declaring that Kosovo’s UDI was not illegal.

It should be noted that the ICJ has only assessed Kosovo’s declaration of independence; it has not considered more widely Kosovo’s right to unilateral secession from Serbia. Furthermore, the ICJ has not assessed either the consequences of the adoption of the UDI, namely whether Kosovo is a state, or the legitimacy of its recognition by a number of countries. The ICJ decision was unsurprising in view of the self-defeating question which the UN General Assembly posed at Serbia’s request: “Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?” As a former British diplomat who knows the Balkans well has noted, international law takes no notice of declarations of independence, unilateral or otherwise; they are irrelevant:

[I]f the town council down the road here in the UK makes a solemn unilateral declaration of the town’s independence from the UK, the rest of us will make a wry smile and go back to blogging or working. The declaration is ‘in accordance’ with UK law – free speech and all that. [ ... ] If citizens of our town en masse support the declaration of independence, put up road-blocks, stop paying taxes to Westminster and proclaim Vladimir Putin their new king with his consent, things begin to get more interesting. Norms are being created and broken in all directions.

The ICJ has done more than its share of norm-creation. Its advisory opinion is deeply flawed and non-binding, but the government in Belgrade now has a perfect alibi for doing what it had intended to do all along.

Following the appointment of Vuk Jeremic as Serbia’s foreign minister in 2007, this outcome could be predicted with near-certainty. As President Boris Tadic’s chief foreign policy advisor, Jeremic came to Washington on 18 May 2005 to testify in Congress on why Kosovo should stay within Serbia. In his subsequent off-the-record conversations, however, he assured his hosts that the task was really to sugar-coat the bitter Kosovo pill that Serbia would have to swallow anyway.

Two years later another advisor to Tadic, Dr. Leon Kojen, resigned in a blaze of publicity after Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer declared, on April 13, 2007, “We are working with Boris Tadic and his people to find a way to implement the essence of the Ahtisaari plan.” Tout Belgrade knew that “Tadic’s people” meant—Vuk Jeremic. Gusenbauer’s indiscretion amounted to the revelation that Serbia’s head of state and his closest advisor were engaged in secret negotiations aimed at facilitating the detachment of Kosovo from Serbia—which, of course, was “the essence of the Ahtisaari plan.” Jeremic’s quest for sugar-coating of the bitter pill was evidently in full swing even before he came to the helm of Serbia’s diplomacy.

In the intervening three years Tadic and Jeremic have continued to pursue a dual-track policy on Kosovo. The decisive fruit of that policy was their disastrous decision to accept the European Union’s Eulex Mission in Kosovo in December 2008. Acting under an entirely self-created mandate, the EU thus managed to insert its mission, based explicitly on the provisions of the Ahtissari Plan, into Kosovo with Belgrade’s agreement.

That was the moment of Belgrade’s true capitulation. Everything else — the ICJ ruling included — is just a choreographed farce…

The ICJ opinion crowns two decades of U.S. policy in the former Yugoslavia that has been mendacious and iniquitous in equal measure. By retroactively condoning the Albanian UDI, the Court has made a massive leap into the unknown. That leap is potentially on par with Austria’s July 1914 ultimatum to Serbia. The fruits will be equally bitter.

Aiding and abetting Muslim designs in the Balkans, in the hope that this will earn some credit for the United States in the Islamic world, has been a major motive of American policy in the region since at least 1992. It has never yielded any dividends, of course, but repeated failure only prompts the architects of the policy to redouble their efforts.

It is virtually certain that Washington will be equally supportive of an independent Sanjak that would connect Kosovo with Bosnia, or of any other putative Islamistan, from western Macedonia to southern Bulgaria (“Eastern Rumelia”) to the Caucasus. The late Tom Lantos must be smiling approvingly wherever he is now, having called, three years ago, on “Jihadists of all color and hue” to take note of “yet another example that the United States leads the way for the creation of a predominantly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe.”

In the region, the ICJ verdict will encourage two distinct but interconnected trends: greater-Albanian aspirations against Macedonia, Montenegro, Greece, and rump-Serbia (Preševo), and pan-Islamic agitation for the completion of the Green Corridor – an Islamic belt anchored in Asia Minor and extending north-westward across the Balkans into the heart of Central Europe.

Beyond the Balkans, it will breed instability in each and every potential or actual separatist hotspot, from Galilee to Kashmir, from the Caucasus to Sinkiang.

Kosovo is now an expensive albatross costing American and European taxpayers a few billion a year. It will continue developing, not as a functional economy but as a black hole of criminality and terrorism. The ever-rising and constantly unfulfilled expectations of its unemployable multitudes will eventually turn – Frankenstein’s monster-like – against the entity’s creator. There will be many Ft. Dixes to come, over there and here at home.

God acts in mysterious ways. Kosovo had remained Serbian during those five long centuries of Ottoman darkness, to be liberated in 1912. It is no less Serbian now, the ugly farce in Priština and at The Hague notwithstanding. It will be tangibly Serbian again when the current experiment in global hegemonism collapses, and when the very names of its potentates and servants – Boris Tadic and Vuk Jeremic included – are consigned to the Recycle Bin of history.

