Wednesday, December 21, 2005
October 25, 2005
MY VERSION - Commentary of Elizabeth Wright
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blacks, past and future, and the case against joining the Republican Party
Of course, lots of people got it right about the implications of what we all saw during the New Orleans hurricane disaster. In the predicament of the flood victims, we all got a view of the welfare state writ large. From the plaintive calls for rescue, water and food, as if these were all due by right, to the bungling of those Keystone Cops known as government bureaucrats, beginning with the New Orleans Mayor and working its way to the top of the Feds -- we witnessed scenes that we hope will never be repeated.
It's also clear that, instead of this being an opportunity to expose blacks to the reasons for the destitute circumstances in which so many are mired and the conditions that make escape so difficult, black leaders are going to make sure that it's business as usual. There will be no attempts at enlightenment coming from this crew.
Days into the disaster, a gaggle of prominent blacks lined up to spew forth their orthodox rationalizations to explain why thousands of blacks found themselves in such a helpless quandary, totally at the mercy not only of Nature's fury, but of a government system on whom many of them depend for sustenance from cradle to grave.
There came the cream of the Talented Tenth, repeating the kinds of dogmas that young blacks do not need to hear from authority figures. Front and center was New York Congressman Charles Rangel, telling blacks, in effect, that if they're poor, they might as well be dead: The storm, he said, showed that "if you're black in this country, and you're poor in this country, it's not an inconvenience; it's a death sentence."
Of course, Al Sharpton was not far behind Rangel, as he concurred with co-host Michael Hardy, on Sharpton's New York City radio show, that nothing was done over the years to fix the levees, because New Orleans is majority black. There is "clear proof," declared Hardy, that "deliberate indifference" to blacks was at the heart of why the levees were never repaired.
In sync with Rangel and Sharpton was the irrepressible Louis Farrakhan, and, like a blast from the rhetorical past, came author Randall Robinson, regurgitating propaganda reminiscent of a 1970s diatribe. Here was yet another financially well-off black urging ordinary blacks to look upon their lot as though they were "slaves in chains."
Of course, there is an agenda at work here. These men and others of the black "intelligentsia," along with sycophants of the black clergy, have their eyes on the long-term prize of "Reparations." Their only justification in calling for billions more dollars in money and services for blacks is that such funds be used to alleviate the existing social dysfunctions among the poor, which, claim these deceitful elites, are the direct "residual effects" of slavery. Since this claim is the heart of their case for reparations, it stands to reason that these worthies would hope to nurture said residual effects for as long as possible -- or, at least, until the first bundles of funding begin rolling in.
After Katrina, while some prominent figures were grandstanding and stoking race resentment, wiser heads were helping to clarify the implications of what we had seen of Louisiana's fragile bottom classes over our TV screens. The distraught women, children and elderly, who had no place to go and no means to get there prior to the storm's landing, were more than just symbols of generations of poverty.
As social researcher Charles Murray puts it, through those impromptu TV images, Americans "rediscovered the underclass." In ("The Hallmark of the Underclass" (American Enterprise Institute, 9/29/05), Murray writes that the middle and upper classes "haven't had to deal with the underclass for many years," since, in most towns and cities, the homeless have been taken off the streets, while those in higher income brackets are protected in safe enclaves.
The general observer might believe that much has changed among the black poor since the 1980s, when the word "underclass" was a common term. But those recent images of the impoverished appealing for rescue ought to dispel such beliefs. What we saw primarily were women and children. But where were the able-bodied men? Forty years after the prophetic wisdom of the Moynihan Report, [officially entitled The Negro Family: The Case For National Action] and after all the evidence that has been accumulated since, among the black poor there continues to be a scarcity of adult males engaging in their roles as husbands and fathers. Back in 2000, when social observers were lauding the plunging welfare rolls and falling crime rates, Murray grimly warned "nothing has really changed." Right now, in 2005, he writes, "The deteriorating socialization of young males, concentrated in low income groups, is overwhelming."
Young black males, of course, are being socialized, and they do have role models. Among these models are the community "activists" -- a unique class of blacks who came into their own as credible "leaders" in the 1960s. Since then, almost every black neighborhood has incubated its own Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson wannabes, all posturing braggarts whom the mainstream society rewards, as they exploit the very poverty they decry. Thanks to such dignitaries, young blacks learn early that profitable, "respectable" livelihoods can be achieved, which require little more than verbal bluster attached to nothing of significance.
Youths also have models among another set of men, i.e., their relatives -- brothers, uncles, cousins and fathers -- who intermittently are incarcerated in the penal system. As these men periodically come and go from their neighborhoods, they leave behind young people with little foundation to build upon. Where positive socialization has failed, a negative conditioning fills the vacuum, and continues to produce an intransigent underclass.
Murray offers this reality: "Most members of the underclass have low incomes, but its distinguishing characteristics are not poverty and unmet physical needs, but social disorganization, a poverty of social networks and valued roles, and a Hobbesian kind of individualism in which trust and cooperation are hard to come by and isolation is common." He cites a 1950s statistic, which shows that "80% of black children were born to married parents."
While the qualities of trust and cooperation still existed among blacks in those stable two-parent neighborhoods, what was needed most was the continuance of the factors that made such stability possible. Not forced integration, and not even the vote. In fact, it could be argued that it was the distraction of forced integration that led to the social and economic downward spiral.
Above all else, continued economic development was the greatest urgency. Even before blacks had wider freedoms, thousands of them were well on their way towards making something of the communities in which they lived. Long before slavery was over, scores of freed blacks had already figured out the capitalist ropes and were putting their entrepreneurial skills to use. By living in their own enclaves, they were doing what all immigrant groups did -- developing capital among themselves and creating businesses.
A great many black businessmen had a clear understanding of whether the horse of economics or the cart of integration should come first. People like S.B. Fuller, for example, beginning in the 1930s and lasting into the 1960s, created companies that provided employment to a multitude of blacks (as well as whites), while A.G. Gaston, in the 1950s, was the major employer of blacks in Alabama. These men were representative of the many enterprising blacks who, by the 1940s, owned 843 businesses in Atlanta, 506 in Memphis, 252 in New Orleans and 694 in Washington, DC. Before the crash and the 1930s Depression, blacks were the owners of banks that provided capital for thousands of enterprises. In cities and towns throughout the country, wherever a black population began to grow, it gave birth to a middle class whose behavior patterns, moral standards and attitudes towards thrift became models for emulation.
In Chicago, in 1917, a group of black realtors devised a systematic plan to create a city district, by buying apartment buildings between 31st and 63rd streets, which would rent primarily to blacks. At the time, this district was predominantly white. These realtors managed to acquire some capital, but needed more.
When they were turned down for loans by various Chicago bankers, who, in attempts to undermine the plan, also refused to renew mortgages on property already purchased, these black entrepreneurs did not whine and scream "discrimination." Instead, they took themselves to places where they could borrow money, namely, to black-owned banks in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Richmond, Virginia. On returning to Chicago, they set about moving one Negro family into each apartment house purchased. As whites gradually began to move out of the neighborhood, no one set up a wail about "white flight," since this was the objective.
A newspaper report of the events (Cleveland Advocate, April 14, 1917) quoted Eugene Manns, president of the South State Street Business Men's Association, explaining, "The Negro population is increasing so rapidly that we must have a larger section of the city to live in. More than 20,000 Negroes have come from the South this winter, and they are still arriving, at the rate of about 3,500 a week."
