Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics
Showing posts with label Race Relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Race Relations. Show all posts
Monday, October 1, 2012
Supreme Courtin' It
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Democrats Prove Smarter At Platform Making
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Republican Minority Report
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
That’s Why They Call It Dope
The study in question was conducted by an international team under an NHS grant. They followed 1,000 teenage boys and girls between the ages of 13 and 14 for twenty years. Each test subject was given a battery of IQ tests. What the researchers found was that the test subjects who smoked marijuana in their teens fell behind their non-smoking peers by 8 points on these IQ tests by the time they turned 38. That may not sound like much, but it’s enough to take someone from average intelligence to the bottom third of the population. Moreover, these same users also showed early signs of dementia, which is a very bad thing.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone however. Anyone who has known a pot smoker knows that they are, in a word, stupid. They are slow, they have poor memory recall and their personalities are like talking to mud. And that’s when they aren’t high.
No doubt the pot legalizers will dismiss this because they dismiss anything that doesn’t fit their idea that smoking pot is healthy. But this study merely confirms what anyone with a brain should already know. So the next time some pothead tells you that smoking pot is harmless, go ahead and shove them down some stairs. . . I said Dave’s not here!
Speaking of dopeheads, the left is once again out in full force polluting the airways with their intolerance and idiocy. As some of you are no doubt aware, the Republicans are currently holding a little get-together in Tampa right now. So check out these quotes from famous celebrity haters:
● Ellen Barkin, who hasn’t had a hit in forever, tweeted this:
Nice! She’s wishing death on her political opponents, just like a good tolerant liberal.“C’mon #Isaac! Wash every pro-life, anti-education, anti-woman, xenophobic, gay-bashing, racist SOB right into the ocean! #RNC”
● Samuel L. Jackson, who is quickly losing my respect, tweeted that he “was not understanding God’s plan” since God had "spared" Tampa. He said:
Unlike Barkin, he at least apologized. . . sort of, a few hours later, saying “Apologies to God, Tampa, da GOP & Isaac! Who played the Race card?!”"Unfair Shit: GOP spared by Issac! NOLA prolly Fucked Again! Not understanding God's plan!"
Who indeed Samuel L? It sounds to me like you played the race card a couple weeks back and Obama and Chris Matthews have been playing it all week. Also, reading your quote as written, you seem to be implying that God, Tampa, the GOP and Isaac all played the race card. Stay off the dope Sam, it makes you stupid.
Perhaps we should return the favor and hope that Hollywood gets wiped out by a tsunami or an earthquake or a plague of rabid hamsters, but I’m not liberal, so I don’t wish death on my political opponents or on the people of cities where those political opponents happen to be meeting.
By the way, for those who didn't watch the convention last night, the speeches were excellent. This has been one of the better conventions I remember in my lifetime.
Monday, August 20, 2012
I Will Heal The Divisions
There were hints in that earlier campaign that Obama really wasn't all that post-racial. He commented that “some people won't vote for me because I don't look like the other presidents.” That was a suggestion that if you voted for the other candidate, you were voting against Obama solely because of his color. There was a lot of criticism on the right for that comment, though some of us conservatives thought that it was not an entirely unfair or untrue remark. It recognized a truth that both liberals and conservatives ought to be able to agree on. Bigots still exist, and probably always will. It was the suggestion that anybody who voted against him was a bigot that was offensive. And that thought has been magnified and amplified throughout his administration.
The concept has gelled to the point that it is now a major theme of the liberals during the 2012 presidential campaign. Never mind Obama's utter failure on the economy. Never mind the apology tours. Never mind his abandonment of allies and pats-on-the-back for Middle East dictators. Never mind his Chicago-style oppression of dissent. Never mind his crony socialism. If you oppose anything Obama does, you are an “intolerant bigot.”
Even among white voters, Obama's race seemed in 2008 to have been more of a plus than a minus. Many who really knew nothing about him listened to what he said and thought to themselves, “at last, we can get past all the division by electing a black president who wants to put racial and class division behind us once and for all.” A huge percentage of those same white voters have come to regret their vote. Almost from the beginning, it became apparent that Obama had no intention of healing racial relations. He, along with his Attorney General Eric Holder, early on began to make it clear that the administration would not be about healing, but rather about revenge for real and imagined past white sins.
When Harvard Professor Henry Louis (“Skip”) Gates was arrested for disorderly contact and resisting arrest, Obama rushed to blame it on “stupid cops” arresting a notable black academic based on his color. The Holder Justice Department dropped all further actions against the New Black Panther Party for egregious voter intimidation in Philadelphia, going so far as to drop cases which had already been won against them. When a black teenager was shot by a “white” neighborhood watch member, Obama rushed to judgment, bringing out the violins by proclaiming “if I had a son, he would look just like Trayvon (apparently Obama disregarded the most recent photos of the victim sporting gang tattoos and a gold “grill”). The Holder DOJ has throughout Obama's first term used the obsolete provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to squelch reform efforts in the South. The list is very lengthy.
This president had an unprecedented (his favorite word) opportunity to bring Americans of all colors and classes together to make a greater America. Instead, he has taken every opportunity to divide the country along those very lines he could have helped to erase. As I said in 2008 (and still say), I don't oppose Barack Obama because he's black. I oppose him because he's red. Yet the mainstream media continue to prettify Obama and his legions while downplaying any criminal activities on the left which are racially or ideologically motivated.
Although he has not overtly spouted black liberation or socialist philosophy, both his actions and inactions have led America down those primrose paths. He has emboldened the left to call conservatives racists and bigots for opposing his policies, no matter what the issue before them. His cynical reversal of his position on gay marriage has added gay-straight/Christian-secularist hatred to the mix. His above-the-fray inaction in failing to condemn tagging of all conservative and/or traditional values as bigots has further emboldened the liberals. He has never said that he agrees with the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center labeling the Family Research Council as a “hate group.” But neither has he condemned it, and a supporter of gay, lesbian, and transgender causes used that as a justification for an armed attack on the “hate group” FRC in Washington, DC.
As the racial and class warfare remarks continue to escalate in the campaign, Obama remains silent. As most of us know, the ancient legal dictum is that “silence implies consent.” And that is exactly how the race and class warriors on the left have interpreted the silence. A Democrat PAC implies that Mitt Romney was directly responsible for the death of a cancer victim, and Obama remains silent. His Press Secretary mumbled and bumbled when the abject lie was pointed out to him. The ad continues to run in key states, and Obama continues to remain silent.
By allowing his minions to attack all conservatives and Christians as bigots, racists and neanderthals without putting on the brakes by condemning their actions, Obama is complicit in the very bigotry he purports to loathe. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Barack Hussein Obama is not a good man. And anyone who opposes him, is (in his own words) a "typical white person."
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Barack Banishes Disparate School Discipline
Racial healer Barack Obama has now weighed in on the subject in a rather odd and topsy-turvy way. He has determined that minorities (mostly black) are unfairly over-represented in one area—school discipline. According to The One, “African Americans lack equal access to highly effective teachers and principals, safe schools, and challenging college-preparatory classes, and they disproportionately experience school discipline.” Because blacks are over-represented in disciplinary matters, it couldn't possibly be because they over-perform in the area of bad behavior. It's the same old liberal nostrum voiced by one of the hoods in West Side Story: “We're depraved on accounta we're deprived.”
I will ignore for the moment that one of the biggest reasons blacks are denied those benefits is the lack of school choice, something liberals mightily oppose. Another reason is the breakdown of the black family which tends to produce single mothers, no responsible fathers around to help, high illegitimacy rates, gang membership to replace the non-existent family unit and a plethora of other social pathologies. Problems in the schools tend to reflect the same problems outside the schools. That leads to high crime rates among black young people, both outside of and inside the schools. It's not a “black thing.” Urban whites are rapidly catching up, but in the middle-class or affluent suburbs, black misbehavior with the resulting discipline is almost indistinguishable from white.