Here’s the same article in Serbian.

Be sure to visit The Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies to read many other articles about the Balkans counterjihad and how US and EU foreign policy has consistently favored our jihadi enemies.

Kosovo is Serbia graphic, in Serbian

(hattip to NoThreat2U)

► Hot Links

Our postmodern cultural elite

by Speranza ( 38 Comments › )
Filed under Progressives at July 24th, 2010 - 11:00 am

Victor Davis Hanson describes so many of the “progressive” people that we all know. They romanticize poverty while aiming to live in luxurious condos or townhouses. They crave physical fitness via a gym, not by actually having to do hard manual labor. Truth to them  is an elastic concept – there is that which aids your cause and that which does not – the truth therefore is irrelevant.

by Victor Davis Hanson

I think most of our problems transcend politics, which is increasingly a reflection of an elite, insider culture that is completely at odds with the majority of the country that it oversees.

So what is a cultural elite?

It is a sloppy term that might include the academic class in the university that educates our children in college. The upper echelons that run government departments constitute part of this cultural elite. So does an entertainment cadre that oversees television and Hollywood. Corporate managers are elites as well.

There is no racial, regional, religious, or tribal commonality. One shared allegiance perhaps is to higher education that certifies the cultural elite by diplomas of all sorts from a “good school,” as well as a respectable salary and a nice home with appurtenances. The good life of the elite is defined by both the absence of worry about necessities, and a certain status that accrues from properly recognized advanced education and sensitivity.

How would we characterize the new aristocracy?

In a number of ways:

1) Untruth. One requisite to being a cultural elite, unfortunately, is a certain allegiance to untruth, to saying one thing and doing another. Consider the manifestations of falsity from ecology to race. Often exempt from worry over a weekly check, and distanced from the mechanics of how things work, the elite clamors for a green cap-and-trade revolution. It rejects compromise with a fossil fuel near future that would transition us in a half-century or so to renewable energy.

[.....]

2) Nature. The cultural elite class tends to romanticize nature, since it has little contact with it. Energy Secretary Steven Chu cheaply announces that California farms will dry up and blow away, with no clue how the tomatoes in his salad or the lamb chops on his plate are grown, cleaned, shipped — and land in his mouth.

The elite like big hiking boots and four-wheel-drive SUVs that can go anywhere, and — once that is exhibited — usually stick to the hallways and freeways. The further the distance from nature, the greater the desire to experience it vicariously, symbolically, or representationally.

[......]

3) Muscularity. An elite is often characterized as staying fit entirely by the workout, the gym, the jog — never by chain sawing, digging, climbing, or hammering. Yet here too arises contradiction. The elite, being largely progressive, champion the muscular classes to the degree they can stay distant from them. Having good abs by crunching is far different from having big arms by using a five-foot long pneumatic drill. Expect the more cerebral our jobs, the more paranoid we will become about diet, fitness, and appearance, and the more we will romanticize, fear, and separate ourselves from those who work with their muscles.

[......]

4) Gender. Here I am worried, as I have expressed previously, about the marked differences in the way our cultural elite express themselves. Hollywood offers an instructive example. Why can’t any of our actors talk like a Humphrey Bogart, Glenn Ford, Lee Marvin, Henry Fonda, James Stewart, Bill Holden, or Gregory Peck? I’m not asking for Jack Palance or Fess Parker, just a normal male mainstream voice. I know there are Al Pacinos and Robert De Niros, but they too seem to fade before the new wave of DiCaprios. Elites talk (and probably sound) like the freedmen in Petronius’s Satyricon.

Today’s male’s voice is often far more feminine than that of 50 years ago. Sort of whiney, sort of nasally, sort of fussy.

[......]

5) Logic. There is little logic among the cultural elite, maybe because there is little omnipresent fear of job losses or the absence of money, and so arises a rather comfortable margin to indulge in nonsense. The idea that taxes cause scarcity, and subsidy abundance is a foreign concept. The notion that entitlements create dependency is considered Neanderthal.

Read the rest: Pity the Postmodern Cultural Elite

► Hot Links

Friday with the ‘hammer – A lame duck Democratic congress can do a ton of damage

by Speranza ( 188 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Politics, Republican Party at July 23rd, 2010 - 7:00 pm

Dr. K.  points out what several people have already mentioned – a Democratic congress (assuming that the stupid Republicans can pull themselves together and take control in November ) will have three  months to create more mischief  and push through even more liberal legislation, and then wait for the 2012 elections where they can hope for a comeback. Krauthammer rightfully reminds us never to underestimate “The Stupid Party” aka the G.O.P. and their capacity for putting their foot in their mouth with congressmen doing things like apologizing to B.P.(which was a public relations disaster no matter how many GOP drones and apparatchiks tried to spin it otherwise).

by Charles Krauthammer

Barack Obama’s considerable political capital, earned on Election Day 2008, is spent. Well spent, mind you, on the enactment of a highly ideological agenda of Obamacare, financial reform and a near-trillion-dollar stimulus that will significantly transform the country. But spent nonetheless. There’s nothing left with which to complete his social-democratic ambitions. This would have to await the renewed mandate that would come with a second inaugural.

