Archive for September, 2010
|Please discuss Shore Bank and Obama. Lots of dynamite here.”This is an interesting story put together from various articles and TV shows by the British Times paper. It shows what Obama and his friends are really all about. It’s not hope and change, it is money. I… Continue Reading Please discuss Shore Bank and Obama. Lots of dynamite here.”This is an interesting story put together from various articles and TV shows by the British Times paper. It shows what Obama and his friends are really all about. It’s not hope and change, it is money. I warn you, the first part is a little boring, but stick with it. The second part connects all the dots for you (it will open your eyes).
The end explains how Obama and all his cronies will end up as multi-billionaires. (It’s definitely worth the read. You will not be disappointed).
A small bank in Chicago called SHOREBANK almost went bankrupt during the recession. The bank made a profit on its foreign micro-loans (see below) but had lost money in sub-prime mortgages in the U.S. It was facing likely closure by federal regulators. However, because the bank’s executives were well connected with members of the Obama administration, a private rescue bailout was arranged. The bank’s employees had donated money to Obama’s Senate campaign. In other words, ShoreBank was too politically connected to be allowed to go under.
ShoreBank survived and invested in many “green” businesses such as solar panel manufacturing. In fact, the bank was mentioned in one of Obama’s speeches during his election campaign because it subjected new business borrowers to eco-litmus tests.
Prior to becoming President, Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, a liberal charity. This foundation was originally established by Joyce Kean’s family which had accumulated millions of dollars in the lumber industry. It mostly gave funds to hospitals but after her death in 1972, the foundation was taken over by radical environmentalists and social justice extremists.
This JOYCE FOUNDATION, which is rumored to have assets of 8 billion dollars, has now set up and funded, with a few partners, something called the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE, known as CXX. It will be the Exchange (like the Chicago Grain Futures Market for agriculture) where environmental Carbon Credits are traded.
Under Obama’s new bill, businesses in the future will be assessed a tax on how much CO2 they produce (their Carbon Footprint) or in other words how much they add to global warming. If a company produces less CO2 than their allotted measured limit, they earn a Carbon Credit. This Carbon Credit can be traded on the CXX exchange. Another company, which has gone over their CO2 limit, can buy the Credit and “reduce” their footprint and tax liability. It will be like trading shares on Wall Street.
Well, it was the same JOYCE FOUNDATION, along with some other private partners and Wall Street firms that funded the bailout of ShoreBank. The foundation is now one of the major shareholders. The bank has now been designated to be the “banking arm” of the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE (CXX). In addition, Goldman Sachs has been contracted to run the investment trading floor of the exchange.
So far so good; now the INTERESTING parts.
One ShoreBank co-founder, named Jan Piercy, was a Wellesley College roommate of Hillary Clinton. Hillary and Bill Clinton have long supported the bank and are small investors.
Another co-founder of Shorebank, named Mary Houghton, was a friend of Obama’s late mother. Obama’s mother worked on foreign MICRO-LOANS for The Ford Foundation. She worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner. Yes, you guessed it. This man was the father of Tim Geithner, our present Treasury Secretary, who failed to pay all his taxes for two years.
Another founder of ShoreBank was Ronald Grzywinski, a cohort and close friend of Jimmy Carter.
The former ShoreBank Vice Chairman was a man called Bob Nash. He was the deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. He also sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Obama and Bill Ayers, the former terrorist. Nash was also a member of Obama’s White House Transition team.
(To jog your memories, Bill Ayers is a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He founded the Weather Underground, a radical Revolutionary group that bombed buildings in the 60s and 70s. He had no remorse for those who were killed, escaped jail on a technicality, and is still an admitted Marxist).
When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he “funneled” thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious education fund. Yes, you guessed it. The brother of Bill Ayers, The terrorist.
Howard Stanback is a board member of Shorebank. He is a former board chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist, also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed by New Kenwood Inc. a real estate development company co-owned by Tony Rezko.
