NAACP Hoping for the Worse

I did not dedicate a blog to the Nancy Pelosi/ Emanuel Cleaver incident where Cleaver claimed to have been spit upon and called the “N word” no less than 15 times. The reason was it didn't happen. Oh the Democarts wanted it to happen and tried their best to make it happen, but much to their dismay nothing did happened, just one Tea Party guy yelling, “Kill the bill”. Another reason I did not dedicate a blog was because the entire incident was caught on video, so every one should have been able to see that it didn't happen. Below is the video with a voice over explaining what can obviously be seen.



And still if this is not enough a journalist name Andrew Breitbat offered $100,000 to anyone that captured the incident on video and shows there was intentional spitting and the use of the N-word. This was done on April 2, 2010 and there are still no takers. Of the thousands of camcorders, Blackberry's, Iphones and other recording devices, including those held by assistants to the black caucus themselves and no one captured anything other than what was originally shown on You Tube. Glenn Beck captured the political posturing inherit in this incident, when he showed a photo of Nancy Pelosi walking arm and arm with Emanuel Cleaver and other members of the black caucus trying to capture a civil rights posture, compared to a photo of Martin Luther King Jr marching in Memphis Tenn. One picture shows an arrogant politician leading her entourage, the other a group of brave men, frightened, but ready to give their lives for what they believed.



What is highly disappointing is the NAACP recent vote to censor the Tea Party as a racist organisation. One would have hoped that the NAACP would raise above the Democrat race baiting and politicizing of racism, apparently for the sole purpose of discrediting an opponent of President Obama's. The criteria for the NAACP censor was this now discredited incident and another discredited incident of Tea Party demonstration where a sign said, "Lynch Our President". Like the spitting/N-word incident, in a world where everybody has a camera, no one has been able to produce any evidence that this occurred either. What is really bizarre is a lack of any evidence of racism in the Tea Party at all. One would think that of the millions of Tea Party members there would be a couple of nuts out there; this has got to be frustrating to the White House.

edited August 4, 2010. The New York Times printed a correction on their reporting of this incident,"The Political Times column last Sunday, about a generational divide over racial attitudes, erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members." Soooo, are they saying the incident didn't happen, or that it did happen, but was perpetrated by some person they could not link to the Tea Party. I'm guessing it's the later, as the NYT wouldn't dare insinuate that Rep Lewis was lying, creating a racist incident that could be blamed on the Tea Party Movement, that actually never happened; this is the definition of the ends justifying the means. Either way is was a Gilda Radner moment that no one will ever read.

But of course the Tea Party is not really the crux of the story; it is the continued and over the top race baiting by the Democrats. Add to that the victimization of the Black culture, perpetrated by the progressives that has become so ingrained they have built a religion around it called Black Liberation Theology. The basis of the religion is blacks would be a superior race, except their birthright was stolen from them by whites. They believe in something called collective salvation, where whites can only be redeemed if they give all their worldly possessions to blacks to compensate blacks for what they stole. They also believe that Jesus preached socialism and the redistribution of wealth. BLT is the morale equivalent of Hezbollah and Hamas. Both have told the Palestinians not to make peace with Israel and instead, wait until Israel is annihilated, then everything that Israel was, will be theirs. And they continue to wait in misery.

Think Your Racist? Think Again

Are you a racist? Odds are if you are asked such a question, especially if you are white, you will admit to a certain amount of racism; and you would probably be wrong. The reason is the issue of racism has been re-defined to allow progressives to continue to forward their agenda. This definition started in the 60’s with the civil rights movement. The progressives at the time did a very good job of subverting the idealism of the civil rights movement for their own agenda. One has to only look to Martin Luther King Jr, who, rather than declaring America a racists nation, he had faith in the opposite, that Americans would stand up against racism and only needed to be motivated by bringing the issue to the forefront. When Martin Luther King demonstrated for social justice, he was demonstrating for an even playing field, not re-distribution of wealth. Lost to most in this subversion, was the racist anti-black agenda of the progressives that harkened back to Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger. While the Eugenics movement may be gone, there was still the likes of Robert Byrd and other Southern Democrats who fought tooth and nail to stall the elimination of segregation. In redefining racism, we were told that racism exists any time one looks negatively upon a person of color. Added to this was an exception for racist blacks that one could not be a racist if the racism does not negatively affect the disparaged race. This of course is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. The sole purpose for this redefinition is to make it racists to disagree with the redistribution of wealth. This racial institution reached it’s pinnacle as progressive now play the race card anytime someone disagrees with President Obama’s repeated redistributive policies. Those that would use race for their political posturing are the true moral inferiors. Eric Holder attempted to take the progressive moral high ground with his statement, "In things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways essentially, a nation of cowards." This would have been an obvious farce, had his hypocrisy not become such a conundrum to those that have bought so seriously into their own rhetoric.

