Posts Tagged ‘Latinos’

A Los Angeles Times Article Displays How Cravenly Cynical And, Yes Racist, Democrats Truly Are About Racism

December 2, 2013

Before reading this article, just to provide you with some context for what you’re learning, realize the following information about Los Angeles County as reported by the Los Angeles Times:

When Democratic attorney general nominee Kamala Harris opened a South Los Angeles campaign headquarters earlier this month, she picked a spot on Crenshaw Boulevard right next door to the site of one of Barack Obama’s satellite offices during the historic 2008 presidential campaign.

Harris, the San Francisco district attorney, can only hope that Obama’s political magic in Los Angeles County — where he won a whopping 69% of the vote — will drift down the sidewalk.

Voter-rich Los Angeles County represents a sure-fire victory for most Democrats on Tuesday’s ballot, but it’s anything but assured for Harris. Her GOP rival, Steve Cooley, has won three consecutive elections as the county’s district attorney despite Democrats outnumbering Republicans 2 to 1 in the county — and, a recent poll shows, he has the edge this time too.

“If Kamala Harris loses L.A. County, she won’t win,” said Allan Hoffenblum, whose California Target Book handicaps California political races. “L.A. County is to the Democratic candidates what the Central Valley and Inland Empire are to Republican candidates. You have to be strong where your party is strong.”

History records that Kamala Harris is the attorney general of California.  Which apparently means Los Angeles County’s “sure fire victory for most Democrats” won out for her, too.

The FACT that Los Angles County is HEAVILY Democrat is important as you read the following:

Latinos want US to sue over LA supervisors’ board
By MARK SHERMAN / Associated Press / November 29, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is aggressively pursuing lawsuits over minority voting rights in Texas and North Carolina, but the Justice Department has not moved on evidence that the latest round of redistricting in Los Angeles County unfairly reduces the influence of Latino voters.

Nearly half the 10 million people in the nation’s largest county are Latino. But political boundaries redrawn in 2011 make it possible for Latino voters to elect just one of the five supervisors.

The administration has resisted calls to sue the county, despite the county’s history of discrimination against Latino voters in earlier redistricting efforts.

The inaction rankles some Latino activists who count themselves as strong backers of President Barack Obama.

‘‘I support the Obama administration and the president, but frankly, Obama and the top people around him seem to be unaware on this issue. Obama is somewhat blind to the issues of Latinos,’’ said Cruz Reynoso, a former California Supreme Court justice and member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Reynoso said the administration seems more attuned to voting rights complaints of African-Americans.

He said the administration also appears reluctant to pursue a complaint against a jurisdiction that is dominated by Democrats. ‘‘Most of the folk in Los Angeles have been supporters of the president, so why make them unhappy despite the fact that, from my point of view, there is great injustice going on,’’ he said.

In the wake of a stinging U.S. Supreme Court defeat in June that rendered useless an important enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act, the administration has focused its voting rights resources on Southern states that are controlled by Republicans.

The Justice Department has initiated or joined suits targeting voter identification laws and redistricting plans in North Carolina and in Texas, where Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott began moving to put the state’s tough voter ID law into effect just hours after the high court’s decision.

The suits were filed under other provisions of the voting rights law that were not part of the Supreme Court case.

The situation in Los Angeles County predates the high court decision and the passage of the laws now being challenged in North Carolina and Texas.

The Justice Department acknowledges it is looking at the situation in Los Angeles, but otherwise declined comment.

‘‘We have received significant amounts of information from the county and others about the issue and the matter is still under review,’’ said Justice Department spokeswoman Dena Iverson.

Matt Barreto, a political science professor and voting rights expert at the University of Washington, said the evidence against the county is overwhelming and includes a history of racially polarized voting that has hurt Latinos.

‘‘My perspective is that this is one of the easiest cases to be made nationally,’’ said Barreto, who has worked for the group of Latinos that includes Reynoso. Barreto also served as a consultant to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, a voter-approved independent board that draws the state’s congressional and legislative districts.

Counties, though, retain the authority to devise their own districts. Nowhere is there more power and money at stake than in Los Angeles, where each of five supervisors represents nearly 2 million people and the county’s annual budget tops $26 billion.

Following the 2010 census, the board adopted districts in 2011 that made relatively few changes even though two supervisors cautioned that their colleagues were exposing themselves to a voting rights lawsuit.