(You will remember that Tony Rezko was the guy who gave Obama an amazing sweet deal on his new house. Years prior to this, the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland had represented Rezko’s company and helped him get more than 43 million dollars in government funding. Guess who worked as a lawyer at the firm at the time. Yes, Barack Obama).
Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization.
Van Jones sits on the board of ShoreBank and is one the marketing directors for “green” projects. He also holds a senior advisor position for black studies at Princeton University You will remember that Mr. Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist.
Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM) and registered it in London, England. GIM has close links to the UK-based Climate Exchange PLC, a holding company listed on the London Stock Exchange. This company trades Carbon Credits in Europe (just like CXX will do here) and its floor is run by Goldman Sachs.
Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former U.S. Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. His wife, Wendy, graduated from and is presently a Trustee of Wellesley College. Yes, the same college that Hillary Clinton and Jan Piercy, a co-founder of Shorebank attended. (They are all friends).
Interesting? And now the closing…
Because many studies have been exposed as scientific nonsense, people are slowly realizing that man-made global warming is nothing more than a money-generating hoax. As a result, Obama is working feverishly to win the race. He aims to push a Cap-and-Trade Carbon Tax Bill through Congress and into law.
Obama knows he must get this passed before he loses his majority in Congress in the November elections. Apart from Climate Change he will “sell” this bill to the public as generating tax revenue to reduce our debt. But, it will also make it impossible for U.S. companies to compete in world markets and drastically increase unemployment. In addition, energy prices (home utility rates) will sky rocket.
But, here’s the KICKER (THE MONEY TRAIL).
If the bill passes, it is estimated that over 10 TRILLION dollars each year will be traded on the CXX exchange. At a commission rate of only 4 percent, the exchange would earn close to 400 billion dollars to split between its owners, all Obama cronies. At a 2 percent rate, Goldman Sachs would also rake in 200 billion dollars each year.
But don’t forget SHOREBANK. With 10 trillion dollars flowing though its accounts, the bank will earn close to 40 billion dollars in interest each year for its owners (more Obama cronies), without even breaking a sweat.
It is estimated Al Gore alone will probably rake in 15 billion dollars just in the first year. Of course, Obama’s “commissions” will be held in trust for him at the Joyce Foundation. They are estimated to be over 8 billion dollars by the time he leaves office in 2013, if the bill passes this year. Of course, these commissions will continue to be paid for the rest of his life.
Some financial experts think this will be the largest “scam” or “legal heist” in world history.. Obama’s cronies make the Mafia look like rank amateurs. They will make Bernie Madoff’s fraud look like penny ante stuff.”
Am I also a bigot? Pols clueless on Ground Zero mosque
By Nat Hentoff
The angry national debate over Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’ intention to build a mosque two blocks north of the horror of 9/11 at Ground Zero has been further fueled by supporter Nancy Pelosi declaring, “I join those who have called for looking into how … this opposition to the mosque is being funded.”
If one of her sleuths knocks on my door, this opponent will readily state that I need no outside funding as a reporter who is deeply investigating the motivation of Imam Rauf’s choice of this site of mass murder for the mosque. I will add that, of course, all American Muslims have their First Amendment right to exercise their freedom of religion in their place of worship. There have been other mosques in New York City built without opposition. That freedom is not at stake here.
As for Rauf’s inflammable site choice, however, one of a growing number of construction workers pledging they will not work on this mosque (New York Daily News, Aug. 20), Dave Kaiser, a blaster, explains:
“I wouldn’t work there, especially after I found out about what the imam said about U.S. policy being responsible for 9/11.”
Imam Rauf said was interviewed on CBS’ “60 Minutes” (Sept. 30, 2001) by Ed Bradley. (I have the transcript.) Asked how he felt as a Muslim “knowing that people of your faith committed this act,” Imam Rauf spoke about Muslim reaction throughout the world “against the policies of the U.S. government, politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights and where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.”
“Are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?” Bradley asked.
“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened,” Rauf answered, “but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. … Because (the United States has) been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A.”
Were the heads of government in Iran, Hamas and Sudan is also “made in the USA?”
