ACORN - the left-wing organization Obama represented as an attorney and where he taught Alinsky's "rules for radicals" - has officially collapsed due to a lack of funds. (Yahoo AP, March 22)
Was it conservative groups and Republican lawmakers that brought down this group? Nope. They had tried unsuccessfully for years to cut the group's federal funding (yes, our taxdollars were funding this anti-American and anti-white organization!). The organization was brought down by one man - the conservative activist James O'Keefe.
The right abhors the in-your-face activism that is the hallmark of the left. And this is understandable. Conservatives respect process and tradition, and tend to work through legitimate political channels for change. In normal times, that is fine. But the country is a run-away train that is heading off a cliff. We need to use what works. And if one thing can be said of leftist-style activism - it works!!!
Leftist organizations need to be infilitrated and exposed with videotapings made of their members' radical views. This is the age of Youtube.
A favorite trick of the left is to find some crazies in conservative organizations or gatherings - and then use them to tarnish the image of all conservatives. For example, to discredit the Tea Partiers, the mainstream media recently zeroed in on a few protesters during the recent anti-ObamaCare rally in Washington to paint all Tea Partiers as "racist" and "homophobic." Yahoo News reported March 22 that "some demonstrators hurled racial and homphobic epithets at Democratic lawmakers as they entered the Capitol." The Yahoo article linked to a New Republic article detailing homophobic epithets directed at Barney Frank - but there was not a single report of a racial epithet! I can guarantee you if there were racial epithets hurled, the leftist media would give us the juicy details. But nothing. Nada. Which leads me to believe that the media just assumed these protesters must be racists because they deigned to aim their criticism at both white AND black lawmakers. Criticism of black lawmakers by whites is by definition racist in the eyes of the media.
Anyway, the point is that conservatives can play the "guilt-by-association" game of the left, and in general we need to update our arsenal of tactics. Send in people to videotape leftist demonstrations such as Sunday's illegal alien amnesty march in Washington. Interview the protesters on video and expose their stupidity and radicalism on Youtube.
It's interesting that very few people in this country identify themselves as liberals or leftists - and yet the direction of the entire country is moving in this direction. Why? Because the in-your-face tactics of committed leftists - few in number but highly active and vocal - actually work.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Healthcare bill passes House - but the fight has just begun - calling on all middle-class Americans to "boycott" the tax system
Obama and the Dems think they've "won" by passing the healthcare bill in the House today, but only money can keep major entitlements like this alive. I say - let's starve this new entitlement beast. I'm "boycotting" the federal income tax and I call on all middle-class Americans to do the same. They can't come after all of us! This has to be a bottom-up effort because obviously the Republican leadership can't call for such a boycott. So Tea Partiers - things are just getting started! The real battle has just begun!
This healthcare overhaul is nothing but a big transfer of wealth from mostly white middle-class Americans to the hordes of impoverished Third World immigrants the leftist elitists continue to force upon us. This is ridiculous. If we were still a majority white country, I might have considered supporting a bill like this. But this is grand larceny on an inter-generational and inter-racial scale. (See my many posts below about how Third World immigration has swelled the ranks of the uninsured in this country.)
This healthcare overhaul is nothing but a big transfer of wealth from mostly white middle-class Americans to the hordes of impoverished Third World immigrants the leftist elitists continue to force upon us. This is ridiculous. If we were still a majority white country, I might have considered supporting a bill like this. But this is grand larceny on an inter-generational and inter-racial scale. (See my many posts below about how Third World immigration has swelled the ranks of the uninsured in this country.)
"To pay for the changes, the legislation includes more than $400 billion in higher taxes over a decade and cuts more than $500 billion from planned payments to hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and other providers that treat Medicare patients." (Yahoo AP, March 21)So the leftists are going to thank the Greatest Generation, which saved us from fascism and Nazism, by cutting their healthcare benefits! Why? Because Obama knows older white Americans vote overwhelmingly Republican and he'll never get their votes. And they're going to screw white middle-class Americans - the bulk of taxpayers in this country - by taking more of their money in taxes to transfer to dysfunctional minorities. Maybe we can't do anything about the Medicare cuts - but we can do something about taxes! And I ain't paying. Withholding taxes? Fine, whatever, but everything else is fair game. Screw them. I've had enough.