The simple fact remains. Blacks in urban schools are disciplined in far larger numbers and percentages of the total school population. There is a disparate impact. But concurrence is not causation, and courts have increasingly held that disparate impact can no longer stand as the sole reason for imposing quotas or other leveling processes. In order to satisfy the current legal test, disparate impact must be the result of genuinely unfair and discriminatory practices either intentionally or grossly negligently put in place by the institutions where the disparate impact occurs. That was the case years or decades ago. Today multiple factors result in the disparate impact, but institutional discrimination is not among them.
None of this has stopped Barack Obama from issuing another one of his infamous executive orders. To establish equality of outcome rather than equal treatment, he has ordered that a government panel be created to promote “a positive school climate that does not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools.” Simply put, that means until the number of whites and Asians disciplined is mathematically proportional to the number of blacks and Hispanics disciplined, either discipline of the former groups must be reduced or those of the latter increased, regardless of the facts in each individual case.
Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, had this to say about the executive order: “What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for, because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates.” Bader previously held multiple positions in the Education Department's Civil Rights office.
As if this weren't bad enough, the executive order also includes the creation of a President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for African Americans. That would be a noble goal if it included doing all the things actually necessary to raise the levels of black educational accomplishment and good behavior in school. But it's just a cover for more affirmative action-like bureaucracy. It won't solve any of the problems I mentioned above. But it will ensure the perpetuation of black students as a favored “victim group.” The Commission will simply be another home for government employees to suck up taxpayer money and throw more taxpayer money at useless and unrealistic projects.
Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that “we’ve often seen that students of color, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and students with special needs are disproportionately likely to be suspended or expelled.” So the rules and methods must be changed to “help” black students. Holder claims to be a lawyer, but he cites no evidence or precedent to support his conclusions. Except, of course, the “disparate impact” which we have already said exists. Why it exists is the bone of contention. And when all is said and done, the “why” for Obama and Holder is, as always, racism.
[+] Read More...
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Fireman, Save My Child
In an earlier preliminary ruling, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis had shown his impartiality by declaring that the NYFD was “a bastion of white male privilege.” To punish those white elitists, Garaufis set down a whole slew of requirements and strictures. First, the department must pay back pay to the unsuccessful applicants, retroactive to the date they first applied. That's about $129 million. Then it must revise the written exams. The department must hire new firefighters at the following rate: two of every five must be black, and one of every five must be Hispanic in order to reach the court's quota of 186 black and 107 Hispanic hires.
Continuing his flight of fancy, the judge ordered not only compensatory money damages, but “non-economic” damages as well. He defined that as the intangible benefits of “prestige, job satisfaction, camaraderie, unique excitement, enjoyment of flexible scheduling, unusual employment stability, feeling of security derived from retiring with a full pension and lifetime medical benefits, and the potential for career advancement.” Wow! I think I'll apply.
Garaufis based his decision on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII. He found that the written exams had a disparate effect on the minority applicants. That is an established fact. If it weren't for the Ricci case, that would have been enough. But Ricci once and for all shifted the burden of proof to the plaintiffs to prove that the disparate impact is negligent and has no rational basis. That was scarcely even addressed in Garaufis's opinion. While blithely dancing around the Ricci decision, Garaufis relied on his own pre-Ricci decision slamming the FDNY.
Sounding more like a social engineer than a legal scholar, Giraufis babbled about fire departments “reflecting the communities they serve.” Why not go the whole way? All firemen in Harlem and Bedford Stuyvesant should be black and most firemen serving Park Avenue shops should be white. Firemen for the Upper West Side should be both white and largely Jewish and/or gay. Maybe we should even add political party affiliation to the mix. Silly enough for you? I always thought firefighters were there to protect human beings, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin or prior condition of servitude. But what do I know?
And to put an exclamation point on his ruling, Garaufis ordered that the failed applicants be granted retroactive benefits, promotions, and seniority, something that was directly addressed in the Ricci case. So just remember, if you're visiting New York City, the people who will be rushing to your rescue when the hotel bursts into flame will be people ordered to be hired by a political judge after getting a whopping 26 or more answers right on a 100 question exam. Shout “help” but don't write it on a sign to be held up, because the fireman may not be able to read it.
I'll be glad when this is finally resolved so we can move on to Philadelphia and address the racial imbalance in poll watchers.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Romney's Great Speech At The NAACP
● What He Said: Romney made several interesting points in his speech, each of which fit into the theme of his policies making the lives of blacks better. This is an interesting choice because it sidesteps all the race-baiting stuff for which Republicans normally fall. Observe.
First, Romney noted that Obama has been horrible to blacks. Specifically, black unemployment is 6.2% higher than white unemployment and the average income and median family income is lower for blacks than whites. He then promised that his goal as president would be the creation of jobs, but he intends to do so without trying to target things for specific racial groups:
"If I am president, job one for me will be creating jobs. I have no hidden agenda. If you want a president who will make things better in the African-American community, you are looking at him."This actually got booed, which tells you something about the audience, doesn’t it? Then he said something fascinating. He essentially told the audience that capitalism isn’t their enemy. Check this out:
"I’ve never heard anyone look around an impoverished neighborhood and say, 'You know, there’s too much free enterprise around here. Too many shops, too many jobs, too many people putting money in the bank.'"This is a brilliantly subtle point. What he’s doing is saying that no matter what other issues blacks may have vis-Ã -vis race in America, capitalism is not to blame. And subscribing to free enterprise, rather than the spoils system so popular in black circles, will make their lives better without them even having to give up the other issues which concern them. In other words, he’s trying to depoliticize capitalism and wealth.
Then he spoke about education, calling it the “civil rights issue of our era” and arguing that “mediocre schools” are setting black kids up to fail. To fix this, he pointed out that he supports school choice and won’t be beholden to the teachers unions, as Obama is. Here is how he sold this idea:
"If equal opportunity in America were an accomplished fact, black families could send their sons and daughters to public schools that truly offer the hope of a better life. Instead, for generations, the African-American community has been waiting and waiting for that promise to be kept. Today, black children are 17 percent of students nationwide—but they are 42 percent of the students in our worst-performing schools."Notice that again, he’s telling blacks that this is an issue which they should depoliticize and thus support his education policies, which have proven effective. He’s also tossing a wedge between blacks and the teacher’s unions.
Finally, he made a direct appeal for them to look past the ideology and take an honest look at him:
"I believe that if you understood who I truly am in my heart, and if it were possible to fully communicate what I believe is in the real, enduring best interest of African-American families, you would vote for me for president."That’s a pretty solid appeal across the board.
● Smart Move: Romney was never going to win over the NAACP because those people have blinded themselves to anything they don’t want and nothing Romney could have said or done would have won him their vote or endorsement. So was it smart to give this speech to a hostile crowd? Well, yes. Winning over the NAACP wasn’t Romney’s goal. Instead, Romney was speaking to several other groups:
1. White Moderates. By speaking to the NAACP, Romney shows himself to be inclusive and willing to hear from everyone, not just his most loyal constituents. That makes moderates comfortable.● He’s Racist: The moment Romney finished, the race baiters started whining. There was nothing in his speech they could attack so they turned him into an evil genius by claiming he designed his speech so he would be booed, with the intention of using that booing to win over racist whites. Clearly they don’t believe this, but they know that many of their followers are stupid enough and paranoid enough to think this is true. So it’s a decent strategy in that regard. In fact, the smears started yesterday when Romney was called "too white" to speak to the NAACP. But I think ultimately, this speech is the kind of speech which could shift the needle a couple percentage points over time. And if Romney’s message that blacks don’t need to fight us on all issues finds legs, then the race industry is in serious trouble.
2. White Conservatives. By refusing to pander, Romney continues to show that he has strong conservative instincts -- though this point will be lost at some blogs.
3. Hispanics. By being seen appealing to blacks, Romney demonstrates to Hispanics that he’s not a white candidate speaking to white audiences. Following his speeches to Hispanics, this will help soften Hispanic fear that Romney wants to make them second class citizens.
4. Average Blacks. Obama will need every black vote he can get. Last time Obama got 96% of the black vote, and he still polls at 92% now. By speaking to the NAACP and speaking honestly, while making it clear he wants to help blacks, Romney could peel off a few percentage of blacks, which could make a key difference in some states. In other words, he doesn’t need to win them all to be successful, every percentage point counts.