The Black Belt district of Chicago eventually gave birth to hundreds of businesses, including several black-owned newspapers with national distribution, a couple of film production companies, insurance firms, hotels, and a plethora of restaurants and stores.
In later years, such communities would be dismantled by blacks themselves, as if they possessed no inherent value. The contempt that would be shown towards the indigenous achievements of blacks was expressed earlier and succinctly by a foreign visitor to the United States. In 1899, the Russian Prince Peter Kropotkin (who billed himself a "communist anarchist") was informed of the dissident factions among the leaders of this country's Negro population. When told that Booker T. Washington was considered a "conservative" leader, Kropotkin scoffed and sarcastically asked, "And what do they have to conserve?" His derisive question reflected the spirit of many, both blacks and whites, who believed that the former slaves held nothing of value among themselves.
What Blacks needed most in the 1950s was the removal of those unconstitutional Jim Crow laws, many of which prevented them from expanding economic mobility for themselves. They did not need a movement to tear them away from their familiar institutions and intimate associations. What blacks did not need were the selfish goals as established by a grasping middle class, eager to ride the wave of forced integration, in order to use the coercive power of government to guarantee entry into more lucrative occupations and to acquire prestige in mainstream white society. When the doors of segregation were opened and the black middle class abandoned their home communities, where their standards and economic resources were the indispensable glue that held things in place, all bets were off for the poor. And when thousands of these privileged ones, in concert with white liberals, contrived an entire poverty industry off which to feed, the ongoing demise of the poor, rather than their uplift, proved to be in the best interests of these elites. The needs of the bourgeoisie, many of whose families had been middle class for generations, in no way matched the needs of the poor.
Black schools should have remained intact, thereby keeping stable black neighborhoods intact, thereby keeping intact that 80% marriage rate cited by Murray, and thus helping to sustain black responsibility. It was the disruption, or call it the premature demolition, of those close-knit communities, the kind in which new immigrants are nurtured before entering the mainstream, that is the root of why things might never get better.
There is, however, a small, but growing cadre of blacks who believe they have a handle on how to resolve the predicament of the masses. They call themselves "conservatives," but, more accurately, should be described as flaming Republicans. As with most of today's Republicans, their commitment to true conservative ideals is open to question. For blacks to escape their present quagmire, according to these partisans, more politics should be applied, only now it's time for politics to be practiced on the Republican side of the fence.
For at least the past few years, as their numbers have grown, we've all been exposed to the bombast of these pundits and proselytizers. They are syndicated columnists, book authors, pamphleteers and bloggers. And they are everywhere. Many of them take as one of their major mentors the man who, before mutating into a born-again Republican apologist himself, was the loudest voice preaching against political involvement as a path out of poverty. That man is economist Thomas Sowell, who used to advise blacks to take their cues from the ethnic groups whose members disdain politics, while they climb the economic ladder of success.
Since the Democrats are correctly castigated for creating the "wrong" government policies to deal with the poor, Sowell seems to be suggesting that now it's time to count on the Republicans to create the "right" policies. This, from the scholar who, in Markets and Minorities, praised Chinese-American leaders for making a "deliberate decision to keep out of the political arena, while concentrating on economic progress." He agreed with such a stance, "in view of the historic unpredictability of government policy toward ethnic minorities."
Elsewhere, Sowell warned blacks to be careful of the fickleness of the political pendulum, which, he claimed, swings back and forth, from left to right, in unpredictable ways. He never failed to ruthlessly castigate black leaders for misleading blacks down the path of politics and, in Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? he accused them of politicizing race "despite the unpromising record of politics as a means of raising a group from poverty to affluence." He charged such leaders with feathering their own nests at the expense of their people. "However catastrophic the politicization of race may be in the long run, from the point of view of individual leaders it is a highly successful way to rise from obscurity to prominence and power."
Sowell made clear that political activism will not lead the poor to where they need to be, and benefits only ethnic leaders. "It would perhaps be easier to find an inverse correlation between political activity and economic success than a direct correlation," he wrote. Nowadays, along with the mini-crusade of black Republican pundits and talk show circuit riders, with whom he seems to be in harmony, Sowell sings the praises of the Republican camp, while urging blacks (and whoever else is listening) to consciously join its ranks. In addition, he has strong feelings about just who should be in his party.
In one of his columns, he expresses concern when a Republican of whom he approves loses points in Congress to other members of the party, who are not deemed by Sowell as true torchbearers of the conservative cause. It seems that the party does not belong to John McCain, Arlen Specter or Olympia Snowe, all of whom he has characterized as lacking "party loyalty." They, obviously, are not "real" Republicans. It makes you wonder what liberal Republicans like Jacob Javits would have made of such reasoning. Today, might Javits be deemed disloyal or even a traitor? Of course, he served as Senator, when the Republican party still possessed two wings and a center.
All of which raises the question, What are most blacks missing by not being Republicans? Just what is it that they might achieve through involvement with the Republican Party that they cannot achieve as registered Democrats or Libertarians, or as members of any number of independent "third" parties, or as members of no party at all?
Might some of the benefits lie in the excessively ballyhooed "Faith-Based and Community Initiatives," a program of grants promoted by the White House, which promises $40 billion in handouts to religious organizations and churches? Is this the ultimate in cynical political strategies, designed to seduce influential leaders, like black preachers, for instance? As many blacks can attest, the preacher class often can be bought at a moderate cost. It was not long ago that a score of black clergy wound up in legal troubles, and some in jail, due to the temptations brought on from the money that flowed during the heady days of the Great Society. The Reverend Bacons of the land, undoubtedly, are paying close attention and are salivating over the prospect of faith-based Great Society II.
Do blacks really need another layer of crafty "Reverends" and others peddling yet more programs funded by the U.S. government? The "faith-based" advocates have already begun setting up agencies in various states, which will result in another vast network of lobbyists with an interest in keeping the Republicans in power forever. We are told that these faith-based programs are needed to "unleash armies of compassion." But isn't it more likely that such armies will fill up with predators and varying shades of con-men?
Or maybe the benefits of Republicanism lie in the party's impact on the judicial system. Many Americans have not forgotten the crime waves of the 1960s-80s. During that period of mayhem, New York and other cities became notorious for a form of "turnstile justice," whereby arrested criminals, thanks to obliging, lenient judges, were often out the door of the courtroom and back on the streets, before the arresting officers had finished their paper work. In New York City, the tabloids dubbed one such judge "Turn 'em loose" Bruce.
Then, after years of permissive treatment of felons, the justice system bounded off in another direction -- to the present extreme of presumption of guilt. Courtroom power shifted away from glib, superstar defense attorneys to rule by prosecutors, who often stack the deck against defendants. Even more pernicious than prosecutors who suborn perjury, reward false testimony and withhold exculpatory evidence is the intrusion of mandatory minimum" prison sentences. This means that, for certain crimes, judges no longer have the discretion to weigh the role played by a defendant in a particular case, but is forced to impose a fixed mandated sentence, without possibility of parole.
Thanks to this excessive reaction to the earlier permissiveness, we have first-time offenders serving 10-year prison sentences for "crimes" that in a saner America were considered pranks worthy of a severe reprimand and/or 60 days in the county jail. We have families torn apart when mothers of young children act as minor participants, sometimes unwittingly, in the distribution of a small amount of drugs, or for the personal use of a drug. Such people can serve as much as 15 years, even though they have never been involved in any previous illegal activity.