So what does the redefining of racism look like? Well, lets start with a reasonable and historically accurate definition of racism. Racism is simply the hatred of a race or culture, based solely on that race or culture. Defining racism in this way, most would say they are not racists. But the progressives would not be empowered with such a definition, so they their rhetoric was re-directed away from the Jim Crow of Southern Democrats, and toward a more receptive audience of whites concerned they were engaged in defaco- racism as the result of institutional barriers against blacks. But rather than educate and work to eradicate these barriers, progressives latched onto the scheme of redefining tribalism as racism; tribalism being the the aspect of human nature that makes one feel safer with those that are similar in appearance. A typical progressive attitude would ask if you would feel safer sharing the street with a white or black. If someone said they would feel safer with someone of either race, the progressive would pronounce you a racist. What really separates the racist from tribalism is hatred. "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. Robert Byrd, 1944; see the difference?

Yet the progressive would tell you that prejudice, or to pre-judge a situation based on the race of a person is racists. I have actually heard air headed college students say that if you are walking through a tough neighborhood and you see a group of Hispanics or Blacks in what might be suspected as gang attire, loitering on a street corner, it is racist to pre-judge them as dangerous; that until they have proved themselves as undesirables, you should accept them as friendly. If you buy into this than you are already dead and not reading this; or you may consider yourself a racist; alive, but a racist. It is stupidity with a purpose; redefining a million years of tribal instinct, as racism. Still there is more. For if the only purpose of redefining racism was to bring to light the need to judge not by tribalism but by character, than the end might justify the means. But the end is much more diabolical, for the ends of progressivism is also enslavement. Best summed up by President Obama’s Information (or truth) Czar, Cass Sunstein. “As a scholar, Sunstien is known for believing that ‘people’ as a rule make bad decisions, so they need government to ‘nudge’ them in the right direction, this includes all areas of their lives, such as 'education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, (and) happiness'". Cass Sunstein; Obama's Truth Czar

So, if a sense of self-preservation tells you to be careful during questionable circumstances, you’re not a racists. To be color blind does not mean you do not notice or acknowledge a person's race or culture. It means you do not judge the content of persons character based on race or culture. If you hate blacks, because of the color of their skin, you are a racists. If one of the first things you notice about a new acquaintance is their race or skin color, but that quickly fades to the content of their character, than race or skin color are really not an issue for you. If you meet someone new and you want to kill them because you learn they are Jewish, then you are a racist. If you are suspicious of the tattoos on the arms of your new Hispanic neighbor and later rejoice for him and his family that he has reformed his life, then you understand redemption. If you view the world as black or white, nig#er or cracker then you are a racist and a fool (as are all racists). Are there shades of gray? Of course. But they are overshadowed by our “exceptualism;” the very reason progressives latched on to racism is due to the depth of Americas sensitively to it; if the truth be known, most have reached the point that Toni Morrison described where "race exists, but it doesn't matter". It is past the time when we let others define our view of each other and race. In a time of supposed post racism in this country, we have a black president who seems to see everything through a prism of racial divide and a liberal press that has conspired to divide this country equating racism to any political debate. If someone asks you if you are a racists and you don’t hate because of race then the answer is no. If someone plays the race card and falsely calls you a racist, tell them they’re wrong. That you know you are not a racist; you don't need to prove anything, because it’s not their call; it is yours.


Print Page

The BART Shooting, Alex Jones and Historical Fiction

After listening to several so called expert explanations of what the videos at the BART Station showed of proved, the worst by Alex Jones, I decided to watch the videos for myself. This is my take on the Oscar Grant Shooting by BART Officer Johnnes Mehserle.

