It is said that the first thing that disappears with Socialism is the truth and it is what we have seen with President Obama and the Democratic Congress. President Obama has not followed through with one promise he made as a candidate Obama save Obamacare; and even then President Obama broke every promise the he made selling it to the American people. Candidate Obama said he would reduce the deficit by one half by the end of his first term and President Obama submitted a budget for 2012 that would double the deficit, adding $10 billion in ten years (CBO). Both sides admit that until Social Security and Medicare (entitlements) are addressed (read expenditures reduced), there will be no meaningful deficit reduction. But the Democrats have responded by first saying Social Security is not in danger because bonds were issued when the Social Security funds were borrowed; the money is long gone but the bonds still say the money is owed; no matter how you interpret the books, paying for Social Security shortfalls will increase the debt the same whether the bonds exist or not, as the government simply borrowed money from itself.
When it comes to Medicare, President Obama first double counted a $500 billion cut in Medicare that would fund Obamacare and sustain Medicare by the same amount; then his own Debt Reduction Committee recommended a 70 percent cut in benefits and 30 percent increase in revenues.
The first big lie from Socialism is the promises of entitlements that it simply cannot be sustained. This lasts just long enough for the citizenry to feel entitled and for the Socialists to demagogue anyone that wants fiscal responsibility. The demagoguery is always based on cuts in entitlements that should be reserved for the minority truly in need, but has been given to everyone, so any cuts in entitlements always effects the truly needy. President Obama has also exposed the American people to the end game of Socialism, which is referred to as the infallibility of government. This refers to when government programs continually fail, promises are all broken and government officials continually lie to the citizenry, but the press and the citizenry itself prefer to believe in an alternate reality, where all government programs succeed and all promises are kept. The point being that socialism cannot exists when it is scrutinized; it has to be blindly accepted.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Libya; The Humanitarian Misdirection
It should come as no surprise that our president is being less than honest regarding the US and NATO's attack on Libya. What started out looking like a humanitarian action, is now looking like one of those sponsored coup-d’etats the CIA so busied itself with in the 50s, 60s and 70s. According to the UK Daily Mail, British Special forces have been in Libya for over a month. What is now becoming clear however is the coalition has been given some strange rules of engagement; the rebels (usually called a Liberation Army) are now civilians. So any attempt by the Gaddifi to repel the ad-hoc rebellion is met with accusations that the Libyan army was using "indiscriminate" use of force and was killing civilians; it doesn't seem to matter that these protesters and civilians are armed to the teeth with RPG's, anti-aircraft missile and are even driving tanks. There also seems to be a lot of evidence that this military effort is far from a humanitarian affair.
The humanitarian label was used to describe the so-called, NFZ (No Fly Zone); the idea that Libyan military aircraft was bombing and strafing civilians (aka anti-government forces). The NFZ, is to simply stop Libya from using aircraft against the rebel forces. The positive side of a NFZ is keeping Libyan aircraft on the ground is easily accomplished. While Libya has a rather formidable looking airforce on paper, reality is a different story. Yes, Libya has some 200 military aircraft including 23 Mig-21s,109 Mig-23s and 38 SU-22s, the truth is we don't know how many are actually airworthy. It may not be common knowledge, it it takes more more maintenance to fly these jets than actual flight time. We do know it was the SU-22s Gadiffi was used to bomb the protesters, resulting in one crew intentionally crashing the plane and the civilian rebels have claimed to also shot down a number of them (as I said these civilians mean business). The fact is that coalition forces were acting beyond a NFZ almost from the beginning. After taking out command and control, radar installations and anti-aircraft batteries, they started hunting for Libyan army forces; bombing troops, armament, or anything else that looks like a military target. Further, The Saudis have been arming the rebels for months in anticipation of this uprising and the US is publicly weighing the option of openly arming the rebels against Libya. This of course has led to much more collateral damage than just a NFZ and has led to dissension within the coalition, especially amongst the Arab League, where chief Amr Moussa on Sunday condemned what he called the "bombardment of civilians."
On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”
“No, no,” Gates replied to ABC’s Jake Tapper, “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake,” he said. And of course President Obama did not notify Congress; from ABC NEWS
During his campaign for the Presidency, in December, 2007, Barack Obama told The Boston Globe that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Earlier in 2007, then-Senator Hillary Clinton said in a speech on the Senate floor that, “If the administration believes that any -- any -- use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.”