Gloria Molina, the only Latina ever elected to the board, and Mark Ridley-Thomas, the board’s lone African-American member, supported maps that would have created a second district with a majority of Latino residents. But the two members could not persuade their three white colleagues to join them.

‘‘Today this board had an opportunity to make history, not repeat it, but all signs indicated that they would repeat history, and unfortunately, they did,’’ Molina said in 2011.

Molina was elected after a federal court documented political discrimination against Latinos dating back to the 1950s and drew a map to ensure Latinos would be represented.

Yet since that vote, Molina has not aligned herself with the loose association of activists and voting rights experts who are pushing for greater Latino representation. Her spokeswoman, Roxane Marquez, said Molina continues to back two majority Latino districts, but otherwise had no comment on possible Justice Department intervention.

Ridley-Thomas told Bill Boyarsky, a columnist for LA Observed, that he wants the Justice Department to get involved.

The map Ridley-Thomas proposed in 2011 would have increased the chances of making the Los Angeles board more diverse, said redistricting consultant Alan Clayton. Ridley-Thomas’ map would have preserved his district, created a second district likely to elect a Latino and increased the odds that an Asian-American candidate could be elected, Clayton said.

The first thing you learn from reading this article and understanding the facts is that Barack Obama and his vicious lawless law dog Eric Holder don’t give a flying DAMN about “racism”; they only care about the Democrat Party having total power.  If Obama and Holder were considering race or racial equality, they would look at the racial suppression of Los Angeles County and see “one of the easiest cases to be made nationally” and they would do something about it.  But it’s DEMOCRATS who are doing it, so no harm, no foul.

And why are these whitey Democrats screwing Latinos?  So they can keep their elitist and racist white paws on that $26 billion rather than “redistributing their wealth” to the dirty little brown people.

The second thing you see is that Mayor Bob Filner as the representative of the “war on women” party  is no fluke at all.  Not only is Bob Filner a Democrat, but he actually CO-FOUNDED the Progressive Caucus with Nancy Pelosi.   And the party who declared that the Republican Party was the party of “the war on women” protected this vile misogynist serial woman abuser and harasser for years.  Because to be a Democrat is to be the worst kind of hypocrite there ever has been or ever will be.  And you get another glimpse into the soul of a Democrat: what I demagogue at thee does not apply to me.

It’s not war on women when we do it; it’s not racist when we do it.  And in the quite recent case of Democrats who demonized the Republicans as Nazis for CONTEMPLATING to end the filibuster rules that had survived for 235 years when it was DEMOCRATS who actually DID the evil and vile and treasonous and anti-democratic deed, t’s not fascist when WE do it.

Democrats in the latter case decry Republicans as blocking judges.  IT WAS DEMOCRATS WHO STARTED THAT WAR WHEN THEY WERE THE FIRST PARTY TO BLOCK REPUBLICAN NOMINEES IN THE MODERN ERA.  HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THE DAMN TERM “BORKING????  Up until that day, it had never been done.  And then Democrats tried to do it again with one of the most vicious campaigns ever waged against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.

The same is even MORE true on race.  The Democrat Party was the Party that waged a brutal Civil War to continue black slavery with a United States led by Republican President named Lincoln.  The Democrat Party was the Party that spawned the Ku Klux Klan as its terrorist wing of the Democrat Party.  The Democrat Party under Woodrow Wilson actually RE-segregated the US Military and government service (after Republicans had de-segregated them and allowed blacks to serve).  The Democrat Party in 1924 was SO completely dominated by the Ku Klux Klan that the Democrat National Convention was called “Klanbake.”    The Democrat Party under FDR and their New Deal was rife with racism and unions and Democrats used it to prevent blacks from getting jobs.  The Democrat Party continued to be THE Party of hard-core racism for the entire history of the republic.  The racist horror story of “Mississippi Burning“ was OWNED by Democrats from the Governor right on down.  In fact, the state Democrat Party in Mississippi was limited to whites only.  And the fact is that a FAR higher percentage of Republican Congressmen and Senators voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats.  Democrats were the Party of keeping the black man down until they cynically – incredibly cynically – saw that there was another way to keep exploiting black people to keep them on their plantation and keep them down.

