Modern liberalism, and why I am a "race realist"

Classical liberalism emphasized man's ability to better society through reason, but somewhere along the way it became intertwined with strands of Marxist thought, morphing into an ideology with an irrational and excessive focus on equality of outcome. This is the modern liberalism we are all familiar with today. The problem with modern liberalism's obsessive focus on equality of outcome is that it has shifted liberalism away from its roots as a reason-based problem-solving school of thought into an emotionally-charged ideology that is willing to turn a blind eye to inconvenient truths in order to achieve its ends.

For example, it stubbornly asserts, and demands everyone accept on blind faith – against all common sense and evidence - that no meaningful differences in cultural or genetic traits exist between the races. Of course it would be nice if we could just write off modern liberalism as a cult of idealists with no real-world consequences flowing from this leap of faith, but modern liberalism is the secular religion of the Western world, and the consequences are real. Consider: By accepting the faith-based proposition that no meaningful differences in cultural or genetic traits exist between the races, modern society also accepts - by default - the logical conclusion that no differences between the races in academic, social, or economic performance should arise. But differences do arise, they always have, and they stubbornly refuse to go away. So how does modern liberalism explain this contradiction? Quite easily. It invents a bogeyman: racism. "If only we could eliminate racism," the narrative goes, "then all racial differences in outcome would go away."

In this way, modern liberalism provides its adherents with a simplistic and convenient explanation for inequality in the world and a clear objective for eliminating this inequality: rooting out racism. For modern liberals, the pervasiveness of inequality in the world is only taken as evidence of the deep-rooted nature of racism in society, not a reflection of underlying differences between the races. And not surprisingly, the bogeyman is found everywhere. Differences in IQ? Racism. Differences in academic performance? Racism. Differences in average incomes? Racism. Differences in homeownership rates? Racism. Differences in crime rates? Racism. The important point here is that this is the only logical conclusion for explaining different outcomes between races when you accept the proposition that no meaningful differences in cultural or genetic traits exist between the races.

I call myself a race realist. I do so because I believe meaningful differences in cultural or genetic traits exist between the races, and that these account for the bulk of racial differences in outcome. The evidence is just overwhelming. And if the issue were not so politically charged, the answer would be obvious to everyone. But people – Americans in particular - like to take Thomas Jefferson's words "All men are created equal" as a literal statement of fact as opposed to a philosophical statement about man's equal standing under the law. But reality can't be wished away. As the famous saying goes "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." The reality of meaningful differences in cultural or genetic traits between the races doesn't go away just because we refuse to acknowledge it. And we will never eliminate inequitable outcomes as long as we insist that the bogeyman of racism is the cause of this inequality, as opposed to the underlying cause: meaningful differences in cultural or genetic traits between the races. So I call on all truth-seeking, fair-minded Americans, particularly young Americans, to confront the lie of modern liberalism, and become race realists. Not racists. Because race realists do not hate other races; they're just exasperated with the ridiculous, worn-out, blind-of-faith assumptions that form the foundation of modern liberalism.

I look forward to discussing how this relates to Disparate Impact and other issues in future blogs.

The Tea Party movement

Tea Partiers are no longer fooled by phony Republicans - and that's what I like best about the movement. Conservatives used to believe that the Republican Party - being the only alternative party to the liberal/leftist Democrats - would naturally pursue a conservative agenda. But the Republican Party has betrayed conservatives time and time again. Bush Junior had to be one of the worst presidents in modern times. He did nothing to stop illegal immigration, let alone legal immigration; he pressured banks to give mortgages to people with bad credit and/or low incomes to encourage homeownership among minorities, which causd the subprime mortgage crisis and brought upon us the Great Recession (he actually promoted the incredibly irresponsible "no-down-payment policy" which encouraged every Dick, Tom, and Juan to take out a loan because borrowers would lose nothing if the market turned sour because they had invested nothing); he invaded Iraq, egged on by the neocons (Read: "conservatives" who only care about national security issues but are liberals on immigration and other social issues), damaging our reputation abroad while bankrupting us at the same time; and the Dept of Justice under his watch sued the NYC Fire Dept, which lost hundreds of brave men and women in 9/11, for racial discrimination under "disparate impact" laws (essentially blacks and Hispanics scored lower on tests asking about water pressure and ladder heights, and this alone was taken as "proof" of discrimination). The list goes on an on...