When Secretary of State Clinton asked in regards to Libya, “Why not got to Congress?” she replied, “Well, we would welcome congressional support,” the Secretary said, “but I don't think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.” “I think that this had a limited time frame, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.
Clinton's response seemed especially dishonest as #1 the US had a much larger coalition under Bush in Iraq and one of the main criticism of Obama's foray into Lybia is a seemingly total lack of definition, beyond pulling out and handing over control to Canada and NATO, allowing Obama to be lead but not be in charge; something which seems to define the Obama presidency. Further, the idea that there was not time to inform Congress is absurd in the fact that Obama stated the “When a leader’s only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now,” as far back as Feb 26.
So here are the lies. This military action is humanitarian; no we have taken sides in a civil war and are bombing and invading Libya. There will be no boots on the ground; no, we already have coalition special forces working with the rebels on the ground. From The Nation“We do not provide close air support for the opposition forces.” he said, “We protect civilians.” But he followed that immediately by noting that since the opposition, even armed, are civilians, the United States will protect them, too.” Does that include sharing military intelligence? “I’m not going to talk about sharing intelligence with the Libyan opposition.”
Here is where we have an obvious dis-connect. The Obama Administration denies using coalition war planes as air support for the rebels, and British officials say "the UK force is under very clear directions not to get drawn into close combat operations with regime forces unless their own lives are threatened or in extreme circumstances in which Gaddafi forces are killing unarmed civilians" and senior official said, "Our aim is maintain a low profile, and simply deliver information and facilitate the situation for other agencies to splash (destroy) the targets." So we are meant to believe that even though the British Commandos and Rebels have the same military goals and the coalition is supplying close air support for the British Commandos on the ground, they are not for the rebels, even though the two are fighting side by side. Further the Obama Administration fudges when asked if the British Commandos and Rebels are sharing military intelligence, as if it were possible for them not to.
In the final analysis, I will leave you with another exchange that demonstrates the absurdity of the so called Humanitarian rational for the attacks on Libya; again from the UK Daily Mail,
“Q: If opposition forces are trying to take back a city that Gadhafi holds, couldn't you argue that they would be attacking civilians; and therefore, would they be targeted as well?
“GENERAL HAM: Again, I'm not crazy about...answering the hypothetical questions. We would have to look at that situation as it was unfolding. We do have a mission to protect civilians. And we would have to make an assessment as that unfolded as to what our actions might be, consistent with 1973 and consistent with our mission.”
The UK writer editorializes with, "It stretches credulity, of course, to imagine that the United States would bomb the opposition if it tried to capture a city."
So no one has been able to explain how defining all those opposed to the Gaddifi regime as civilian victims, regardless of their level of armament and how the US and NATO are simply taking sides in a civil war to remove Gaddifi from power. If not humanitarian reasons then why did President Obama involve the US? Here one has to turn to conjecture. Libya only supplies .63% of US oil, however 85% of Libyan oil goes to Europe. So it appears this is another blood for oil battle, but this time Obama is demonstrating his willingness to engage in European discretionary battles outside the national interests of the United States; bypassing congress in the process. Further, while the uprisings in Libya and other Arabic nations have been titled Democratic, there is a lot of evidence that the uprising also have an Islamic Sharia bent. It is no secret that the Muslim Brotherhood is the most organized political party in the region and it is likely the Democratic uprising will result in a "vote once" for the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law. If this materializes it would result in accolades for President Obama from from the Arabic nations; something the President has been openly pursuing to the detriment of the United States previous allies such as Britain and Israel.
The humanitarian label was used to describe the so-called, NFZ (No Fly Zone); the idea that Libyan military aircraft was bombing and strafing civilians (aka anti-government forces). The NFZ, is to simply stop Libya from using aircraft against the rebel forces. The positive side of a NFZ is keeping Libyan aircraft on the ground is easily accomplished. While Libya has a rather formidable looking airforce on paper, reality is a different story. Yes, Libya has some 200 military aircraft including 23 Mig-21s,109 Mig-23s and 38 SU-22s, the truth is we don't know how many are actually airworthy. It may not be common knowledge, it it takes more more maintenance to fly these jets than actual flight time. We do know it was the SU-22s Gadiffi was used to bomb the protesters, resulting in one crew intentionally crashing the plane and the civilian rebels have claimed to also shot down a number of them (as I said these civilians mean business). The fact is that coalition forces were acting beyond a NFZ almost from the beginning. After taking out command and control, radar installations and anti-aircraft batteries, they started hunting for Libyan army forces; bombing troops, armament, or anything else that looks like a military target. Further, The Saudis have been arming the rebels for months in anticipation of this uprising and the US is publicly weighing the option of openly arming the rebels against Libya. This of course has led to much more collateral damage than just a NFZ and has led to dissension within the coalition, especially amongst the Arab League, where chief Amr Moussa on Sunday condemned what he called the "bombardment of civilians."