That’s why, as I suggested last week, nothing of major legislative consequence is likely to occur for the next 2 1/2 years. Except, as columnist Irwin Stelzer points out, for one constitutional loophole: a lame-duck Congress called back into session between the elections this November and the swearing-in of the 112th Congress next January.

Leading Democrats are already considering this as a way to achieve even more liberal measures that many of their members dare not even talk about, let alone enact, on the eve of an election in which they face a widespread popular backlash to the already enacted elements of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda.

That backlash will express itself on Election Day and result, as most Democrats and Republicans currently expect, in major Democratic losses. It is still possible for the gaffe-happy Republicans to blow it. When the ranking GOP member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee publicly apologizes to the corporation that unleashed the worst oil spill in American history, you know the Republicans are capable of just about anything.

[...]

It’s a target-rich environment. The only thing holding the Democrats back would be shame, a Washington commodity in chronically short supply. To pass in a lame-duck session major legislation so unpopular that Democrats had no chance of passing it in regular session — after major Democratic losses signifying a withdrawal of the mandate implicitly granted in 2008 — would be an egregious violation of elementary democratic norms.

Read the rest here: Beware the lame duck

► Hot Links

The Progressive Propaganda Media

by Rodan ( 59 Comments › )
Filed under Censorship, Elections 2010, Liberal Fascism, Media, Progressives, Tranzis at July 23rd, 2010 - 8:30 am

The Tranzi Totalitarian Progressive movement has its reach in all facets of society. They currently control our government, education system, entertainment industry and most importantly, our media. Their cover has been blown with the release of the JournoList emails. This was an online hub where Progressive journalists would coordinate talking points and their smears. This is the smoking gun that exposes the leftist propaganda network.

My guess is that this and other revelations about JournoList will deepen the distrust of the national press. True, participants in the online clubhouse appear to hail chiefly from the media’s self-identified left wing. But its founder, Ezra Klein, is a prominent writer for the Washington Post. Mr. Klein shut down JournoList last month—a wise decision.

It’s thanks to Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller website that we know something about JournoList, though the emails among the liberal journalists were meant to be private. (Mr. Carlson hasn’t revealed how he obtained the emails.) In June, the Daily Caller disclosed a series of JournoList musings by David Weigel, then a Washington Post blogger assigned to cover conservatives. His emails showed he loathes conservatives, and he was subsequently fired.

Read it all: The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy

2010 will go down as the anno horribalis of the Progressive movement. The Obama Boom lie has been exposed and his ratings have collapsed. The Tea Party movement has become a threat to leftists in both parties. Things are falling apart and the JournoList scandal is just another wheel coming off.

Update by m:


Journolist on The Daily Caller
Link and image from Patricius at LIBERGRAPHICA! Click for larger size.

► Hot Links

Why Obama has failed so miserably to deliver

by Speranza ( 180 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Economy, Misery Index, Progressives at July 22nd, 2010 - 2:00 pm

I guess when you have this misplaced faith in the power of big and growing government to create jobs, combined with a cabinet with the lowest levels of private sector experience, the end result is what we have today. As the author points out, Obama may have “inherited a mess” but it was a mess that he contributed to by his support of TARP and substantial hikes in the minimum wage. If you are an employee of state or local government – you benefited from the “stimulus” package and are part of the “jobs saved” statistic that Joe “Plugs” Biden loves to throw around.

by Daniel J. Mitchell

The White House last year released a supposedly scientific analysis that claimed to show that adopting the “stimulus” bill would cut unemployment. Indeed, the report specifically estimated that the unemployment rate today would be down to 7.5 percent.

Something obviously went wrong. The actual unemployment rate is 9.5 percent, a statistic that doesn’t include the millions who’ve given up looking for work or can only find part-time jobs. What were President Obama’s biggest mistakes?

Part of the problem was a misplaced faith in Keynesian economics — that is, in the discredited notion that politicians can borrow money from the economy’s right pocket and increase prosperity by dumping money in the economy’s left pocket.

But the bigger stumbling block is the folks in the White House seem to have no clue how the real-world economy works. Critics have noted that the Obama Cabinet sets the record for the lowest-ever level of private-sector experience. That doesn’t necessarily mean people who don’t understand how and why jobs are created — but that seems to be the case with this administration.

Profit and Investment Are Necessary For Job Creation

LET’S start with two common- sense observations. First, businesses are not charities. They only create jobs when they think that the total revenue generated by new workers will exceed the total cost of employing those workers. In other words, if it’s not profitable to hire workers, it’s not going to happen.

Second, it takes money to create jobs. More specifically, labor isn’t very useful or productive unless investors are providing capital. Truck drivers won’t get jobs unless someone has invested to buy trucks. Software programmers aren’t worth much if their employer doesn’t buy computers for them to work on. Even the green-energy companies the White House favors can’t hire workers unless somebody (ideally venture capitalists rather than taxpayers) provides seed money.