Most videos start near the scene where Off Mehserle and a second officer are detaining 4 subjects who are seated against a cement wall; the subjects are, left to right, Carlos Reyes, Oscar Grant, Jackie Bryson Nigel Bryson. There was one video that showed some of the activity leading up to the incident that showed a handful of young men and women chipping at the officers for detaining the young men, and several other officers maintaining a perimeter protecting Mehserle and the second officer. At some point a third officer, Off Peroni enters the picture from the left and points out Grant and J.Bryson to be arrested. Grant then stands up to argue with the officers, causing Off Peroni and Mehserle to force him back to the ground. While this is happening, J.Bryson then stands up and the third officer tries to take control of him. Mehserle joins the second officer and J.Bryson is pushed into a knelling position and handcuffed by Mehserle. The second officer stays with J.Bryson while Mehserle moves to the rear of Grant to handcuff him also. Here you see a small scuffle and Grant rolls forward turning himself face up. With Peroni on Grant’s head and Mehserle on his body, they attempt turn Grant around so they can handcuff his hands behind his back (a task much more difficult than you’d think). After another short scuffle, they mange to turn Grant more or less on his front, but Grant’s right arm is still under his body and may now be tangled with Carlos Reyes leg that Grant is now lying across. While it appeared to be unclear to many whether Grant was handcuffed at this point, it is obvious he was not (proven later). Mehserle was obviously unable to secure grants right arm and while still kneeling, upholstered a weapon (there are three reasons someone keeps there hand trapped underneath themselves; it's trapped, they are resisting, they have a weapon in their waistband). Apparently believing we held a Taser, Mehserle stood up to give the Taser enough distance for the darts to properly spread. Mehserle fired what turned out to be his 40 cal Glock and mortally wounded Grant in the back. Immediately after the shooting, both Peroni and Mehserle stopped and backed away from Grant and pretty much just stared at each other for a moment in disbelief, Mehserle holding his hands palms up and outward from his side . The reason I know that Grant was not handcuffed, is Mehserle next action after the shooting is to handcuff Grant.

The grotesque description by Alex Jones is a continuation of his hatred and distrust of authority. Even though he knows that the only police Officers that listen to him are “awake”, he continues to talk about them as sub-human ogres, with little intelligence and penchant for torture. Alex Jones says the officers lied and tried to cover up the incident and claim they shot Grant in self-defense when he tried to disarm Mehserle. No, this did not happen. The officers wrote the incident occurred as a result of Grant resisting arrest and it was suspected he might be armed. Jones said the Officers continue to lie and cover up the incident for the first 5-6 days until the videos came out. No, as I said before, there was no cover up and the videos appeared 2 days after the shooting. Jones said there was a whole “passel of cops”, then he says there was four (a passal?) on the platform. Actually I saw five officers; three where dealing with the four detainees and the other two where protecting their backs from a small crowd that had gathered; at one point this crowd had tried to intervene until they were pushed back. Jones said, “they put him (Grant) in handcuffs and he wasn’t resisting and they were jumping on his head and having a bully party and getting off on it...” No, Grant was on his back resisting, Peroni was holding Grant’s head (a common control hold). Jones said, “then the cop pulled a gun, chambered a round, and shot him right in the back.” No, Alex, the police do not run around with unloaded guns. Mehserle pistol was a 40 cal Glock with a round already chambered and the safety lever is part of the trigger. A Taser and Glock are roughly the same size and feel and both have a laser site (a Glock is heavier). The Taser does have a different safety, however it is obvious in at least one of the videos that Mehserle had already deployed his Taser and turned off the safety just minutes before the shooting; a red laser point can be seen on Grants leg before Grant stood up. “…then they even beat him up a little more; a little more celebration”. No, as I said before, the moment Mehserle fired his weapon, Peroni disengaged from Grants head and Mehserle stood there for a few seconds before handcuffing Grant. The reason Grant was handcuffed is, even a fatal wound does not normally incapacitate a subject, it takes about 30 seconds for someone to bleed to death, and during those 30 seconds, suspects have been known to attack and sometimes kill other victims: BART protocol calls for all subjects who are shot buy officers to be handcuffed. Alex Jones said it took 30 minutes to put Grant on a stretcher and he died on the way to the hospital. No, Grant died 8 hours later at the hospital. Finally Jones said Mehserle was facing 2-4 years for Involuntary Manslaughter; with the gun enhancment he faces 4-14 years. Alex Jones went on to describe the BART cops as wolves having a feeding frenzy on a cow stuck in the mud (don’t ask).

As I have said before, Alex Jones has a point of view. He usually starts with basic information and then builds a monument of innuendo and presents it as fact. While I listen to Alex Jones to hear the information he was dug up, what you usually hear in his show is historical fiction.