On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”
“No, no,” Gates replied to ABC’s Jake Tapper, “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake,” he said. And of course President Obama did not notify Congress; from ABC NEWS
During his campaign for the Presidency, in December, 2007, Barack Obama told The Boston Globe that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Earlier in 2007, then-Senator Hillary Clinton said in a speech on the Senate floor that, “If the administration believes that any -- any -- use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.”
When Secretary of State Clinton asked in regards to Libya, “Why not got to Congress?” she replied, “Well, we would welcome congressional support,” the Secretary said, “but I don't think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.” “I think that this had a limited time frame, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.
Clinton's response seemed especially dishonest as #1 the US had a much larger coalition under Bush in Iraq and one of the main criticism of Obama's foray into Lybia is a seemingly total lack of definition, beyond pulling out and handing over control to Canada and NATO, allowing Obama to be lead but not be in charge; something which seems to define the Obama presidency. Further, the idea that there was not time to inform Congress is absurd in the fact that Obama stated the “When a leader’s only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now,” as far back as Feb 26.
So here are the lies. This military action is humanitarian; no we have taken sides in a civil war and are bombing and invading Libya. There will be no boots on the ground; no, we already have coalition special forces working with the rebels on the ground. From The Nation“We do not provide close air support for the opposition forces.” he said, “We protect civilians.” But he followed that immediately by noting that since the opposition, even armed, are civilians, the United States will protect them, too.” Does that include sharing military intelligence? “I’m not going to talk about sharing intelligence with the Libyan opposition.”
Here is where we have an obvious dis-connect. The Obama Administration denies using coalition war planes as air support for the rebels, and British officials say "the UK force is under very clear directions not to get drawn into close combat operations with regime forces unless their own lives are threatened or in extreme circumstances in which Gaddafi forces are killing unarmed civilians" and senior official said, "Our aim is maintain a low profile, and simply deliver information and facilitate the situation for other agencies to splash (destroy) the targets." So we are meant to believe that even though the British Commandos and Rebels have the same military goals and the coalition is supplying close air support for the British Commandos on the ground, they are not for the rebels, even though the two are fighting side by side. Further the Obama Administration fudges when asked if the British Commandos and Rebels are sharing military intelligence, as if it were possible for them not to.
In the final analysis, I will leave you with another exchange that demonstrates the absurdity of the so called Humanitarian rational for the attacks on Libya; again from the UK Daily Mail,
“Q: If opposition forces are trying to take back a city that Gadhafi holds, couldn't you argue that they would be attacking civilians; and therefore, would they be targeted as well?
“GENERAL HAM: Again, I'm not crazy about...answering the hypothetical questions. We would have to look at that situation as it was unfolding. We do have a mission to protect civilians. And we would have to make an assessment as that unfolded as to what our actions might be, consistent with 1973 and consistent with our mission.”
The UK writer editorializes with, "It stretches credulity, of course, to imagine that the United States would bomb the opposition if it tried to capture a city."
