NYT Editorial On The Cornball Oreo Token House Negro Tim Scott

Is it time for some good old fashioned violence yet? Is it time to start getting attention by meeting false charges of racism with fists and feet? That is my conundrum. I doubt many conservatives will agree with me, but I think that it is.

I am livid at this point of being falsely accused of racism as a conservative, and in equal measure, I am infuriated at the left's treatment of any minority who dare not tow the progressive line. And there is no more scurrilous example of that than a recent NYT editorial by Univ. of Penn. political science Prof. (tenured, no doubt) Adolph L. Reed Jr.

Reed uses his poison pen to comment on the decision of South Carolina's first female governor - and the nation's first Indian American governor - Nikki Haley's decision to appoint black Republican Rep. Tim Scott to take over the Senate seat of tea party hero Jim DeMint. Sen. DeMint lobbied for the appointment of Scott because both share the same conservative ideology. Scott, a self made man and a darling of the tea party, was elected to Congress in a majority white district in SC over two white opponents, one of whom was the son of former SC Senator, Strom Thurmond.

According to Reed, while the appointment of Scott "seemed like another milestone for African-Americans," the reality is that "modern black Republicans" are "more tokens than signs of progress." As Reed later makes explicit, all minority conservatives, like Gov. Nikki Haley herself, were elected simply because "Republicans don’t want to have to think of themselves, or be thought of by others, as racist." Thus, when a Republican pulls the lever for a minority it is merely a psychological defense mechanism to hide their own rampant racism from themselves. And indeed, Prof Reed later asserts that the Tea Party itself is a cauldron of "thinly veiled racism."

All of which leads to the question, just how in the world does Prof. Reed define "racism?" He has an incredibly simple litmus test, one that has nothing to do with intolerance based in whole or part on the melanin content of one's skin - you know, actual racism. Instead, Prof. Reed defines racism as failing to support progressive policies nominally labeled as helping blacks. This is unconscionable.

The real travesty, of course, is that the left has been able to so mislead blacks with their false claims of racism. In any rational world, every single black American would have pulled the lever against Obama, a President who has overseen the single greatest economic decimation of blacks since WWII. They would not vote for a party that puts teachers union interests far ahead of the education of their children. They would not vote for a party whose commitment to the welfare state has done nothing positive for blacks, and indeed, has been one of the prime drivers in tearing apart the black family unit. They would not vote for a party that promises them a few handouts, but does not promise them jobs and advancement. The plight of far too many blacks in America today is an inexcusable and unnecessary tragedy.

A last special mention needs to be made of Prof. Reed's incredibly intellectually dishonest effort to suggest that South Carolina is itself a hotbed of racism. Reed notes that the state is (present tense) "home to white supremacists like John C. Calhoun, Preston S. Brooks, Ben Tillman and Strom Thurmond." That is beyond the pale. Calhoun, Brooks and Preston were Democrats who lived and died over a century ago. The late Strom Thurmond was a Senator who started his career as a segregationist Democrat before altering his view of race in Ameica post-1970. This would be akin to me noting that the left is the ideological home of Marx, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, in addition to noting that the last member of both the KKK and the U.S. Senate was Democrat WV Senator Robert Byrd. Arguably, none of those individuals define the left in the U.S. today, just as none of the individuals Reed sites mean that racism is rampant in SC today. Prof. Reed is simply despicable.

It really is time to stop accepting these false and scurrilous charges of racism. It is past time to meet such charges with a measured, rational response. It should be obvious that, after 50 years of the left using this tactic to effectively distort our politics, such responses are useless. It is time to treat such charges the same way I would expect blacks to react at being called "niggers." It should be met with seething anger and, where appropriate, violence. C'mon, who wouldn't want to see Prof. Reed on his knees cupping his recently kicked balls, or even better, Chris Matthews trying to clean his bloody nose and dust himself off as he got up off the floor.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Dining At The Trough - Obama & Palin Compared

Senator Jim DeMint, McCain's ideological next of kin, has written an article in today's WSJ drawing the stark contrasts between the records of Obama and Palin on the issue of earmarks. The bottom line, for Obama to criticize Palin's credentials on earmarks is the height of hypocrisy.

This from Sen. DeMint in the WSJ:

. . . My Senate colleague Barack Obama is now attacking Gov. Sarah Palin over earmarks. Having worked with both John McCain and Mr. Obama on earmarks, and as a recovering earmarker myself, I can tell you that Mrs. Palin's leadership and record of reform stands well above that of Mr. Obama.

Let's compare.

Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state's history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska's budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were "not a state responsibility."

Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year, including: $12 million for bicycle paths, $450,000 for the International Peace Museum, $500,000 for a baseball stadium and $392,000 for a visitor's center in Louisiana.

Mrs. Palin cut Alaska's federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska's decades-long earmark addiction.

Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.

Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.

When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.

Mrs. Palin has proven courageous by taking on big spenders in her own party. In March of this year, the Anchorage Daily News reported that, "Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is aggravated about what he sees as Gov. Sarah Palin's antagonism toward the earmarks he uses to steer federal money to the state."

Mr. Obama had a chance to take on his party when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered a sham ethics bill, which was widely criticized by watchdog groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste for shielding earmarks from pubic scrutiny. But instead of standing with taxpayers, Mr. Obama voted for the bill. Today, he claims he helped write the bill that failed to clean up Washington.

Mr. Obama has shown little restraint on earmarks until this year, when he decided to co-sponsor an earmark moratorium authored by Mr. McCain and myself. Mr. Obama is vulnerable on this issue, and he knows it. That is why he is lashing out at Mrs. Palin and trying to hide his own record.

Mrs. Palin is one of the strongest antiearmark governors in America. If more governors around the country would do what she has done, we would be much closer to fixing our nation's fiscal problems than we are. . . .

Read the entire article.

Read More...

Summary only...

Pork In The Night

It is not the title of the latest pornographic flick, merely the latest senatorial obscenity.


_____________________________________________________

Senators John McCain and Jim DeMint sponsored a bill that would have placed a moratorium on earmarks for a year. The odious Harry Reid, the man who recently attempted to defend the earmark process as part of constitutional system at its inception, scheduled a vote on the bill late in the eve when reporting on it would be at a minimum. This from the WSJ:

For Congressional Appropriators, Thursday night's vote cashiering the earmark moratorium was an embarrassment of riches, with some 71 Senators endorsing Capitol Hill's spending culture. For everyone else, it was merely embarrassing.

The amendment, sponsored by Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), would have imposed a one-year earmark freeze, and it seemed to be gaining momentum earlier in the week, even cheered on by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But the Appropriations empire struck back, twisting every arm to preserve its spending privileges. The measure was voted down after being ruled "non-germane" to the budget. That's as good a measure as any of the Congressional mentality: Apparently earmarks, which totaled $18.3 billion for 2008, aren't relevant to overall spending.

Just three Republican Appropriators voted for the amendment, including surprise support from longtime skeptic Mitch McConnell. No such shockers from the Democrats, with all Appropriators going against and only six Senators bucking the party line, especially Missouri's Claire McCaskill, one of the more courageous antipork champions.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton no doubt backed the moratorium to insulate themselves against one of John McCain's signature themes. But they're also bending to the broader political winds. In an election year, voters understand the waste and corruption that pork enables, leading even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to say, "I'm losing patience with earmarks."

That Mr. McCain's Republican colleagues fail, or refuse, to recognize the political potency is not a good sign. More GOP Senators voted against the moratorium than voted for it, proving that they are just as complacent about pork as most Democrats. And this vote comes on the heels of offenses like appointing ranking GOP Appropriator Thad Cochran ($837 million in pork last year) to the earmark-reform "working committee." The Republicans appear to be settling in comfortably with their minority status.

Read the entire article. And there is more on the vote at Hot Air, including a list of the Senators who voted against the bill. I suspect the votes of Clinton, Obama and McConnell were little more than an attempt to innoculate themselves from criticism. All three are committed porkers.

Q&O, in defining the problems with pork, had this to say:

1. Earmarks are not a significant fiscal problem - certainly not when compared to entitlements or other programs.

2. However, earmarks are the primary fulcrum for outside interests to corrupt the legislative process. Earmarks are the source of much of the undue power of individual Congressmen.

3. Earmarks aren't just corruption bait, though. They are also an Incumbent Slush Fund, allowing politicians to spread the pelf around their State/District to secure votes and favor. Perhaps we should start counting them as de facto campaign contributions. That's exactly how they are used.

I would add a fourth paragraph to that, and that is that the earmark process itself is corrupt. This from an article on earmarks in the Daily Standard.

President Bush seems to grasp the issue. A year ago he publicly complained that "over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate. They are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet, they're treated as if they have the force of law."

Earmarks are corrupting and, unfortunately, a wholly bipartisan addiction. In an era where our long term fiscal health is very much at issue and out of control spending threatens the long-term viability of our nation, earmarks are not simply a minor problem, but an obscene emblam of corruption and an existential jettisoning of fiscal discipline. For conservatives, watching our Republican legislators dine at the trough is the equivalent of watching Nero fiddle while Rome burns.