Friday, March 19, 2010
South Africa: 90% of white farmland transferred to blacks "failing"
First, snippets from the BBC article "South Africa black-owned farms 'failing'" (March 3):
Leftists, whether in South Africa or the US, take wealth as a "given" and therefore assume that you can simply replace wealth-creators - generally whites and asians - with blacks or hispanics and the process of wealth creation will go on.
However, South Africa's experiment utterly refutes this crazed notion. Even if 20% or 30% of the farms were "not productive" after switching to black hands, the experiment would have been a failure, but 90%!!!?? This is unbelievable.
White farmers produced food for the local population, they employed blacks to work the fields, and they paid tax revenues to the government. In short, they made a real contribution to society. Their only sin? Being white. The funny thing is that the black government was so naive as to believe the artificially constructed leftist worldview that you can simply replace "white" with "black" hands and the wealth-creation process will continue.
But wealth is not a "given." Wealth-creation requires intelligence, skill, and hard work. Replacing whites with blacks in the wealth-creation process is like throwing rocks into a car engine and expecting the vehicle to still move forward. This is reality. The black government was only forced to confront this reality when its tax revenues started to disappear.
When will reality "hit" in the US? Affirmative action is a drain on the US economy in so many ways because underqualified blacks and hispanics are either placed in important decision-making positions that they can't handle, or meaningless positions like "race expert" or "diversity officer" (a la Michelle Obama) have to be created to employ them.
I personally think our fate will be sealed when we become a majority-minority nation and there are fewer and fewer wealth-creators for dysfunctional minorities to feed off of. If I were black or hispanic, I wouldn't be relishing the day when whitey becomes a minority. Because there'll be no point forming a gravy train when there's no one left making the gravy. Just ask bankrupt California.
Some 90% of farms redistributed to South Africa's black population from white farmers are not productive, the government has said.
Almost 60,000 sq km (23,000 sq miles) have been redistributed under policies aimed at benefiting black people who were left impoverished by apartheid.
Repossessing the land would provide a whole new problem for the government, our correspondent says, as any move to return the land to its former white owners is bound to be controversial.
The government had set a target of 2014 to redistribute one-third of white-owned land back to the black majority. But Mr Nkwinti acknowledged that the deadline would not be kept. He said the focus would now shift to helping the black farmers make their land productive.
"The farms - which were active accruing revenue for the state - were handed over to people, and more than 90% of those are not functional," he said.
"They are not productive, and therefore the state loses the revenue. We cannot afford to go on like that... No country can afford that."
Land reform is a sensitive issue in South Africa and has been brought into sharp focus by the decline of agriculture in neighbouring Zimbabwe, where many white commercial farmers have been violently evicted.
Leftists, whether in South Africa or the US, take wealth as a "given" and therefore assume that you can simply replace wealth-creators - generally whites and asians - with blacks or hispanics and the process of wealth creation will go on.
However, South Africa's experiment utterly refutes this crazed notion. Even if 20% or 30% of the farms were "not productive" after switching to black hands, the experiment would have been a failure, but 90%!!!?? This is unbelievable.
White farmers produced food for the local population, they employed blacks to work the fields, and they paid tax revenues to the government. In short, they made a real contribution to society. Their only sin? Being white. The funny thing is that the black government was so naive as to believe the artificially constructed leftist worldview that you can simply replace "white" with "black" hands and the wealth-creation process will continue.
But wealth is not a "given." Wealth-creation requires intelligence, skill, and hard work. Replacing whites with blacks in the wealth-creation process is like throwing rocks into a car engine and expecting the vehicle to still move forward. This is reality. The black government was only forced to confront this reality when its tax revenues started to disappear.
When will reality "hit" in the US? Affirmative action is a drain on the US economy in so many ways because underqualified blacks and hispanics are either placed in important decision-making positions that they can't handle, or meaningless positions like "race expert" or "diversity officer" (a la Michelle Obama) have to be created to employ them.
I personally think our fate will be sealed when we become a majority-minority nation and there are fewer and fewer wealth-creators for dysfunctional minorities to feed off of. If I were black or hispanic, I wouldn't be relishing the day when whitey becomes a minority. Because there'll be no point forming a gravy train when there's no one left making the gravy. Just ask bankrupt California.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
It's gonna be a brave new world
I generally don't focus on crime in my blog. But the contrast in the scope of the media's reporting about two race-related events recently is rather revealing.