So no one has been able to explain how defining all those opposed to the Gaddifi regime as civilian victims, regardless of their level of armament and how the US and NATO are simply taking sides in a civil war to remove Gaddifi from power. If not humanitarian reasons then why did President Obama involve the US? Here one has to turn to conjecture. Libya only supplies .63% of US oil, however 85% of Libyan oil goes to Europe. So it appears this is another blood for oil battle, but this time Obama is demonstrating his willingness to engage in European discretionary battles outside the national interests of the United States; bypassing congress in the process. Further, while the uprisings in Libya and other Arabic nations have been titled Democratic, there is a lot of evidence that the uprising also have an Islamic Sharia bent. It is no secret that the Muslim Brotherhood is the most organized political party in the region and it is likely the Democratic uprising will result in a "vote once" for the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law. If this materializes it would result in accolades for President Obama from from the Arabic nations; something the President has been openly pursuing to the detriment of the United States previous allies such as Britain and Israel.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Lies, Damn Lies and Opinion Polls
Mark Twain once said there are lies, damn lies and statistics; its time to add "opinion polls" to that list. What we are now seeing is that pollsters are manipulating their polls results by either basing the poll on non-reflective demographics and/or asking poll questions in a manner that will result in a requite result. The purpose seems to be to sustain the slipping support for President Obama and the progressive agenda in general. In an article in the Nation Review, Jan 17, 2011, Two New Polls Have Higher Numbers of Democrats, Misleading Questions the writer Katrino Trinko points out an AP poll that, showed increasing support for Obamacare, even though it was only two months earlier that the Democrats had received what may have been the greatest rebuff of policy in the history of US Politics; and a major part of this rebuff was Obamacare. What could have happened? Did the electorate suddenly reverse what has a wholesale rejection of the Democrat juggernaut? The answer of course is no. The pollsters chose a 42% / 36% Democrat to Republican demographic, where the exit polls during the election showed the demographic to be equal at about 36%. Further the results were also skewed by the nature of the questions. The new poll showed that opposition to Obamacare has slipped from 38% for, 47% against to 40% for, 41% against. “Kellyanne Conway(, the president of the polling company,) also notes that when asked if they would favor a law ‘that would require every American to have health insurance, or pay money to the government as a penalty if they do not, unless the person is very poor,’ 59 percent are opposed. ‘When they actually hear what the health care reform is, they’re opposed to it,’ she says."
We are also faced with a CBS/ NY Times poll that shows that Wisconsin voters have reversed their backing of Gov Walker to stand up to the unions to reduce the state deficits. The poll results showed those opposed to Walker 56% to 37% in favor. In a March 1, 2011 article, also in the Nation Review Jim Gerargy Dissecting These New Wisconson Polls points out the again the demographics were manipulated for a desired result. In the last general-population survey, Wisconsin showed a 36% / 35% split between Republicans and Democrats, however the poll used a 26% Republican/ 36% Democrat split. Next, 20% of the poll’s respondents claim to come from union households. “However, only 11.9% of American workers belong to a union, according to a report published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics last month and noted by none other than the Times itself.”
One reason that opinion polls have become nothing more than left leaning propaganda is that unlike an exit poll or other election poll, there is no defining way to determine the accuracy. Opinion polls used to be of value to the democratic process, but now it has become part and parcel of the ongoing erosion and creditability of the press. Who would have guessed that the American press, rather than being a stand-in for the public at large to guarantee the government and other public institutions fulfill their duties, is now damaging our democracy in ways none could have foreseen. Who would believe that the press in a country where a free press is guaranteed by it’s constitution, would self censor and reduce itself to stumping for a political party and trying to manufacture public opinion? In essence the American press has voluntarily become a tool of fascism, prior to a totalitarian government even taking power. One has to wonder how much more compliant the press will be if ever actually faced with the dictates of a fascist government.
We are also faced with a CBS/ NY Times poll that shows that Wisconsin voters have reversed their backing of Gov Walker to stand up to the unions to reduce the state deficits. The poll results showed those opposed to Walker 56% to 37% in favor. In a March 1, 2011 article, also in the Nation Review Jim Gerargy Dissecting These New Wisconson Polls points out the again the demographics were manipulated for a desired result. In the last general-population survey, Wisconsin showed a 36% / 35% split between Republicans and Democrats, however the poll used a 26% Republican/ 36% Democrat split. Next, 20% of the poll’s respondents claim to come from union households. “However, only 11.9% of American workers belong to a union, according to a report published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics last month and noted by none other than the Times itself.”
One reason that opinion polls have become nothing more than left leaning propaganda is that unlike an exit poll or other election poll, there is no defining way to determine the accuracy. Opinion polls used to be of value to the democratic process, but now it has become part and parcel of the ongoing erosion and creditability of the press. Who would have guessed that the American press, rather than being a stand-in for the public at large to guarantee the government and other public institutions fulfill their duties, is now damaging our democracy in ways none could have foreseen. Who would believe that the press in a country where a free press is guaranteed by it’s constitution, would self censor and reduce itself to stumping for a political party and trying to manufacture public opinion? In essence the American press has voluntarily become a tool of fascism, prior to a totalitarian government even taking power. One has to wonder how much more compliant the press will be if ever actually faced with the dictates of a fascist government.