George Will, in a column a month ago, gave the sordid blow by blow description of how earmarks, if not outright corruption, certainly dance on the knife's edge of corruption. Certainly the worst excesses of this corrupt system are also often a complete waste of taxpayer funds.

Most recently, we learn from the Obama camp that he secured a million dollar earmark for the University of Chicago Hospitals, where his wife is employed as VP of Community Affairs. Once Obama was elected Senator, the University nearly tripled her salary to $316,962. Is this corruption? I am sure it is not in the criminal sense, but it certainly has the stench of corruption and quid pro quo about it.

The first step to getting a handle on out of control government spending will be an end to the modern practice of earmarks. And the only chance of that happening is if McCain is elected and crams it down the throats of our corrupt Republican Senators.

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting News & Posts - 26 February 2008

The interesting news and posts from across the blogoshpere, all below the fold.
















________________________________________________________

Art: Bouguereau, The Rapture of Psyche, 1895

A porkbuster’s update from Instapundit: Senator Jim DeMint is proposing a one year moratorium in the Senate on bills containing earmarks.

Democrats trying to tag McCain as a friend of lobbyists may make for a sound bite today, but it is very far from the reality of the Real McCain.

From Gateway Pundit, free speech under fire in New Mexico as a Christian photographer is hauled before the Human Rights Commission for refusing to accept a job that would have required her to photograph a same-sex wedding.

"Death to . . . the Islamic Regime of Iran." Not the usual crowd chant in Tehran, but it was the one being shouted during a riot after the modesty police attempted to arrest a young woman for not dressing modestly enough to suit Ahmedinejad and his cronies. PJM has the story.

The Irish Elk weighs in on the NYT hit piece on McCain, providing an interesting historical anecdote. And TNOY has the scoop on new bombshell facts the NYT intends to expose in their next McCain piece.

At BizzyBlog, reporting on state government financial woes ignores the woeful over-spending that led to the problems in the first place.

Jules Crittenden’s site is unique in combining biting sarcasm with thoughtful commentary. And he is at it today with Gunga Din.

That said, as Rick Moran rightly states, "Enough with all this "Obama is a Muslim" crap." I concur, though I strongly disagree with Rick’s suggestion that the use of the word "Crusades" by Bush was a major faux pas. I refuse to bow down or rewrite history to serve anyone’s sensibilities – be they Muslim, Catholic or whatever. And the Crusades were merely the first time Christianity fought back against a Muslim onslaught that had been on-going for centuries.

The UN has finally identified the source of Palestinian terrorism. If you thought it might be Salafi Islam or Arab nationalism, think again. Its Israel, of course.

The Conservative Beach Girl still thinks that Hillary is in the race. But, she notes, if you want real Socialism in a hurry and not incrementally, Obama's your man.

From the Intergalactic Source of Truth, is supporting Kosovo independence a wise idea? I have not thought so. IGST offers some thoughtful commentary.

Victor David Hanson ponders whether the ailing Europe wants a President Obama. As he so eloquently puts it: Europe is in a classic paradox. Emotionally and culturally, Europeans are invested in a leftist such as Obama who reflects their soft socialist values and fuzzy multilateralism. But given their inherent military weakness and rough neighborhood, they have grown to count on an antithetical America — religious, conservative, militarily strong — that is not afraid to use force to fulfill its obligations to preserve the shared Western globalized system from its constant multifarious challenges.

Siggy needs to start doing stand-up. See his proposal for the new government seal.

Soccer Dad does an exceptional job of taking a semantic scalpel to the MSM’s agenda journalism.

From JoshuaPundit – Obama gets caught in another whopper. He does seem clueless about the military. Having led an infantry platoon and commanded an infantry company, I can assure you that Obama’s pronouncement gets just about ever possible wrong – all of which JP does a good job of cataloging.

From the Jawa Report, arch-terrorist Imad Mughniyah’s widow is blaming Syria for his assassination.

The Fulham Reactionary discusses the characteristics deemed by Child Services to make a parent unfit in a world dominated by socialists and multiculturalists. MK tells us the same socialists are planning on sex education for five year olds. Meanwhile, at Shield of Achilles, Hamas shows us a different message for children – its Bugs, the psychopathic bunny.

Dinah Lord examines the problem of pedophilia in the Maldives.

Seraphic Secret notes the power of movies to motivate, and the power of movies to in the hands of people with an agenda to spread lies. It is a double edged sword – but the answer to lies is a determination to make the truth known.

Read More...

Summary only...