Economist and author Paul Craig Roberts tells of misdemeanor crimes that have been ratcheted up to felonies by an overzealous, punitive system of justice, where the careers of ambitious prosecutors are tied to their conviction rates. Roberts writes, "Most of the almost two million people currently in U.S. prisons are there because they violated one of the hundreds of thousands of federal and state regulations that increasingly govern our lives." Today, the criminalizing of civil infractions is slowly becoming a norm. Paul Rosenzweig of the Heritage Foundation describes this phenomenon as "overcriminalizing law."
It is probably fruitless to expect the self-described "anti-regulation" Republicans to call for a review of these deplorable statutes, in a quest for fairness. Don't wait around for such a response, especially from a party that now brazenly stands for internment of American citizens without trial.
You would think that removing discretionary power from judges was enough perversion of constitutional principles, but in 2003, along came Republican Congressman Tom Feeney with an amendment to make sentencing regulations even more stringent. Among other things, Feeney's amendment, which had the blessing of Attorney General Ashcroft, placed further restrictions on judges, to insure that there are no "downward" departures from the current sentencing mandates. Woe to the judge who tries to limit prison time for, say, a young mother, because he does not want to see her incarcerated for the span of her children's youth.
Like others, Thomas Sowell reflects the punitive mindset shared by Feeney and so many of his fellow Republicans. In one of his syndicated columns, he complains about a Supreme Court ruling that set aside the execution order of a convicted murderer, who would instead spend the rest of his life in prison. It seems that the world is thrown off kilter, if even just one soul escapes the noose. Among this vindictive clan, few appear to have heard the admonition to temper justice with mercy.
So, is it for reasons of "law and order" that blacks should become Republicans? Are there benefits to be derived from membership in a party that is eager to punish not only the bad guys for serious crimes, but anyone else who can be ensnared by duplicitous laws as well? Society must possess the power to punish its incorrigible lawbreakers, but gratuitous meanness, which is actively promoted through law, should be relegated to totalitarian societies.
On the immigration front, of what benefit to blacks is the ongoing stream of cheap laborers who cross our borders every day? As it is, black politicians, as represented by such luminaries as John Conyers, Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson-Lee, refuse to stand against this illegal flood, which is detrimental to the employment prospects of poor blacks, as well as other Americans. Along with their counterparts among white politicians, members of various black caucuses fear political backlash and the changing racial demographics of their own districts. Why would blacks foolishly support a political party whose chief scorns patriotic citizens as "vigilantes," for acting as watchmen on our borders, a task that ought to be performed by our National Guard? And, speaking of the Guard, it's hardly necessary to ask of what value to blacks is participation in a political party that contemplates a series of wars around the world, as it hypes fear and plays on the average American's current desire for security at any price.
Is there anything different in the Republicans' approach to the race issue? Or do they milk and exploit civil rights symbols and icons in the same manner of the Democrats? It appears that those on the right have appropriated the civil rights cause in its unadulterated leftwing form. They are as likely to engage in the language of racial smear as the leftist masters of the genre. For the right, even "hate" has become a catch-all word of denigration -- the term originally applied by liberals, back in the late 1980s, to all rightwing talk show hosts.
Since the goal is to win over the black masses from the opposition, whatever works for the Democrats is fair game -- even to the point of handing out ATM cards to hurricane victims. By becoming enthusiastic riders on the "diversity" bandwagon, as well as indulging in an unprecedented form of cronyism, Republicans prove that merit means no more to them than to the people they so vigorously disparage.
For all their bluster to the contrary, Republicans have internalized the liberals' orthodox views on race and culture, including the notion that these views only should have a place in our society. As we have witnessed, like politically correct liberals, Republicans will eagerly throw a white man to the wolves (a la Trent Lott), if they think such pandering will win them political capital with the "minorities."
Have you noticed that today's Republicans relate just about everything to whatever Democrats do, or did, or never did, or might do? Most of the rationalizations for their own actions appear to be wrapped around the aura of Bill Clinton. If they cannot draw a parallel to some Clintonesque action, policy or remark, they seem lost.
It has long been said that, if you wait long enough, Republicans eventually adopt the platforms and agendas that the Democrats initiate. Whoever coined that cliché knew whereof he spoke. Do blacks need a rehash of the same old story, with a Republican twist?
No subject is considered more urgent to the progress of blacks than that of education. In the misguided crusade for "equal education," this nation was sent into social turmoil, from which it has not recovered. After all the years of experimental curricula inspired by politically correct liberals, are black children to be set back further by school systems that succumb to the demands of ardent crusaders harboring ideological beliefs that go counter to centuries of accumulated knowledge?
In other words, is it wise to affiliate with a political party full of hide-bound ideologues who believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old? For the sake of black youth, many of whom presently teeter in an educational wasteland, shouldn't we be anxious that they receive the kind of educational training that will prepare them for future competition among the world's brightest minds? Vouchers are worthless, if children are to be offered a steady diet of pet doctrines, this time generated on the right, instead of being solidly grounded in basic secular studies, which, needless to say, include the hard sciences. Is the school curriculum now to be shifted from the sometimes strange and even perverse academic innovations formulated by particular liberal educators in the recent past (think "whole language"), to a perhaps even weirder form of social engineering espoused by their ideological opponents?
Finally, the political party that is most vociferous about its adherence to the Constitution now shows its true colors in the treatment of American citizen José Padilla. Although they would bitterly deny it, Republicans could not make it clearer that "we don't need no stinking Constitution." What more is there to glean from a party whose members posed no challenges to the Executive branch that has usurped the power to declare American citizens as "enemy combatants," in order to lock them away forever without due process of law? How can there be respect for a party that has allowed its leaders to shamefully set up quarters abroad where, in the name of the United States, they cage and torment human beings?
So, what is it that blacks need to do? They need to come to their senses and extricate themselves from their intense commitment to politics. They need to turn all that energy now spent on building the careers of politicians and other opportunists to the economic development of every predominantly black neighborhood. Their concentrated focus should be on bringing wealth to those neighborhoods and keeping it there. They need to reach back in time, to those "bad, old days" when blacks were forced to cooperate with one another, and take their cues from practical, wise men like Fuller and Gaston and those Chicago realtors. By building wealth, blacks could no longer be the pawns of manipulative leaders, whose only assurance of power comes through maintenance of the status quo.
Blacks need to be more than conscientious voting citizens. Leaving the world of racial politics behind, they must pay attention to the meanings beneath the platitudes and propaganda. However, becoming alert voters will mean nothing, if there is no serious campaign to track with certainty how their votes are counted and who gets to count them. Masses of blacks should join the campaign with other Americans to take the initiative in overseeing the development of infallible, fool-proof voting methods, so that we never again experience the singular blunders of the year 2000 or undergo the electoral confusions of 2004. This is a civic duty and should not be tied to partisan political factions.
Most importantly, however, blacks need to take to heart Thomas Sowell's truism uttered in his earlier incarnation: "Groups that have the skills for other things seldom concentrate in politics."
####
One more thought . . .
Pat Robertson's comments [about assassinating Venezuela's president] shocked many people who worry the Christian right is losing its soul in its support for increasingly uncritical nationalism. What is needed here is a time of reflection. Christianity does not regard every enemy of the nation-state as worthy of execution. It prefers peace to war. It respects the right to life of everyone, even those who have objectionable political views.
-- Father Robert Sirico, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty
####
See Issues & Views Blog for feedback on Commentaries. Here's the link: http://issuesviews.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was found at http://www.issues-views.com
Copyright © 2005 Issues & Views
All rights reserved.