Friday, March 4, 2011
The Dogma of Progressive Science
If there is one thing that ties all progressives together it is dogma masquerading as science. As I mentioned in a previous article, Progressives; Still Lost in the 1920s the modern progressive movement began around the late 1800s/ early 1900’s when progressive believed that human and societal behavior could be understood and controlled through science. These behaviors spawned the social sciences of Eugenics, Psychiatry, Evolution and Communism; all four were considered to have a scientific base, even Communism was proposed by Marx and Engle’s, not as a form of government, but the eventual scientific destination of all successful societies. One of the basic scientific procedures when trying to prove a theory is to release your findings to the scientific world to see if your finding can be reproduced; this is called peer review. Another basic tenet of science is there must be a way of disproving your theory or the theory becomes non-scientific dogma. As time went on, the pseudo sciences of Keynesian economics and Man Made Global Warming joined the ranks.
Taken separately it is easy to understand that these were not science at all, taken together it is the progressives desire to eliminate God from the equation. Psychiatry as defined by Sigmund Freud held the Newtonian belief that once a psychosis was understood and identified then a cure or course of therapy was not far behind. Once Freud started to understand the true complexity of human behavior he realized his life’s worth has been more defining what psychology is not, more than what was. I have covered Eugenics in several of my articles, but stated simply it is racism, and elitism, proven through pseudo science with the goal of eliminating the useless eaters of the world. The fourth of the original pseudo sciences is the Theory of Evolution or the original title of Darwin’s theory, “The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or Preservation of favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” It is not a big leap of faith to believe, even from just the title, that Darwin believed strongly in Eugenics, which he did.
The Theory of Evolution is still the sole and only scientific theory to challenge religious creation in the origins of life, even though it’s basic premise has never been scientifically proven. As most know the Theory of Evolution states that lower forms of animals evolved into higher forms of animals, and this occurred as animals adapted to their changing surroundings. This evolution was incremental and was the result of a genetic anomalies in animals the proved to be an life advantage, and the same species without this advantage would not be able to compete and would die off. This theory seemed to have been extrapolated from the common occurrences of adaptation, where a color of fur or resistance to a poison, helped a species become more viable. But these animals never morphed into an entirely different species, they simply adapted. Science has showed that similar species have similar genes and even identical strains of DNA, and that these strains of DNA seem to run through extinct and similar species, but no mid-species animals have ever been discovered. When confronted with this information, some of my progressive friends have said, okay so animals evolve in a single generation; which of course is something god could do, but by definition is not evolution.
I will not delve too much into Keynesian theory or Man Mad Global Warming , except to say both are a pseudo scientific, tied closely to progressive political beliefs and also have no avenue where they can be disproved. Those that espouse Man Made Global Warming, claim any and all weather conditions and changes are a result of Man Made Climate Change. Keynesians believe that if an economy does not recover after a stimulus has been injected into the economy, then the stimulus was not enough, with no ideal or maximum amount ever discussed.
So lets not be fooled by what always becomes the science of the oppressor. Science does not objectively become dogma and it takes a great deal of energy and financial considerations to keep this “scientific dogma” from coming crashing to the ground. Therefore, scientific dogma is always very easy to spot, as it will always exist to control and oppress people for the purposes of political or financial gain; or to simply control humanity as purpose unto itself.
Taken separately it is easy to understand that these were not science at all, taken together it is the progressives desire to eliminate God from the equation. Psychiatry as defined by Sigmund Freud held the Newtonian belief that once a psychosis was understood and identified then a cure or course of therapy was not far behind. Once Freud started to understand the true complexity of human behavior he realized his life’s worth has been more defining what psychology is not, more than what was. I have covered Eugenics in several of my articles, but stated simply it is racism, and elitism, proven through pseudo science with the goal of eliminating the useless eaters of the world. The fourth of the original pseudo sciences is the Theory of Evolution or the original title of Darwin’s theory, “The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or Preservation of favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” It is not a big leap of faith to believe, even from just the title, that Darwin believed strongly in Eugenics, which he did.
