From Victor Davis Hanson at NRO:
The election of the biracial Barack Obama was supposed to usher in a new era of racial harmony. Instead, that dream is becoming a tribally polarized nightmare — by design, and intended to assist in the reelection of Barack Obama.
Consider the increasing obsession with the term “white” (as in versus “black”), along with the old standby charge of “racism” — nearly all of it emanating from the president’s surrogates and celebrity supporters. Upon the announcement of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick, almost immediately Donna Christensen, the non-voting congressional delegate from the Virgin Islands, tweeted: “Wait a minute! Are there black people in Va? Guess just not w Romney Ryan! At least not seeing us. We know who’s got our back & we have his.”
“Got our back” — compare the Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith’s video appealing to African-Americans to cover the president’s back — of course implies that Paul Ryan is a veritable racist who by virtue of his skin color and conservative politics will stab blacks in the back. In that vein, Mia Farrow, viewing the initial Romney/Ryan rally, offers, “Camera pans crowd: whole bunch of white people.”
Here is what Melissa Harris-Perry, the weekend host of MSNBC’s Hardball, said of Paul Ryan’s referring to the Declaration of Independence: “The thing I really have against him is actually how he and Gov. Romney have misused the Declaration of Independence. I’m deeply irritated by their notion that the ‘pursuit of happiness’ means money for the richest and that we extricate the capacity of ordinary people to pursue happiness. When they say ‘God and nature give us our rights, not government,’ that is a lovely thing to say as a wealthy white man.” In the postmodern world of Ms. Harris-Perry, which is the world of Barack Obama, what we say has no innate meaning apart from our class, race, and gender.
Expect the Ryan selection in the next few days to spawn a new flurry of “wealthy white man” invective in a manner that two Clinton-Gore tickets, a Gore-Lieberman ticket, and a Kerry-Edwards ticket never did.
Yet there is no indication of a new racism on the part of conservatives or Republicans. Herman Cain — until dismembered by media accusations — led the Republican primary field for weeks in the polls. Michael Steele ran the Republican National Committee for two years. Allen West remains the Tea Party’s most popular politician. And many polls showed that Condoleezza Rice was the favored vice-presidential candidate among the Republican faithful. George W. Bush chose two African-American secretaries of state. That post has not been held by a white male since the ancient days of Warren Christopher.
Yet when Romney goes to Poland, Cokie Roberts hypothesizes that he is angling for the votes of Polish-Americans. Louise Lucas, a Virginia state senator who identifies herself as part of the Obama “Truth Team,” not long ago blurted out: “What I am saying to you is Mitt Romney, he’s speaking to a segment of the population, who does not like to see people other than a white man in a White House or any other elected position.” According to Ms. Lucas’s logic, if Obama in 2008 won 43 percent of the so-called white vote, and 97 percent of the African-American vote, then there lingers a suspicion of white racism, of prejudiced individuals who are voting on the basis of racial identification rather than the issues.
Among the many unhinged things that the majority leader of the United States Senate, Harry Reid (D., Nev.), has said, the creepiest is his most recent editorializing about a possible Mitt Romney victory in November: “The day after the election 17 angry old white men will wake up and realize they just bought the country.” In 2008, Barack Obama raised about $800 million, well more than double the amount raised by John McCain. Were there any “angry old white men” who helped Obama gain such a substantial edge in money-raising?
Not long ago NBC’s Brian Williams asked Mitt Romney to confirm or deny that he was going to pick “an incredibly boring white guy” as his running mate. In the world of Brian Williams and Harry Reid, “angry old white men” and “boring white guy[s]” refer to suspect conservative others, never themselves, who win exemption from blame for their natural propensities because of their bumper-sticker liberalism. Imagine the fate of any pundit, politician, or media person who talked in stereotyped terms of “wealthy black men,” “incredibly boring black guys,” or “angry old black men.”
This latest round of acrimony follows the accusations this spring of tea-party racism, mostly from members of the Black Caucus. Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.), remember, claimed that Republican primary candidate Rick Perry advocated a jobs program that was one “one stage away from slavery.” Representative André Carson (D., Ind.) leveled the charge that the Tea Party wanted to lynch blacks from trees. In February, Representative Maxine Waters (D., Calif.) exclaimed, “I saw pictures of Boehner and Cantor on our screens [at the California state Democratic convention]. Don’t ever let me see again, in life, those Republicans in our hall, on our screens, talking about anything. These are demons.”