The cry of Democrat blacks today is “Give us welfare or give us death.”  But the two amount to the same thing as blacks have given in to bitterness, hopelessness and a spirit of entitlement rather than trying to actually fulfill the American Dream for themselves.  You can either wait for your damn check to come off the work of other people or you can go out and work your ass off to make your world and your kid’s world a better place.  And because of the Democrat Party, blacks have pursued the former and abandoned the latter.  These are people who have fallen prey to the belief that whitey is out to get them and there isn’t any hope of a fair deal – so why try?  And the only reason that is true is the same Democrat Party who told them that are the very same white people who have actually been the ones keeping them down with promises of welfare for nothing forever.

And now the same Democrat Party that spent its history betraying blacks is betraying Latinos.

The Democrat Party is the Party of genuine evil in America; just as it has ALWAYS been Democrats who have ALWAYS been the Party of genuine evil in America.

Advertisements

Barack Obama Loses Control At Rally, Falsely Demonizes ‘Side’ That Saved More Than A Million Lives

October 31, 2010

Barack Obama is a liar without shame.  He is also a pathologically petty man, a man who has singlehandedly reduced the once great office of the presidency of the United States of America to “dude.”

It’s bad enough to constantly lie, as Obama constantly does.  But he proceeds to falsely demonize Republicans who saved the lives of more than a million people suffering from AIDS.

It’s past time to call this shameless liar and disgrace to the office of the presidency out for what he is.

OBAMA LOSES IT!… Presidential MELTDOWN in Connecticut (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, October 30, 2010, 8:38 PM

Woah!
Unbelievable– President Obama loses it in Connecticut!
Watch him go off on the protesters… Then he switches side and starts going off some other people.
It went on for 3 minutes.

This Was Wild—

He was campaigning for Blumenthal.

More… Chisum added:

Obama said: “We’re funding global AIDS and the other side is not!”

What? I thought it was our tax dollars? He deserves to be booed and ridiculed just for that statement!

The Hill has more on the meltdown.

Still More… President Bush’s international AIDS-fighting campaign saved 1.1 million lives.

The last link above is to a Washington Times article which says in part:

Former President George W. Bush’s international AIDS-fighting campaign has reduced by 10 percent the mortality rates in 15 targeted countries, primarily in Africa, and has saved 1.1 million lives, according to a study that for the first time quantified the successes of his program.

The study by two Stanford University doctors showed the treatment part of PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which involves making drug treatment available to about 2 million people, has shown solid success while the prevention efforts under the program have not yet produced the same concrete results.

“It has averted deaths – a lot of deaths – with about a 10 percent reduction compared with neighboring African countries,” said Dr. Eran Bendavid, a fellow in infectious disease and in health policy and research at Stanford who led the study. “However, we could not see a change in prevalence rates that was associated with PEPFAR.” […]

Some Republicans fought during the 2008 debate to keep the focus on treatment, arguing it produced concrete results compared with what they saw as vaguely defined prevention efforts. Those advocates saw Monday’s report as vindication.

Barack Hussein Obama is not just a shameless liar who demonizes good people.  He is an evil man.  He is the very worst kind of fearmonger and racial demagogue who tells Latinos “to punish your enemies.”

The New York Times once ran a story about Obama that began:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

I pointed out Obama’s failure and lie a year ago.  And his disgrace is even more profoundly obvious now than ever before.

This liar without shame, character, or honor who billed himself as the leader who would transcend ideology and partisanship is now out there telling one group of people – one RACE of people, in fact – to “punish” another group, another race, as “enemies.”

There is no question that this evil man broke his “core promise” to the American people.

I pointed out after the election that made Obama president that he is the president of “God damn America.”

And that, too, is more obvious than it has ever been before.

You want to punish somebody?  Punish the Liar-in-Chief.  Punish the Democrats who have brought us to the point of ruin.

P.S. Richard Blumenthal, the candidate for whom Obama was campaigning, and Obama are like two peas in a pod.  So it’s fitting that Obama would tell such an egregious lie while campaigning for him.  Lest we forget, Blumenthal is the man who despicably lied about his having served in combat in Vietnam when in fact he hadn’t even been there.  And in addition to a complete lack of character, Obama shares with Blumenthal a complete and pathetic lack of understanding as to how to create jobs.

If you want losers and liars like Barack Obama and Richard Blumenthal, then vote for God damn America.

If, on the other hand, you are fed up with this crap, then show up on Tuesday and vote these Democrat bums out of office.