The Theory of Evolution is still the sole and only scientific theory to challenge religious creation in the origins of life, even though it’s basic premise has never been scientifically proven. As most know the Theory of Evolution states that lower forms of animals evolved into higher forms of animals, and this occurred as animals adapted to their changing surroundings. This evolution was incremental and was the result of a genetic anomalies in animals the proved to be an life advantage, and the same species without this advantage would not be able to compete and would die off. This theory seemed to have been extrapolated from the common occurrences of adaptation, where a color of fur or resistance to a poison, helped a species become more viable. But these animals never morphed into an entirely different species, they simply adapted. Science has showed that similar species have similar genes and even identical strains of DNA, and that these strains of DNA seem to run through extinct and similar species, but no mid-species animals have ever been discovered. When confronted with this information, some of my progressive friends have said, okay so animals evolve in a single generation; which of course is something god could do, but by definition is not evolution.
I will not delve too much into Keynesian theory or Man Mad Global Warming , except to say both are a pseudo scientific, tied closely to progressive political beliefs and also have no avenue where they can be disproved. Those that espouse Man Made Global Warming, claim any and all weather conditions and changes are a result of Man Made Climate Change. Keynesians believe that if an economy does not recover after a stimulus has been injected into the economy, then the stimulus was not enough, with no ideal or maximum amount ever discussed.
So lets not be fooled by what always becomes the science of the oppressor. Science does not objectively become dogma and it takes a great deal of energy and financial considerations to keep this “scientific dogma” from coming crashing to the ground. Therefore, scientific dogma is always very easy to spot, as it will always exist to control and oppress people for the purposes of political or financial gain; or to simply control humanity as purpose unto itself.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Paul Krugman is Indeed a Liar
On 02.27.2011 The Santa Cruz Sentential posted a condensed version of my article, The Fallacy of the Republican/democrat Flip/Flop on Civil Rights
"Once again Paul Krugman has tried to prop up his worldview by simply lying. In his previous article he said the Republican Party had abandoned the party of Lincoln, by embracing the racist south for a voting block. The reality of course was the South finally outgrew the Jim Crow Democrats and joined the rest of the nation, while Democrats for 40 years have been trying to remove the stench of segregation and Jim Crow from their party. In his article, “Wisconsin Power Play” he states that major conservative pundits insisted President Obama help Mubaraka suppress the uprising in Egypt. This of course has no foot in reality; conservatives across the board have condemned Mubarak where it was Secretary of State Clinton and Vice President Biden who proclaimed their backing of the Mubarack regime. It is a shame that Krugman has the notoriety that gives him the space in your paper to write such trash."
If I have one purpose in writing these articles it is trying to root out those that blindly follow the likes of Paul Krugman. The response was from one of those folks. It gives one some insight on how the left nurtures progressive thought with lies and mis-information.
Brad Goodwin's letter in the Feb. 26 paper claims Paul Krugman lied when he said major conservative pundits insisted that President Obama help Mubarak suppress the uprising in Egypt when, in fact "conservatives across the board have condemned Mubarak." In fact, it is Mr. Goodwin who is misinformed. It's easy to find statements on the Internet from conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, before Mubarak stepped down, praising Mubarak and suggesting that people "root for" him to prevail that was Limbaugh. Try it yourself; it won't take long. People should be more careful before calling others liars and accusing them of writing trash.
Peter Gelblum, Boulder Creek
This response should have been my the original article, as I backs up the original concept that Paul Krugman is indeed a liar. Whether the Sentinel will print it is questionable.
"As usual those of the left never actually listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh or other conservative pundits, they simply read a Google hit from Media Matters to find quotes taken out of context. Peter Gelblum rushing to the defense of Paul Krugman, claims Rush Limbaugh and other conservative pundits did indeed denounced the uprising in Egypt; he commented, "before Mubarak stepped down, praising Mubarak and suggesting that people "root for" him to prevail that was Limbaugh". The Limbaugh quote in context occurred while he was discussing the Muslim Brotherhood and their anti-west rhetoric; "No one really knows who to root for...If you are concerned with US interests, we should root for Mubarak to prevail. Would Mr Gelblum deny that Mubarack was been a strong ally of the west? Krugman is a hack and a liar, for this there is no doubt."
edited 03.06.2011.