● Final Thoughts: Romney continues to impress, quite frankly. I have no doubt that if Newt or Santorum were the nominee, they would have told this group about all the laws they passed to give blacks spoils. Santorum would have promised some piece of civil rights legislation -- Newt would have promise seats on the new moon base. And in the process, both would have strengthened the liberal meme that everything related to blacks needs to be seen through the prism of race.
What Romney did here is give a speech which basically laid out how a color-blind agenda will help blacks too, and he suggested to them that it was all right to agree with us on issues like economics and education because they didn’t need to surrender their beliefs on other issues to do that. That’s incredibly smart.
Thoughts?
(P.S. Obama sent Biden to the same conference. He said racist things, told a sex joke and insulted veterans.)
[+] Read More...
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
The Smell of Disaster
● Uh, Whoops (Part 52): Once again, Team Obama has stepped up to the plate with a new attack on Romney. And once again, it’s failing miserably. This attack involves calling Romney an outsourcer of jobs. The only problem? No one cares. . . if they’re even listening. Moreover, Romney has once again turned Obama’s attack back against Obama and made him look stupid. This time, Romney made the obvious counterattack by calling Obama the nation’s “Outsourcer in Chief” and pointing out that Obama’s policies have encouraged jobs to be sent oversees and resulted in taxpayer money being paid to overseas companies. Indeed, let’s not forget that the president of Obama’s President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, Jeffry Immelt of General Electric, sent 25,000 American jobs overseas in the two years before Obama appointed him. Whoops.
● Carolina Dreamin’: Speaking of Obama, here’s proof he’s going to lose North Carolina even though the polls show a neck and neck race. Democratic Representatives Larry Kissel and Mike McIntyre will both be joining the Republicans in voting to repeal ObamaCare this week. Neither will endorse Obama. And Kissel voted to impeach Eric Holder. Neither would be doing any of that if they didn’t think their constituents hated Obama.
● Uh. . . no: Carolina isn’t the only place either where Obama has problems. Consider this. Obama has decided to play a little class warfare before the election. Specifically, he’s calling for letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire for anyone making more than $250,000. Sounds like a no-brainer for the Democrats, right? Well, not so fast. Several House and Senate Democrats are freaking out and want to raise that number to $1,000,000. Senators from Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Nebraska and Virginia all have taken this position. Interestingly, three of those are considered “battleground” states, and apparently, Obama is losing the battle.
● Turning Up The Hate: With Democratic frustrations mounting, they and their allies are starting to turn up the hate. A former Media Matters executive just put out a racist youtube video in which he says Romney is “too white” to meet with the NAACP, something Romney is doing this week. The ad features an actor pretending to be the man who created the Willie Horton ad, and he says this to Romney about trying to meet with the NAACP:
“You are so white, you are extremely white, you make Wonder Bread look like pumpernickel.”He then tells Romney to “get all Mormon, Martin Luther King” on the audience. Is anybody really surprised by this? I doubt it. Not when James Earl Jones became the latest celebrity to label the Tea Party “racist.” Joy Behar says it regularly. Also this week, Biden said this to minorities: “Republicans have changed the law so you get arrested if you vote.” He claims he was joking, but how is race-baiting funny? Not to mention, he also told the National Council of La Raza, a race hate group: “Romney wants you to show your papers.” At the same time, Rep. Jim Clyburn called Republican attempts to trim the food stamp program, which exploded since 2008 through an administrative change, an “abomination” and implied Republicans want to starve poor children. David Letterman joked that Romney wants to put gays back in the closet. Barney Frank said something similar. And so on.
It’s amazing how consistently the Democrats try to bait minorities with false claims of racism or other –isms. It makes you wonder how they sleep at night spreading so much hate?
● Lost Faith: Finally, the MSM has hit another all-time low. In the days of Edward R. Murrow, the MSM was the undisputed arbiter of the truth. If they said it, Americans believed it. But like anything else liberals infest, the MSM has lost its way. And as alternative methods of staying informed have become available, people have started discovering just how biased our liberal friends in the MSM have been. That, in turn, leads to a huge erosion of trust.
That brings us to Gallup. Gallup has been asking people about their level of confidence in the MSM for years now. And surprise surprise, this year’s result shows that the American public’s confidence in the MSM is at an all-time low. How low? In 1993, 46% of the public said they trusted the nightly news. In 2012, only 21% trust the nightly news. In 1979, their peak year, newspapers were trusted by 51% of the public. In 2012, only 28% trust newspapers.
A lot of this is the result of liberals, whose trust in the news and newspapers fell from 30% last year to 19% this year. But even leaving that aside, it’s clear that something is very wrong with the MSM if only one in five Americans trust them. But maybe the better question is, what’s wrong with the one in five?
[+] Read More...
Monday, June 18, 2012
It’s Because You’re Stupid
The MSM has finally found a narrative they can all get behind: criticism of Obama by conservatives is racist. Forget that they’ve leveled plenty of their own criticism, because hypocrisy doesn’t matter to them. Any conservative who criticizes Obama is a racist.The line that criticism of Obama is racist goes way back. Jimmy Carter whined in 2009 that the entire birther movement was racist. Then he claimed Republican Joe Wilson shouting “you lie!” during Obama’s campaign speech to Congress showed that there is “an inherent feeling in American that a black man should not be President.” In September 2011, MSNBC claimed that all criticism of Obama was because of “the color of his skin.”
Calling Obama “cool” was declared racist the other day. Before that the words “cocky”, “flippant” and “arrogant” were declared racist “code words.” Last month, Team Obama themselves said that trying to link Obama to Jeremiah Wright was racist and hate-filled.
Now we have Neil Munro, a reporter for the Daily Caller, interrupting Obama during his latest campaign speech from the White House where he tried to buy Hispanic votes by proposing amnesty for young illegal aliens. The MSM was immediately outraged, and quickly decided this was racist. Said MSNBC:
“I think it's a very important question because I think this is the first African-American president. We've never had a white president been told by the opposing party to shut up in the middle of a major address to the Congress. We've never had a president like this heckled so disrespectfully. We've never had this otherness afforded to any other president and I think the right wing has some explaining to do because to me it's patently obvious.”Well, actually, that’s not true. Indeed, as the Daily Caller immediately pointed out, Sam Donaldson used to do this to Ronald Reagan all the time, and yet the MSM never accused him of even bad manners.
Naturally, the MSM went to Sam Donaldson and asked him if this was true. Guess what he said? He lied about doing this to Reagan. Indeed, he said, he “never once interrupt[ed] a president in any way while he was making a formal statement, a speech, honoring awardees or in any other way holding the floor.” Of course, that’s a lie, but no MSM reporter can be bothered to go find the dozens of example disproving this.
Then Donaldson said exactly what you would expect from a leftist hack. He charged racism:
“Let’s face it: Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there – they oppose him not for his polices and political view but for who he is, an African American!”This is pathetic. Do I think Munro should have interrupted Obama? No. It pissed me off when Donaldson and the rest did it to Reagan and I don’t think anyone should be doing it to Obama either. But it pisses me off even more that the MSM is pushing this crap about this being the result of racism.
People criticize President "Downgrade" Obama because he’s incompetent. They criticize him because he’s an arrogant ass. They criticize Obama because he’s ruining the country and trying to destroy large parts of our economy. It doesn’t matter what color he is, the man is a menace to our nation.
Moreover, the real racists are on the left and within the MSM. It’s the leftist media which sees the world through the prism of race, not the rest of us. The rest of us have moved beyond race. We now judge men and women by the content of their characters and the competence and quality of their actions, and in that test people like Obama fail miserably. Race doesn't factor into it for us, that only matters to the race-obsessed MSM.
So in the spirit of providing proof, give us your Top Three Biggest gripes with Obama without mentioning his race?
OT, For those who regularly visit Patti's site, she's talking about my book today and there's a Q&A! Check it out! LINK
[+] Read More...
