Posts Tagged ‘blacks’

Obama’s Wreckovery: In Obama’s ‘Recovery’ Incomes Have Fallen Nearly TWICE As Much As During The Actual Recession From June 2007 to June 2009

August 27, 2012

This is unbelievable: the only thing worse than the “Bush recession” – at least the recession that he gets all the blame for – has been the “Obama wreckovery.”

Stop and think about it: as much as Bush has been demagogued and demonized for the recession, household incomes only dropped by 2.6%.  I say “only” because during this “recovery” that Obama has taken and received so much credit for, household incomes have lost nearly TWICE as much – a whopping 4.8%.

And if you’re black, you’re screwed: because Obama has gutted your household wealth since his “recovery” by a staggering 11.1%.

This is absolutely devastating news for Barack Obama’s reelection campaign – which is why the mainstream media has tried to bury it with the following WaPo story appearing on page A-10 by which point most people are flipping through the pages looking for the damn funnies:

Household income is below recession levels, report says
By Michael A. Fletcher, Published: August 23

Household income is down sharply since the recession ended three years ago, according to a report released Thursday, providing another sign of the stubborn weakness of the economic recovery.

From June 2009 to June 2012, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 4.8 percent, to $50,964, according to a report by Sentier Research, a firm headed by two former Census Bureau officials.

Incomes have dropped more since the beginning of the recovery than they did during the recession itself, when they declined 2.6 percent, according to the report, which analyzed data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. The recession, the most severe since the Great Depression, lasted from December 2007 to June 2009.

Overall, median income is 7.2 percent below its December 2007 level and 8.1 percent below where it stood in January 2000, when it was $55,470, according to the report.

The findings highlight the depth of the recession and the long road the nation has to traverse before it fully recovers. They also echo other reports detailing the financial carnage caused by the recession.

This summer, the Federal Reserve reported that the downturn eviscerated two decades of gains in Americans’ wealth. The central bank said the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010, pushing that measure back to nearly 1992 levels.

Few analysts expect a quick bounce back even as the economy grows, if tepidly. The unemployment rate was 8.3 percent in July, marking 42 months that it has been above 8 percent. About 5.2 million people — 40 percent of the unemployed — had been out of work for more than six months. An additional 8.2 million were working part time because they could not get full-time work.

Corporate profits, meanwhile, have recovered. But with workers producing more on the job, the gains in economic output have not been matched by new hiring.

“The character of the recovery has been one that has benefited businesses more than it has workers,” said Gary Burtless, a Brookings Institution economist.

Although the new report does not take into account tax cuts enacted in recent years that have boosted take-home pay, it shows that a broad swath of Americans have lost some income.

Over the past three years, the inflation-adjusted median income of households headed by whites was down 5.2 percent, to $56,255. Households headed by blacks sustained a staggering 11.1 percent drop in median income. Hispanic-led households saw their real income decline by 4.1 percent over the same period, the report said.

Looking at the data by age, the researchers found that income has risen only for workers older than 65 during the recovery, which report co-author and Sentier partner Gordon Green attributes to the cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients.

Households led by the self-employed saw their income drop 9.4 percent, to $66,752, the report said. Households headed by private-sector employees saw wages drop by 4.5 percent, to $63,800, and households led by government workers saw median income decline by 3.5 percent, to $77,998, the report said.

Government workers, on average, are better educated than private-sector workers, which could help explain their higher wage levels, Green said.

The report also concluded that the declines have been most dramatic in the West, where household income is down 8.5 percent over the past three years. By comparison, income was down 4.9 percent in the Northeast and the South, the report said, while incomes in the Midwest dropped by just 1.1 percent over the past three years.

As usual, Newsbusters actually does a better job reporting the actual news than mainstream media outlets.  You can easily understand why that would be give the fact that the Washington Post which first reported on the story managed to bury it as deep in the bowels of the paper as possible.  If this was Bush’s economy and disastrous news like this came out right before his damn convention, you can rest assured it would have been the main headline in giant letters on the front page.

Here’s Newsbuster’s article on this report on just how truly pathetic Obamanomics has been:

‘Household Income Has Fallen 4.8%’ Since June 2009, But WashPost Buries Story on Page A10
By Ken Shepherd | August 24, 2012 | 17:10

Yesterday a “report by Sentier Research, a firm headed by two former Census Bureau officials,” found that “[f]rom June 2009 to June 2012, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 4.8 percent,” Michael A. Fletcher of the Washington Post reported today. What’s more, the fall in median household income was much worse for blacks, “a staggering 11.1 percent drop.” June 2009, you may recall, marks the end of the recession that began in December 2007.

Yet such news was shoved down to page A10 by Post editors, rather than placed on the paper’s August 23 front page, which included, among other things, a large photo of a woman working on a large sand sculpture at a resort in Florida, a story about Mitt Romney’s campaign ‘Mad Men,’ and a story about how Lance Armstrong “won’t fight doping charges” anymore.

The Sentier Research survey also found that young Americans suffered a steeper hit than the average American, with those under 25 seeing a 6.1 percent drop in median income and those in the 25-34 bracket suffering an 8.9 percent drop. Given how well President Obama did with the youth vote, their economic suffering under his administration is certainly worthy of coverage and criticism.