Imam Rauf has refused to call Hamas a terrorist organization and had no comment when, on Aug. 15, Mahmoud al-Zahar, its co-founder, strongly supported the Imam’s mosque near Ground Zero, saying, Muslims “have to build everywhere” (Associated Press, Aug. 16). Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the support by Hamas of the Imam’s mosque carried no weight because “Hamas is a terrorist organization.”
Why, yes, it is, Imam Rauf, with its suicide bombers and endless rockets into Israel. How else can suicide bombers be characterized?
This imam — widely lauded in much of the press as “a moderate” Muslim — is not reticent, however, in his firm commitment to Sharia (Islamic law), which regards women as far less than fully human. In the Dec. 9, 2007 Arabic newspaper Hadi el-Islam, Rauf insisted:
“Throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians, it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more than just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Sharia that are required to govern.”
I would greatly appreciate it if Imam Rauf explained, maybe Pelosi will ask him, more fully what he meant in his 2004 book, “What’s Right With Islam is What’s Right With America.” In it he declares: “American Constitution and system of governance uphold the core principles of Islamic law.” Rauf says Sharia law is a core principle of Islamic law. Does that also include a core principle of our Constitution?
This 2004 book’s title in the English-language edition yields to a different title for non-English-speaking readers in Malaysia, reports Andrew McCarthy (“Rauf’s Dawa from the World Trade Center Rubble,” nationalreview.com).
This alternate title in Malaysia brings us right back into the civil war here about the imam’s mosque near Ground Zero: “A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11.”
What does “dawa” mean? McCarthy explains: “Dawa, whether done from the rubble of the World Trade Center or elsewhere, is the missionary work by which Islam is spread. … The purpose of dawa, like the purpose of jihad, is to implement, spread, and defend Sharia. … through means other than violence and agents other than terrorists.”
As of this writing, Imam Rauf is on the State Department tour (financed by us) of Arab nations in the Middle East. He has been on four such State Department tours — two under George W. Bush. Says State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley (New York Post, Aug. 20):
“I wouldn’t be surprised if he talks about the ongoing debate within the United States, as an example of our emphasis on religious tolerance and resolving questions that come up within the rule of law.”
Does our State Department include Sharia as being within our rule of law?
At the end of that news story, we are told that Rauf “is not allowed to fund-raise on the trip.” Yet, in the Aug. 18 New York Post, Geoff Earle and Tom Topousis report that “in an interview overseas, he (Rauf) said ‘he would also tap Muslim nations for help.'”
I would not be surprised if Saudi Arabia ultimately becomes a generous contributor, but not quite in the agreement with the State Department’s “emphasis on religious tolerance.”
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg charges that opponents of Imam Rauf’s mosque “should be ashamed of themselves” and are bigots.
Me, too, Mr. Mayor?
If you want to join Speaker Pelosi in investigating me, your honor, I’d be glad to oblige. I’m just doing my job as a reporter. I wish more reporters had gone beneath the shouting on both sides. There’s another part of the First Amendment in addition to the free exercise of religion: The press is free to investigate the reasons for Imam Rauf’s fixation on the 9/11 location of his mosque.
And why does this location make Hamas glow?
Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright
By Jonathan Strong – The Daily Caller | Published: 1:15 AM 07/20/2010 | Updated: 3:07 PM 07/20/2010
It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.
The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”
Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”
Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”
“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”
(In an interview Monday, Tomasky defended his position, calling the ABC debate an example of shoddy journalism.)
Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.
“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.
Tomasky approved. “YES. A thousand times yes,” he exclaimed.
The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson’s] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”
Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be “Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,” Bernstein wrote.
In the midst of this collaborative enterprise, Holly Yeager, now of the Columbia Journalism Review, dropped into the conversation to say “be sure to read” a column in that day’s Washington Post that attacked the debate.
Columnist Joe Conason weighed in with suggestions. So did Slate contributor David Greenberg, and David Roberts of the website Grist. Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, helped too.
Journolist members signed the statement and released it April 18, calling the debate “a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world.”
The letter caused a brief splash and won the attention of the New York Times. But only a week later, Obama – and the journalists who were helping him – were on the defensive once again.