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

Obama Is Not Only Demagogic But Anti-Government On Immigration

May 8, 2010

Laura Ingraham’s site details the basic facts regarding what Obama said and why it isn’t true:

Obama attacks again: AZ law would ‘single out people because of who they look like’
Posted by Staff

At a Cinco de Mayo reception at the White House Wednesday evening, President Obama launched another attack on Arizona’s new immigration law. “We can’t start singling out people because of who they look like, or how they talk, or how they dress,” the president told the crowd. As he had in earlier criticisms of the law, Obama ignored the law’s specific stipulation that any check on a person’s immigration status can only come after a “lawful stop, detention or arrest” when a person is suspected of breaking some law — that is, as Arizona lawmakers explained in a footnote to the bill, it must come “during the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

And even after meeting that standard, the law directs that police meet a “reasonable suspicion” standard before “a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…” The phrase “reasonable suspicion” means that there must be a number of specific factors that an officer can cite before taking action, and the law specifically says that prosecutors “shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.”

And even with those safeguards, the law specifies that if the person involved produces a valid Arizona driver’s license, or other forms of identification specified in the law, then that person is immediately presumed to be in the country legally. In other words, the whole question of legal or not legal becomes moot once the person produces a driver’s license — a common experience for nearly every American, regardless of his or her race or ethnicity.

So there’s the fact that Obama is simply wrong on the facts.  And he’s not only wrong, he’s demagogic.  He uses his lies to slander and demonize his opponents.

But there’s another aspect to this story that comes out of something else that Obama recently said:

“What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad,” Obama said after receiving an honorary doctor of laws degree. “When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us.”

Government, he said, is the roads we drive on and the speed limits that keep us safe. It’s the men and women in the military, the inspectors in our mines, the pioneering researchers in public universities.

So, okay, we’ve got Obama saying that we shouldn’t distrust government, or view it as inherently bad (like conservatives are out there demanding that all government be abolished and we live in total anarchy – which is to say that Obama is yet again being the slandering demagogue here).  But let’s take Obama’s statement here at face value.

Isn’t what Obama says we shouldn’t do exactly what he’s in fact doing?

What is the cornerstone of our society if not our laws and our justice?  And what is the cornerstone of our system of justice if not our police who are out on the streets enforcing our laws?

But Obama and liberals – even as they decry the right as being “anti-government” – are patently anti-government when it comes to the Arizona law.

Because they demagogue the police who are the ones at the very forefront of our system of justice.  They claim that the fact that the law specifically says that police can’t just walk around saying “show me your papers,” that’s exactly what they’ll do.

Why?  Because these guarantors of our system of justice are inherently evil, inherently biased, and inherently racist.  You can’t trust the American police officer.  And you can’t trust the government to enforce its laws fairly or honestly because it’s those same dishonest, biased, bigoted, and deceitful police officers who would do it.

Now, as a laughably hypocritical matter, it doesn’t matter to liberals that most Americans are compelled to “show their papers” to their government as a matter of routine course.  It’s okay all the other times when government demands proof of our identities; it’s only evil this time, when Arizona tries to deal with a population that Democrats regard as “their” race who will vote for them.

A Politico article understands Obama’s racial polititicking quite straightforwardly:

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

Which makes another of Obama’s remarks beyond asinine:

On April 28, while speaking in Iowa, President Obama denounced Republicans who “exploited” the immigration issue “for political purposes.” President said Arizona’s new immigration law would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” He painted an alarming picture: “local officials are allowed to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers. But you can imagine, if you are an Hispanic-American in Arizona — your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”

Just who’s exploiting immigration for political purposes?  How on earth can Obama possibly claim that it isn’t anyone other than himself?!?!?!

And why are these legal immigrants going to be harassed?  Because, to put it in terms that Obama has made in the past, “police act stupidly.”

What a profoundly anti-government thing to say.  If Obama is right, and our police – who are all-too-prone to “acting stupidly” or in a racist and bigoted manner – are fundamentally incapable of being honest or fair, then on what possible basis do you want to grow the size of government, so that there are more laws for more police to enforce in a fundamentally unfair and bigoted manner?

Let me put it bluntly: if I can’t trust the police – the guys who go out to your house and arrest you for disobeying all the laws that increasingly big-government will pass – then why in the freaking world would I want MORE government that will pass MORE laws for the dishonest police to maliciously and falsely roust me over?