The problem is not a lack of capital. Businesses have plenty of extra cash — with the Federal Reserve reporting this month, for example, that nonfinancial firms are sitting on $1.8 trillion, about a quarter more cash-on-hand than when the recession started.

[.......]

* The new bailout legislation, though labeled “financial reform,” raises costs for financial firms, meaning loans will be more expensive. That is, investing in that truck or computer for that new hire will cost you more.

TO be fair to President Obama, the problem began before his inauguration. President George W. Bush signed a big minimum-wage hike that has hit hard at less-experienced and lower-skilled workers. If a worker is only worth $6.50 per hour, then a required wage of $7.15 is a one-way ticket to the unemployment line.

And Bush was responsible for the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bailout, which has squandered precious capital by steering it to such inefficient firms as Citigroup and General Motors, which are unlikely to create jobs over the long run.

Of course, Obama supported these and other Bush economic policies, so the “mess he inherited” is also a mess he helped to make. All that matters from a jobs perspective, though, is that government has made it more expensive to hire workers and more expensive to provide the capital needed to make workers productive. This is a bad combination — whether politicians call themselves Democrats or Republicans.

Read the rest: O’s jobs errors

► Hot Links

Kagan supported Shariah law in the U.S.A.

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 112 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Dhimmitude, Financial, Islamic Finance, Judicial, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Politics, Progressives, Sharia (Islamic Law) at July 22nd, 2010 - 11:30 am

This will not shock anyone, but it seems that while she was Dean of the Harvard Law School, the woefully unqualified and anti-American SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan supported Shariah law compliance in the United States financial sector. For this reason alone, the GOP should vote against her confirmation. From www.vote.com

KAGAN PROMOTED SHARIAH

Having worked with Elena Kagan at the Clinton White House, Dick was inclined to see her as a political moderate, worthy of support as the best one could expect from the Obama White House. But no more.

Thanks to the work of the Center for Security Policy Director Frank Gaffney and the writing of Andrew McCarthy of the National Review Institute, there has emerged a compelling reason to vote against Kagan’s confirmation as a Supreme Court justice: her support for Shariah law while she was dean of Harvard Law School.

Islamists are seeking to spread Shariah law by inducing American and European financial institutions to establish Shariah Compliant Funds in which their clients can invest. Exposed in our books Fleeced and Outrage, these funds follow the prescriptions of Shariah law in their investments. They routinely collect 2.5 percent of the principal of any investment annually for donation to charitable institutions, fine recipients of their investment 7 percent for transgressions of Shariah law (and donate the fine to charity), and only invest in projects compliant with the rules of Shariah.

Unfortunately, the decisions as to which investments are compliant and which charities receive their benefice are made by Shariah Compliance Boards appointed by the financial institutions that typically include radical Muslim extremists who routinely designate terrorist-linked entities to receive their charitable donations, and they also proscribe investment in any firm engaged in U.S. defense contracting on the ground that the contract could aid Israel.

Most major banks in the U.S. and Europe have established Shariah Compliant Funds, and they had almost $1 trillion under management by 2007 — and likely more today.

At Harvard, Elena Kagan “proceeded to forge the law schools’ ‘Islamic Finance Project.’ ” Its purpose, according to McCarthy, was “to promote Shariah compliance in the U.S. financial sector.”

Indeed, when Harvard’s president, Larry Summers — now in the Obama administration — accepted a $20 million donation for the creation of a program of studies of Islam’s history and Shariah law, Kagan raised no objection. The donation came from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a billionaire investor whose contribution of $10 million to the Twin Towers fund was refused by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani because bin Talal had blamed the 9/11 attack on American foreign policy.

Harvard Law School now has three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study of Shariah.

For this reason- if for no other- senators should vote no on her confirmation.

Click on the link above to read the entire piece.

► Hot Links

Nobel Economics Laureate: Deficit Spending Bad Plan

by snork ( 53 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Economy, Politics, Progressives at July 22nd, 2010 - 8:30 am

File this under “it doesn’t take a genius to see the bloody obvious”. This may be news to Paul Krugman, but deficit spending is bad. Bad, bad, no good, really bad. So another econ Nobel laureate chimes in:

Last October a Rasmussen poll was already showing that only one-third of likely voters believed that the stimulus package was helping the economy. You, your fellow citizens and Congress are now concerned that the main effect of the federal stimulus has been to increase the burden of a swollen government living beyond its means. You were told that the stimulus was justified because it would jump-start the economy, setting in motion a recovery that would increase output by more than its increased deficit cost. But you are skeptical that there has been any recovery, and think that you have been misled by the president and the economic experts.