This is how the left thinks! More bloat to the government will end unemployment? Glad this gay idiot is going back home for good!
On the Wednesday night broadcast of Current TV’s “Viewpoint,” outgoing Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) explained how cutting federal spending has hurt the economy. Frank also shared why he believes unemployment is above 8% and how to fix it.
“When you cut back so substantially, you’re not just doing social harm, you’re doing economic harm because you do not have the spending power in the economy that you ought to have. Look, again, it’s now clear,” Rep. Frank said.
“We would have unemployment below 8% if it weren’t for the fact that Republican policies have forced cities and states to lay off 700,000 people. Firefights, police officers, teachers, public works employees, people who collect garbage, people who shovel snow because they’ve been hit by the property tax collapse. So, they have been losing. We’ve tried to help them out and the Republicans say no, we have to preserve tax cuts for the wealthy, we’ve got to send money overseas to the military in useful ways, and the result has been 700,000 jobs lost from state and local governments over these past couple years,” he said.
This is the obama campaign’s new tag line!
The American left is the most self-indulgent, arrogant, and spoiled group of people on the face of the earth. They live in a nation facing national bankruptcy and societal upheaval — a country presently subsisting on the residue of past economic achievements. Yet the only things that matter to them are their lifestyles and imposing their self-determined superiority on rest of the American people.
The true indebtedness of the United States now exceeds $222 trillion. Appearing on National Public Radio in August of 2011 Professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff of Boston University said:
If you add up all the promises that have been made for spending obligations, and subtract all the taxes we expect to collect, the difference is $211 Trillion. This is the fiscal gap. That is our true indebtedness.
Since that interview, the indebtedness has increased by another $11 trillion. Yet these estimates do not include the full impact of ObamaCare, which could add another $17+ trillion. On the other side of the ledger: the annual Gross Domestic Product (the value of all economic activity in the U.S.) is $15.6 trillion. The indebtedness to GDP ratio is a staggering 14.2 to 1 and guaranteed to further accelerate if Barack Obama is re-elected.
The United States is not facing bankruptcy, it is bankrupt. The primary factor that has kept the nation afloat over the past four years is that the dollar, albeit temporarily, remains the world’s reserve currency, thus allowing the Federal Reserve to print enormous sums of money to cover the Obama budget deficits and flood the global market with near worthless cash. Today it requires $100.00 to purchase the same goods $10.00 purchased in 1950.
As a further comparison, the total annual GDP of all the countries on earth is $70 trillion. The American indebtedness alone exceeds that amount by a factor of 3 — which contributes mightily to a world drowning in debt and facing an inevitable debt crisis and financial collapse, which will trigger a massive global depression.
Serial fraud kept GOP congressman in office for years
MSNBC has gone lower than the belly of a snake!
On Thursday’s edition of MSNBC’s The Cyclethe group discussed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney‘s assertion that President Obama “take [his] campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago.” Co-host Touré saw what he believes to be explicit racial connotations beneath what Romney was saying, calling it the “niggerization” of the campaign.
“That really bothered me,” he said. “You notice he said anger twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization,’ he’s not like us.”
“I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization,’” Touré said to the apparent shock of his co-panelists. “You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.”
Naturally this led to a battle between Touré and conservative co-host S.E. Cupp. She took particular issue with the fact that Touré admitted that VP Joe Biden‘s “chains” comments were divisive, but is now calling Romney a “racist” for saying the Obama campaign is “angry.”
(does that mean if I tell a grandchild to not be so angry, I am being racist?)
the shooter made a negative reference about the work of the Family Research Council before opening fire. The officials spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss the ongoing investigation.
David Mariner is executive director of The DC Center for the LGBT Community. He says Corkins had been volunteering at the center for about the past 6 months. Mariner describes Corkins as “kind, gentle and unassuming.”
In seeking to justify its hefty salaries, budget and fundraising, SPLC made a very dangerous leap to treating political opponents as “hate groups” and speech it didn’t like as “hate speech.” (snip)
SPLC continued its agenda against the Tea Party and conservatives when it persisted in claiming that Jared Loughner was “right wing” long after it was clear that was not the case.