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
THE NEW AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
THE FREEDOM FIGHTER JOURNAL ^ | November 7, 2005 | Ronald Barbour
Posted on 11/07/2005 8:42:34 AM PST by Cato_The_Younger
Monday, November 07, 2005
THE NEW AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
The hate displayed recently by the Left for the Right is something not seen in this country since the era leading up to the Civil War of 1861 to 1865.
Please consider the following examples of this hatred and calls for violence by a random cross section of mainstream Leftist politicians, writers, entertainers and the rank & file.
QUOTE:
"It's become more and more apparent to me over the past five years that all the activism and non-violent protesting in the world will do precisely squat. When you're dealing with evil people who have no shame, the old rules of the game don't and, indeed, can't apply if you have any hope for success. Hundreds of thousands of people have marched, millions of letters have been written, tens of millions of votes cast, and hundreds of trillions of electrons expended pontificating on blogs...for nothing. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. Not unless it comes in the form of something akin to the French Revolution.
We need terror. We need horror. We need the streets running awash in rivers of blood of these thugs and criminals and zealots. Activism didn't prevent 60,000 deaths in Vietnam. All the activism of the Civil Rights era has gotten African Americans precisely nowhere. Segregation may not be the law of the land anymore, but it's still the de facto state of America."
--Raybin, DAILY KOS
Repeated calls for the assassination and threats against President Bush by key Leftist politicians, writers and entertainers:
Senator Mary Landrieu
Sen. Mary Landrieu threatened the president of the United States with physical violence on Sunday, saying that if he or any other government official criticizes New Orleans police for failing to keep civil order in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina - "I might likely have to punch him - literally."
Al Franken
"And so basically, what it looks like is going to happen is that Libby and Karl Rove are going to be executed” because “outing a CIA agent is treason,” left-wing author and radio talk show host Al Franken asserted Friday night, to audience laughter, on CBS’s Late Show with David Letterman. Franken qualified his hard-edged satire: "Yeah. And I don't know how I feel about it because I'm basically against the death penalty, but they are going to be executed it looks like." Franken later suggested that President Bush is at risk of receiving the same punishment, since Karl Rove likely told him what he did, but he added a caveat: “I think, by the way, that we should never ever, ever, ever execute a sitting President."
Jane Smiley
"In a just world, Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Feith and their underlings would be standing before a Senate committee investigating their catastrophic failures, and Packer's book would be Exhibit A." No. In a just world, these people would be taken out and shot."
Nicholson Baker
"In Nicholson Baker's new novella, Checkpoint, a man sits in a Washington hotel room with a friend and talks about assassinating President Bush.
It's a work of the imagination and no attempts on the president's life are actually made, but the novel is likely to be incendiary, as with Michael Moore's documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11."
President Bush deserves to die because he is Adolf Hitler reborn according to many elite Leftists who make statements like these.
QUOTE
"Ah, yes, the reductio ad Hitlerum. Why meet a conservative with facts or logic when you can simply tar him with the Nazi brush? Thus we had Nancy Giles on the "CBS Sunday Morning show" sourly tying Rush Limbaugh's "edgy" radio manner to you-know-who's. "Hitler would have killed in talk radio," Giles declared. "He was edgy, too." Ellen Gray of the Philadelphia Daily News struck a similar note in commenting on "The Reagans," the canceled miniseries. "If Hitler had more friends," she told The Washington Post, "CBS wouldn't have aired [its Hitler miniseries] either."
Of course no one came in for more Hitler comparisons this year than George W. Bush. Third Reich references were practically a staple of antiwar rhetoric.
The president "is not the orator that Hitler was," acknowledges leftist commentator Dave Lindorff at Counterpunch.org. "But comparisons of the Bush administration's fearmongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels . . . are not at all out of line."
The following profanity laden commentary is from Democratic Underground, the premier mainstream Leftist website which documents daily the hatred of the Left for Americans whose major sin is that they stand for traditional Christian values and constitutional norms:
QUOTE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Let me first say, I'm not going to call anyone out.
DU'ers: What the fuck is wrong with you? It's one thing to be cynical, it’s another thing to be a "realist" but when you start spouting Repuke talking points while you whine about how "we wuz robbed" or "I'm not happy with the investigation" or "the prosecution was lame" or "It's over, we're screwed"
Bullshit. Why don't you at least learn everything you can about it before you make an ass out of yourself? You're freakin' out because there's only been one indictment? You think that means it's over?
For fuck's sake people, Fitzgerald once indicted 1 person in order to put pressure on the others, and ended up with 60 FUCKING INDICTMENTS! Read the transcript from the press conference! Fitzgerald said several times that he's not done, he's going to get to the bottom of it, that he feels this is a very serious crime and he'll not rest until he can look anyone in the eye and say he did everything he could! He said that this crime PUT US ALL IN DANGER! The guy charged and prosecuted Gambino Mafiosos and Al-qaeda terrorists goddammit! You think he's going to let some traitorous domestic terrorists get away? FUCK NO!
If you don't want to help us by researching, writing letters, emailing stories and following leads, that's fine. But please, for the love of (insert deity), don't provide aid and comfort to our enemy by taking the same position and regurgitating the same talking points!
STAY POSITIVE, STICK TOGETHER, WORK TOGETHER! The only way the pukes can win is if they divide us! That's what they've done in every election, and that's what's happening on this board!
The Repukes are in their 'last throes' Let's drop a holy smart bomb of truth on their lying greedy criminal fat anal-cyst crusted hypocritical fascist theocratic ASSES!
Trolls: FUCK YOU! You know you're fucked! That's why you're coming here to disrupt! Why don't you special ed. flunkies go to Iraq already and fight them there before they come to your house and steal your Nascar jacket and burn your confederate flag and nazi memorabilia. You're so insignificant, not even an IED would waste itself blowing you up.
I feel better now...I'm gonna drink one more beer and go to bed." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They're FUCKED.
And we can help. THIS IS WHAT THE DU IS ALL ABOUT!
And I don't want to turn on my TV without seeing ads telling the awful truth about Bush, and how his arrogance, mental-retardation, incompetence and illiteracy is killing the country and the world.
They're down. They're extremely vulnerable. Now's the time to kick them right in their nuts while they're down!
Finish them.
End them.
Kill them! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Winston_Smith_101 (21 posts) Mon Oct-31-05 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #46
61. Like Al Franken said
"Execute Bush, Cheney and the rest of those Fascist Pigs!" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The end result to this decades long verbal and written assault by the American Left ruling class can only end in violence, since the decision of the ballot box by a majority of their fellow countrymen is the rejection of the largely unstated Leftist dogma of socialism and atheism in favor of constitutionalism and Christianity. The Left worships the State; The Right worships God. There can be no compromise.
It is a fact of history that no ruling class has went quietly into the night. When in 1860 with the election of Lincoln as President, the South realized that the Southern domination of the Union was fast coming to an end and that their only recourse was separation from the Union and violence if that separation were opposed.
The contemporary situation runs on parallel tracks: a decades long increasingly bitter public debate that has been marked by numerous attempts at compromise and peaceful transfer of power on the part of a rising new ideology and renaissance of faith, the political ideology of capitalism combined with the moral force of Christianity, has meet a roadblock in the form of an atheistic and socialistic political, academic and governmental establishment.