Your doubts have received bipartisan reinforcement. The $860 billion stimulus under the Obama administration was preceded by a $170 billion Bush stimulus that was said to be ineffectual because it was too small. Out of fear, people tended to use the Bush stimulus checks to pay down debt and to increase saving. Unemployment was rising, and large numbers of home owners were already living in homes worth less than what they owed the bank. It is now worse. In the five most severely affected states, here is the percentage of homeowners who owe more than their home is worth: Nevada (70%); Arizona (51%); Florida (48%); Michigan (38%); California (35%). Our current crisis was brought on by government and private programs designed to make it easier for people to buy homes. The result was an unsustainable housing bubble, and ensuing crash that put banks, businesses and households all in debt-reduction mode.

Well blow me down. Joe the plumber and Sarah Palin were right.

The case for government deficit spending was that idle unemployed labor and capital would be put to work to increase the output of goods and services. Hence, a dollar of government spending would produce more than a dollar of new output because of the “multiplier effect.” Robert Barro of Harvard has studied wartime and defense spending, and found a multiplier of only 0.8. But those were better times, when businesses, banks, and consumers were not primarily concerned to use new income to pay down debt or save to protect against income loss. Even in better times there wasn’t much bang for the buck.

You mean the Magic Multiplier™ isn’t real? Say it ain’t so!

Our past housing and government spending mistakes leave us with no good choices. But please no more government spending! The deficit must now be faced. Avoid any new taxes; they are unlikely to reduce the deficit without discouraging recovery.

Well glory be. You mean common sense was right all along?

Our best shot at increasing employment and output is to reduce business taxes and the cost of creating new start-up companies. Don’t subsidize them; just reduce their taxes even as they become larger; also reduce any unnecessary impediments to their formation. This is strongly indicated by the business dynamics program of the Bureau of Census and the Kauffman Foundation which has tracked new startup firms in the period 1980-2005. The entry of new firms net of departing firms in this period account for a remarkable two-thirds more employment growth (3 percent per year) than the average of all firms in the US (1.8 percent per year). The invigorating turmoil created by new technologies, with accompanying growth in output, productivity, and employment lead to new business formation as old firms inevitably fail. Reducing barriers to that growth encourage a recovery path which does not mortgage future output.

That’s no fun. I want to spend more funny money.

► Hot Links

UNDERemployment and the Greater Depression of 2010

by 1389AD ( 187 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Economy, Healthcare, Liberal Fascism, Media, Polls, Progressives at July 21st, 2010 - 2:00 pm

Underemployment: Obama’s dirty little secret

Depression-era photo: Free coffee for the unemployed

Even the best-qualified, highest-skilled, and hardest-working Americans are up against it these days. Yes, even those Americans who still have jobs! We all know that the official unemployment statistics are vastly understated, in that they focus only on claims for unemployment compensation. The stats do not properly account for older workers who have taken early retirement after losing a job; young workers who cannot enter the labor force; “discouraged workers” who are still looking for work, but whose unemployment benefits are exhausted; disabled persons who could work to a limited extent, but who aren’t being hired; and American citizens who have had to travel overseas, often at great sacrifice and financial loss, to find work.

But perhaps the biggest of the dirty little secrets hidden by the official unemployment statistics is underemployment. I know about this from personal experience. Despite all of my qualifications, I have not been able to find full-time employment in over two years. The reason? With all of the hidden ramifications of Obamacare looming over everyone’s heads, along with the other past and future attacks on private enterprise, nobody wants to hire full-time people at all if they can help it. Certainly nobody wants to hire someone over 55 for a full-time job where the employer will be forced to provide overpriced health insurance or be fined for not providing it. Some people may call it age discrimination, but it’s the government that is causing it, not the prejudices of private employers.

There’s no need to take my word for any of this. Look at any job board or want-ad listing and notice the proliferation of part-time, temporary, and contract assignments, and the relative absence of full-time jobs with benefits. For example, a retail store that would normally hire two or three full-time employees will instead hire five part-time employees for 15 to 30 hours per week, at minimum wage, perhaps with commissions, but no benefits. A recent Gallup Poll also reveals large-scale underemployment in the form of part-time workers who want, but cannot get, full-time employment.

The liberal elite wants it that way

Of course, the liberal establishment pretends not to know why unemployment remains so high. Case in point: NYT: Mystery for White House: Where did the jobs go? [H/T: Rodan]

That conundrum, which reclaims center stage in Washington this week, is this: Why is unemployment so high?

The whodunit has flummoxed economists in both parties for a year. In 2009, as the new Obama administration grappled with the financial crisis, joblessness rose nearly two points beyond customary recession forecasts.

Part of the uncertainty concerns why. More consequential now, as the administration and Congress determine what to do, is whether the unemployment spike reflects a short-term or permanent shift in demand for workers.

But seriously…

I have studied economics and I know this for certain: All they have to do is repeal Obozocare, resume drilling, seal the borders, and end the H-1b program, and unemployment will drop three points within a month. I guarantee it!

But none of that will happen until we somehow muster the political will to force our government to do that. Or until enough States secede and decide to govern themselves in the interest of their own citizens.

One way or another, we need to free ourselves from the predatory liberal elites who flout the will of the people and who serve only their own interests and those of our foreign enemies.