SPLC also moved on to the issue of marriage, and named several groups – including the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage – as hate groups, SPLC Demonizes Supporters of Traditional Marriage:Time and again SPLC, through its Hatewatch division, seeks to shut down debate by applying the “hate group” or similar epithets to political opponents, and those political opponents almost always are conservative.Being labeled a “hate group” by SPLC can be devastating, because most of the country is unaware of how politicized SPLC has become….SPLC is at it again, with a list of 18, “anti-gay”groups, 13 of whom also will make SPLC’s upcoming “hate group” list….Most of these groups are unknown to me, although a couple are well-known Christian groups, such as American Family Association and Family Research Council (both of these entities will be on SPLC’s upcoming Hate Group list). I don’t defend or not defend these groups because I don’t know much about them, but based upon SPLC’s past performance, the burden should be on SPLC to make the case for including a group on a hate list.All these groups, with one exception below, were included for having a fundamentalist Christian view of homosexuality and gay marriage. Oddly, no Orthodox Jewish or Muslim groups were included, even though those religious affiliations have views not much different from fundamentalist Christians….The inclusion of NOM on this list really is outrageous, and typical of how SPLC seeks to demonize a mainstream conservative (and in this case, constitutional) view. The explanation SPLC gives for including NOM is flimsy and filled with innuendo.And so it came to pass, support for retaining the centuries old definition of marriage as one man, one woman, routinely now is labeled as “hate speech” on campuses and increasingly in the liberal-dominated media. Groups which support retaining the definition now are hate groups – with SPLC cited as the authority.
This is a really powerful interview with the Family Research Council’s President Tony Perkins who doesn’t mince words when calling out the Southern Poverty Law Center for creating an environment that led to yesterday’s shooting. The SPLC labeled the FRC a hate group back in 2010 and since then it’s been repeated by the media as if it’s a fact. And with social issues being brought front and center recently with Chick-fil-A being the target, it made the news that Chick-fil-A had contributed to a ‘hate group’, otherwise known as the FRC. But Perkins said they only contributed a thousand dollars 2 years ago and while he welcomes their support, they are by no means a large contributor to the FRC. But that’s how everything is connected and it all started with SPLC and their “reckless” labeling.
Watch the full interview below:
WASHINGTON (BHN) – In the midst of speculation that President Obama may replace gaffe-prone running mate Joe Biden, the Romney campaign is offering to bear the cost of the Vice President’s campaign efforts, as a sign of their nonpartisan generosity.
“While we don’t agree with his political views, we really like Joe as a person, and as such would just like to help defray the considerable expense of his campaigning,” Mitt Romney told reporters Thursday. “This is simply our way of showing we truly are compassionate conservatives.”
As of Thursday afternoon the White House had not replied to the offer.
More fun at Big Hairy News
Does not take much to piss off cair. Tell you, once the republicans take over the government they should outlaw cair and tell all the freaking islamics to toe the line or get the hell out of the USA.
(Reuters) – A Muslim rights group criticized a federal judge on Wednesday, complaining he had compared the civil liberties of Muslim Americans to a “hideous sea monster” while tossing out a lawsuit over the infiltration of California mosques by an FBI informant.
U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney dismissed the lawsuit on Tuesday, which charged that the undercover FBI informant had violated civil liberties of U.S. Muslims by spying on them, ruling that allowing the case to proceed could risk disclosure of government secrets.
In his 36-page order, Carney invoked the fictional Greek hero Odysseus, who was forced to sail his ship between a six-headed sea monster and a dangerous whirlpool during an epic voyage home from the Trojan War.
“Odysseus opted to pass by the monster and risk a few of his individual sailors, rather than hazard the loss of his entire ship to the sucking whirlpool,” Carney wrote. “Similarly, the proper application of the state secrets privilege may unfortunately mean the sacrifice of individual liberties for the sake of national security.”
Carney allowed the case to go forward only against five current or former agents named as individual defendants, who the plaintiffs claim violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Plaintiffs attorneys have said they will appeal.
“Our civil liberties are not a hideous sea monster, but they are instead the most stalwart defense against the real threats of tyranny and oppression,” Ameena Mirza Qazi, deputy executive director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in a written statement.
The lawsuit, jointly filed by CAIR and the American Civil Liberties Union last year in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, said the FBI sent undercover informant Craig Monteilh into Orange County mosques to collect personal information on hundreds, or possibly thousands, of Muslims.
According to the suit, Monteilh took hundreds of hours of surreptitious video and audio recordings of religious lectures, classes, cultural events and other meetings in 2006 and 2007 as part of a counterterrorism investigation, known as “Operation Flex,” that did not produce a single conviction.