The optemist wants to believe that this roadblock can be removed by peaceful and lawful means; the realist understands the cold hard truth that such diametrically opposed forces can only resolve their differences on the battlefield as was the case in the Civil War of 1861 to 1865, which many Christians believed was a terrible judgment of God against the nation for the sin of slavery.
How much worse is the collective guilt as a nation for the sin of abortion? At least the slave was granted life and could by his efforts hope to free himself from in his condition, but the dead have no recourse. Thus the sin of abortion that is nowhere listed as a civil rights of Americans in the U.S. Constitution and is a sin against law and God.
Thomas Jefferson when addressing the consequences of slavery in the United States said, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVIII, 1782. ME 2:227
Jefferson could be speaking today about the issue of abortion which has claimed the lives over 30 million innocent Americans.
Indeed all Americans should tremble for the wrath of God in the form of civil war is terrible justice. Please mark the words of Shakespeare concerning an ancient Roman civil war that stands only a few years in the future for America. It will be a civil war without the benefit large standing armies fighting on battlefield but a war fought in neighborhoods, towns, villages, countryside and cities against a ruthless domestic enemy who will fight by means of bombings, assassinations and arson and all other the black arts of terrorism with the danger of a dictatorship of the Left or the Right as the outcome of conflict.
"Domestic fury and fierce civil strife Shall cumber all the parts of Italy; Blood and destruction shall be so in use And dreadful objects so familiar That mothers shall but smile when they behold Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war; All pity choked with custom of fell deeds: And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge, With Ate by his side come hot from hell, Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war; That this foul deed shall smell above the earth With carrion men, groaning for burial."
THE FREEDOM FIGHTER JOURNAL ^ | November 7, 2005 | Ronald Barbour
Posted on 11/07/2005 8:42:34 AM PST by Cato_The_Younger
Monday, November 07, 2005
THE NEW AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
The hate displayed recently by the Left for the Right is something not seen in this country since the era leading up to the Civil War of 1861 to 1865.
Please consider the following examples of this hatred and calls for violence by a random cross section of mainstream Leftist politicians, writers, entertainers and the rank & file.
QUOTE:
"It's become more and more apparent to me over the past five years that all the activism and non-violent protesting in the world will do precisely squat. When you're dealing with evil people who have no shame, the old rules of the game don't and, indeed, can't apply if you have any hope for success. Hundreds of thousands of people have marched, millions of letters have been written, tens of millions of votes cast, and hundreds of trillions of electrons expended pontificating on blogs...for nothing. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. Not unless it comes in the form of something akin to the French Revolution.
We need terror. We need horror. We need the streets running awash in rivers of blood of these thugs and criminals and zealots. Activism didn't prevent 60,000 deaths in Vietnam. All the activism of the Civil Rights era has gotten African Americans precisely nowhere. Segregation may not be the law of the land anymore, but it's still the de facto state of America."
--Raybin, DAILY KOS
Repeated calls for the assassination and threats against President Bush by key Leftist politicians, writers and entertainers:
Senator Mary Landrieu
Sen. Mary Landrieu threatened the president of the United States with physical violence on Sunday, saying that if he or any other government official criticizes New Orleans police for failing to keep civil order in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina - "I might likely have to punch him - literally."
Al Franken
"And so basically, what it looks like is going to happen is that Libby and Karl Rove are going to be executed” because “outing a CIA agent is treason,” left-wing author and radio talk show host Al Franken asserted Friday night, to audience laughter, on CBS’s Late Show with David Letterman. Franken qualified his hard-edged satire: "Yeah. And I don't know how I feel about it because I'm basically against the death penalty, but they are going to be executed it looks like." Franken later suggested that President Bush is at risk of receiving the same punishment, since Karl Rove likely told him what he did, but he added a caveat: “I think, by the way, that we should never ever, ever, ever execute a sitting President."
Jane Smiley
"In a just world, Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Feith and their underlings would be standing before a Senate committee investigating their catastrophic failures, and Packer's book would be Exhibit A." No. In a just world, these people would be taken out and shot."
Nicholson Baker
"In Nicholson Baker's new novella, Checkpoint, a man sits in a Washington hotel room with a friend and talks about assassinating President Bush.
It's a work of the imagination and no attempts on the president's life are actually made, but the novel is likely to be incendiary, as with Michael Moore's documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11."
President Bush deserves to die because he is Adolf Hitler reborn according to many elite Leftists who make statements like these.
QUOTE
"Ah, yes, the reductio ad Hitlerum. Why meet a conservative with facts or logic when you can simply tar him with the Nazi brush? Thus we had Nancy Giles on the "CBS Sunday Morning show" sourly tying Rush Limbaugh's "edgy" radio manner to you-know-who's. "Hitler would have killed in talk radio," Giles declared. "He was edgy, too." Ellen Gray of the Philadelphia Daily News struck a similar note in commenting on "The Reagans," the canceled miniseries. "If Hitler had more friends," she told The Washington Post, "CBS wouldn't have aired [its Hitler miniseries] either."
Of course no one came in for more Hitler comparisons this year than George W. Bush. Third Reich references were practically a staple of antiwar rhetoric.
The president "is not the orator that Hitler was," acknowledges leftist commentator Dave Lindorff at Counterpunch.org. "But comparisons of the Bush administration's fearmongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels . . . are not at all out of line."
The following profanity laden commentary is from Democratic Underground, the premier mainstream Leftist website which documents daily the hatred of the Left for Americans whose major sin is that they stand for traditional Christian values and constitutional norms:
QUOTE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Let me first say, I'm not going to call anyone out.
DU'ers: What the fuck is wrong with you? It's one thing to be cynical, it’s another thing to be a "realist" but when you start spouting Repuke talking points while you whine about how "we wuz robbed" or "I'm not happy with the investigation" or "the prosecution was lame" or "It's over, we're screwed"
Bullshit. Why don't you at least learn everything you can about it before you make an ass out of yourself? You're freakin' out because there's only been one indictment? You think that means it's over?
For fuck's sake people, Fitzgerald once indicted 1 person in order to put pressure on the others, and ended up with 60 FUCKING INDICTMENTS! Read the transcript from the press conference! Fitzgerald said several times that he's not done, he's going to get to the bottom of it, that he feels this is a very serious crime and he'll not rest until he can look anyone in the eye and say he did everything he could! He said that this crime PUT US ALL IN DANGER! The guy charged and prosecuted Gambino Mafiosos and Al-qaeda terrorists goddammit! You think he's going to let some traitorous domestic terrorists get away? FUCK NO!
If you don't want to help us by researching, writing letters, emailing stories and following leads, that's fine. But please, for the love of (insert deity), don't provide aid and comfort to our enemy by taking the same position and regurgitating the same talking points!
STAY POSITIVE, STICK TOGETHER, WORK TOGETHER! The only way the pukes can win is if they divide us! That's what they've done in every election, and that's what's happening on this board!
The Repukes are in their 'last throes' Let's drop a holy smart bomb of truth on their lying greedy criminal fat anal-cyst crusted hypocritical fascist theocratic ASSES!
Trolls: FUCK YOU! You know you're fucked! That's why you're coming here to disrupt! Why don't you special ed. flunkies go to Iraq already and fight them there before they come to your house and steal your Nascar jacket and burn your confederate flag and nazi memorabilia. You're so insignificant, not even an IED would waste itself blowing you up.
I feel better now...I'm gonna drink one more beer and go to bed." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They're FUCKED.
And we can help. THIS IS WHAT THE DU IS ALL ABOUT!