I believe a key test for the Tea Party movement will be whether or not it helps Hayworth beat John McCain - the poster child of phony conservatives - in Arizona's Republican primary for Senator. Way back in 2000 when I was more naive, I rooted for McCain against Bush as the Republican nominee for president. I was inspired by his life story (Vietnam POW, etc.). But he's become a holier-than-thou Republican. He co-sponsored an amnesty bill in the Senate with Ted Kennedy (!) to legalize the 15 million or so illegals in the country, and bad-mouthed anyone who opposed his bill as racist and xenophobic. Sorry McCain. I respect your service to our country, but it's time you stepped outside. You're a millionaire dozens of times over, and you've been hobnobbing in Washington for too long. You're out of touch with middle-class Americans, and your greatest service to our country now would be to step aside.

We need to scream from the mountain tops "No more support for phony Republicans!" They're not looking after middle-class Americans. Out with the neocons, out with the big-business Republicans, out with holier-than-thou Republicans on issues like immigration, and out with rich Republicans who only care about lowering upper income tax brackets.

Tea Partiers need to use immigration as a litmus test for all future candidates. It's not enough to be against "big government" anymore. Real Americans have always been against big government, but immigration has swelled the ranks of "gimme freebies" voters - mostly Hispanics - who know nothing of America's limited government history. When these "gimme freebies" voters reach a critical mass as a proportion of the overall electorate - as they appear to have already -America's fate will be sealed as a big-government nanny state. The increasingly impoverished US electorate will demand that the government [and by extension tax-paying White Americans] take care of their every need.

Indeed, Obama and the Dems are pushing healthcare reform to cover the swelling ranks of the uninsured, but why are the ranks of the uninsured swelling in the first place? Because the government is flooding the country with impoverished immigrants - both legal and illegal.

Stop the tidal wave of impoverished immigrants, and the problem of "big government" goes away.

States see Medicaid costs soar - but no mention of immigration

"Facing relentless fiscal pressure and exploding demand for government health care, virtually every state is making or considering substantial cuts in Medicaid, even as Democrats push to add 15 million people to the rolls." (New York Times, Feb 18)

Great. States are suffering from soaring Medicaid costs, and Obama wants to add another 15 million to the roles. Really smart.

"Concerns about health care costs are likely to dominate the winter meeting of the National Governors Association, which begins Saturday in Washington."

"In advance of the gathering, administration officials have urged governors to endorse President Obama’s health care proposals, or at least to avoid criticizing them. The Democratic plan, which is stalled in Congress, would vastly expand eligibility for Medicaid as one means of reducing the number of uninsured."

Governors are worried about rising costs, but Obama officials recommend they support Obamacare which would vastly expand eligibility and boost costs! Yep, really brilliant.

"But many governors said they were more concerned about the growth of existing health programs. The recession and high unemployment have driven up enrollment in Medicaid while depleting state revenues that help pay for it."

"A survey released Thursday by the Kaiser Family Foundation found a record one-year increase in Medicaid enrollment of 3.3 million from June 2008 to June 2009, a period when the unemployment rate rose by 4 percentage points. Total enrollment jumped 7.5 percent, to 46.9 million, and 13 states had double-digit increases."

As Robert Samuelson noted in a Dec 21, 2009 Washington Post op-ed piece:  "From 1999 to 2008, about 60 percent of the increase in the uninsured occurred among Hispanics. That was related to immigrants and their children."

So most of the increase in the uninsured is occuring among immigrants who will be lining up to take advantage of expanded Medicaid eligibility under Obamacare, pushing states to the brink of bankruptcy. Yet any mention of immigration in the NYT article? Nope, not a word.

"The National Association of State Medicaid Directors estimates that state budget shortfalls in the coming fiscal year, which begins in July in most states, will total $140 billion. Because Medicaid is one of the largest expenditures in every state budget, and one of the fastest-growing, it makes an unavoidable target."