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Democratic Wedge Issues
I said a long time ago that the Democratic Party really isn’t a political party anymore. It’s become a collection of tribes held together by some common interests. The thing is, their common interests are really quite narrow and they glossed over significant disagreements in forming the coalition. Recent events, such as Obama’s embrace of gay marriage against the wishes of blacks and Romney’s discussion of education with Hispanics highlight this more than ever. It’s time for conservatives to start driving wedges into this coalition.Conservatives need to spot the disagreements that were glossed over and start pointing those out relentlessly. The idea would be to cause enough friction within the Democratic alliance that the party ruptures into ineffective smaller groups. Here are some thoughts on where those disagreements might be and how to attack them.
1. Gays v. Feminists: At one point, gays should have been natural allies of conservatives. Conservatives believe in less government and individual rights, and the problems gays faced until the mid-1980s were sodomy laws, which made gay relationships criminal. But now that those laws have been struck down, the gay agenda has switched to forcing others to accept their lifestyles. That puts gays at odds with conservatism. Feminists similarly are at odds with conservatives because they too favor big government schemes to reshape society. So neither groups is likely winnable for conservatives. But that doesn’t mean we can’t drive a wedge between them.
The big issue for feminists is abortion. And as I mentioned the other day when discussing sex selection (something Planned Parenthood just got caught promoting), abortion means the end of homosexuality once genetics locates the “gay gene.” It would behoove conservatives to keep pushing this idea to the gay community that abortion = gay-genocide, and suggesting they seek to limit abortion.
2. Blacks v. Feminists: Blacks have very much tied themselves to the Democrats by making themselves wards of the state. Through either direct money transfers to poor blacks or race-based preferences in loans, housing, schools and jobs for middle and upper-class blacks, blacks as a group have come to rely on the government. So they are unreachable as a group. But as I pointed out the other day, abortion is killing blacks in massive numbers compared to all other races. Conservatives need to beat this drum that abortion = black-genocide to separate them from feminists. It would also be smart of conservatives to start pointing out that affirmative action has by far benefited upper-to-middle class white women more than it has blacks. This has the potential to set up a bloody fight between feminists and blacks over how to divide the spoils of affirmative action.
3. Blacks v. Gays: Blacks as a group are socially conservative when it comes to gays. Conservatives should push the message to blacks that the Democratic Party, which is dominated by the gay lobby, is looking to force the gay agenda on them and their churches.
4. Hispanics v. Everyone: Hispanics are an odd group to be jammed into the Democratic coalition. They are socially conservative and largely Catholic, yet the Democratic Party hates religion (atheists) and is dominated by the gay lobby (gay marriage) and feminists (contraception). Moreover, they are the second biggest victims of abortion, so they should be uneasy with that too (feminists). Unions have worked hard to keep them out of the country, to keep them from getting jobs, and have kept them out of the well-paying union jobs. Further, as Romney noted, the teachers unions are hurting their kids. They run a large number of small businesses, who find themselves attacked by unions, who are unable to obtain financing from the Democrats’ Wall Street friends, and who are crushed by environmental and labor regulations. Each of these issues should be made clear to them.
5. Bankers v. Socialists: By and large, the Democratic rank and file hate business, hate capitalism, and HATE banks. They despise Wall Street. Yet, most of the money the Democrats get comes from that very same Wall Street. And right now, Wall Street is upset at being vilified by the Democrats. Conservatives should keep pushing the Democrats on this point. They should force elected Democrats to make a choice, support Wall Street or do the bidding of the rank and file, by bringing up legislation which splits this coalition, such as elimination of banking fees. The more the Democrats are made to dance, the greater the chance they will lose one group or the other.
6. Environmentalists v. Farmers/Miners/Workers: Since the days of FDR, the Democrats have done their best to buy farmers, coal miners, and skilled-labor workers with government handouts. But in the past thirty years, as ivory tower intellectuals and white-collar professionals have come to dominate the Democratic Party, they’ve adopted environmentalism as a religion, and with it they’ve put in place insane rules which cripple farmers, miners and workers. It’s time for Republicans to push this issue hard. They need to point out to auto-workers in Detroit and coal miners in West Virginia how much regulation the Democrats have imposed on their fields and what the cost is and why this lets China steal their jobs. Also point out how Democratic friends like GE are shipping their jobs overseas. Similarly, Republicans need to become fluent in the regulatory burden imposed on farmers and they need to go farm by farm explaining to these people how the Democratic agenda is crushing them.
7. The Elderly v. the Poor: The elderly are abandoning the Democrats already, and Republicans need to help push that along. Republicans specifically need to talk about Medicare. Fewer and fewer doctors are willing to take Medicare because it doesn’t pay enough. Despite this, Obama plans to steal another $500 billion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare and its subsidies to the poor. Republicans need to make this clear that the Democrats are stealing from the elderly to hand out the money to other groups.
8. Jews: The Republicans have had little success winning over Jews. There are two reasons for this. First, many Jews are simply scared of the Religious Right starting a second inquisition. I know that specific outreach has begun on this issue and that needs to continue. More importantly, as I mentioned with Hispanics the other day, Republicans have wrongly been treating Jews as a single-issue people, with that issue being Israel. But Israel clearly isn’t that strong of a pull. A better approach would be to talk to them about issues like Medicare (which resonates in Florida), the attacks on Wall Street (which resonate in New York), and this: the Republicans need to establish a counterpart to the Anti-Defamation League to focus exclusively on all the anti-Semitism coming from the left these days. We’ve seen this at Media Matters, at OWS and just generally from the left.
If Republicans do these things right, they can create tremendous friction within the Democratic alliance, perhaps even enough to shatter the party. The way to do this is to relentlessly point out the issues above. Do that through targeted advertisements, in speeches, on webpages/blogs and through media stunts by having our talking heads demand explanations from the Democrats on these wedge issues. Further, the Republicans should start crafting legislative proposals which put the groups above on opposing sides and forces the Democrats to pick sides.
At the same time, as I said the other day, Republicans needs to start reaching out to each of these groups on the issues that we have in common. Even taking away 5% of Democrats would guarantee a permanent Republican super-majority.
Thoughts?
[+] Read More...
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Martin Case? What Martin Case?
The Trayvon Martin case really exposed the liberal media as race-hate hustlers. Not to mention it showed their bias. But now that the facts of the case are going against their desires, they are all but ignoring it. Fortunately, it looks like the public has ignored the MSM all along.Right out of the gates, the media tried to turn this into a racial controversy. First, we had the NBC producer who maliciously edited the 911 call to make it sound like Zimmerman shot Martin because he was black, when the call actually proved that Zimmerman didn’t raise the issue of race and wasn’t even sure Martin was black. The MSM also tried to turn Zimmerman into a white guy so he would fit the racist narrative by calling him “white Hispanic” when his real ancestry apparently makes him “black Hispanic.” They also ignored all the charity work he did for a local black church. And to show that the only reason they covered this issue was race, consider what Alfonzo Rachel pointed out (about 1:05), that the media has ignored a succession of other Trayvons who were gunned down because they were all killed by blacks.
Once they had their narrative, the MSM set about trying to spin everything to fit that. For example, they ran with biased photos, using an old mugshot of Zimmerman to make him look like a thug while using a childhood photo of Martin to make him look like an innocent child. They kept using these photos even weeks after being criticized for the practice and long after more reputable places like conservative blogs were using better alternatives. They even shamelessly attacked the Daily Caller for “bias” for printing the nasty things Martin said on his Twitter account.
The reporting was skewed too. For example, they reported at face value that Martin had Skittles in one hand and a phone in the other, even though there is no witness who ever said that -- his girlfriend said that to the cops, but she wasn’t there to know.
After that, they kept trying to shoot down Zimmerman’s claims, like his claim that he had been attacked and injured. At first, the MSM just said they saw no evidence of injury. But how could they. . . they hadn’t looked? Then ABC released a grainy video and the media jumped on that as proof: “we don’t see any injuries!” Soon they were pronouncing him guilty because clearly he had lied about being attacked, right? Well, no. A week later, ABC enhanced the video. Now it showed significant injuries and the media actually attacked the practice of enhancing videos. Nobody bothered to read the witnesses statements or check Zimmerman’s medical records. Interestingly, Zimmerman’s lawyer has released his medical records, which show significant injuries, but the media didn’t repudiate their prior attacks. To the contrary, they all but ignored the records. An honest media wouldn’t have done any of this.