And I don't want to turn on my TV without seeing ads telling the awful truth about Bush, and how his arrogance, mental-retardation, incompetence and illiteracy is killing the country and the world.
They're down. They're extremely vulnerable. Now's the time to kick them right in their nuts while they're down!
Finish them.
End them.
Kill them! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Winston_Smith_101 (21 posts) Mon Oct-31-05 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #46
61. Like Al Franken said
"Execute Bush, Cheney and the rest of those Fascist Pigs!" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The end result to this decades long verbal and written assault by the American Left ruling class can only end in violence, since the decision of the ballot box by a majority of their fellow countrymen is the rejection of the largely unstated Leftist dogma of socialism and atheism in favor of constitutionalism and Christianity. The Left worships the State; The Right worships God. There can be no compromise.
It is a fact of history that no ruling class has went quietly into the night. When in 1860 with the election of Lincoln as President, the South realized that the Southern domination of the Union was fast coming to an end and that their only recourse was separation from the Union and violence if that separation were opposed.
The contemporary situation runs on parallel tracks: a decades long increasingly bitter public debate that has been marked by numerous attempts at compromise and peaceful transfer of power on the part of a rising new ideology and renaissance of faith, the political ideology of capitalism combined with the moral force of Christianity, has meet a roadblock in the form of an atheistic and socialistic political, academic and governmental establishment.
The optemist wants to believe that this roadblock can be removed by peaceful and lawful means; the realist understands the cold hard truth that such diametrically opposed forces can only resolve their differences on the battlefield as was the case in the Civil War of 1861 to 1865, which many Christians believed was a terrible judgment of God against the nation for the sin of slavery.
How much worse is the collective guilt as a nation for the sin of abortion? At least the slave was granted life and could by his efforts hope to free himself from in his condition, but the dead have no recourse. Thus the sin of abortion that is nowhere listed as a civil rights of Americans in the U.S. Constitution and is a sin against law and God.
Thomas Jefferson when addressing the consequences of slavery in the United States said, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVIII, 1782. ME 2:227
Jefferson could be speaking today about the issue of abortion which has claimed the lives over 30 million innocent Americans.
Indeed all Americans should tremble for the wrath of God in the form of civil war is terrible justice. Please mark the words of Shakespeare concerning an ancient Roman civil war that stands only a few years in the future for America. It will be a civil war without the benefit large standing armies fighting on battlefield but a war fought in neighborhoods, towns, villages, countryside and cities against a ruthless domestic enemy who will fight by means of bombings, assassinations and arson and all other the black arts of terrorism with the danger of a dictatorship of the Left or the Right as the outcome of conflict.
"Domestic fury and fierce civil strife Shall cumber all the parts of Italy; Blood and destruction shall be so in use And dreadful objects so familiar That mothers shall but smile when they behold Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war; All pity choked with custom of fell deeds: And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge, With Ate by his side come hot from hell, Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war; That this foul deed shall smell above the earth With carrion men, groaning for burial."
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Basic economics
Dec 7, 2005
by Walter E. Williams ( bio | archive | contact )
Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A With all the recent hype and demagoguery about gasoline price-gouging, maybe it's time to talk about the basics of exchange. First, what is exchange? Exchange occurs when an owner transfers property rights or title to that which is his.
Here's the essence of what transpires when I purchase a gallon of gasoline. In effect, I tell the retailer that I hold title to $3. He tells me that he holds title to a gallon of gas. I offer to transfer my title to $3 to him if he'll transfer his title to a gallon of gas to me. If this exchange occurs voluntarily, what can be said about the transaction?
One thing we know for sure is that the retailer was free to retain his ownership of the gallon of gas and I my ownership of $3. That being the case, why would we exchange? The only answer is that I perceived myself as better off giving up my $3 for the gallon of gas and likewise the retailer perceived himself as better off giving up his gas for the $3. Otherwise, why would we have exchanged?
Exchanges of this sort are called good-good exchanges, namely "I'll do something good for you if you do something good for me." Game theorists recognize this as a positive-sum game -- a transaction where both parties are better off as a result. Of course there's another type of exchange not typically sought, namely good-bad exchange. An example of that kind of exchange would be where I approached the retailer with a pistol telling him that if he didn't do something good for me, give me that gallon of gas, I'd do something bad to him, blow his brains out. Clearly, I'd be better off, but he would be worse off. Game theorists call that a zero-sum game -- a transaction where in order for one person to be better off, the other must be worse off. Zero-sum games are transactions mostly initiated by thieves and governments.
Some might argue that there's unequal bargaining power between me and the gas retailer. That's nonsense! The retailer has the power to charge any price he wishes, but I have the power to decide how much I'll buy, including none, at that price. You say, "Gas is a necessity, and we're forced to buy it." That too is nonsense. If I voluntarily purchase the gas, I do so because I deem it better than my next best alternative. Of course, at a high enough price, I wouldn't deem it as such.
In the wake of the spike in fuel prices, many Americans demand that politicians do something. You can bet the rent money that whatever politicians do will end up harming consumers. Despite a long history of their economic calamity, some Americans and politicians are calling for price controls or, what amounts to the same thing, anti price-gouging legislation. As Professor Thomas DiLorenzo points out in "Four Thousand Years of Price Control," price controls have produced calamities wherever and whenever they've been tried.
Economic ignorance, misconceptions and superstition drive us toward totalitarianism because they make us more willing to hand over greater control of our lives to politicians. That results in a diminution of our liberties. Think back to the gasoline price controls during the 1970s. The price controls caused shortages. To deal with the shortages, restrictions were imposed on purchases. Then national highway speed limits were enacted. Then there were more calls for smaller and less crashworthy cars. With the recent gasoline supply shocks, we didn't experience the shortages, long lines and closed gas stations seen during the 1970s. Why? Prices were allowed to perform their allocative function -- get people to use less gas and get suppliers to supply more.
Economic ignorance is to politicians what idle hands are to the devil. Both provide the workshop for the creation of evil.
Dr. Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, since 1980.
Dec 7, 2005
by Walter E. Williams ( bio | archive | contact )
Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A With all the recent hype and demagoguery about gasoline price-gouging, maybe it's time to talk about the basics of exchange. First, what is exchange? Exchange occurs when an owner transfers property rights or title to that which is his.
Here's the essence of what transpires when I purchase a gallon of gasoline. In effect, I tell the retailer that I hold title to $3. He tells me that he holds title to a gallon of gas. I offer to transfer my title to $3 to him if he'll transfer his title to a gallon of gas to me. If this exchange occurs voluntarily, what can be said about the transaction?
One thing we know for sure is that the retailer was free to retain his ownership of the gallon of gas and I my ownership of $3. That being the case, why would we exchange? The only answer is that I perceived myself as better off giving up my $3 for the gallon of gas and likewise the retailer perceived himself as better off giving up his gas for the $3. Otherwise, why would we have exchanged?
Exchanges of this sort are called good-good exchanges, namely "I'll do something good for you if you do something good for me." Game theorists recognize this as a positive-sum game -- a transaction where both parties are better off as a result. Of course there's another type of exchange not typically sought, namely good-bad exchange. An example of that kind of exchange would be where I approached the retailer with a pistol telling him that if he didn't do something good for me, give me that gallon of gas, I'd do something bad to him, blow his brains out. Clearly, I'd be better off, but he would be worse off. Game theorists call that a zero-sum game -- a transaction where in order for one person to be better off, the other must be worse off. Zero-sum games are transactions mostly initiated by thieves and governments.