State budget shortfalls in Medicaid will total $140 billion in the coming fiscal year!! And Obama wants to expand eligibility? Is he out of his mind? Oh, I'm sure the Dems will bribe states to support their health care plan by plugging state budget shortfalls with federal tax money. But can they do this ad infinitum? Just keep plowing the tax dollars of hard-working middle-class Americans into Medicaid to support the growing ranks of uninsured immigrants that the Dems and GOP elites insist we must keep inviting into the country?

That appears to be the plan. Indeed, that's how Obama and the Dems strong-armed the states into accepting their stimulus package which, by the way, prevents states from tightening eligibility standards for Medicaid:

"Governors and legislators have managed to defer the deepest cuts because the federal stimulus package provided $87 billion to states in Medicaid relief. The cost of Medicaid is shared by the federal and state governments, with states setting eligibility, benefit and reimbursement levels within broad federal guidelines, and Washington covering the majority of the expense."

"But the stimulus assistance is due to expire at the end of December, in the middle of many states’ fiscal years, leaving budget officials to peer over a precipice. Congress and the White House are considering extending the enhanced payments for six more months, at a cost of about $25 billion."

"The extension would not come close to filling the Medicaid gap in many states. In Georgia, for instance, Gov. Sonny Perdue assumed in his budget proposal that the additional federal money would be provided, but that the state would still face a Medicaid imbalance of $608 million, said Dr. Rhonda M. Medows, the commissioner of community health. "

States want to tighten eligibility, but the federal government has tied their hands:

"The options are limited by several realities. To qualify for Medicaid dollars provided in the stimulus package, states agreed not to tighten eligibility for low-income people. And any time a state cuts spending on Medicaid, it loses at least that much in federal matching money."

So states are damned if they do cut spending on Medicaid (because they lose federal assistance), and damned if they don't (because Medicaid costs are spiraling out of control and threatening to break their budgets).

When will white Americans and middle-class minorities wake up? Medicaid is already threatening to bankrupt the states, Obamacare promises to expand eligibility and make things worse, and yet no one in the mainstream media will even mention the word "immigration" when this is the primary factor behind rising costs. We're clearly incapable of dealing with serious problems because of taboos about immigration. I'm afraid things will have to get very worse before people wake up. 

How sad.

Dems originally made gratuitous use of the filibuster

Apparently filibusters were rarely used in the Senate's history until fairly recently.

"The biggest change came during the 2005-06 session of Congress when Democrats ramped up use of the filibuster. The party controlled 45 seats and sensed the tactic could spur political gains in 2006. Democrats threatened or used filibusters on a wide variety of issues, including legislation affecting campaign finance, abortion, war spending, the Patriot Act, and the nominations of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and Dirk Kempthorne as Interior Secretary." (McClatchy Newspapers in today's Yahoo, Feb 16)

So the article establishes that Democrats were first to make egregious use of the filibuster. And yet, it quotes Norman Ornstein, who is apparently oblivious to this history, as saying "Republicans have ratcheted use of the filibuster up to completely unheard of levels."

Unheard of levels?

"The Senate took a record 112 votes to cut off debate in the 2007-08 session [when the Dems were filibustering everything], about 18 percent of all Senate votes." The current Congress is on a somewhat slower pace; so far, the 42 votes are about 10 percent of the total."

And who is this Ornstein anyway? I always remembered him as a liberal op-ed writer in the Washington Post and other left-leaning newspapers. Indeed, Wikipedia describes him as a liberal. But the article says he is "an expert on Congress at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right policy organization."

Center-right? I wish the media would describe the AEI and others of the same ilk more accurately: as NEOCON institutions.

NEOCONs tend to be conservative in money matters and the military only, while as liberal as the liberals, if not more, on social issues. I don't think of NEOCONs as looking after the interests of regular middle-class white Americans.

So anyway, in order to sound impartial in criticizing Republicans, the article quotes a "center-right" think tank which would actually be better described as a NEOCON [Read: quasi-liberal] think tank, and if that weren't bad enough, it goes to one of the think tank's few self-avowed liberals - a Norman Ornstein - for comment. Swell.