Depression-era unemployment line in NYC

The Obama administration, together with the liberal establishment in academia, the mainstream media, the NGOs, the foundations, the Ivy League, and the UN, all have reason to want unemployment to remain high. Why? Because, though it may make the Obama administration look incompetent in the short run, as it did with FDR, it will create more dependency on the government and increase centralized government power in the long run.

Dependency, the Liberals’ Natural Resource explains how this nefarious system works:

A Heritage Foundation report shows that thanks to multiple government programs, the proportion of Americans in some way dependent on government largess has suddenly jumped by 31.2% since 2001 after decades of much slower increases. Even in inflation-adjusted dollars, America now spends thirteen times more on public welfare than it did in 1965. Dependency has snowballed in health care, public welfare, and housing, and the upward trend seems likely to continue as Obama’s statist polices take hold and baby boomers retire. Indeed, the president plans to spend some $10.3 trillion in welfare over the next decades. In a nutshell, Uncle Sam is replacing the family, the church, private charities, and all other non-government sources of assistance, and this means regular jobs for the new caregivers. And it feels good to work for Uncle Sam: Benefits included, the average federal workers in 2008 earned double what those in the private sector took home. So it is hardly unexpected that since about January 2008, some 7.9 million private sectors jobs have disappeared, while 590,000 public sector jobs were created — and this trend seems to be multiplying. It’s a thoroughly modern ménage à trois of dependent citizens, well-paid government employees ministering to them, and harried taxpayers footing the bill.

Here’s what makes this “new wealth” so attractive: In today’s uncertain economy, it far outshines the old wealth of building things and selling them at a profit. For one, jobs ministering to the dependent are labor-intensive and immune to mechanization. Government jobs are also wonderfully secure. It is inconceivable, for example, that a counselor working with Vietnamese gangs in Los Angeles will be replaced by an industrial robot or that under-employed social workers will also be asked to direct rush hour traffic to trim labor costs. This is not the cost-cutting-obsessed airlines where passengers make their own reservations, print boarding passes, stow their own luggage, and bring their own food. Nor can these interventions be outsourced to foreign competition. Helping the less fortunate has a permanent “Made in USA” label attached — Toyota has no interest in tackling the pathologies of those living in Detroit.

The supply of these jobs-generating assets is also inexhaustible. America will never, never run out of this newly discovered “wealth.” We may deplete our oil and ravage our forests, but what are the odds of drug addicts, the mentally ill, young unwed mothers, and others needing intervention vanishing? Those mired in pathology are a truly renewable natural resource. Social problems do recede, but rest assured, replacements are easily found (e.g., sex addiction). In a pinch, just open the borders and receive a bountiful fresh supply. And compare the ease of setting up an in-school clinic to mentor anorexic, non-English-speaking adolescent girls with low self-esteem versus building a factory. The former is instantly shovel-ready.

Read it all.

In other words, if the government stops the private sector from offering relatively secure, remunerative, full-time employment to American citizens, that will eventually leave the government as the only source of good jobs on American soil. This is how the federal government creates a new class of Soviet-style apparatchiki. Of course, those jobs ONLY go to those who actively support the regime and do their part to enhance the careers of those already in power, while keeping everyone else down.

Now what?

Our goal is to re-empower ourselves and our families, and decentralize and take back control over everything that has been usurped from us. That means we need to go on the attack to discredit the liberal establishment and all its pomps and all its works, anywhere and everywhere it appears.

We must overcome not only economic underemployment, but the underemployment of the human spirit.

To that end, please turn your attention to this excellent article: Read the rest of this excellent article at America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution. [H/T: doriangrey]

… Consider: The ruling class denies its opponents’ legitimacy. Seldom does a Democratic official or member of the ruling class speak on public affairs without reiterating the litany of his class’s claim to authority, contrasting it with opponents who are either uninformed, stupid, racist, shills for business, violent, fundamentalist, or all of the above. They do this in the hope that opponents, hearing no other characterizations of themselves and no authoritative voice discrediting the ruling class, will be dispirited. For the country class seriously to contend for self-governance, the political party that represents it will have to discredit not just such patent frauds as ethanol mandates, the pretense that taxes can control “climate change,” and the outrage of banning God from public life. More important, such a serious party would have to attack the ruling class’s fundamental claims to its superior intellect and morality in ways that dispirit the target and hearten one’s own. The Democrats having set the rules of modern politics, opponents who want electoral success are obliged to follow them.

Reducing the taxes that most Americans resent requires eliminating the network of subsidies to millions of other Americans that these taxes finance, and eliminating the jobs of government employees who administer them. Eliminating that network is practical, if at all, if done simultaneously, both because subsidies are morally wrong and economically counterproductive, and because the country cannot afford the practice in general. The electorate is likely to cut off millions of government clients, high and low, only if its choice is between no economic privilege for anyone and ratifying government’s role as the arbiter of all our fortunes. The same goes for government grants to and contracts with so-called nonprofit institutions or non-governmental organizations. The case against all arrangements by which the government favors some groups of citizens is easier to make than that against any such arrangement. Without too much fuss, a few obviously burdensome bureaucracies, like the Department of Education, can be eliminated, while money can be cut off to partisan enterprises such as the National Endowments and public broadcasting. That sort of thing is as necessary to the American body politic as a weight reduction program is essential to restoring the health of any human body degraded by obesity and lack of exercise. Yet shedding fat is the easy part. Restoring atrophied muscles is harder. Reenabling the body to do elementary tasks takes yet more concentration.