Jeremiah Wright was back in the news after making a series of media appearances. At the National Press Club, Wright claimed Obama had only repudiated his beliefs for “political reasons.” Wright also reiterated his charge that the U.S. federal government had created AIDS as a means of committing genocide against African Americans.
It was another crisis, and members of Journolist again rose to help Obama.
Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list.
The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”
Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just
how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”
“Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” Hayes wrote.
Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.
(Reached by phone Monday, Hayes argued his words then fell on deaf ears. “I can say ‘hey I don’t think you guys should cover this,’ but no one listened to me.”)
Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said.
“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”
Ackerman went on:
I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.
Ackerman did allow there were some Republicans who weren’t racists. “We’ll know who doesn’t deserve this treatment — Ross Douthat, for instance — but the others need to get it.” He also said he had begun to implement his plan. “I previewed it a bit on my blog last week after Commentary wildly distorted a comment Joe Cirincione made to make him appear like (what else) an antisemite. So I said: why is it that so many on the right have such a problem with the first viable prospective African-American president?”
Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.
“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”
(In an interview Monday, Schmitt declined to say whether he thought Ackerman’s plan was wrong. “That is not a question I’m going to answer,” he said.)
Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”
But it was Ackerman who had the last word. “Kevin, I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”
Jewish World Review July 29, 2010 / 18 Menachem-Av, 5770
The United Cities of America
By Arnold Ahlert
Massachusetts has decided to become the sixth state–joining Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington–to bypass the United States Constitution and demonstrate its utter ignorance of what this country is all about. The legislature there has voted to bypass the Electoral College system for choosing the president and vice-president in favor of a national popular vote.
I’m beginning to wonder how many Americans still understand why this country is called the United States of America. I suspect a combination of dumbed-down public schools, the unconscionable expansion of federalism and an activist judiciary contribute to a certain level of ignorance regarding the true nature of our democratic republic, but it still amazes me how many Americans don’t get it.
The true genius of that democratic republic is that it consists of fifty separate constituencies loosely united under a federal umbrella. Why is that genius? Ask yourself a simple question: if you want a stop light installed at a dangerous intersection in your neighborhood, who would you rather have to deal with, your local town officials–or a federal bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.? Even more to the point, who would have a better understanding of the problem, a local official who might drive through that intersection himself, or someone in Washington, D.C. who’s never heard of it?
If one makes the assumption that democracy works best when it serves the interests of the greatest number of people possible, then it should be apparent that the highest level individual empowerment begins at the local level and emanates outward. Or to put it more bluntly, it’s a hellluva lot easier to get in the face of your town councilman and give him a piece of your mind, than it is to get a sit-down with one your state’s two Senators. And even if you have enough juice to get a sit-down with him, the odds of getting some face time with the president of the United States are probably higher than winning the Powerball lottery.
There are a lot of powerful people–mostly leftists–who would like to turn this equation on its head. The expansion of federalism at the expense of the states is little more than a grand attempt to centralize as much power as possible in Washington, D.C. It is the attempt to make individual Americans as impotent as possible by moving as many decisions as far possible away from the local, county and state level, where an individual’s power is greatest, towards the federal level–where the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t count for anything.
The great irony of those championing the demise of the Electoral College is that they are ostensibly ( I say ostensibly because I believe there is nothing pure about the motive here) doing so to promote more freedom, not less.
What a load of baloney. Right now a presidential candidate, most of whom come from America’s semi-permanent “political class” with all its elitist trappings, is still forced to “sully” himself and campaign in what is euphemistically referred to as “flyover country” because the Electoral College votes of those states still mean something. He has to eat the occasional corn dog instead of arugula salad in order to demonstrate his “solidarity” with people who “cling” to all those things he finds inherently beneath his dignity. He has to address “inane” local issues that would ordinarily be delegated to “lesser” human beings.
Now do away with the Electoral college. All the same elitist politician has to do now is set up shop at five star hotels in America’s five or ten largest cities by population. He can “root” for the Yankees while he’s in New York and the Dodgers while he’s in LA. He can blow virtually his entire campaign war chest making sure he nails down the popular vote in a handful of places and be done with it.