If such data were discovered in a survey released just a week before the Democratic convention in 2004 or 2008, it most certainly would be front-page news as the media hit the Bush administration and Republicans for a soft economy and teed up the opposition party with a talking point to flog during the convention.

But alas, the media are too busy with more important things, like dutifully echoing Democratic talking points tarring the entire Republican Party with one Missouri congressman’s offensive comments on rape.

The funniest thing is that the more Obama has tried to help whatever group or region with his failed policies, the more that group or region suffered.  That ought to tell you something.  Blacks have been absolutely devastated by Obama, but 95% of them are going to vote for the man who has destroyed them.  The same applies to the young people who voted Obama into office in 2008 and now live in their parents’ houses, with half of all college graduates under Obama unable to find a job.  Maybe they can’t find a damn job because they’re still stupid enough to vote for the man who wrecked their lives.  And no region has fared worse than the West, but don’t tell that to states like California and Washington which would both vote for Chairman Freaking Mao if he were running as a Democrat.

The poor are going to vote for Obama.  And that’s great for Obama: BECAUSE THE FOOL HAS CREATED MORE POOR PEOPLE THAN ANY PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

Meanwhile on every measure across the board the president who is demonized as such a terrible failure (that’s George Bush, kids) was so much better than Obama it isn’t even funny.

This reminds me of how Adolf Hitler systematically destroyed Germany until there was just nothing left.  It wasn’t the rank-and-file people who were fiercely loyal to him come what may; it was the rabid Nazis who demanded the nation follow Hitler to its very grave.  Similarly, Barack Obama and his Marxist Obamanomics has been the absolute systematic destruction of the American economy and the American middle class, but with the mainstream media and the Democrat machine rabidly following this turd and slant the news with outright propaganda.  And so just like Nazi Germany, America may well end up in the graveyard of dead nations by 2016 if Obama gets another chance to finish the destruction of America that he started in 2009.

Advertisements

Teen Unemployment Another Proof Of How Desperately Wrong Obama, Democrat Policies Are And How Much They Hurt Little People

August 18, 2011

Just over two years ago I wrote an article titled, “Minimum Wage Increase Means Maximum Employment Decrease.”  And I began thus:

The Democrats raised the national minimum wage from $6.55 to $7.25. They claim that the additional earnings will help the economy. Just like their stimulus did (right?).

Of course, raising the minimum wage is effectively a tax increase imposed primarily on small businesses. Things always seem so easy when your spending other peoples’ money.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, goes the saying. Whoever first said that surely must have had Democrats in mind.

The economist who literally wrote the book on Minimum Wages predicts that the minimum wage hike will result in the loss of 300,000 jobs. And that’s a HUGE number, consider there are only 2.8 million minimum wage workers; it’s 10.7% of the total minimum wage work force!

THAT’S the way to help the economy! THAT’S the way to help poor workers!

That article cites articles and sources AND MADE A PREDICTION.  And that prediction was that the minimum wage increase would result in far fewer jobs and hurt the poorest people.  You should read it now, given what you are about to see below:

Average Teen Unemployment Rate in D.C. is 50.1%, Analysis Shows
Friday, August 12, 2011
By Penny Starr

(CNSNews.com) – An analysis based on U.S. Census Bureau data by the Employment Policies Institute (EPI) shows that the average unemployment rate for teens ages 16 to 19 in the District of Columbia was 50.1 percent as of June 2011. This corresponds with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showing that for D.C. the annual average unemployment rate for teens in 2010 was 49.8 percent.

Michael Saltsman, research fellow at EPI, provided the 50.1 percent figure to CNSNews.com as an update of an analysis he compiled based on the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.

The 50.1 percent figure is almost double the average teen unemployment rate in June 2007 in the District, when it was 26.2 percent, according to Saltsman.

Since 2007, the rate has increased each year: 29.5 percent in June 2008, 44.7 percent in 2009 and 48.8 percent in 2010, based on EPI’s analysis.

“We’re in the midst of the third summer in a row where teen unemployment has been above 20 percent,” Saltsman said when he announced his report on July 8.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not keep monthly unemployment rates on teens, but its data showing the average annual unemployment rate for teens ages 16 to 19 in D.C. for 2010 was 49.8 percent.

The state with the second highest unemployment in the EPI analysis, California, also closely mirrors the BLS annual average for 2010 — 34.4 percent compared to EPI’s 34.6 percent.

The latest data from the BLS on average teen unemployment nationwide – all 50 states and the District of Columbia — as of July 2011 was 25 percent.

“Young people are facing more competition for fewer jobs, a lingering consequence of the recession and wage mandates that have eliminated entry-level opportunities,” Saltsman said. “The consequences for this generation of young people missing out on their first job are severe, including an increased risk of earning low wages and being unemployed again in future years.”

Saltsman’s analysis, which was released on July 8, ranked the 20 states with the highest average teen unemployment through May 2011: the first column shows the actual teen unemployment rate over the teen labor force; the second column reflects the number of discouraged teen workers added to the unemployment rate (also compiled from Census Bureau data).