Some might argue that there's unequal bargaining power between me and the gas retailer. That's nonsense! The retailer has the power to charge any price he wishes, but I have the power to decide how much I'll buy, including none, at that price. You say, "Gas is a necessity, and we're forced to buy it." That too is nonsense. If I voluntarily purchase the gas, I do so because I deem it better than my next best alternative. Of course, at a high enough price, I wouldn't deem it as such.
In the wake of the spike in fuel prices, many Americans demand that politicians do something. You can bet the rent money that whatever politicians do will end up harming consumers. Despite a long history of their economic calamity, some Americans and politicians are calling for price controls or, what amounts to the same thing, anti price-gouging legislation. As Professor Thomas DiLorenzo points out in "Four Thousand Years of Price Control," price controls have produced calamities wherever and whenever they've been tried.
Economic ignorance, misconceptions and superstition drive us toward totalitarianism because they make us more willing to hand over greater control of our lives to politicians. That results in a diminution of our liberties. Think back to the gasoline price controls during the 1970s. The price controls caused shortages. To deal with the shortages, restrictions were imposed on purchases. Then national highway speed limits were enacted. Then there were more calls for smaller and less crashworthy cars. With the recent gasoline supply shocks, we didn't experience the shortages, long lines and closed gas stations seen during the 1970s. Why? Prices were allowed to perform their allocative function -- get people to use less gas and get suppliers to supply more.
Economic ignorance is to politicians what idle hands are to the devil. Both provide the workshop for the creation of evil.
Dr. Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, since 1980.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Black Noise
December 5, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Erik Rush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due in part to the cyclical nature of news and in part to the news media’s objectives, we’ve been exposed to a great deal lately concerning pre-war intelligence, the border with Mexico, Supreme Court nominees, outed intelligence operatives and secret CIA dungeons. Something that’s still rather fresh in my mind is Hurricane Katrina, and I’ll tell you why: It was a quintessential stratagem, a two-pronged (the media and politicos on the Left) attack reflecting the Left’s agenda with respect to Black Americans (institutional undereducation, propagandization, and the culture of victimhood being among these) and other designs to alienate Blacks from mainstream America and traditional values. The fact that a natural disaster was used to further estrange Blacks from their fellow countrymen and their government was mind-boggling. Had not the Left’s propaganda been so effective over the last few decades, those who suggested that the Bush administration “left Blacks to drown” or even generated the storm itself with clandestine technology would have been laughed off of podiums, cameras, and microphones across America.
Occasionally it escapes the reader’s notice that I am a person of color, specifically Black. With regard to most issues it usually doesn’t matter, but when I speak with authority on race politics and someone makes the assumption that I’m White, of course - they freak.
I grew up in the metropolitan New York area during ‘Sixties, and (as I’ve indicated elsewhere) lived down the street from Betty Shabazz (Malcolm X's widow) and her children, so of course we knew them well. Not to name drop, the point is that I’ve been conscious of race politics for a long time.
In the ‘Sixties, I recall having Black neighbors who, despite the inequities in our society at that time, owned businesses, rental property and portfolios and were retiring with money in the bank. Within a very short span of years, however, their sons and grandsons were dropping out of school, shooting dope and impregnating underage girls. I was witnessing a microcosm of what was happening throughout Black society in America. It made me wonder: Why, after all of the struggles, were Black Americans choosing this juncture to self-destruct en masse, when the greatest strides for equality were just being made?
I could say I’ve no idea how that happened, but here’s exactly how it happened:
Throughout the first half of the 20th century, one political party had a reputation as being possessed of an imperious mien, and this was the Democrat Party. It was also widely known as the party of segregation. When civil rights concerns came to the fore during the latter half of the century, they began to sell themselves as champions of civil rights, despite the fact that Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in higher percentages than Democrats (House: 80% Republicans, 63% Democrats; Senate: 82% Republicans, 69% Democrats).
Riding on the coattails of the affinity Blacks had for Jack and Bobby Kennedy (who were perceived as champions of civil rights), Democrats courted Blacks via corruption of their clergy. Blacks were actually among the most socially conservative groups in America, and their leaders, rather than political icons, had been their clergymen. Thus, the ranks of Black leadership emerged from within this body, which was won over either through altruistic con jobs or the promise of personal aggrandizement. Those who gained fame became embroiled in the political machinery: blinded by greed and self-importance, they were groomed as foremen for the White international socialist overseers in the Democrat Party.
Fast-forward to 2005: Although a minority of the minority have begun to wake up to the fact that they’ve been whored out politically for 40 years (to the teeth-gnashing ire of the overseers), the Left has gotten richer, its machine more efficient, and - much the worse – now has representation among professional Black activists and amoral young Black entrepreneurs who have no problem whatsoever in becoming fabulously wealthy selling Black kids spirit poison and libertine secular-socialism.
In his article “It Takes More Than A Village”, Christopher Schrimpf, a research associate with the black leadership network Project 21, shreds the proposal cited in Hillary Clinton’s book “It Takes a Village”, which perverted that African proverb to assert that community is the most important factor for proper child development. Diminishing the importance of the family is right out of Lenin’s playbook, of course, as are the vast majority of machinations used by the Left over the years with regard to Blacks in America.
It’s been said that if there’s anything the Left hates more than a conservative it’s a conservative of color, and this has been borne out time and again in their racist rhetoric against high-profile (and some not so high-profile) conservatives of color.
It is an imperative that conservatives of color be poised to strike back at left-leaning media outlets and politicians – White or otherwise – hard and fast when they capitalize on the double standard of racist rhetoric being accepted on their part, and when they proffer their divisive, bizarre and unbalanced arguments in the arena of race politics. We must be vigilant, remembering that their propaganda machine is indeed efficient, practiced, and well-entrenched.
As I said in my recent column “Whose Will be Done?”: “We must make war upon the far Left power brokers and their acolytes; the intimidators, the character assassins, the invective – all must be ignored, and failure is not an option.”
And the more people of color we have in our ranks, the better.
Erik Rush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Rush is a black conservative columnist, author and sometime radio host. Visit his website at erikrush.com.
December 5, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Erik Rush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due in part to the cyclical nature of news and in part to the news media’s objectives, we’ve been exposed to a great deal lately concerning pre-war intelligence, the border with Mexico, Supreme Court nominees, outed intelligence operatives and secret CIA dungeons. Something that’s still rather fresh in my mind is Hurricane Katrina, and I’ll tell you why: It was a quintessential stratagem, a two-pronged (the media and politicos on the Left) attack reflecting the Left’s agenda with respect to Black Americans (institutional undereducation, propagandization, and the culture of victimhood being among these) and other designs to alienate Blacks from mainstream America and traditional values. The fact that a natural disaster was used to further estrange Blacks from their fellow countrymen and their government was mind-boggling. Had not the Left’s propaganda been so effective over the last few decades, those who suggested that the Bush administration “left Blacks to drown” or even generated the storm itself with clandestine technology would have been laughed off of podiums, cameras, and microphones across America.
Occasionally it escapes the reader’s notice that I am a person of color, specifically Black. With regard to most issues it usually doesn’t matter, but when I speak with authority on race politics and someone makes the assumption that I’m White, of course - they freak.
I grew up in the metropolitan New York area during ‘Sixties, and (as I’ve indicated elsewhere) lived down the street from Betty Shabazz (Malcolm X's widow) and her children, so of course we knew them well. Not to name drop, the point is that I’ve been conscious of race politics for a long time.