The grandparents of today’s Americans (132 million in 1940) had opportunities to serve on 117,000 school boards. To exercise responsibilities comparable to their grandparents’, today’s 310 million Americans would have radically to decentralize the mere 15,000 districts into which public school children are now concentrated. They would have to take responsibility for curriculum and administration away from credentialed experts, and they would have to explain why they know better. This would involve a level of political articulation of the body politic far beyond voting in elections every two years.

If self-governance means anything, it means that those who exercise government power must depend on elections. The shorter the electoral leash, the likelier an official to have his chain yanked by voters, the more truly republican the government is. Yet to subject the modern administrative state’s agencies to electoral control would require ordinary citizens to take an interest in any number of technical matters. Law can require environmental regulators or insurance commissioners, or judges or auditors to be elected. But only citizens’ discernment and vigilance could make these officials good. Only citizens’ understanding of and commitment to law can possibly reverse the patent disregard for the Constitution and statutes that has permeated American life. Unfortunately, it is easier for anyone who dislikes a court’s or an official’s unlawful act to counter it with another unlawful one than to draw all parties back to the foundation of truth.

Read it all.

► Hot Links

A Brit who Really Gets American Politics

by snork ( 139 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Politics, Progressives at July 20th, 2010 - 4:30 pm

I never came across the writing of Janet Daley before, but this is not only a well written piece,  it seems like in some ways, she understands what’s going on in our politics better than our own people. Because she’s been there. Because the UK has already been down this road of the politics of pissing on the middle class:

There was a warning of what was to come during the election campaign with Joe the Plumber, to whom Mr Obama unwisely confided his intention to “spread the wealth around”. Americans who have risen from poverty to become qualified tradesmen or entrepreneurs generally believe that they have a right to put what wealth they produce back into their own businesses, rather than trusting governments to spread it around among those judged to be deserving.

But Joe’s warning was not heeded. Most of the constituency whose instincts were the same as his voted for Obama, and have now lived to regret it. This in itself is not especially surprising: it could simply be seen as the self-interested politics of personal survival. What is more startling is the growth in America of precisely the sort of political alignment which we have known for many years in Britain: an electoral alliance of the educated, self-consciously (or self-deceivingly, depending on your point of view) “enlightened” class with the poor and deprived.

It wasn’t by accident that Joe’s warning was ignored. She homes in on exactly what’s going on:

In the US, there is probably no going back for the Obama administration. It has definitively lost faith with the “little guy” voters who once thought of a Democratic presidency as a form of divine protection, and this president does not seem to have the ingenious flexibility of a Bill Clinton, who swung Right after his first disastrous years in office, partly under pressure from a Republican Congress.

Clinton was a “fair weather” ideologue who knew when to throw the class warfare stuff into the bonfire. Obama has no such pragmatism, and will walk into the bonfire in defense of the only thing he knows – Marxist redistributionism.

What is most depressing about this – apart from the injustice of it – is that the people who have been disenfranchised and disowned are the very ones on whom both countries’ economic recovery depends.

Yup. You 52% – you know who you are – have done it to not just the US, but the world. Maybe you’ll notice when your playstation stops working.

► Hot Links

UK PM David Cameron seizing bank accounts

by Rodan ( 90 Comments › )
Filed under Liberal Fascism, Progressives, UK at July 20th, 2010 - 8:30 am

The UK is heading towards a Totalitarian Progressive state under the so called Conservatives. PM David Cameron who is a self described Progressive Conservative, is planning on seizing dormant bank accounts. His goal is to take this money and great Big Society bank to fund social organizations. These terms should sound familiar to us here in America. The big society corresponds towards LBJ’s great society and social organizations are community organizations. Cameron is an admirer of Saul Alinsky and his actions reveal his radical leftist ideology.

U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron announced plans to use “hundreds of millions of pounds” from dormant bank accounts to fund community projects, while Business Secretary Vince Cable said lenders “ripped off” customers.

Cameron said he will press ahead with a proposal set out in the coalition government’s program to establish a “Big Society Bank” to finance moves by charitable groups and not-for-profit companies to take over jobs currently done by the government.

“These unclaimed assets, alongside the private-sector investment that we will leverage, will mean that the Big Society Bank will over time make available hundreds of millions of pounds of new finance to some of the most dynamic social organizations in our country,” Cameron said in a speech in Liverpool, northwest England, today.