Contrast this:
With this:
A harmless prank at a Wal-Mart store receives not just national attention - but international attention! - I've just read this story translated into the language of my country of residence, while a little white girl is victimized in what appears to be a racially charged murder and this just gets a blip in a small newspaper. Hypersensitive blacks go into hysteria and whites fall into throes of hand-wringing and soul-searching about the deep-rooted nature of white racism when the most harmless of incidents occurs, but when a black brutally murders a little white girl, whites just 'suck it up' and draw no larger conclusions about black-on-white crime. Ho-hum. Move on. Nothing new here.
And yet South Africa has seen a surge in racially charged attacks since the country's return to majority rule in 1994. Approximately 3,000 white farmers have been brutally murdered and many of them tortured (boiled to death, etc.).
It's gonna be a brave new world - an Orwellian one where the heavy hand of government falls hard on politically incorrect pranks while brutal black-on-white crimes go ignored.
How will whites fare in America's majority-minority future? Well, I would ask why are we waiting to find out?? Are the benefits of diversity so enormous that it's worth betting our children and grandchildren's future on the sliver of hope that America will be the sole exception to the one and only constant in human history - ethnic strife?
Thankfully we (currently) have a right to bear arms in the US. But this does us little good if we're locked up when we do choose to defend ourselves. Last year a couple of black teenagers shot at a white pharmacist in Oklahoma City as they tried to rob his store (video footage here). He shot back in self-defense and killed one of the robbers, but then was promptly arrested for murdering a 'child' - to borrow the words of the district attorney who made the decision to charge him. If the jury is white he may get some sympathy from whites tired of being victimized by blacks. But what will happen when the country turns majority-minority and most of the jurors are minorities? Like in the O.J case, whitey can expect little sympathy - blacks and hispanics will use the legal system to right 'historical wrongs' irrespective of the specifics of the individual case at hand.
So we can choose not to defend ourselves and become a victim, or we can choose to fight back and be charged as the aggressor. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
God save us all.
Contrast this:
"A male voice came over the public-address system Sunday evening at a store in Washington Township, in southern New Jersey, and calmly announced: "Attention, Walmart customers: All black people, leave the store now." (Yahoo News, Mar 18).
"Shoppers in the store at the time said a manager quickly got on the public-address system and apologized for the remark. And while it was unclear whether a rogue patron or an employee was responsible for the comment, many customers expressed their anger to store management."(UPDATE - they have arrested a 16-year old boy for the prank. And they refuse to release his race. Hmm.. My gut feeling is that he is hispanic. If he were white, then anti-white officialdom would have been more than happy to confirm this fact and feed into the anti-white anger of minorities. But if he's another minority - well, this doesn't fit the MSM's narrative of a happy rainbow coalition among minorities, so the information must be suppressed for the 'best of intentions.' The thinking being 'Let's just let everyone assume he's white.')
With this:
"Blonde teenager Anika Smit, (17) was found murdered at her Pretoria home on March 11, 2010—with her hands and forearms chopped off."
"The girl’s limbs are missing—cut off just below the elbows—said South African police constable William Mahlaole. Nothing else was robbed." (South African paper Beeld, Mar 12)(UPDATE - nothing to update. This isn't a priority for the police in South Africa or the MSM.)
A harmless prank at a Wal-Mart store receives not just national attention - but international attention! - I've just read this story translated into the language of my country of residence, while a little white girl is victimized in what appears to be a racially charged murder and this just gets a blip in a small newspaper. Hypersensitive blacks go into hysteria and whites fall into throes of hand-wringing and soul-searching about the deep-rooted nature of white racism when the most harmless of incidents occurs, but when a black brutally murders a little white girl, whites just 'suck it up' and draw no larger conclusions about black-on-white crime. Ho-hum. Move on. Nothing new here.
And yet South Africa has seen a surge in racially charged attacks since the country's return to majority rule in 1994. Approximately 3,000 white farmers have been brutally murdered and many of them tortured (boiled to death, etc.).
It's gonna be a brave new world - an Orwellian one where the heavy hand of government falls hard on politically incorrect pranks while brutal black-on-white crimes go ignored.
How will whites fare in America's majority-minority future? Well, I would ask why are we waiting to find out?? Are the benefits of diversity so enormous that it's worth betting our children and grandchildren's future on the sliver of hope that America will be the sole exception to the one and only constant in human history - ethnic strife?