In the ‘Sixties, I recall having Black neighbors who, despite the inequities in our society at that time, owned businesses, rental property and portfolios and were retiring with money in the bank. Within a very short span of years, however, their sons and grandsons were dropping out of school, shooting dope and impregnating underage girls. I was witnessing a microcosm of what was happening throughout Black society in America. It made me wonder: Why, after all of the struggles, were Black Americans choosing this juncture to self-destruct en masse, when the greatest strides for equality were just being made?
I could say I’ve no idea how that happened, but here’s exactly how it happened:
Throughout the first half of the 20th century, one political party had a reputation as being possessed of an imperious mien, and this was the Democrat Party. It was also widely known as the party of segregation. When civil rights concerns came to the fore during the latter half of the century, they began to sell themselves as champions of civil rights, despite the fact that Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in higher percentages than Democrats (House: 80% Republicans, 63% Democrats; Senate: 82% Republicans, 69% Democrats).
Riding on the coattails of the affinity Blacks had for Jack and Bobby Kennedy (who were perceived as champions of civil rights), Democrats courted Blacks via corruption of their clergy. Blacks were actually among the most socially conservative groups in America, and their leaders, rather than political icons, had been their clergymen. Thus, the ranks of Black leadership emerged from within this body, which was won over either through altruistic con jobs or the promise of personal aggrandizement. Those who gained fame became embroiled in the political machinery: blinded by greed and self-importance, they were groomed as foremen for the White international socialist overseers in the Democrat Party.
Fast-forward to 2005: Although a minority of the minority have begun to wake up to the fact that they’ve been whored out politically for 40 years (to the teeth-gnashing ire of the overseers), the Left has gotten richer, its machine more efficient, and - much the worse – now has representation among professional Black activists and amoral young Black entrepreneurs who have no problem whatsoever in becoming fabulously wealthy selling Black kids spirit poison and libertine secular-socialism.
In his article “It Takes More Than A Village”, Christopher Schrimpf, a research associate with the black leadership network Project 21, shreds the proposal cited in Hillary Clinton’s book “It Takes a Village”, which perverted that African proverb to assert that community is the most important factor for proper child development. Diminishing the importance of the family is right out of Lenin’s playbook, of course, as are the vast majority of machinations used by the Left over the years with regard to Blacks in America.
It’s been said that if there’s anything the Left hates more than a conservative it’s a conservative of color, and this has been borne out time and again in their racist rhetoric against high-profile (and some not so high-profile) conservatives of color.
It is an imperative that conservatives of color be poised to strike back at left-leaning media outlets and politicians – White or otherwise – hard and fast when they capitalize on the double standard of racist rhetoric being accepted on their part, and when they proffer their divisive, bizarre and unbalanced arguments in the arena of race politics. We must be vigilant, remembering that their propaganda machine is indeed efficient, practiced, and well-entrenched.
As I said in my recent column “Whose Will be Done?”: “We must make war upon the far Left power brokers and their acolytes; the intimidators, the character assassins, the invective – all must be ignored, and failure is not an option.”
And the more people of color we have in our ranks, the better.
Erik Rush
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Rush is a black conservative columnist, author and sometime radio host. Visit his website at erikrush.com.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Wife 1.0
We got this in an e-mail. We don't know from whom or where. We reprint by popular demand.
Dear Tech Support:
Last year I upgraded from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0. I soon noticed that the new program began unexpected child processing that took up a lot of space and valuable resources. In addition, Wife 1.0 installed itself into all other programs and now monitors all other system activity: applications such as Poker Night 10.3, Football 5.0, Hunting and Fishing 7.5, and Racing 3.6. I can't seem to keep Wife 1.0 in the background while attempting to run my favorite applications. I'm thinking about going back to Girlfriend 7.0, but the uninstall doesn't work on Wife 1.0. Please help!
Thanks,
A Troubled User.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Troubled User:
This is a very common problem that men complain about. Many people upgrade from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0, thinking that it is just a Utilities and Entertainment program. Wife 1.0 is an OPERATING SYSTEM and is designed by its Creator to run EVERYTHING!!! It is also impossible to delete Wife 1.0 and to return to Girlfriend 7.0. It is impossible to uninstall, or purge the program files from the system once installed. You cannot go back to Girlfriend 7.0 because Wife 1.0 is designed to not allow this. Look in your Wife 1.0 manual under Warnings-Alimony-Child Support. I recommend that you keep Wife1.0 and work on improving the situation. I suggest installing the background application "Yes Dear" to alleviate software augmentation.
The best course of action is to enter the command C:\APOLOGIZE because ultimately you will have to give the APOLOGIZE command before the system will return to normal anyway. Wife 1.0 is a great program, but it tends to be very high maintenance. Wife 1.0 comes with several support programs, such as Clean and Sweep 3.0, Cook It 1.5 and Do Bills 4.2. However, be very careful how you use these programs. Improper use will cause the system to launch the program Nag Nag 9.5. Once this happens, the only way to improve the performance of Wife 1.0 is to purchase additional software. I recommend Flowers 2.1 and Diamonds 5.0 ! WARNING!!! DO NOT, under any circumstances, install Secretary With Short Skirt 3.3. This application is not supported by Wife 1.0 and will cause irreversible damage to the operating system.
Best of luck,
Tech Support
We got this in an e-mail. We don't know from whom or where. We reprint by popular demand.
Dear Tech Support:
Last year I upgraded from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0. I soon noticed that the new program began unexpected child processing that took up a lot of space and valuable resources. In addition, Wife 1.0 installed itself into all other programs and now monitors all other system activity: applications such as Poker Night 10.3, Football 5.0, Hunting and Fishing 7.5, and Racing 3.6. I can't seem to keep Wife 1.0 in the background while attempting to run my favorite applications. I'm thinking about going back to Girlfriend 7.0, but the uninstall doesn't work on Wife 1.0. Please help!
Thanks,
A Troubled User.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Troubled User:
This is a very common problem that men complain about. Many people upgrade from Girlfriend 7.0 to Wife 1.0, thinking that it is just a Utilities and Entertainment program. Wife 1.0 is an OPERATING SYSTEM and is designed by its Creator to run EVERYTHING!!! It is also impossible to delete Wife 1.0 and to return to Girlfriend 7.0. It is impossible to uninstall, or purge the program files from the system once installed. You cannot go back to Girlfriend 7.0 because Wife 1.0 is designed to not allow this. Look in your Wife 1.0 manual under Warnings-Alimony-Child Support. I recommend that you keep Wife1.0 and work on improving the situation. I suggest installing the background application "Yes Dear" to alleviate software augmentation.
The best course of action is to enter the command C:\APOLOGIZE because ultimately you will have to give the APOLOGIZE command before the system will return to normal anyway. Wife 1.0 is a great program, but it tends to be very high maintenance. Wife 1.0 comes with several support programs, such as Clean and Sweep 3.0, Cook It 1.5 and Do Bills 4.2. However, be very careful how you use these programs. Improper use will cause the system to launch the program Nag Nag 9.5. Once this happens, the only way to improve the performance of Wife 1.0 is to purchase additional software. I recommend Flowers 2.1 and Diamonds 5.0 ! WARNING!!! DO NOT, under any circumstances, install Secretary With Short Skirt 3.3. This application is not supported by Wife 1.0 and will cause irreversible damage to the operating system.
Best of luck,
Tech Support
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)