District of Columbia – 49.0 percent, 52.2 percent

California – 34.6 percent, 36.2 percent

Georgia – 34.6 percent, 35.7 percent

Nevada – 34.3 percent, 36.4 percent

Washington – 33.2 percent, 34.2 percent

Idaho – 31.8 percent, 33.1 percent

West Virginia – 30.2 percent, 32.9 percent

Missouri – 29.6 percent, 31.2 percent

Florida – 29.4 percent, 31.4 percent

Kentucky – 29.0 percent, 30.3 percent

South Carolina – 28.5 percent, 29.0 percent

Rhode Island – 28.0 percent, 29.6 percent

Michigan – 27.6 percent, 29.1 percent

Mississippi – 27.5 percent, 30.7 percent

Tennessee – 26.9 percent, 27.4 percent

Arizona – 26.7 percent, 28.2 percent

Arkansas – 26.7 percent, 28.2 percent

Colorado – 26.1 percent, 26.7 percent

Illinois – 26.1 percent, 27.5 percent

Oregon – 25.8 percent, 26.4 percent

Two years ago Democrats hiked the minimum wage.  Two years ago Barack Obama signed it into law.  Two years ago Democrats predicted that this would lead to greater prosperity.  Two years ago conservative economists predicted it would be a total disaster.

Who was right???  Who was totally freaking WRONG???

Democrats are genuinely evil people.  And to the extent they actually have good intentions, THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH DEMOCRAT INTENTIONS.  Paved high and deep and wide.

Democrats demonize their opponents as being hateful and greedy.  And then Democrats cynically assure the poorest and most needy and most ignorant that they will help those people and make their lives better.

But do they make these people’s lives better?  HELL NO!  Their stupid and depraved Marxist policies undermine and destroy America.  In this particular case, Barack Obama and the Democrats said, “We’re going to demand that employers pay you a wage that exceeds what your labor is worth to them so that you lose your job and all sorts of minimum wage workers lose any chance whatsoever of finding a job.  And we franklydon’t give one freaking damn about the suffering or your family’s suffering because we know that you’re the kind of poor, ignorant schmuck who will believe our demonizing the next time and the time after that and the time after that.

Let me go back to my article that I wrote TWO DAMN YEARS AGO when this stupid and evil law got passed.  After guaranteeing the Democrat policy would fail; after guaranteeing that it would lead to huge job losses for teens and other minimum wage earners; and after talking about how profoundly stupid Democrat voters are for believing these lies over and over again (as I restate above), I concluded:

Democrats are like nurses who bring thirsty patients their very favorite brand of Kool-Aid. It’s a tasty beverage; don’t worry about the fact that it is contains arsenic (which just happens to be the primary ingredient in rat poison). It’s ultimately a terrible way to die, but what the heck, it sure taste good going down.

Obama has screwed all the people he promised that he would save.  Even the reliably liberal Washington Post acknowledges that blacks have been set back DECADES under Obama’s misrule [See update below].  Black unemployment is TWICE the national average under Obama, and even überüberlib Maxine Waters is saying that rabid black support for Obama is hurting the black community.  And the black congressional caucus is tired of making excuses for this failed leader.

And women are losing ground under Obama.

And young people are getting totally screwed under Obama.

Food, fuel and shelter have gone to hell under Obama.  Poor people are more vulnerable to changes in all three than the rich people that liberals always demonize Republicans for protecting.  Obama’s economic legacy is THE HIGHEST POVERTY INCREASE IN FIFTY YEARS

It’s long past time that the American people wised up to the liberal demagogic attacks and understood that liberal policies hurt minorities, hurt women, hurt the young and hurt the poor FAR more than the conservative policies that liberals constantly demonize.

When Democrats attack the businesses that create jobs, they won’t create jobs.  When Democrats attack the people who hire workers, they won’t hire workers.  When Democrats attack the people whose capital investment makes economic expansion possible, they won’t invest.

And the people who will suffer the most are those who are closest to the bottom time and time again.

[Update, 9/14/11: It is amazing how frequently liberal newspapers purge their sites of anything that could be unflatering toward liberalism or Democrats.  The story on black unemployment was purged by the Washington PostBut it is still available here via the Associated Press].

Obama’s Economic Legacy: Highest Poverty Rate Increases In 50 Years

September 12, 2010

Conservatives need to keep asking one simple question: How’s Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s “hope” and “change” working out for you?

Not so good if you’re poor.

It’s not so good if you’re working age.  Or if you’re a child.  Or if you’re black or Latino.

Of course, Democrats have been swindling voters for a generation that they’re out to help such people.  The only problem is that their rhetoric is a load of crap, and their policies actually end up hurting the people they deceitfully claim they’re most trying to help.

You know what they say: teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime; give him crummy handouts and he’ll be poor and dependent on Democrats until the day he dies.  Or at least until he develops the sense to start voting for conservatives who want to empower businesses to create jobs.

Notice I said “conservative,” not “Republican.”  Because there’s a huge difference between a true conservative and an Arlen Specter (before he revealed he was a Democrat all along), an Olympia Snowe, or even a Scott Brown.

We need a real change.  We don’t need “moderate Republican” (= “warmed-over Democrat”) policies, and the last two years should serve to demonstrate we certainly don’t need Democrat (= warmed-over socialist) policies.  We need something we haven’t seen in a long time: committed conservative solutions.