Print Page

Paul Krugman and the Folly of Keynesian Economics + "Fear the Boom and Bust" Rap

Paul Krugman just may be the icon of intellectual dishonesty. His continuing efforts to prove the already much discredited Keynesian theory of economics shows him to be the most anti-perspicacious economist in the current war against the free market. In his recent article, “Pushing the Unemployed With Penny-Pinching”, Krugman decried the fact that the federal government would not extend state Unemployment Insurance (UI) as “everyone took it for granted that UI that normally terminates after 26 weeks would be extended in times of persistence joblessness” (everyone?). The fact that unemployment across the nation has already been extended by 26 weeks seemed to have slipped his mind. What congress has done is decided not to extend any more UI extensions. Krugman defends extending the extensions, calling the fiscally responsible coalition in the Senate “heartless” or “clueless”. On one hand he considers it clueless to believe that extended UI “is a disincentive for them to seek new work”. Why? Well because there is some unknown “recent economic research” that says it’s not so. On the other hand he claims that UI will put money in peoples pockets that will help support consumer spending; I doubt most people would find any disposable income with a 40% reduction in pay.

This of course is the fallacy of Keynesian theory; 1) it ignores the very human decisions (and behaviors) Keynesians fault for inefficient economic outcomes; and 2) it exudes that re-distributing wealth will somehow stimulate the economy. Every time Demand Side economics extends misery, the Keynesians claim victory when the free market finally recovers despite their best efforts, and every time Supply-Side economics (reduced taxes and government spending) works, the Keynesian claim there was some other cause. One has to remember why Keynesian theory exists in the first place; it's based on a dislike of the free market and a love of government. The intellectually dishonest love to explain that President Obama is not a socialist because he does not believe in state ownership of the means of production. But in most other ways Keynesian economics is like socialism; and it would be great if it worked, but like all ideas that believe government needs to dominate over the private sector, it always ends in misery for the common man.It's the need of bureaucrats and government officials to control everything and a belief that an economy can be planned and supply and demand can be manipulated to create social justice through redistribution of wealth. What is lost on the Keynesians is supply and demand is a law of human nature, trying to manipulate supply and demand is like trying to manipulate gravity; you can stay up in the air for a while, but eventually you have to come down to earth.


This is just flat out genius.

Mr President, All Problems are Management Problems

As we watch the President stumble and fall his way through the BP Oil Disaster, many of the left leaning pundits still hang their hat on, “Well what exactly should the President be doing? The spill is BP’s responsibility.” Certainly an intellectually dishonest argument but lets go with it anyway. What is needed is for the President to be schooled in executive management. Executive management experience is not necessary for a president, but it does have its advantages when a disaster like BP comes along. Those Presidents that were not governors rely heavily on aids and advisors to give him (no hers yet) direction. Unfortunately, President Obama has no advisors that have any executive management experience either. The executive errors made by the President was explained by of all people, Sarah Palin. Now I’m not a big fan of Ms Palin, but she has been a governor and she knows oil companies. This what she said when asked, “What was the most difficult thing that you had to deal with when you were having meeting with them face to face?”

Palin: Believing that their perception of what the circumstances were in any situation that we dealt with them, whether it be a spill or a lacks infrastructure maintenance or the value of the resource that was being sold. In any of those issues, it was believing what they were telling me and my administration in terms of their perspective on what the facts were. Now here’s where the problem lies with President Obama in waiting so long, you know, 8 weeks before contacting the CEO of BP and with the high-ranking officials that have been calling the shots. He has allowed this industry player to, just to define the facts so they are just in this position of having astronomical maximum liability, so he has allowed them to define the facts of this spill. You can never be allowed to do that as a CEO, and be on a level playing field; two equals there at the table, when you allow one side of the table, in this case BP in dealing with the spill to define the facts.



In the words of Obi Wan Kenobi, he failed to take the high ground. While it’s true that BP should be handling the clean-up, the President needs to define the nature of the clean-up and where his priorities are; in other words not to let BP “define the facts of the spill.” You see, what BP sees as a successful clean-up strategy and what the President and/or American people see as a successful clean-up strategy, exist in two completely different universes. Bp views the spill as the price of doing business. Their strategy revolves around image damage control and minimizing costs. When BP’s CEO said “is a very big ocean” and “the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to have been very, very modest,” he was accurately describing BP’s definition of the scope of the disaster.
Left up to BP, they would, well, do what they are doing now. Using the resources and logistics they deem necessary, which appears to be a hodgepodge of uncoordinated clean-up efforts, leaning more toward media damage control, than they welfare of those that live and make a living in the waters of the Golf. There have numerous reports of BP prohibiting any scrutiny of their beach cleanups, as they simply dump sand over the oil covered beaches http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/allegations-emerge-bp-dumping-sand-cover-o .