Just who are the ones out there referring to “when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity”?

By Obama’s own logic, YOU SHOULD BE ANTI-GOVERNMENT.

Obama and the Democrats – who falsely charge that conservatives are “anti-government” – are therefore the ones who are themselves profoundly anti-government.

They are also anti-truth, and pro-race baiting:

So, do all these politicians have a point or is it just scaremongering? Unlike the couple thousand plus page laws passed in Washington that are filled with very complicated legalese, the Arizona law, along with the minor clarifications passed last week, is only about four pages long and is written in pretty straightforward English. Anyone reading the law will clearly see that the claims made by some Democrats are false.

As a matter of fact, Arizona legislators themselves didn’t want the police to have the power to simply “ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers.” So they set up not just one but two requirements. First, police must have “lawful contact,” meaning officers must already have detained an individual they suspect violated some other law.

Even then, authorities must have “reasonable suspicion” that someone is an illegal alien. This “reasonable suspicion” standard has regulated police behavior since the 1960s and is a rule that police nationwide already deal with every day. “Reasonable suspicion” requires that the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to convince a person of “reasonable prudence” that a crime has been committed.

Opponents of the law claimed “lawful contact” was much boarder than the legislature intended and would allow police who were simply questioning an individual to ask for an ID. On Friday, April 30, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a bill clarifying the point, replacing “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.”

We can look at the actual language used. After Friday’s bill signing, the new Arizona law reads: “A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, or town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin.” Before Friday, the bill said that police could not just consider race, color or national origin. But this was also superfluous, as every police officer who arrests someone or stops them for a traffic offense requests identification.

Democrats are playing with fire by misleading the nation to stir up racial tensions. Secretaries Clinton and Napolitano, Rep. Rangel, and President Obama are all lawyers. They know what legal terms such as “reasonable suspicion” and “lawful stop, detention or arrest” mean. To quote Congressman Rangel, the distortions are “outrageous.” The new law is so short, just four pages, and written in such plain English that they must hope that no one else bothers reading it. And the worst part of all this? The racial animosity Democrats are creating will last for years.

Barack Hussein: the demagogic, anti-government race baiter-in-chief.

Poll: If You Oppose Arizona Immigration Law, You’re A Leftwing Loon

April 27, 2010

From Rasmussen:

Nationally, 60% Favor Letting Local Police Stop and Verify Immigration Status
Monday, April 26, 2010

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer last week signed a new law into effect that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 60% of voters nationwide favor such a law, while 31% are opposed.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans support the law along with 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Democratic voters are evenly divided on the measure.

I wonder how many likely voters favor the president of the United States playing racially-prejudiced identity politics as he demagogues the Arizona law and other issues:

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

As for you white and Asian males, just shut the hell up.  You SUCK!!!

Still, 60% of Americans.  Who would have guessed that 3/5ths of America was composed of white and Asian males?

Somewhere between thirty and forty percent of the country would cheer Obama even if he were to lead us down to the level of Kim Jong Il and North Korea.

But pretty much everybody else supports Arizona and its illegal immigration policy against Obama and the federal government.

Update, April 29:

Let’s see, a few days ago seven police officers were murdered in Juarez, Mexico.  Just yesterday, eight men were shot in the back and killed outside a nightclub in Juarez, MexicoFifteen people were murdered in 11 hours in Juarez.  And at least 300 people were murdered just this month in that hellhole.

In Pinal County, Arizona, a sheriff’s deputy was shot with an AK-47 by a group of illegal immigrants and left for dead.  And that just today.

This is the kind of crap that is going on every single day in Mexico.  But liberals demand that Arizona and other border states just grin and bear it.

Also, when Janet Napolitano was governor of Arizona, she “implored Congress to fix the nation’s broken immigration system.” Governor Napolitano also demanded that the federal government pay her state $350 million every year for the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrant Mexican nationals.  She said that the cost of doing the federal government’s job “could pay for all-day kindergarten for every 5-year-old in the state.”  But now she’s part of the Obama administration, part of the problem, and suddenly everything is just fine.

Let me say this again: If you think Arizona is “racist” for trying to deal with a nightmarish problem that the federal government is utterly failing to even begin to TRY to deal with, you are a leftwing loon.

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.