Read the rest: Cameron Raids Dormant U.K. Accounts as Minister Attacks Banks

Phony Conservative and Progressive enabler, David Frum wants American conservatives to emulate the British Tories. Seeing the actions of the Cameron regime, Frum supports redistribution of wealth. This is Socialism what is occurring in the UK and it’s no different than what Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela. David Cameron is no Conservative and neither is David Frum. They are both Progressives and American Conservatives should reject these 2.

► Hot Links

LTC Allen West exposes the NAACP as tools of Progressive Racism

by Rodan ( 207 Comments › )
Filed under American Supremacy, Democratic Party, Elections 2010, LTC Allen West, Liberal Fascism, Progressives, Racism, Republican Party at July 19th, 2010 - 9:00 pm

The American Progressive movement is racist to the core. They believe that non whites are inferior human beings as must be taken care of. Groups like the NAACP and La Raza are there to ensure that the targeted groups Blacks and Hispanics don’t act out of line. When a minority comes out against Progressive racist, the quisling servants of the left attacks them and destroy their reputation. This is done to ensure that minorities remain slaves to the system.

The NAACP which at one time was a legitimate force for good in the combat against racism. It has now morphed into an organization that makes sure Blacks don’t question their Progressive masters. LTC Allen West who is  a true American patriot and hero and who sacrificed his military careerfor the lives of his troops exposes this organization for what they are. The NAACP are nothing more than overseers who keep African Americans in line  for their White Progressive masters.

Let me make one thing very clear, my Mother, Elizabeth Thomas West, was a lifetime membership holder with the NAACP. Therefore growing up in our home I clearly understood the mission and vision for this organization. It was a mission and vision that enabled me to have the pride in myself and the heritage of my parents, grandparents, and extended family. It was a mission and vision that, to me, fostered a desire to excel beyond the standard and have a commitment to excellence regardless of skin color.

However, something has happened to that mission and vision, something horrific and inconsistent with the principles and values I recalled emanating from the “ole school” black community. Somewhere along the way victimization mentality has taken root in the black community resulting in astronomical unemployment rates, high incarceration rates, appalling murder rates, breakdown of the black family, and embarrassing teen pregnancy rates.

And in the light of all these negative socioeconomic indicators the NAACP decides that the preeminent focus of their national convention would be on issuing a resolution castigating the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party movement as racist. Even Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas was so compelled as to state that the Tea Party is filled with Klan members…..but we will get to the Congressional Black Caucus a bit later.

Instead of maintaining its mission and vision, the NAACP has now become the “useful idiots” (a term coined by Vladimir Lenin) for liberal racism. They have made themselves into a political hack job organization which now seeks to maintain the liberal progressive socialist control of the 21 century plantation. It is on this new economic plantation where the liberals seek to enslave the black community in order to maintain a devoted, monolithic, voting electorate.

Read the rest: NAACP the useful idiots of Liberal Racism

LTC. Allen West is a true American and he sees through Progressive lies. The American Left are evil and view themselves as elite humans. The concept of race based politics is evil and one this nation must reject if we are ever going to be great again. United we stand, divided we fall. The Progressives are evil humans and no mercy is to be given them. They must be utterly defeated and purged from our public life.

(Hat Tip: Bumr50)

Update: This video shows racism at the NAACP. Racism whether in its black or white form is evil. It is a Progressive concept that is a disease on the human soul. Before they take shots at the Tea Party, the NAACP should look within its own ranks.

This is disgusting!

Update II: Shirley Sherrod, the department’s Georgia director of Rural Development shown in the video has resigned.

► Hot Links

Get Ready for the New WPA

by snork ( 64 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Liberal Fascism, Politics, Progressives at July 19th, 2010 - 7:14 pm

The smart people running things know everything. Err, well sorta.

“I don’t blame the administration for being off in these forecasts,” said R. Glenn Hubbard, dean of the Columbia Business School and chairman of theCouncil of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush. He called the rise in unemployment “a mystery.

Uh-oh. The smartys are stumped.

A rapid productivity increase, as businesses got more output from fewer workers, raises the possibility that employers might make do with smaller payrolls long after economic conditions improve. “That’s the million dollar question,” Ms. Romer said.

Who are these simpletons writing this crap? As if we’ve never had productivity increases before? ZOMG!!!11 What are we going to do with all these farmers when we can grow all this stuff with only 10% of the population?

For Mr. Blinder, the former Clinton adviser, that doesn’t go far enough. He favors New Deal-style hiring of workers onto public payrolls, since “we’re in pretty much a jobs emergency.”

General quarters! Red alert! There goes the test balloon. As I predicted before the election, Obama wants to go FDR on us, and keep the economy in permanent chains. All for our good, of course.

You heard it here first. They want a new WPA, and they want to make it the centerpiece of the plan to maintain one-party rule for a generation. Only this time, it won’t be building dams, it’ll be blowing them up. Your new masters will be hiring shortly.

► Hot Links

This one of our elected officials speechifying.

by coldwarrior ( 176 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Education, Politics at July 19th, 2010 - 2:00 pm

Imagine if this were a Republican, the press would have gone crazy.

how does that keep getting re-elected?

► Hot Links