From Roger Kimball at PJ Media:
You’re seeing these sad people everywhere these days, especially in large East-and West-Coast urban areas and on college campuses. At parties they alternate between a melancholy, far-away wistfulness and a muttering “why me?”-belligerence. They’re touchy and quick to blame others, and they seem to suffer from night sweats and vague feelings of persecution. Their symptoms worsened suddenly a few days ago when it was announced that Paul Ryan would be joining the Romney ticket as candidate for vice president.
These people are not conservatives. It’s not clear that they’re liberals, exactly, either, though in recent history they have, as it were, caucused with liberals, that is to say, with people who identify themselves as liberals (never mind how illiberal their policies and sentiments happen to be). Above all, however, they are part of the tout le monde: the people who think of themselves as being on the right side of history (corollary belief: they think history has sides and a direction). They go to the right cocktail parties. They have “advanced” (i.e., establishment) attitudes about art, culture, and morals. They are part of that group Harold Rosenberg memorably denominated “the herd of independent minds.”
Tom Wolfe exposed an extreme version of this cohort in his essay on the Black Panthers hosted by Leonard Bernstein in his elegant New York apartment. Wolfe contributed the term “radical chic” to the language to describe the Bernsteins and their wide-eyed guests. What we’re dealing with here is not quite radical (though Obama may in fact be plenty radical himself, the semi-beautiful people who support him are not), nor is it wholly chic. It is a sort of “consensus chic,” though I appreciate the aroma of contradiction the phrase communicates, since that which is genuinely chic exists self-consciously apart from the consensus of hoi polloi.
First time around, these people voted for Obama, giving themselves a little frisson of self-satisfaction when they pulled the lever and, even more, when the emitted condescension about anyone who happened to vote for John McCain — they didn’t encounter such people often, but it always gave them a little thrill of self-satisfaction when they did. It wasn’t long, however, before doubts began to accumulate. The seas didn’t subside, as promised, nor did the unemployment figures. By now, they’re thoroughly depressed. Their man has clearly let them down, and the inadvertent comedy of Joe Biden screaming that Republicans are going to “put y’all back in chains” isn’t helping. Even worse is the news that team R&R, the Romney-Ryan express, is surging among young voters.
It wasn’t supposed to turn out this way. The good “Liberals” (i.e., the illiberal liberals) who voted for Obama the first time around, the mostly white, privileged products of elite schools and progressive attitudes, were supposed to be on the winning side of all such controversies. They were the enlightened ones. Republicans, the people who voted for John McCain and — Ohmygod! — Sarah Palin, didn’t go to the right schools; didn’t ingest the proper balance of gluten free, free-range, macrobiotic, whatever; wore the wrong sorts of clothes; had funny hairdos; owned guns; and (often) were God-fearing people who took religion seriously. Such people were less objects of pity than of contempt, though when their politics were not on view they provided vast fodder for interventionist government programs aimed at transforming these unfortunates into consensus-chic, testosterone-free liberals.
The deep problem now is how to help the vast regiments of disillusioned liberals. As I’ve noted in this space before, momentum towards Romney is mounting. Soon, I predict, it will be all but irresistible. And then the consensus-chic liberals who had supported Obama in 2008 will be ideologically homeless. It is up to us to offer them a helping hand: a two-step program of recovery. Self-knowledge is the first step. They must have the courage to stand up before their friends and say, “I’m John Doe, and I supported Barack Obama.” Their friends, most of whom are likely to be in the same position, will applaud and tell their own war stories. About the time they blacked out at an Obama fundraiser, or the time they couldn’t remember who James Madison was. There will be solidarity in numbers.
Once that critical first step is taken, the rest will be easy.
Vice President Joe Biden has made a long career out of saying crude and stupid things, and now he has outdone himself by affecting a southern accent and telling a substantially black audience in Virginia (he seemed to think he was in North Carolina) that if Romney has his way “he gonna put y’all back in chains.”
The Obama campaign already has established its reputation as a lowlife operation, trafficking in risibly and plainly untrue statements — Mitt Romney killed my wife! — but the latest from Biden is so grotesque and morally illiterate that it deserves a special mention. It bears noting, first, that Mr. Biden spent his Senate years comfortable in the company of a Democratic lion who had borne the title “Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan” and who used the term “white n****r” on national television, and, second, that Mr. Biden represented a highly segregated state. His party has undermined the economic and educational interests of African-Americans at every turn, among other ways by fighting the D.C. scholarship program that benefits the children served by Washington’s failed public schools.