Thankfully we (currently) have a right to bear arms in the US. But this does us little good if we're locked up when we do choose to defend ourselves. Last year a couple of black teenagers shot at a white pharmacist in Oklahoma City as they tried to rob his store (video footage here). He shot back in self-defense and killed one of the robbers, but then was promptly arrested for murdering a 'child' - to borrow the words of the district attorney who made the decision to charge him. If the jury is white he may get some sympathy from whites tired of being victimized by blacks. But what will happen when the country turns majority-minority and most of the jurors are minorities? Like in the O.J case, whitey can expect little sympathy - blacks and hispanics will use the legal system to right 'historical wrongs' irrespective of the specifics of the individual case at hand.
So we can choose not to defend ourselves and become a victim, or we can choose to fight back and be charged as the aggressor. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
God save us all.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Senator Byrd (D) - the author of reconciliation rules - was fundamentally opposed to using reconciliation for healthcare in 1993 and 2009
Let's suppose the Republicans were trying to ramrod major nation-changing legislation through the reconciliation process, a process traditionally reserved for budget matters, and a senior Republican Senator who CREATED the rules governing reconciliation, adamantly opposed this. We all know the media would have a field day with headlines like "Senior Republican Senator and author of rules governing reconciliation process opposes their use to advance the Republicans' right-wing agenda."
But the situation is the exact opposite - and yet not a peep from the media.
Senator Byrd, the most senior member of the Senate and a Democrat, actually AUTHORED the rules governing the reconciliation process - indeed, they're called the Byrd Rules! - and he is adamantly opposed to using the process for passing healthcare bills.
In fact, he singlehandedly stopped Clinton from passing healthcare in 1993 because he insisted that the rules which he authored were not designed for passing major legislative overhauls unrelated to budget matters (and he should know!).
Again last year, he stated "I will not vote to authorize the use of the reconciliation process to expedite passage of health care reform legislation or any other legislative proposal that ought to be debated at length by this body."
"Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process. The writers of the Budget Act, and I am one, never intended for its reconciliation’s expedited procedures to be used this way. These procedures were narrowly tailored for deficit reduction." (See his full statement here.)
Hear much about this in the media? I sure haven't. You'd think this would be a big story? "DEMOCRAT senator who AUTHORED the rules governing reconciliation refuses their use for Obamacare (and refused their use for Clintoncare in 1993!)."
There has been a complete blackout in the mainstream media about this. But then...
Senator Byrd recently wrote a letter to a small West Virginia newspaper - the Charleston Daily - stating that the reconciliation process could be used in a limited way if it helped reduce deficits.
The mainstream meda jumped on the story: The Washington Post headlined its article "Byrd defends use of reconciliation"! and ABC News ran with "Byrd Endorses 'Reconciliation' to Fix Health Reform Bill"!
But Byrd's letter was more nuanced. He reaffirmed his view that "The entire Senate- or House-passed health care bill could not and would not pass muster under the current reconciliation rules, which were established under my watch."
Admittedly, however, he stated in the letter that "A bill structured to reduce deficits by, for example, finding savings in Medicare or lowering health care costs, may be consistent with the Budget Act, and appropriately considered under reconciliation."
But where was the liberal mainstream media's coverage of Byrd's adamant opposition to the use of reconciliation up to this point? They had just decided to ignore him until recently because his views didn't suit their agenda of advancing the Dems' interests?
But in the end, if Byrd were really gung-ho behind the Dem leaders' efforts to use reconciliation, he would have found a better way to advertise his views than a letter to the editor of the Charleston Daily! His nuanced position in the face of intense political pressure from the Dem leadership and White House, and the outlet he chose to air his views, suggests to me he's fundamentally opposed to using reconciliation for major nation-changing legislation. Now that's the story the biased media should be running with.
But the situation is the exact opposite - and yet not a peep from the media.
Senator Byrd, the most senior member of the Senate and a Democrat, actually AUTHORED the rules governing the reconciliation process - indeed, they're called the Byrd Rules! - and he is adamantly opposed to using the process for passing healthcare bills.
In fact, he singlehandedly stopped Clinton from passing healthcare in 1993 because he insisted that the rules which he authored were not designed for passing major legislative overhauls unrelated to budget matters (and he should know!).