Otherwise 1 in 7 is going to become 1 in 6.  And then 1 in 5.

An article from the liberal Huffington Post:

Poverty Rate In U.S. Saw Record Increase In 2009: 1 In 7 Americans Are Poor
HOPE YEN and LIZ SIDOTI | 09/11/10

WASHINGTON — The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

Census figures for 2009 – the recession-ravaged first year of the Democrat’s presidency – are to be released in the coming week, and demographers expect grim findings.

It’s unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake. The anticipated poverty rate increase – from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent – would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power.

“The most important anti-poverty effort is growing the economy and making sure there are enough jobs out there,” Obama said Friday at a White House news conference. He stressed his commitment to helping the poor achieve middle-class status and said, “If we can grow the economy faster and create more jobs, then everybody is swept up into that virtuous cycle.”

Interviews with six demographers who closely track poverty trends found wide consensus that 2009 figures are likely to show a significant rate increase to the range of 14.7 percent to 15 percent.

Should those estimates hold true, some 45 million people in this country, or more than 1 in 7, were poor last year. It would be the highest single-year increase since the government began calculating poverty figures in 1959. The previous high was in 1980 when the rate jumped 1.3 percentage points to 13 percent during the energy crisis.

Among the 18-64 working-age population, the demographers expect a rise beyond 12.4 percent, up from 11.7 percent. That would make it the highest since at least 1965, when another Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, launched the war on poverty that expanded the federal government’s role in social welfare programs from education to health care.

Demographers also are confident the report will show:

_Child poverty increased from 19 percent to more than 20 percent.

_Blacks and Latinos were disproportionately hit, based on their higher rates of unemployment.

_Metropolitan areas that posted the largest gains in poverty included Modesto, Calif.; Detroit; Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla.; Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

My guess is that politically these figures will be greeted with alarm and dismay but they won’t constitute a clarion call to action,” said William Galston, a domestic policy aide for President Bill Clinton. “I hope the parties don’t blame each other for the desperate circumstances of desperate people. That would be wrong in my opinion. But that’s not to say it won’t happen.”

Lawrence M. Mead, a New York University political science professor who is a conservative and wrote “The New Politics of Poverty: The Nonworking Poor in America,” argued that the figures will have a minimal impact in November.

“Poverty is not as big an issue right now as middle-class unemployment. That’s a lot more salient politically right now,” he said.

But if Thursday’s report is as troubling as expected, Republicans in the midst of an increasingly strong drive to win control of the House, if not the Senate, would get one more argument to make against Democrats in the campaign homestretch.

The GOP says voters should fire Democrats because Obama’s economic fixes are hindering the sluggish economic recovery. Rightly or wrongly, Republicans could cite a higher poverty rate as evidence.

[snip]

The projections partly rely on a methodology by Rebecca Blank, a former poverty expert who now oversees the census. She estimated last year that poverty would hit about 14.8 percent if unemployment reached 10 percent. “As long as unemployment is higher, poverty will be higher,” she said in an interview then.

A formula by Richard Bavier, a former analyst with the White House Office of Management and Budget who has had high rates of accuracy over the last decade, predicts poverty will reach 15 percent.

That would put the rate at the highest level since 1993. The all-time high was 22.4 percent in 1959, the first year the government began tracking poverty. It dropped to a low of 11.1 percent in 1973 after Johnson’s war on poverty but has since fluctuated in the 12-14 percent range.

In 2008, the poverty level stood at $22,025 for a family of four, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth. It does not factor in noncash government aid such as tax credits or food stamps, which have surged to record levels in recent years under the federal stimulus program.

Beginning next year, the government plans to publish new, supplemental poverty figures that are expected to show even higher numbers of people in poverty than previously known. The figures will take into account rising costs of medical care, transportation and child care, a change analysts believe will add to the ranks of both seniors and working-age people in poverty.

The mainstream liberal media are calling Afghanistan America’s longest war.  But it’s not even close to being our longest war: the Democrats’ “war on poverty” is far and away our longest war.  And it has been worse than Vietnam in terms of being a poorly-led and stupidly fought quagmire.

I see “metropolitan areas” and “blacks and Latinos” and I can’t help but laugh at the irony of it.  Many metropolitan areas – most definitely including the ones  that posted the “largest gains” in poverty – have voted Democrat for a hundred years.  And every new election cycle it has been like Charlie Brown and Lucy and the football – with Charlie Brown being the minorities and the poor, and Lucy being the Democrats, and the football being useless promises that will never be there when poor Charlie Brown tries to finally fulfill his dream of kicking that ball down the field to a successful life.

And blacks and Latinos have voted Democrat since that “war on poverty” began, when the very same Democrats who literally put blacks in the abject bonds of slavery began to realize that there was an even better way to keep these people “in their place.”

And they end up living out the definition of insanity, where they keep voting the exact same way for fifty years, and a hundred years, expecting a different result each and every time.

And they wonder why they’re still in poverty, after 50 election cycles of voting for it.

And, sadly, even if conservatives DO take over the House and the Senate, most of these metropolitan areas and the residents who are trapped in them will remain in poverty.  Why?  Because they will continue to vote the same insane way, and they will end up with representatives and city councils that will block meaningful reform for their districts and cities, and keep them stuck in the same godawful snake oil policies they were selling a century ago.