It's amazing how even when the media manages to get the facts right [for example, that Dems were actually the ones who broke precedent in making unrestrained used of the filibuster], it still puts just the right spin on things to make sure conservatives/Republicans look bad.

If the govt screens out "public charges," then why are more than half of all immigrant households w/kids receiving welfare assistance?

The Center for Immigration Studies reports that "In 2008, 53 percent of all households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) with one or more children under age 18 used at least one welfare program, compared to 36 percent for native households with children. Immigrant use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid."

Now wait a second - wait a second. To get a green card (permanent residency), I thought you need to prove you will not become a public charge??

Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an individual seeking admission to the United States or seeking to adjust status to that of an individual lawfully admitted for permanent residence (green card) is inadmissible if the individual, "at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge."

This is a reasonable requirement. After all, there's no reason to let someone stay permanently in our country if they're just going to burden the American taxpayer. Keep the loafers out! Makes sense. Great.

But if the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is screening out potential public charges from among applicants for permanent residency, then why are over half of immigrants receiving at least one form of welfare?????

Surely the USCIS is not doing its job of weeding out the loafers!?

Well, no. The USCIS defines "public charge" in such a narrow sense as to be virtually meaningless.

This is the USCIS definition of "public charge": an individual who is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense. Non-cash benefits and special-purpose cash assistance are generally not taken into account for purposes of public charge determination.

In other words, the USCIS has set the bar really low for becoming a permanent resident. So long as you're not institutionalized in a mental asylum or nursing home, or receiving direct cash payments to supplement your income, you won't be considered a public charge.

This means that you can receive Medicaid benefits; Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) benefits; subscribe to nutrition programs including Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs; housing benefits; child care services; energy assistance such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP); emergency disaster relief; foster care and adoption assistance; educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary, or higher education; job training programs; community-based programs, services, or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter); and assistance from state and local programs that are similar to the federal programs listed above (in California, for example, Medicaid is called "Medi-Cal" and CHIP is called "Healthy Families") and still not be considered a public charge!!

In short, you can receive all the "non-cash" or "special-purpose cash benefits" the government has to offer, and this will not disqualify you from becoming a permanent resident. Welcome to America - and jump on the gravy train!

But considering Medicaid, the government's program for the poor, is heavily used by legal immigrants and is helping to bankrupt California, and Obama and the Democrats claim that Medicaid costs are spiraling out of control and threaten to bankrupt the entire nation, don't you think Medicaid recipients should be considered "public charges"??

Only makes sense to me. But then again, I, like millions of middle-class white Americans, are just paying for all of this, so who really cares what we think?

Wake up white America (and middle-class minorities too)! The liberals/leftists and ethnocentric lobby groups are pulling a big one over on all of us. They decry the swelling ranks of the uninsured on the one hand, but continue to invite masses of impoverished Third World people into our country on the other. The logical solution would be to halt the inflow of impoverished peoples. Then we could get Medicaid costs under control. But no, that makes too much sense. Their solution - in the form of Obamacare - is to provide free or subsidized medical care to all! This, combined with a never-ending flow of impoverished immigrants, ensures that the gravy train will only get longer and longer and longer...And of course the liberals, always generous with other people's money, are going to have you - and your children and grandchildren - pay for it. Oh they're so wise. So moral. So above the rest of us. And so laying the groundwork for turning America into Brazil. Splendid.

Bi-partisan healthcare summit a preordained failure?

An AP article on Feb 12 notes that "Democrats see a few scenarios that could emerge from the Feb. 25 event, planned as a half-day televised forum."

"One possibility is that Republicans make a poor showing at the summit, emboldening Democrats to strong-arm their sweeping health legislation through Congress with no GOP votes, which would require the use of controversial rules in the Senate. "

My view is that the very purpose of this bi-partisan summit is to give Democrats an excuse to ram-rod their despised healthcare legislation through Congress. They've preordained the outcome. They have no intention of compromising with Republicans. Their aim is to say, "Look, we tried to compromise with the Republicans. But their bill won't cover 30 million uninsured like ours. So we have no choice but to 'go nuclear' and use controversial rules to force the legislation through [the controversial rules are normally used for budget purposes only, not nation-altering legislation]."