The job of an executive manger is to stream line efforts and delegate an overseer position that has the authority to cut red tape and bypass regulations. We have seen 16 barges sidelined from skimming oil because the Coast Guard couldn’t determine how many life jackets they are required to have. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379 and a giant oil skimming tanker, capable of skimming 500,000 gals a day, has been stalled because federal regulations would not allow the clean oil to have more than 15 parts per million of residue oil. This means that if it is shown the residue is 30 or 100 parts per million, 500,000 gals of oil a day will stay in the gulf, designed to prohibit pollution! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704699604575343230185357188.html
Before the Horizon well blew up, the government waived 27 regulations to expedite the drilling, they certainly can waive a few regulations to clean it up.http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/us_government/news.php?q=1273726802

There is also the matter of the Jones Act, where rather than accept early, and now ongoing help from oil clean-up vessels from all over the world, the President has refused to waive the Jones Act to allow them into US waters, even after it was requested by the Coast Guard, "We have exhausted all our east coast supply of skimming vessels," Capt. Laferriere said. "We are now looking at Norway, France, Spain and other European vessels." But the Maritime Unions are using a bait and switch game to stop a waiver of the Jones act, so these non US flagged vessels can be utilized. Maritime industry spokesmen say boat owners and longshoremen – who are tied to the AFL-CIO, one of Obama's biggest union supporters – have no issue with waiving the act if US vessels can't be found to do the job. But the Maritime Industry is being disingenuous pointing to the 1500 US flagged skimming ships standing idle. You see, most of these skimming ships are on the west coast and Alaska, not being deployed in the event of an oil spill elsewhere in the US. The Martine industry knows the US can not afford to leave the west coast undefended from oil spills, so the Jones Act remains in place and the Gulf beaches and environment continue to be destroyed. http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100619/ts_csm/309392

Where the President fails as an executive is standing on the concept that the spill is somebody else’ responsibility; the Exxon Valdez law says it is the oil companies responsibility to handle the clean up. This is a copout. The first rule of Executive Management is all problems are management problems. The basics of problem solving is to; 1) Define the problem 2) Identify possible solutions 3) Selecting the Best Solution 4) Implement and follow up on the solution. The end result is the President violated the second rule of Executive Management and that is to take ownership of the problem; this tells everyone who is in charge. Instead hat the President turned ownership of the problem over to BP; in essence telling the country, “There is nothing I can do and besides, it’s not my job.” Yes it is, Mr President, yes it is.


Print Page

Paul Krugman is Really Worried and That's a Good Thing

Paul Krugman is beside himself that Germany and other European nations are not going to continue trying to spend themselves out of the current recession; thank god! The economy is like an engine and if it running good, it creates enough goods and services to keep everyone secure and happy. The engine uses money as fuel. The owner of the engine also pays it’s workers to keep the engine running good, makes what the workers want to buy and the workers use their wages buy the goods and services produced by the engine; this is called supply and demand. When money is not used to buy goods and services, it is used as more fuel to run the engine. The system is pretty much self correcting, except when a company gets so big it can sell products and services at a loss to drive it’s competition out of business. This is where the government steps in to make sure this doesn’t happen. However the government has also taken control of all the fuel (money) and taxes the engine owner and workers to redistribute tax money as they see fit.

Every once in a while, the engine’s fuel tank runs low and the engine starts to sputter. Now there are two theories on how to fix this problem. One is called “supply side” and the other is called “demand side”. The supply-siders believe you should help the engine owner, by cutting spending and reducing taxes on the workers and the engine owner. This is so the owner can buy more fuel and the workers can buy products. The demand-siders (or Keynesians) believe the answer is to raise taxes, borrow large sums of money and distribute it to the workers through particular workings of the engine as they see fit. Both these concepts have been tried and history shows that the supply side solution acts by filling the fuel tank, and actually results in more money going back to the government then with the higher taxes. The demand side solution has never worked. It acts like pouring gas down the carburetor; yes the engine will run, abet poorly, but only as long you pour in the gas. As soon as you stop, the engine will stop and the fuel tank will still be empty; plus the workers and engine owner will be burdened by higher taxes and will still have to pay back all the money borrowed by the government.

The big demand-sider these days is Paul Krugman. During the recent G20 meeting, the European countries have decided that after 30 years of trying to make their welfare states work and watching countries like Greece and Spain going bankrupt, they are going to turn away from Keynesian theory, unlike President Obama and stop borrowing money to infinitum. This led Mr Krugman to hysterically forecast that the world is now headed for a depression. The last time this happened, was the end of WWII. The Keynesians hysterically warned that if the US did not maintain wartime control over the economy the US was economically doomed. The result of course was an economy that grew at record rates. If you get one thing from this, let it be that when the Keynesians becomes hysterical, we’re probably doing the right thing.

Print Page