Do metropolitan cities and minority areas really want jobs?  They’re not going to get them in another fifty, hundred, thousand years; not when they keep voting for the likes of Rep. Maxine Waters:

Waters responded by saying in part, “And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …” Recognizing she just let the liberal agenda out of the bag she paused to collect her thoughts and continued, “Would be about…, basically…, taking over…, and the government running all of your companies.”

You’ve really got to laugh at that quote by that Clinton hack William Galston who says he hopes the parties don’t “blame each other.”  Whenever Democrats are one-hundred percent to blame for a problem, that’s when they start saying, “Let’s not blame each other.”  If this disastrous news had come out during the Bush presidency, you can bet Democrats would be screaming about it.  And calling Bush a “racist” for letting it happen.

Do you think businesses and companies are going to locate their businesses where they’ll be under the thrall of these anti-business socialists who despise them?  Keep dreaming.  And keep demanding that businesses and companies live up to conditions that are impossible for them to meet in the real world and be profitable.  And keep remaining in poverty for the next five generations.

A couple of great quotations from a couple of great minds better explains the situation today than most modern minds could ever hope to equal:

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances; what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?” — Alexis de Tocqueville

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.” — C.S. Lewis

Helen Thomas, Liberal Journalist, Useful Idiot And Typical Progressive Bigot

June 7, 2010

What liberal White House press correspondent Helen Thomas recent said is simply mind boggling:

On Friday May 27, at the White House Jewish Heritage Celebration, Helen Thomas, the “Dean” of the White House Press Corps, answered a journalist’s request for an opinion on Israel:

“Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land…not German and not Poland.”

“So, where should they go?”

“Go home. Poland, Germany.”

“So, you think the Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?”

“And America and everywhere else.”

How is saying, “Tell all the Mexicans (whether legal or illegal) to get the hell out of America and go back to Mexico,” or, “Tell all the blacks to get the hell out of America and go back to Africa”???

And go back to Germany?  Doesn’t Helen Thomas realize what she’s saying?  “Go back to the country that only recently tried to exterminate your entire race as though they were vermin”?  That event occurred within your lifetime, Helen.  I mean, how dare you???

Helen Thomas is a liberal.  That’s easy to prove:

Helen Thomas: I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, I’ll be one ’til I die, what else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?

I don’t know.  Maybe “objective” would have been nice.

Being a liberal journalist basically means being a propagandist and an ideologue for the left, unfortunately.  It also means thinking oneself an “intellectual” – the “privileged” intelligentsia class which alone has “access to the truth.”

Thomas Sowell described the destruction their kind has done:

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.

American liberals enthusiastically supported Hitler’s socialist fascism during his rise to power, just as they had supported totalitarian communism in the years before.

Nazism was always a creature and creation of the left.  They didn’t call themselves the “National Socialist German Workers Party” for nothing.  Nazism and Darwinian theory went hand in hand as the Nazis delved deep into American Progressive-born eugenics.  Margaret Sanger – founder of Planned Parenthood and Nazi-sympathizer – strategically used abortion and birth control to weed out “racially inferior” peoples such as blacks and Jews.

Of this effort, liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said:

“Frankly I had thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of” — 7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

It was Woodrow Wilson, “the father of the Progressive movement,” who RE-segregated the military, and who purged every single black from the federal government save a single “token negro.”

And now we’ve got Helen Thomas “on the record” being the useful idiot for the side of murder and totalitarian evil yet again – this time siding with the Islamic jihadist murderers who want to exterminate Israel and kill all the Jews just for being Jews.

Liberal progressives have done incredible damage throughout 20th century history; but they never seem to pay for it, because they’re the ones who get to “write the history.”

Demagogue Democrats Now Support Violence And Swastikas

April 27, 2010

Nancy Pelosi didn’t need actual incidents of violence to demonize the tea party movement; all she needed was pure distilled demagogic rhetoric when she said:

I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”

As I pointed out, that terrible violence in 1970s San Francisco was committed by DEMOCRATS.

Basically, the actual substance of Nancy Pelosi’s diatribe against the tea party movement is this: “I’m afraid that the right is becoming so angry against the totalitarian government-is-god rule we’re trying to impose on them that they could become as hateful, as vile, as loathsome, and as violent as the Democrat Party and its progressive allies have been for the past forty years.”

Nancy Pelosi also had her take on swastikas as symbol:

Interviewer: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?

Pelosi: “I think they’re Astroturf… You be the judge. “They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.”

She proceeded to demonize the tea party movement as “simply un-American.”

I dealt with those demagogic and frankly hateful charges, too.

Nancy Pelosi told a crowd of supporters, “I’m a fan of disruptors!”  What she really meant to say was that she’s the kind of hypocrite who doesn’t mind pouring gasoline on the fire one day, and demonizing those who oppose her party-line agenda the next.

The AP had this story:

PHOENIX (AP) – The furor over Arizona’s new law cracking down on illegal immigrants grew Monday as opponents used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol, civil rights leaders demanded a boycott of the state, and the Obama administration weighed a possible legal challenge.