This is the sort of thing that we’re accustomed to hearing from Al Sharpton or Louis Farrakhan. To hear it from the vice president of the United States is something else altogether. Romney was right to hit back hard at the Obama campaign in the wake of these outrageous remarks, but, given the administration’s lack of a policy success story to tell, such outrages are likely to come thick and deep, and Romney will have to rise above them.
Mitt Romney has an impeccable record on civil-rights issues, having learned at the knee of his father, a Republican who campaigned on civil rights in the 1960s. To suggest as Biden did that Romney’s program has something — anything — in common with slave-trading is vile even by the standards of Democratic campaign rhetoric. That no Democrat of note has spoken up against it is a testament to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the party and the political movement it represents.
Biden’s condescending “y’all” and phony mush-mouthed g-dropping suggest a great deal about what he really thinks of the southern blacks he is attempting to buffalo with this embarrassing nonsense. He should be ashamed of himself, and those who associate with him should be ashamed of themselves.
An honorable president would dismiss Biden. Barack Obama probably will buy him a beer.
From Dale at Out of Order:
Pressure is increasing on Uncle Joe to step aside and allow Barack to pick a less embarrassing Democrat for the number two position on the ticket. Until such an event occurs, the Romney-Ryan team will have to prepare for a bout with numb-skulled Joe. Romney’s debate experts, tasked with finding the best proxy opponent to practice against, winnowed their choices down to a bag of damp sand and a butternut squash. The verbal feint, thrust and parry abilities were identical for the sand and squash, but in the final analysis, the butternut’s penchant for wildly disconnected false accusation won the day. –Dale
My smash best-seller “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America” has just come out in paperback — and not a moment too soon! Democrats always become especially mob-like during presidential election campaigns.
The “root cause” of the Democrats’ wild allegations against Republicans, their fear of change, their slogans and insane metaphors, are all explained by mass psychology, diagnosed more than a century ago by the French psychologist Gustave Le Bon, on whose work much of my own book is based.
Le Bon’s 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” was carefully read by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in order to learn how to incite mobs. Our liberals could have been Le Bon’s study subjects.
With the country drowning in debt and Medicare and Social Security on high-speed bullet trains to bankruptcy, the entire Democratic Party refuses to acknowledge mathematical facts. Instead, they incite the Democratic mob to hate Republicans by accusing them of wanting to kill old people.
According to a 2009 report — before Obama added another $5 trillion to the national debt — Obama’s own treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, stated that in less than 10 years, spending on major entitlement programs, plus interest payments on the national debt, would consume 92 cents of every dollar in federal revenue.
That means no money for an army, a navy, rockets, national parks, food inspectors, air traffic controllers, highways, and so on. Basically, the entire federal budget will be required just to pay for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — and the cost of borrowing money to pay for these programs.
When Social Security was enacted in 1935, the average lifespan was 61.7 years. Today, it’s almost 79 and rising. But liberals believe the age at which people can begin collecting Social Security must never, ever be changed, even to save Social Security itself.
Mobs, according to Le Bon, have a “fetish-like respect” for tradition, except moral traditions because crowds are too impulsive to be moral. That’s why liberals say our Constitution is a “living, breathing” document that sprouts rights to gay marriage and abortion, but the age at which Social Security and Medicare benefits kick in is written in stone.
Le Bon says that it is lucky “for the progress of civilization that the power of crowds only began to exist when the great discoveries of science and industry had already been effected.” If “democracies possessed the power they wield today at the time of the invention of mechanical looms or of the introduction of steam-power and of railways, the realization of these inventions would have been impossible.”
Liberals exhibit this exact group-think fear of science not only toward light bulbs and nuclear power, but also toward medical inventions. Thus, when a majority of the country objected to Obamacare on the grounds that — among many other reasons — a government takeover of health care would destroy medical innovation, liberals stared in blank incomprehension.
They believe every drug, every diagnosis, every therapy, every cure that will ever be invented, has already been invented. Their job is to spread all the existing cures, while demonizing and stymieing pharmaceutical companies that make money by inventing new drugs.
Democrats haven’t the slightest concern about who will formulate new remedies because they are enraged at profit-making and suspicious of scientific advancement.