Again last year, he stated "I will not vote to authorize the use of the reconciliation process to expedite passage of health care reform legislation or any other legislative proposal that ought to be debated at length by this body."
"Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process. The writers of the Budget Act, and I am one, never intended for its reconciliation’s expedited procedures to be used this way. These procedures were narrowly tailored for deficit reduction." (See his full statement here.)
Hear much about this in the media? I sure haven't. You'd think this would be a big story? "DEMOCRAT senator who AUTHORED the rules governing reconciliation refuses their use for Obamacare (and refused their use for Clintoncare in 1993!)."
There has been a complete blackout in the mainstream media about this. But then...
Senator Byrd recently wrote a letter to a small West Virginia newspaper - the Charleston Daily - stating that the reconciliation process could be used in a limited way if it helped reduce deficits.
The mainstream meda jumped on the story: The Washington Post headlined its article "Byrd defends use of reconciliation"! and ABC News ran with "Byrd Endorses 'Reconciliation' to Fix Health Reform Bill"!
But Byrd's letter was more nuanced. He reaffirmed his view that "The entire Senate- or House-passed health care bill could not and would not pass muster under the current reconciliation rules, which were established under my watch."
Admittedly, however, he stated in the letter that "A bill structured to reduce deficits by, for example, finding savings in Medicare or lowering health care costs, may be consistent with the Budget Act, and appropriately considered under reconciliation."
But where was the liberal mainstream media's coverage of Byrd's adamant opposition to the use of reconciliation up to this point? They had just decided to ignore him until recently because his views didn't suit their agenda of advancing the Dems' interests?
But in the end, if Byrd were really gung-ho behind the Dem leaders' efforts to use reconciliation, he would have found a better way to advertise his views than a letter to the editor of the Charleston Daily! His nuanced position in the face of intense political pressure from the Dem leadership and White House, and the outlet he chose to air his views, suggests to me he's fundamentally opposed to using reconciliation for major nation-changing legislation. Now that's the story the biased media should be running with.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
State govts prefer to unleash violent criminals back into society to save money rather than cut back on Medicaid for immigrants
"In the rush to save money in grim budgetary times, states nationwide have trimmed their prison populations by expanding parole programs and early releases." (NYT, Mar 4)No - don't touch Medicaid expenses which are skyrocketing due to the waves of impoverished (mostly Hispanic) immigrants the govt continues to invite into our country.
Release prisoners!
"State officials now find themselves trying to maneuver between saving money and maintaining the public’s sense of safety."Note that state officials don't care about maintaining safety - only the public's SENSE of safety.
And in the ever-corrupt state of Illinois:
"In Illinois, Gov. Patrick J. Quinn, a Democrat, described as “a big mistake” an early release program that sent some convicts who had committed violent crimes home from prison in a matter of weeks. Of more than 1,700 prisoners released over three months, more than 50 were soon accused of new violations."Oops! Who would've thunk it? Release violent criminals back onto the streets early and - surprise surprise - they go back to committing more crimes.
Criminals have gone through our justice system and are in jail for a reason! Because they are deemed a threat to society. Why on earth would you release them back early?!
White America - this ideology called liberalism serving your interests all right? Feel safe?
How about this incomprehensible statement by Patricia Caruso, the director of the Michigan Department of Corrections:
"We can live in fear and make bad policy based on fear or we can have some backbone and make policy based on what really helps our communities."The criminials are behind bars because we have a legitimate fear that they will commit violent crimes again. This is how society deals with violent offenders. We wouldn't have to "live in fear" if you didn't release violent criminals back into our society.
She notes that the threat that someone may reoffend always looms, but adds "I worry about it. I say a rosary every day."
Well isn't that swell. She releases violent criminals back into our midst, and then prays a rosary that they won't kill or maim us!
Ms. Caruso! Wouldn't it be more effective if you didn't release them back into society in the first place?
But Republicans are equally to blame. Remember the four police officers shot in the head execution style in Seattle last November?
The killer was released early by the holier-than-thou former Governor of Arkanses Mike Huckabee who wanted to show his spirit of forgiveness and compassion.
So four lives had to be snuffed out so the self-absorbed Governor could demonstrate his "charity of spirit."
The French philosopher Detoqueville is said to have admired Americans most for their common sense. What has happened to us.
God save us all from the idiocy that is modern liberalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)