Activists are planning a challenge of their own, hoping to block the law from taking effect by arguing that it encroaches on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration and violates people’s constitutional rights by giving police too much power.

The measure – set to take effect in late July or early August – would make it a crime under state law to be in the U.S. illegally. It directs state and local police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal.

“If you look or sound foreign, you are going to be subjected to never-ending requests for police to confirm your identity and to confirm your citizenship,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which is exploring legal action.

Employees at the Capitol came to work Monday to find that vandals had smeared swastikas on the windows. And protesters gathered for a second straight day to speak out against a law they say will lead to rampant racial profiling of anyone who looks Hispanic.

The White House would not rule out the possibility that the administration would take legal action against Arizona. President Barack Obama, who warned last week that the measure could lead to police abuses, asked the Justice Department to complete a review of the law’s implications before deciding how to proceed.

And how did the protesters “speak out”?  By throwing rocks and debris at police officers as they tried to escort a man who had himself been physically attacked by the mob.  Rocks and bottles full of water were hurled at the retreating police by what is clearly a mob of hundreds who are pursuing them:

The mainstream media depicted this as a “largely peaceful demonstration,” and then subsequently pointed out that it was just a “small” riot as video of the violence began to appear. Well, “small” riot my butt.

The problem from my perspective isn’t “police abuse,” but “liberal protester abuse.”

Swastikas.  Violence.

Where’s San Fran Nan?

She’s with the people who are smearing all the swastikas and assaulting the police officers, that’s where she is.  She and her fellow San Franciscans are trying to boycott the peaceful people of Arizona to show their solidarity with swastikas and violence.

The same Nancy Pelosi who demonized peaceful tea party protesters as “simply unAmerican” also said last March that anyone who basically tried to enforce our borders and our national sovereignty were likewise “unAmerican.”

HotAir put it this way:

Frankly, the rioting seems to do nothing except bolster the argument for why this bill was needed. The federal government has failed Arizona residents. Despite growing numbers of crime — drug smuggling, assault, rape, kidnapping, murder — nothing has been done to secure the borders or crack down on illegal immigration. While not all illegal immigrants are violent criminals or drug smugglers, they are all criminals. Even if our borders aren’t well-enforced, it is still a crime to cross them illegally. The federal government has just sat back and let it happen. The state of Arizona responded to the overwhelming crime… and the protestors of this bill responded to the state with violence.

Kind of just proves the whole point of why this bill was needed, doesn’t it?

And what are people so angry about? The bill requires law enforcement officials to basically do nothing more than aggressively enforce our immigration laws. Arizona voters overwhelmingly approve of the bill, and that includes a majority of Democrats and independents. Something has to be done in Arizona, and if the federal government won’t step up, then the state absolutely should.

Nancy Pelosi loves disruptors.  And Al Sharpton is prepared to take “civil disobedience” “on the streets” to fight the new law.  These were the people who demonized the peaceful tea party rallies.  You know, the ones where there was no violence, and where the protesters left the parks where they protested cleaner after they left than they were before they showed up.

And do you remember the constant demagoguery over the whole “party of no” thing?  Whose the damn “party of no” now?

Just another charge that only matters when it’s being employed by liberals to demonize conservatives.  Never the other way around.

The charge doesn’t even have to be true.  The evidence now clearly shows that tea party rallyers did not use the “n-word” or ominously threaten to assault congressional Democrats who did their own version of the “Nazis marching through Skokie march,” as Democrats maliciously claimed.

Speaking of Skokie, we have Obama’s National Security Adviser telling a joke depicting Jews as greedy swindlers even as Obama proves he’s the most blatantly anti-Israel president in U.S. history.  But that’s another story.

Now we’ve got Barack Obama directly race-baiting and calling upon blacks and Latinos “to stand together once again” and oppose the white honky bastards.  Can you imagine the massive stink bomb that the left would have detonated had George Bush tried to rally white men and evangelical Christians to his political cause???

Racism, swastikas, and violence are fine – as long as it’s coming from liberals.

Gay Rights Groups Using Vile Intimidation Tactics To Attack Prop 8 Backers

November 22, 2008

Here’s one example from before the election via the Daily Kos:

But when the church and its members invest millions of dollars in an attempt to write discrimination into my state’s constitution and divorce my friend Brian against his will, there will be hell to pay.

So what am I asking you to do?

Some distributed research.

There is a list of a bunch of Mormon donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign (in case that one goes down, here’s a mirror with slightly worse formatting.

Here’s what I’m asking for:

This list contains information about those who are big donors to the Yes on 8 campaign–donors to the tune of at least $1,000 dollars.  And, as you can see, there are a lot of them.  It also indicates if they’re Mormon or not.

If you’re interested in defeating the religious right and preserving marriage equality, here’s how you can help:

Find us some ammo.

Use any LEGAL tool at your disposal.  Use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to…shall we say…less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious.  If so, we have a legitimate case to make the Yes on 8 campaign return their contributions, or face a bunch of negative publicity.

There are a crapload of donors on this list–so please focus on the larger ones first.  $5,000 or more is a good threshold to start with.

Feel free to use Lexis-Nexis searches as well for anything useful, especially given that these people are using “morality” as their primary motivation to support Prop 8…if you find anything that belies that in any way…well, you know what to do.