 The article goes on to say "If White House officials have charted any one of these endgames, they're not saying." So the W.H. appears to have a preferred outcome to the summit! And you can bet the farm it ain't compromising with the Republicans.

Finally the article concludes

"Many Democrats believe the likeliest way forward is for the House to pass the Senate health care bill, and then for both chambers to pass a package of changes to fix elements House Democrats don't like."

This is of course the 'nuclear option.' Yet major nation-changing legislation should always win broad support through compromise to be legitimate in the eyes of all Americans. Even the flawed Civil Rights laws of the '60s went through this process. The democratic process deserves nothing less. But my sense is that the Democrats don't give a damn about process. They're idealogues. They talk about reforming healthcare to control costs, but "lowering the deficit" doesn't exactly get their hearts racing. Reducing the deficit to ease the burden of mostly white tax-paying Americans? Ho-hum. Bo-ring. Their real aim is to cover the 30 million uninsured in this country, many of whom are legal or illegal immigrants [the Democrats' bills do not include enforcement provisions to bar illegals]. And they'll do that even if it requires throwing Granny under the train: their bills call for cutting Medicare benefits for seniors to give free or subsidized care to señoritas.

Hundreds forced into labor, sex in Ohio - what have we done to Middle America?

According to an AP article today (Feb 11), human trafficking is becoming a big problem in, of all places, Ohio! Yes, Ohio, a "plane-Jane" state best known for tires and other industrial products is now becoming a far more interesting place thanks to diversity!

"About 800 immigrants are sexually exploited and pushed into sweatshop-type jobs [every year], a new report on human trafficking in the state said Wednesday."

"'Ohio is not only a destination place for foreign-born trafficking victims, but it's also a recruitment place,' said Celia Williamson, an associate professor at the University of Toledo who led the research."

Why couldn't Ohio remain the bastion of bourgeois America with good schools and safe streets that it always was? I mean, how Middle America is Ohio you ask? It is so Middle America you can't win the presidency without it (from 1904 through 2008, the Ohio victor won the presidency 25 of 27 times). What on earth has happened to Ohio, this most quinetessential of apple-pie American states?

Here's your answer:

"From 1990 to 2000, Ohio's foreign-born population increased 30 percent, and the state has a growing pool of legal and illegal immigrants who draw victims or hide victims, Williamson said. These networks are highly organized, with brothels fronting as legitimate businesses."

Why are we importing this Third World insanity into Middle America? In what way does this make our country better?

The only people to benefit from this are those who work in what I call the "sociopathological industrial complex" of do-gooder non-profits, police, welfare agencies, the criminal justice system, etc.

Indeed, the article ends by saying

"The report recommends handling child trafficking cases through the child welfare system rather than the juvenile courts."

So if it's not the criminal justice system benefiting, its some other governement agency. Geesh.

Uncompensated hospital costs are skyrocketing - wonder why?

NYT Feb 9 article:

"Nationwide, the cost of unpaid care for hospitals, which includes charity care as well as money that could not be collected from patients, was around $36 billion in 2008. It is expected to spiral higher. The number of people without insurance in this country could increase to as high as 58 million by 2014, from about 49 million now, according to an estimate by the Urban Institute."

Hmm..where is this surge in the uninsured coming from??

Cue Dr. Samuelson's recent op-ed article on Obamacare in the Washington Post: "A wild card is immigration. From 1999 to 2008, about 60 percent of the increase in the uninsured occurred among Hispanics. That was related to immigrants and their children."

Hmm. So the leftists import masses of impoverished Third World people into our country. They then scream there is a growing number of 'Americans' without health insurance and that it is a moral imperative we [white Americans] do something about it [pay for it]. Is it unreasonable to ask why we need to continue importing poor people when they are merely swelling the ranks of the uninsured, turning a manageable problem into an unmanageable one?? Oh yes, questions like this are heresy in the religion of Liberalism. When it comes to issues that intersect with race/immigration/culture, we must turn off our thinking caps and become automotons. Don't ask impertinent questions. Shut up and fork up.