Now the blood tests have come back on Martin, and as expected, he had marijuana in his system. Yet, almost no one in the MSM reported this. Why? Because it doesn’t fit their narrative. Also, not one single reporter has pointed out that this fits with Zimmerman’s claim that Martin appeared stoned and was walking around aimlessly.
Now the case is pretty much being ignored since it hasn’t turned out like the MSM hoped. Although, some reporters are still trying. This weekend, for example, ABC attempted to deflect the public’s attention from the marijuana evidence. In this article, ABC ostensibly went through the witness statements. Only, they weren’t quite fair in how they did it. For example, the first couple pages of the article were “witnesses” saying things like “I do honestly feel that he intended for this kid to die,” and “I think the kid was running for help.” These would be damning statements if the person actually witnessed anything, but she hadn’t. These comments came from a woman who first saw Zimmerman after he had killed Martin and was standing over the body. So why repeat this speculation or describe her as a witness? This woman also said that Zimmerman told her to “call the police.” And to make sure the narrative continues, the reporter editorializes and describes this request as “curt,” as if that somehow proves something.
Another witness discussed in the article approached Zimmerman after the cops showed up and was asked by Zimmerman to call Zimmerman’s wife and let her know he was being taken into custody. According to the man, Zimmerman made this request “like it was nothing.” In other words, this “witness” was offended that Zimmerman didn’t act upset enough for his taste. In fact, he notes that Zimmerman didn’t act like: “I can’t believe I just shot someone.” So what? Again, this man witnessed nothing and his speculation that Zimmerman wasn’t shocked enough is utter horsesh*t and shouldn’t have been reported. Yet, the reporter leads off the article with this.
What this reporter has done is a despicable attempt to lynch Zimmerman by presenting as fact the speculation of people who saw nothing. This is deceitful advocacy. And so you know, none of the statements above will be admissible at court because witnesses can only speak to facts they witnessed, not opinions they formed.
So what really happened? Well, way near the bottom of the article, long after most people will have stopped reading, the reporter finally comes to the only person to actually witness something. This man said that he heard a commotion coming from the walk behind his residence. He looked out and witnessed a black male wearing a dark-colored hoodie on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help. He further stated that the black male was mounted on Zimmerman and “throwing punches MMA style” as the man on the ground yelled out for help.
Case closed. Self-defense.
On the positive side, the public seems to get it, even if the media doesn’t. Rasmussen asked people what they thought of the case. 40% thought Zimmerman acted in self-defense (up from 15%). 24% thought it was murder (down from 33%). These are good numbers. This means that only two in ten are going against the evidence of the case and buying into the media spin. Double that number have seen through the media spin. It also means that 34% of the public has kept enough of an open mind to change their opinions in light of new evidence and another four in ten have yet to form an opinion -- the way it should be.
So while the MSM is in the tank and is trying desperately to spin this case into a race war, the public clearly ain’t buying it.
[+] Read More...
Thursday, May 17, 2012
So Is Abortion A Right Or Not?
We’re told abortion is a right. It’s no big deal. You’re just removing a collection of cells. . . a tumor. And to force a woman to have a child she doesn’t want is an outrage! It’s a violation of her human rights! Right? Then why do liberals want to restrict abortion now in certain cases?The liberal position on abortion has been that abortion is a right. Indeed, they’ve argued since the 1960s that abortion is both a fundamental human right and an absolute right guaranteed under the Constitution. And when something is a right, that means you can exercise it without permission because if you needed the government’s permission to exercise a right, then it wouldn’t be a right, it would be a privilege which could be revoked at any time.
So riddle me this. How do we square the liberal position that abortion is a right with the newly-developing liberal position that women must be stopped from aborting fetuses for sex-selection reasons? Here’s the deal:
When people are given the chance to abort their babies, they do so for a variety of reasons. Those reasons include prejudices, like the preference for boys. This has been going on in China and India and other parts of Asia for decades now and has resulted in millions of missing girls. In China alone, 40 million women are missing from the current generation. That means there are 40 million men who will never find wives because they simply don’t exist because they were aborted. (LINK)
Well, now it’s happening in Canada and probably the United States. Indeed, many of these dirty foreigners who have come to these enlightened lands of abortion have apparently not given up their evil ways. Thus, a recent study in Canada found that while the ratio of first born children in Canada’s immigrant population was similar to what nature creates, the second child skewed significantly toward males and third children skew overwhelmingly toward males. In response, Canada made it illegal to obtain an abortion if the reason is sex selection -- otherwise there are no limits on abortion in Canada. The Economist and many liberal groups are now urging a similar law in the United States to prevent those dirty Canadians from sneaking across our borders to have illegal abortions. Oh the irony.
Think about this. If abortion is a right and you can have it for any reason, then how can the government decide that you can’t have one if you are trying to off a girl? Does this make sense to you? Either abortion is a right or it is not, and if the government is going to tell you that you can have an abortion for any reason whatsoever except reasons they don’t like, then it’s not really a right anymore, is it? And if forcing a woman to have an unwanted child is akin to slavery, as many liberals have argued, how is it any less slavery just because you don't want them to get rid of girls? Is there really "good slavery"?
The reality is that liberals don’t see abortion as a right, they see it as a tool for social engineering to help women economically. And when that goal clashes with other liberal social engineering goals, abortion must give way to the cause. Maybe, it’s time we called them on this and demanded that they clarify how this can be a right if they can restrict it when they don’t like how it gets used?
Moreover, perhaps it’s time to point out other problems with abortion to our liberal friends to split their coalition. For example, as I told you a long time ago, once science locates the gay gene, that will be the end of gays because the combination of abortion plus being able to identify gay children will mean parents will eradicate gay children. Other traits will probably follow as well as we learn to identify unwanted traits. Perhaps we should ask gays how they feel about this?
Similarly, I suspect that blacks will soon catch on that they are the biggest victims of abortion. There have been 50 million abortions in the US since 1973. And while 60% of those have been whites, blacks are disproportionately more likely to have an abortion. In 2004, for example, there were 50 abortions per 1,000 black women, 28 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women, and 11 abortions per 1,000 white women. So blacks were five times more likely than whites to be aborted. At some point, blacks will realize what this means and they will call this “genocide.” At that point, it would be easy to see calls to ban abortion for certain ethnic groups, wouldn’t it?
Perhaps the time has come to ask liberals to explain themselves on this issue?
Thoughts?
[+] Read More...
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
The Obama Game: Winning the Election
All right, let’s play a game, shall we? This game is called “Win the Election” (I would have called it “Win The Future,” but no one would be stupid enough to use that acronym). The goal of this game is to influence various segments of the population. Here’s how we’re going to play.Step One: I’m going to name various segments of the population.Here are the groups and some suggestions:
Step Two: For each group, tell me something Obama has done which you would use to try to sell Obama to that group.
Step Three: Then, for each group, tell me something Obama has done which you would use to try to get them to vote against Obama.
1. Women. Nothing good comes to mind. But. . . He insulted women, especially mothers. He didn’t help them on the jobs front. He endangered their healthcare with Obamacare.
2. Gays. Ended don’t ask don’t tell. But. . . Did not extend government benefits to gay partners. Copped out on gay marriage.
3. Blacks. Nothing positive comes to mind, except Holder suing various states over civil rights issues to help black-racist groups. But. . . Black unemployment is at a record high.
4. Hispanics. Nothing positive comes to mind except he sued Arizona. But. . . He continued a record number of deportations. He also used the DREAM Act and promises of immigration reform as a political football.
5. Environmentalists. He regulated carbon. But. . . He failed to pass a global warming bill like cap and trade. At Copenhagen he surrendered to China. His carbon regulations can be undone by Romney on day one.
6. Union workers. Most of the stimulus money went to unions. The auto bailout. Giving GM to the UAW. Tried to impose a union on Boeing. But. . . On the downside, he failed to save state employees from a mass wave of layoffs and the Boeing decision and card-check fell through.
7. Small business. Nothing good. But. . . Tax hikes, failed to free up credit for small businesses, added excessive regulation, and created unaffordable Obamacare requirements.