If you find anything good, please email it to:

equalityresearch at gmail dot com.

Here’s the bottom line for me: if someone is willing to contribute thousands of dollars to a campaign to take away legal rights from some very dear friends of mine, they had damn well make sure their lives are beyond scrutiny–because I, for one, won’t take it lying down.

This one is for Brian and the millions like him all across the nation.

The list of donors whose names and towns have been published is THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of names long.  And we have a call to harass and investigate them (does the fishing expedition targeting “Joe the Plumber” ring any bells?) to hurt people and punish them for exercising their free speech rights.  How DARE Joe the Plumber ask a single honest question?  And how DARE you support something you believe in if homosexuals don’t like it?

CBS had this story about the subsequent attempt to attack, harass, and intimidate supporters of Prop 8 even after the people spoke:

(CBS) For supporters of same-sex marriage, the Election Day loss in California seems to be energizing their campaign rather than ending it.

Demonstrations against Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage, have been growing, CBS News correspondent John Blackstone reports.

Now the anger is moving to the Internet, where supporters of same-sex marriage are posting blacklists – the names and businesses of those who gave money to help Proposition 8 pass.

Chris Lee, an engineer who is an immigrant from China, was shocked to see his name on the Web site AntiGayBlacklist.com after he gave $1,000 to the campaign to end same-sex marriage.

“I was completely disgusted,” Li said. “This sort of blacklist should only appear in communist countries, should not be found in the United States.”

In Los Angeles, demonstrators called for a boycott of a restaurant whose manager made a personal donation of $100 to the “Yes on 8” campaign.

“She didn’t think it would be public record,” said Jeff Yarbrough.

Anger over the blacklists brought out demonstrators in Sacramento, where Scott Eckern resigned as musical director of a local theater when he was identified as a donor.

In other words, you’d better bow down to their “rights,” or they will destroy you.  Your rights don’t matter.  Your values don’t matter.  Your religious beliefs don’t matter.  Only they matter.  And they will come after you and destroy you if they can.  All they need is the power; they already have all the hate they need.

Another story serves to frame the ugliness and hypocrisy of the “tolerant” pro-gay community:

“Since Proposition 8’s victory, a series of protests against churches, small businesses and individual supporters of traditional marriage have taken place in cities across the state,” Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, wrote in a statement. “Tragically, some opponents of Prop. 8 who claim to cherish tolerance and civil rights are unabashedly trampling on the rights of others. Protests and boycotts have taken place against a Hispanic restaurant owner in Los Angeles, African American religious leaders in the Bay Area, and a musical theater director in Sacramento, among many others.”

Robert Hoehn, vice president of Hoehn Motors in San Diego County, gave $25,000 of his own money to the Yes-on-8 campaign in February. And he called what followed “a really really ugly experience.”

Before the vote, Hoehn said, he he received “dozens and dozens and dozens of really vitriolic messages” and his Honda dealership was picketed.  Since the proposition won, he said, he has received a few messages and phone calls denouncing his support for the measure.

Another story shows the blatant racial intolerance of the gay community.  70% of blacks voted for Prop 8, along with an overwhelming majority of Hispanics:

Geoffrey, a student at UCLA and regular Rod 2.0 reader, joined the massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood. Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice.

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple…me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

Los Angeles resident and Rod 2.0 reader A. Ronald says he and his boyfriend, who are both black, were carrying NO ON PROP 8 signs and still subjected to racial abuse.

Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, “Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!” A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were “very disappointed with black people” and “how could we” after the Obama victory. This was stupid for them to single us out because we were carrying those blue NO ON PROP 8 signs! I pointed that out and the one of the older men said it didn’t matter because “most black people hated gays” and he was “wrong” to think we had compassion. That was the most insulting thing I had ever heard. I guess he never thought we were gay.

Blacks who have allowed homosexuals to depict their “struggle for civil rights” in the same terms as blacks should wake up and realize something: if being gay is like being black, then it truly IS immoral to be black.  If you don’t believe me, just look at what homosexuals are saying about you.

What if we did this stuff to them?  What if we published the names and information of opponents of Prop 8, and began individually targeting them for harassment, intimidation, and worse?  What would they say about it?

Bottom line: they are counting on the complete moral superiority of the supporters of Prop 8 not to retaliate.  They single us out and target us, even as they count on us to be better than they are and not retaliate by targeting them.  But what if we did?  What if we went to these peoples’ homes and business with the same vindictive spirit of hate these people are bringing to their cause, and to our doorsteps?

These people are hateful, vile, despicable, loathsome, vindictive, wicked, depraved hypocrites who will use any means necessary to get their way.  They are already hard at work trying to get the will of the people set aside, so that a four judges can impose their agenda on 30 million people.

In other words, the Bible is completely right about them and about their “lifestyle.”  Moses was right in calling their conduct “an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).  Paul was right in describing homosexuality as the ultimate level of depravity (Romans 1:26-32).  If nothing else, they prove it to anyone willing to look by their very own conduct.

Obama’s Biggest Problem May Be His Skin, Not His Faults

September 21, 2008

As a Republican, I very much want Barack Obama to lose in November.  But I want him to lose for his policies, his distorted worldview, and his inexperience – and NOT the color of his skin.