And federal power expands exponentially as a result.
Obviously this is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. They took great pains to ensure the separation of powers at the federal level and equally great pains to ensure that the individual states had a substantial say in how this country was governed. So much so they included the input of state legislatures in that “pesky” Constitutional Amendment process that the American left finds so “problematic.”
That’s the same process the left likes to ignore when they pass local gun control laws in violation of the Second Amendment, or speech codes on college campuses in violation of the First. Once again in this instance, the Constitutional provisions which clearly spell out the role of the Electoral College are apparently irrelevant to those whose “wisdom” supersedes the law of the land.
Let me be a bit indelicate here: any American who thinks investing more power in the federal government is a good idea is either a moron–or working for that government. The fact that state legislatures in six states have voted to make their states less influential in selecting the person who would occupy the highest office in the land is clear evidence that historical ignorance is a burgeoning phenomenon.
As for the people who think the elimination of the Electoral College means every vote “will count equally,” try selling that garbage in North Dakota or any other low-population state which would be routinely ignored in every presidential election thereafter. What these “do-gooders” are really advocating is the eventual dissolution of states’ rights altogether, and the permanent entrenchment of all meaningful power in Congress and the Oval Office–or more accurately, in the King and His Court.
The United States of America? The United Cities of America would be more like it. No doubt that works for those who believe centralized government is the be-all and end-all. For those who still believe in freedom and representative government, it’s a complete crock.
Who suffers most from the costs of racial discrimination?
The poor, of course. They’re the ones who can’t get hired, or find customers for their businesses. Actions based on discrimination become less common as income levels rise. Wealthier citizens are, by definition, more keenly attuned to the economic consequences of acting foolishly. Reverend Jeremiah Wright became extremely wealthy running his church of racial hatred, but poured a good deal of his fortune into a splendid mansion in a mostly white neighborhood. Like a successful drug dealer, he’s not stupid enough to overdose on the poison he sold his followers. He doesn’t seem worried that his rich white neighbors will scurry off to their garages to brew a fresh batch of AIDS to infect him with.
The power elite of our statist government are the most completely insulated from the costs of racism… and they have the greatest interest in propagating racist ideals to improve their positions. A vast and wealthy political apparatus, including organizations like the NAACP, depend on the assumption that white people are inherently inferior from a moral perspective. This is the logical conclusion to be drawn from the insistence that white racism is eternal.
If all opposition to unlimited taxation and regulation is racist, as the NAACP maintains, it follows that whites (whom the Left consistently, and falsely, maintain comprise the total population of the Tea Party movement) owe one hundred percent of their time and property to the government. Any portion the State sees fit to leave untouched is a generous gift. If all criticism of Barack Obama by whites is considered racism, it follows that whites have diminished rights to free speech and assembly. If the insistence on border security is due to blind racism, it follows that white Americans have reduced property rights, and cannot complain about the passage of illegal aliens across their land, or the provision of benefits to illegal’s with funding seized from taxpayers. How are these ideas any different from the way Shirley Sherrod describes the treatment of blacks by colonial slaveholders? (Non-white citizens who share these positions are stripped of their racial identity through the sorcery of Leftist ideology.)
Who gains from frivolous lawsuits, filed at taxpayer expense, which serve no purpose but to inflame the racial fears of a targeted minority population? Who profits from the creation of hopeless inner-city neighborhoods, transformed by animosity and paranoia into prisons with open gates, filled with young people who aren’t looking for the exits? Who harvests power from the dependents of the welfare state? Who views rising unemployment as an opportunity to spend more money? Who dismisses uncomfortable questions by insisting people of a certain color have no right to ask them?
Answer these questions, and you have solved the calculus of racism, which endures beyond the natural end of its miserable existence because the architects of the total State have need of it. As Shirley Sherrod put it, they want to stay in power and, whether it’s health care or whatever it is, they’ll do what they need to do to keep that power, you know.
Posted by thekeenobserver on Sunday, August 15, 2010 3:18:39 PM