8. Big business. Opened the Treasury to his friends, passed toothless regulations of banks, allowed big business to write regulations to stymie small business, and did the bidding of big business on China, on healthcare costs, and on stimulus spending. Can’t really think of any negatives.
9. Religious believers. Nothing good. But. . . Obama has waged a war on religion for quite some time now, trying to force religions to accept positions that run contrary to their beliefs.
10. The Military. Not much good here. But. . . He showed he cared more about an Islamic terrorist than American soldiers. He didn’t end the wars, nor did he win them. He picked a pointless war with Libya. He’s been taking credit for killing bin Laden, which the military did.
11. Senior Citizens. Nothing good. But. . . Obama robbed Medicare of $500 billion.
12. Homeowners. Nothing good. Obama spoke of several ideas to fix the housing market and get homeowners out from under upside-down loans, but ultimately did nothing. On the plus side, he didn’t do anything stupid. :)
Anything I missed? Do tell.
[+] Read More...
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
More Trouble For Obama
● Tally Me Banana: The most reliable predictor of a president’s chance of getting re-elected is real take- home pay, i.e. how much Americans earn after taxes and inflation. This is the statistic behind Reagan’s famous question: “are you better off today than you were four years ago?” According to a Vanderbilt University study based on elections between 1948 and 2000, a president needs at least 1% growth in the election year to be favored for re-election. So far this year, take-home pay has actually fallen -0.2% in January and -0.1% in February. Based on these numbers, Vanderbilt professor Larry Bartels says Obama is likely to get 45% of the vote. . . which just happens to coincide with Obama’s approval rating.
● Running On Empty: Under Jimmy “Malaise” Carter, the price of gas increased 103.77%. People went insane and Carter was tossed out on his rear. How does Obama compare? Gas prices have risen 103.79%. . . slightly worse than under Carter.
And here’s an interesting aside. It turns out that 65% of hybrid owner go back to regular cars with their next car. So if hybrids can’t sustain their popularity with the people most likely to buy one, then it’s hard to see how Obama’s anti-gas push won’t hurt him.
● Burning Down The House: After never actually recovering, the housing market has started slipping again. The left is stumped. They really thought that this time would be different from each of the prior “recoveries” in the housing market. This is a killer for Obama because most Americans use their homes as their retirement savings.
● Get A Job: Yeah, that whole jobs recovery thing didn’t happen either. After a brief uptick, things are looking bleak again. The economy added only 120,000 jobs in March even though it needs 360,000 just to stay level with population growth. Right now the real unemployment rate is estimated to be 18% (almost one in five).
● Party All the Time: As America enters its fifth year of belt-tightening, GSA (the General Services Administration) is showing the public that government employees continue to live high on the hog. In the past couple weeks, we’ve seen a lavish $822,751 GSA party in Vegas disguised as a “regional training event” (complete with taxpayer-funded clown and mind reader), and videos of GSA employees playing around instead of working. What’s worse, however, has been the response. Team Obama tried to blame Bush for this, which went down about as well as blaming original sin. Moreover, government apologists whine that these are “first-class public servants and patriotic Americans” and it’s unfair to criticize them! Talk about being out of touch!
Now we’ve learned that the government is handing out “incentives” like ipads and laptops to these hard(ly) working (un)patriotic Americans. Again, this is supposedly Bush’s fault.
● Taxman: The latest Obama attack on Romney is that he only wants to be president so he can cut his own taxes. If that’s the best Team Obama has, they should start moving now.
● History Repeating?: Interestingly, Obama said yesterday that this election provides the clearest contrast since the 1964 election between Barry Goldwater and LBJ. Hmm. Carter-Reagan beg to differ, but let’s consider the parallels:
In 1964, LBJ tried to destroy the United States by imposing the Ingrate Society. Obama tried to do the same with his Crony Society and ObamaCare. In 1964, Johnson set us up to lose the Vietnam War. Obama is doing the same throughout the Middle East. In 1964, race was a flashpoint throughout the country. Now, Obama/Holder are trying to generate a race riot. In 1964, LBJ used one of the most despicable ads of all time -- the daisy ad, which suggested Goldwater wanted to start a nuclear war. Now, the Democrats and Obama are whining about a Republican war on old people and women and blacks. LBJ was a corrupt bastard. Well, shuck my grits, so is Obama! In 1964, the federal government tried to stop illegal voting practices which kept blacks form voting. Now, Obama is letting the Black Panthers intimidate voters and is whining about voter-ID laws being a return to Jim Crow.
In any event, there is method in this racist’s madness. Obama is invoking 1964 and not FDR because 1964 has been associated with the Voting Rights Act. Basically, this is an attempt to fire up his black base without alerting whites to what he is doing. And speaking of his black base. . .
● Black or White?: Although the MSM has been quick to hide Obama’s name now in connection with the Trayvon Martin scandal, it seems to be coming up a lot. And where it comes up the most is in questions about why Obama doesn’t seem to care about white people? After commenting about Trayvon, he failed to condemn the Black Panther bounty on Zimmerman. Then he failed to address several other black-on-white hate crimes. Now he’s ignored the beating of a 27-year-old white man in Gainesville by a group of 5-8 blacks who jumped the man and shouted “Trayvon” before the attack began. Even the Gainesville P.D. has declared the crime “racially motivated.” Yet, Obama has not called for calm or demanded that people not seek racist revenge for Trayvon. . . as he did when Islamic terrorist Hassan shot several American soldiers. In fact, the only time crimes, wars, terrorist acts or natural disasters seem to move him are when blacks are the victims. Hmm.
I think the left is realizing this is a problem because the MSM has all but cut off Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, they’ve downplayed all other race-crimes, and they are trying to redefine the Trayvon shooting as something other than racially motivated. The new arguments are that it was the result of gun ownership or “vigilante culture” in movies. Of course, here are two facts to blow holes in that garbage: (1) there are 250,000,000 handguns in the US, but only 12,000 shootings a year, thus guns are not a motivator of any sort. (2) Almost every American has seen the films The Washington Post blamed for causing this “vigilante culture,” and yet Zimmerman was the only one to “get it” and become a vigilante? Thinking never was a liberal strong suit.
So there you have it, more woe for Team Obama. He is a sad clown now.
[+] Read More...
Monday, April 2, 2012
Trayvon Martin Case Exposed Media
When NBC first reported on the Trayvon Martin shooting, they obtained a copy of the 911 call Zimmerman made before the shooting. Here is what NBC played on the air:
This is a huge part of the reason the race lobby got into this case. They heard this and assumed that Zimmerman was a racist. Indeed, this quote could easily be read as Zimmerman stating that he thought the fact Martin was black was proof enough that Martin was up to no good.Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
Add in the report (still completely unconfirmed by ANY witness) that Martin was holding a drink in one hand and a bag of Skittles in the other, and the photo of Martin as a seemingly innocent child, the parents whining how he was a good boy who never hurt anyone, and NBC and the other networks using an old Zimmerman mugshot from a DUI which makes Zimmerman look like a criminal, and you’ve got a report which set the stage to make Zimmerman look like a predator who went after Martin because he was black.
But here’s the thing. The quote NBC gave above is deceitfully edited. Here’s the actual conversation:
Notice several facts. First, Zimmerman gives actual reasons why Martin’s BEHAVIOR is suspicious. If Martin is just headed to a relative’s or girlfriend’s house as his supporters claim, why is he just wandering around in the rain? Further, Zimmerman notes that Martin looks like he’s on drugs, a look which would itself warrant calling the police for Martin’s own safety if nothing else. I have not heard about a toxicology done on Martin’s body, but it would be interesting to know what drugs were in his system, if any(. . . see what I did there NBC?), as they may well explain aggressive behavior and may well put the lie to the idea of the innocent kid going to 7-11. . . in the rain.Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: Ok, and this guy -- is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Next, notice that Zimmerman not only does not raise the issue of race. Instead, the dispatcher specifically asks Zimmerman what Martin’s race is, which is the first time it come up. Further, Zimmerman isn’t even certain what Martin’s race is. Notice that he does not say Martin “IS” black, he says Martin “LOOKS” black, as if there is some doubt. Moreover, if you actually listen to the tape, you will hear uncertainty in Zimmerman’s voice. He is not asserting, “oh heck, yeah, he looks black all right,” he is saying “looks” in the sense of “hmm, I’m not sure, but he appears to be black?”