According to one article, “More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can’t win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don’t have such views.”

I have a personal experience of the so-called “racial misgivings” of white Democrats.  While most of my extended family are Republicans, a few are Democrats.  One has stated in the family’s hearing, “I’m not going to vote for a G-D ‘N-word.'”  I hasten to add that he is related only by marriage, and that he is one of only two kindred whom I have always personally disliked.  Hearing his attitude about black people only served to confirm an already established attitude on my part.

One selected passage from the AP article titled, “Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama,” says the following:

The findings suggest that Obama’s problem is close to home — among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.

The survey also focused on the racial attitudes of independent voters because they are likely to decide the election.

Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren’t voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn’t vote for any Democrat for president — white, black or brown.

The survey results do not include statistics regarding Republicans and race, so the phrase “lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too” seems to be more smear than polling.  Given the documented fact that journalists are likely to be liberals, I immediately suspect that fewer Republicans than Democrats demonstrated “racial misgivings,” or else the writer would have rubbed it in Republicans’ faces.  But it stands to reason that if a third of Democratic whites have “racial misgivings,” then some significant percentage of Republican whites do, as well.

That said, I’m not quite sure about all the questions, or about how the poll asked the questions.  For example, one finding was that “Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they ‘try harder.'”  Well, I happen to agree with that.  But then, I would also agree with the statement that “whites would be better off if they ‘try harder’,” too.

And when they used “negative adjectives” to impugn racial/racist attitudes, I am also somewhat skeptical.  For instance, it was observed in this poll that some 20% of whites applied the word “violent” more to blacks than whites.  That sounds bad, until you consider that, statistically, blacks do have a far more serious tendency to violence than whites – for example, black men ages 18-24 are more than 9 times more likely to have murder records than white men in the same age category, according to government statistics from 2005.  Other “negative adjectives” are likewise based in empirical realities.  The black community is dealing with dysfunction on a shocking scale – and many black community leaders are struggling to deal with these crises.

If something is true, than it is not “biased” or “prejudiced.”  Truth is seeing things without bias or prejudice, and I would argue that people who demand we do not consider the truth are the ones who have the problem.  But simply recognizing statistical realities is one thing.  The problem occurs when we wrongly label an individual for what is (statistically) going on in their society as a whole.  For example, it is a documented fact that young black men have a much higher murder rate than young white men, but that is no reason not to vote for Barack Obama.  Nor would it right to believe that Barack Obama is any more “violent” than anyone else just because of his melanin level.  As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. put it, we need to assess each individual as an individual, and make our decisions about each person based upon the content of his or her character rather than the color of their skins.

This is important to me not only as a Republican, or a member of a larger society, but as a human being.  Years ago while in college, I was leaving a nightclub when I heard a woman yelling for help in the parking lot.  I ran over – and was attacked by four young black men.  Obviously, I took a beating (where’s Chuck Norris when you really need him?).  From that experience, I have every right to understand that the statistics have a certain reality to them.   But if I decided that every young black man was guilty by association merely because they happened to be of the same race as the men who attacked me, then I would have lost out on a lot of great friendships over the years.  I might mention here that the men that came over to help me were also young black men, and I thank God for their assistance.

As a Republican, I yearn for the day when a black conservative puts a hand on a Bible and takes the oath of office as President of the United States of America.  I am rather ashamed to even think that significant numbers of Republicans would undermine themselves, their party, and their country by refusing to vote for the best candidate simply because of the color of his or her skin.

Unfortunately, given the response to the first (two) black Secretaries of State and the first black Supreme Court Justice, many black Americans would not view such a day as advancing any racial balances.

I wrote an open letter calling upon John McCain to nominate a woman.  When I heard that John McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his Vice President, I surprised myself; I was so overwhelmed I found myself weeping over the historical significance.  In the case of seeing the first black President to be elected from the Party of Lincoln, my lifelong love of history guarantees that I will cry like a baby.

Two other selected passages underscore Obama’s problems that don’t show up in the polling numbers:

Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.

Three in 10 of those Democrats who don’t trust Obama’s change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.

Just 59 percent of her white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton’s white backers plan to vote for McCain.

I believe that there are all kinds of valid reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with race for having doubts about Barack Obama.  And it is unfair – and even dangerous in an already polarized society – to insinuate that voters’ decision to vote for the more experienced and better known quantity of John McCain are therefore harboring “racial misgivings.”

Part of me wants to avoid the unpleasant reality and claim that an Obama defeat – and I do believe he will go down on defeat – will be due entirely to a public that finally sees his flaws as a candidate for President.  I personally believe that a significant percentage of the so-called “Bradley Effect” as it pertains to Barack Obama is nothing more than voters publicly claiming to support the candidate who has so continually been presented as the “cool” choice in the media, and then privately voting for the candidate they believe would be the better President.

This survey, or at least this survey as it appears in the Associated Press article, does not fully convince me that “racial misgivings” is as large of a factor as some pollsters and sociologists believe.  But to the extent that it is going to be a factor in this election, it would be clearly be the prejudices of Democrats, and not Republicans, that cause Obama to lose this race.