So here you have a guy who gives a valid description of the type of behavior the police would use to stop and question ANY individual without reference to race, and who does not seem to know for certain what the other person’s race is, nor does he appear to care until he is asked. Yet, NBC edited this quote to make it sound like Zimmerman targeted Martin because Zimmerman thought he was black.
Why would NBC do this? Because that is how leftists think. They WANTED to see a race-based crime here and so they read the above transcript and they pulled out the words which confirmed their prejudice, whether that accurately conveyed reality or not. This is also why they keep using outdated photos of Martin to make him seem innocent -- because they want him to be. Here, by the way, is the photo Martin himself used for his Twitter Account “No Limit Nigger”:
That’s also why they keep using an outdated mugshot of Zimmerman when more recent, less inflammatory images are available, why they don’t report on things like Martin’s record or Zimmerman’s background working with black churches, and why they keep trying to call Zimmerman “white”: because that is what they WANT him to be. Why? Because the leftist media seeks to inflame racial tensions because it helps their cause to keep Americans divided into tribes. In fact, if Zimmerman had shot a white kid, you can bet it would be considered racist to keep using Zimmerman’s mugshot. And if a German-American had shot Zimmerman, you can bet that the “white” Zimmerman would suddenly be described as “Hispanic.”
The fact NBC has done what they’ve done here and no one noticed until Fox News called them on it, is evidence that NBC cannot be considered an unbiased or trustworthy source of news. They are an agenda-driven propaganda machine and they have no qualms about exploiting tragedies or inventing scapegoats for imagined racial crimes.
Interestingly, liberal bloggers have taken up the issue of “bias.” But of course, it won’t surprise you that the bias they see comes from places like The Daily Caller, which is not a news service like NBC and does not pretend to be unbiased, and which does not have national reach like NBC. Moreover, the supposed bias of which they are accused is pointing out Martin’s own words and deeds which contradict the leftist fantasy narrative. Imagine that. Once again, it is “racist” to quote something bad a minority has said, just like it was racist to repeat Obama’s own words (LINK.
The left has no credibility.
[+] Read More...
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Obama's Bad Week Continues. . .
● El Stupido One: Obama really screwed up this week. While speaking to Vladimir Putin’s mini-me, Dmitri Medvedev, in South Korea, Obama said into an open microphone that he needed more time to surrender our missile shield as Putin demanded because of the election. Said Obama, “after my election, I will have more flexibility.” Whoops.
It is a scandal that Obama plans to surrender our missile shield and thereby expose Poland to an aggressive Russia. But that’s not why this was a problem for Obama. The real problem for Obama is the broader implication of what he said. This statement reminds voters that the only thing keeping him in check is the need to get re-elected. Once he gets re-elected, he will act like “real Obama.” That prospect will frighten conservatives, who will wonder how much worse he can get, and it will turn-off moderates, who had hoped he would moderate his views with a Republican Congress. What this does is rally conservatives behind Romney (now that the primaries are effectively over), and it will cause moderates to see Romney “the moderate” as more likely to be moderate than Obama, who has been using moderate rhetoric in public but is privately promising to go full-retard after the election. This hurts Obama.
● El Stupido Two: This Trayvon Martin thing will blow up on Obama. He should have kept his trap shut. Why? For one thing, because it reminds people that Obama is a racist and he only seems to care about the suffering of blacks. . . “what state was that flood in again?” Indeed, people are starting to ask why Obama commented on Trayvon, but didn’t comment on the shooting death of a white Mississippi State student by three black males this week, or why he hasn’t commented on the shooting of two unarmed British tourists by a black Sarasota, Florida teen. Americans do not like presidents who play racial favorites and this reminds people that Obama is such a president.
Further, the misconduct of Trayvon’s exploiters will turn off the segment of the electorate that took Obama at face value when he said he would be the first post-racial president. Indeed, since his election, his allies have smeared anyone who criticized him as racist. Blacks in the Congressional Black Caucus cried racism when they were caught breaking laws. They made up false claims of racism against the Tea Party. Eric Holder has pursued a truly racist “civil rights” agenda. And now, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Black Panthers and others are busy inciting racial hatred. This is the exact opposite message Obama needs to send to win over moderate whites. And as more evidence comes out that Team Race is trying to lynch a possibly innocent man, the blowback is building. This appears to be Duke Lacrosse all over again. Indeed, we’ve now learned that a 13 year old witnesses says Zimmerman was the one being attacked -- and his wounds were consistent with that, we’ve heard the 911 call which is not at all what it was portrayed, and we’ve learned that Trayvon was a thug. Add in a mother who has trademarked his name so she can profit from his death and you have a recipe for significant blowback.
● El Stupido Three: Finally, let’s discuss Obama’s campaign video. Obama has produced a 17 minute video pimping his re-election. The video is narrated by Tom Hanks. And it is fascinating.
First, this was a stupid thing to release because only diehard supporters or opponents will watch a 17 minute video. So there was nothing to be gained here. Then it got worse because right after its release another video was released of Tom Hanks getting caught on stage with a hedge fund manager who is in blackface and who makes racist comments. Hanks now claims that he was blindsided by the appearance of this man, but he wasn’t. He doesn’t leave the stage or chastise the man. Nope. Instead, he launches into an attack on Bill O’Reilly. This has neutered the 17 minute video entirely and raised the question of the double-standard liberals use. And following Slutgate, where the left tried to defend people like Bill Maher, the timing couldn’t have been worse.
Moreover, when you look at the video’s contents, you quickly realize that Obama has no idea how to get re-elected.
● The video itself is dark, depressing and defensive. And it’s crawling with self-pity as it keeps whining about how much responsibility has been dumped on our oft-golfing president. You can’t win the White House being whiny or pessimistic.So what does this mean? It means he’s planning to run a depressing campaign. That’s a loser. He’s planning to blame Bush. Good luck. It means he’s afraid of his record. But without a crazed Republican in the race, that’s what this race will be about. Hence, he’s doomed, especially since the only achievements he’s willing to discuss either can’t get above 50% support in the polls or got him no credit with the public.
● Most of the video blames Bush. That’s not going to work four years after Bush left office.
● He’s terrified of his record. He never says “the stimulus package,” though there is one mention of the “Recovery Act.” He doesn’t tout Dodd Frank. He does talk about the auto bailouts, but he’s defensive as he tries to claim they extracted significant concessions from the unions. He mentions ObamaCare a lot, but only the promised benefits, which is the same sale pitch which keeps ObamaCare at the 40% support level in the polls. There’s almost no foreign policy mentioned except the killing bin Laden, which got Obama a 3% bounce which faded immediately. What the video does contain is a laundry list of promises to his different constituent groups (blacks, gays, feminists, enviros, etc.). That won’t play well if someone puts them all together for a general election commercial. Also, the whole video has been torn apart for being packed with lies and distortions. Even the leftist mouthpiece The Washington Post awarded it 3 out of 4 Pinocchios. That’s bad.
Add in the above, and you also have the Democrats going out their way to alienate the electorate by stirring up racial tensions, and Obama’s Medvedev comment putting the lie to his plan to run as a moderate. Right now, Obama and friends are doing everything wrong. They are alienating moderates, alienating whites, and energizing the conservative base. This could be one of the least competent campaigns in human history.
Finally, before you say, “don’t underestimate him,” keep in mind that Obama has never won a competitive election. All of his opponents imploded on their own. What’s the one thing Romney has shown cannot happen with him? He won’t implode.
Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site. Today we resume the Politics of Trek series!
[+] Read More...
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Hollywood Meets DC On Racism
One of the big arguments for Barack Obama in 2008 was that he would be the first post-racial president. His election, we were told, would put an end to racial discord and bring the races together. Unfortunately, the hope and change lasted about five minutes after the inauguration in January of 2009. Racial division began almost immediately to become a hallmark of the Obama administration.There was the arrest for disorderly conduct of black Harvard professor Henry Louis “Skip” Gates, an Obama chum. Without any investigation into the matter, Obama called the police action stupid and inferred that the arrest was racist. He later had to apologize and have a “beer summit” with Gates and the arresting officer. Around the same time, he referred to the grandmother who raised and pampered him as “a typical white woman.” Then his Attorney General dismissed voter intimidation cases against the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia, even though the cases had already been won. Eric Holder called the American people "cowards" for not talking enough about race.
But the atmosphere in DC isn’t enough to satisfy the race-baiters. Those who most loudly proclaimed that Obama was the man who would usher in the post-racial era and make America into a wonderful interracial movie have changed their tune. That’s the Hollywood crowd. And loudest of all are the voices of black movie stars who claimed that race was irrelevant in politics and only whites suffer from racial identification.
Two movie stars have made the news and the blogs after making statements that completely negate all their previous statements about the need to vote for Obama, the post-racial president. It’s not his economics which draw them. It’s not his foreign policy. It’s not his religious devotion which draws them. In fact, it’s not any of those things which ordinarily make people choose a particular candidate. It’s race. Pure and simple. And in no uncertain terms. If you don’t believe me, read on.
Samuel L. Jackson made his reasons abundantly clear in an interview published in Ebony magazine. “I voted for Barack because he was black. ‘Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people—because they look like them. That’s American politics. Obama’s message didn’t mean s**t to me.” I guess he forgot just how many white people voted for “Barack.” I guess he also forgot that Obama himself injected a little racism into the campaign by pointing out that he didn’t look like the other presidents.
Echoing DC denizen Rep. Shirley Jackson Lee, another fine actor decided it was time to drop the mask. Morgan Freeman, much beloved by almost everyone, let loose with a screed against the Tea Party. Said Freeman: “Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Barack Obama only serves one term. What underlies that? Screw the country. ‘We’re going to do whatever we can to get this black man outta here.’” Freeman is so wrought up in racial identity that he has no idea that the Tea Party wants Obama out because of his color, all right. He’s a red.
Obama has broken almost every promise he has made. Unemployment stubbornly remains officially above 8%. The economy is showing a very feeble recovery despite all the government tinkering and bailouts. We have become a laughingstock overseas as a result of Obama’s foreign policy (or lack thereof). The government has grown by leaps and bounds, and executive orders and bureaucratic agency mandates have replaced Congressional action. American freedoms are being snatched from our hands at an alarming rate. Our energy-dependence on the whim of foreign dictators has grown by quantum leaps as the administration adds new prohibitive regulations and nixes “shovel-ready” projects to wean us off Middle East oil.
Yet Freeman and Jackson can only find one reason that the Tea Party and the vast majority of conservatives oppose Obama. He’s black and conservatives are racists. Having damned white people for having only one reason for opposing Obama, they promptly produce only one reason why black’s should support him. The same reason. He’s black (sort of). Jackson carried Freeman’s thoughts a bit farther: “It’s pretty obvious what they [the Tea Party] are. The division of the country is not about the government having too much power. It’s not politics. It’s not economics. It all boils down pretty much to race.”
The left used to accuse Ronald Reagan of thinking that his movies were real. Jackson seems to embody that thinking, channeling his tough, angry black man roles into his view of what Obama ought to be doing in the upcoming election cycle. Obama only picked up white votes because he wasn’t angry enough or black enough But Jackson suggests the remedy:
“When it comes down to it, they wouldn’t have elected a n****r. Because what’ a n****r? A n****r is scary. Obama ain’t scary at all. N****r don’t have beers at the White House [with white cops]. N****r don’t let some white dude, while you in the middle of a speech, call him a liar. A n****r would have stopped the meeting right there and said, ‘who the f**k said that?’ I hope Obama gets scary in the next four years, ‘cuz he ain’t gotta worry about getting re-elected.” I’m not sure if Jackson is suggesting that Obama should turn black and angry before or after the election. But at least he has told Obama what he must do, sooner or later.
Jackson and Freeman join Castro-loving Sidney Poitier and America-hating Harry Belafonte in making race the only criterion for the White House that matters. Less in-your-face black entertainment figures have spoken on the subject without quite the zeal of Jackson, Freeman, Poitier and Belafonte. But Tracy Morgan, ultra-rich rapper Jay-Z, Will Smith and his wife Jada Pinkett Smith, Kerrie Washington, and choreographer Debbie Allen have all made public statements indicating how important retaining a black president is, despite all the other possible negatives.
Too many whites in Hollywood have bought into the racism argument, but at least have many of the same leftist views as Obama to hide behind. Think Matt Damon, Sean Penn and Mark Ruffalo. The same likely applies to the leftist-indoctrinated “youth vote,” and surely to the Occupy movement which Obama praises. So far, actor Wesley Snipes has not weighed in on the subject, but I’m sure as soon as he has completed his probation for tax-evasion he’ll be on board with the rest of the Hollywood crowd.
Meanwhile, if you need clarification, you might want to visit Facebook at the Obama-approved site African-Americans for Obama. Somehow, I don’t think we’ll be seeing a candidate-approved website called White Americans for (Fill in the Blank). There’s a reason for that. Only whites can be racist. Only blacks are entitled to identify with others solely based on their race. Just ask Samuel L. Jackson.
[+] Read More...
Thursday, December 8, 2011
United Nations To The Rescue
And none too soon, I might add. The 2012 American national elections are coming on fast, and the racist oppressors in fourteen Jim Crow states have laws aimed at keeping minorities [blacks], the elderly, the mentally-deficient, convicted felons, and non-citizens from voting. Foot-dragging by secret racists in the administration and at the state level is allowing solid, salt-of-the earth people to be denied their right to vote, no matter what their status.The nefarious plan to squelch minority voting revolves largely around requiring potential voters to show a valid photo ID (state or federally issued) before going into the voting booth. Now obviously, that's much like slavery, or the Holocaust. You can read all about it in our November discussion of the matter: Voter ID Laws. Since the Obama administration and the courts aren't moving fast enough to prevent this shredding of the Constitution and mass disfranchisement, the NAACP this week took the matter to the United Nations.
Now we all know that the United Nations is the one organization in the world that can deal with the mass extinction of whole races and ethnic groups, not to mention religious minorities. Only an organization as unprejudiced, upright, learned, benevolent and honest as the UN Human Rights Commission can force America into abandoning its racist ways.
Remember that requiring a voter to prove he is who he says he is is nothing short of racial oppression. After all, to get such an ID, the applicant must pick up a phone or mail a letter and fill out a short application. Don't be fooled by all those provisions for free ID or assistance in obtaining the ID that would allow a catatonic quadriplegic to obtain such an ID at no cost. That's just more propaganda to cover up the racist intent of the voter ID laws.
The NAACP (the racial minority wing of the Democratic Party) declares that voter ID laws are part of a concerted effort to drive down minority turnout. They intend to conduct demonstrations against the vile Jim Crow laws nationwide, starting in Washington DC on December 10th. The NAACP has become the master of agitprop since becoming irrelevant after the success of the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s. And though the demonstrations are designed to coerce guilt-ridden white people and Republicans to toss out their inherent racism, why settle for a national forum when you can have an international forum?
So the NAACP has gone to the United Nations to correct America's human rights abuses. As soon as the UN figures out what to do with Israel (the other major racist nation), and what to do about its own failures to maintain peace in Africa and the Middle East, and clear up those allegations of mass murders and rapes being committed by UN troops, I'm sure it will immediately turn to the depredations of the
Now you may say to yourself, "what can the United Nations do about American voting laws?" Well, here's one thought. Barack Obama, he of half-black origin with a typical white grandmother, loves executive orders and playing at being Commander-in-Chief. As soon as the United Nations passes a resolution condemning white racism and demanding a change in American voting laws, this future candidate for Secretary-General of the United Nations could simply order the armed forces to invade the capitals of each of the offending states and conduct the voting on behalf of the oppressed minorities, the United Nations (and incidentally, the United States). No reason to be concerned with that pesky Constitution if it gets in the way of UN do-gooding.
Don't take my word on this. Just ask the leaders of the New Black Panthers Party in Philadelphia. Even a group as small as theirs was able to prevent white voter suppression in a major American city. Imagine what could be done with an entire battalion.
[+] Read More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)