Another example of Paul Krugman's intellectual dishonesty is how he mixes statistic apples and oranges to arrive at what ever conclusion fits his world view. Here is an excellent article by iowahawk.com Longhorns 17, Badgers 1 , that references one of Krugman's recent trips to fantasy land where he tries to equate collective bargaining and high school tests scores; I love it when a rather dry scholarly piece contains the word "bullshit!".
"Once again Paul Krugman has tried to prop up his worldview by simply lying. In his previous article he said the Republican Party had abandoned the party of Lincoln, by embracing the racist south for a voting block. The reality of course was the South finally outgrew the Jim Crow Democrats and joined the rest of the nation, while Democrats for 40 years have been trying to remove the stench of segregation and Jim Crow from their party. In his article, “Wisconsin Power Play” he states that major conservative pundits insisted President Obama help Mubaraka suppress the uprising in Egypt. This of course has no foot in reality; conservatives across the board have condemned Mubarak where it was Secretary of State Clinton and Vice President Biden who proclaimed their backing of the Mubarack regime. It is a shame that Krugman has the notoriety that gives him the space in your paper to write such trash."
If I have one purpose in writing these articles it is trying to root out those that blindly follow the likes of Paul Krugman. The response was from one of those folks. It gives one some insight on how the left nurtures progressive thought with lies and mis-information.
Brad Goodwin's letter in the Feb. 26 paper claims Paul Krugman lied when he said major conservative pundits insisted that President Obama help Mubarak suppress the uprising in Egypt when, in fact "conservatives across the board have condemned Mubarak." In fact, it is Mr. Goodwin who is misinformed. It's easy to find statements on the Internet from conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, before Mubarak stepped down, praising Mubarak and suggesting that people "root for" him to prevail that was Limbaugh. Try it yourself; it won't take long. People should be more careful before calling others liars and accusing them of writing trash.
Peter Gelblum, Boulder Creek
This response should have been my the original article, as I backs up the original concept that Paul Krugman is indeed a liar. Whether the Sentinel will print it is questionable.
"As usual those of the left never actually listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh or other conservative pundits, they simply read a Google hit from Media Matters to find quotes taken out of context. Peter Gelblum rushing to the defense of Paul Krugman, claims Rush Limbaugh and other conservative pundits did indeed denounced the uprising in Egypt; he commented, "before Mubarak stepped down, praising Mubarak and suggesting that people "root for" him to prevail that was Limbaugh". The Limbaugh quote in context occurred while he was discussing the Muslim Brotherhood and their anti-west rhetoric; "No one really knows who to root for...If you are concerned with US interests, we should root for Mubarak to prevail. Would Mr Gelblum deny that Mubarack was been a strong ally of the west? Krugman is a hack and a liar, for this there is no doubt."
edited 03.06.2011.
Another example of Paul Krugman's intellectual dishonesty is how he mixes statistic apples and oranges to arrive at what ever conclusion fits his world view. Here is an excellent article by iowahawk.com Longhorns 17, Badgers 1 , that references one of Krugman's recent trips to fantasy land where he tries to equate collective bargaining and high school tests scores; I love it when a rather dry scholarly piece contains the word "bullshit!".
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Collective Bargaining and the Public Sector are Mutually Exclusive
If one had to nutshell an argument against public employee unions it would simply be that government is not in the business to make a profit. The birth of the Industrial Revolution was also the birth of wholesale exploitation of the workers. All businesses exist to make a profit. Higher wages, benefits and safe working conditions usually result in higher overhead costs, so if workers can be forced to work at low wages and unsafe working conditions profits will be higher. There is an inherent adversarial relationship between most private sector businesses and their employees, which was exploited by labor unions and is the reason collective bargaining has been traditionally viewed as a civil right. But these conditions simply do not exist in the public sector. As I said before, the public sector makes no profit. Wages and benefits are determined by how much taxes are collected so there is no inherent adversarial relationship.
“Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: ‘Meticulous attention,’ the president insisted in 1937, ‘should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.’ The reason? F.D.R. believed that ‘[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.’" The Trouble With Unions by Daniel Disalvo
When unions and collective bargaining invaded the public sector, the relationship between management and labor was set on its ear. First the separation between management and labor in the public sector does not exist, there are only supervisors and subordinates; the difference being supervisors have no obligation toward profitability. Further collective bargaining with public employees is also not based on profitability, but simply what percentage of the tax revenue pool will be dolled out to employees. When contracts are negotiated by unions the government agency negotiators are not an adversary, only other public employees. It was not in the unions best interest to change their rhetoric to address this process so they simply used the tried and true Management vs the exploited workers. Suddenly government employers became the rhetorical evil corporations and government managers became “Management;” its everything the FDR feared would come to pass.
It seems to have been completely lost on Public Employees that “Management” is the tax payers and union demands through collective bargaining, are simply taking more and more tax dollars. The cost of benefits and pensions soon began to spiral out of control as the economy weakened; the price of benefits and pensions then outstripped the ability of the cities, counties and state to pay for them. After years of union's refusal to reduce benefits the only way to reverse the process is to eliminate collective bargaining on pensions and benefits, so the cost can be quickly reduced to a sustainable level. It has become obvious that the public employee unions' only concern is for the welfare of the union and not the workers or the viability of the government that they can only vilify. The tax payers realized this and have voted in new legislators that have promised take the heat and reverse the process. It is not going to be easy. The unions and employees have already vilified these representatives using the same hate-filled rhetoric the left claimed to abhor and blamed on the right, but is the bread and butter of unions and their liberal sympathizers.
Public employee unions are now accusing the conservative legislators of wanting to break the unions; and in a way they are right. But it is only because unions have fled the private sector due to low enrollment and an economy that could not support the benefits and pensions previously negotiated. The unions have shown an extreme resistance to making concessions, even at the expense of massive layoffs, which we are now seeing in the public sector. But private sector unions have withered as public sector unions have grown dramatically and unions have staked their very existence on the unionization of public employees. So you have a once powerful entity with no other place to go, using past rhetoric that has no place in this debate. The ultimate threat from unions is to put management out of business, which is supposedly based on the greater good; but the greater good does not rest with the "paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it," FDR. The result is a paradox where government is viewed by the left as the ultimate good and the tax payer as evil. The inescapable conclusion is collective bargaining and the public sector are mutually exclusive.
“Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: ‘Meticulous attention,’ the president insisted in 1937, ‘should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.’ The reason? F.D.R. believed that ‘[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.’" The Trouble With Unions by Daniel Disalvo
When unions and collective bargaining invaded the public sector, the relationship between management and labor was set on its ear. First the separation between management and labor in the public sector does not exist, there are only supervisors and subordinates; the difference being supervisors have no obligation toward profitability. Further collective bargaining with public employees is also not based on profitability, but simply what percentage of the tax revenue pool will be dolled out to employees. When contracts are negotiated by unions the government agency negotiators are not an adversary, only other public employees. It was not in the unions best interest to change their rhetoric to address this process so they simply used the tried and true Management vs the exploited workers. Suddenly government employers became the rhetorical evil corporations and government managers became “Management;” its everything the FDR feared would come to pass.
It seems to have been completely lost on Public Employees that “Management” is the tax payers and union demands through collective bargaining, are simply taking more and more tax dollars. The cost of benefits and pensions soon began to spiral out of control as the economy weakened; the price of benefits and pensions then outstripped the ability of the cities, counties and state to pay for them. After years of union's refusal to reduce benefits the only way to reverse the process is to eliminate collective bargaining on pensions and benefits, so the cost can be quickly reduced to a sustainable level. It has become obvious that the public employee unions' only concern is for the welfare of the union and not the workers or the viability of the government that they can only vilify. The tax payers realized this and have voted in new legislators that have promised take the heat and reverse the process. It is not going to be easy. The unions and employees have already vilified these representatives using the same hate-filled rhetoric the left claimed to abhor and blamed on the right, but is the bread and butter of unions and their liberal sympathizers.
Public employee unions are now accusing the conservative legislators of wanting to break the unions; and in a way they are right. But it is only because unions have fled the private sector due to low enrollment and an economy that could not support the benefits and pensions previously negotiated. The unions have shown an extreme resistance to making concessions, even at the expense of massive layoffs, which we are now seeing in the public sector. But private sector unions have withered as public sector unions have grown dramatically and unions have staked their very existence on the unionization of public employees. So you have a once powerful entity with no other place to go, using past rhetoric that has no place in this debate. The ultimate threat from unions is to put management out of business, which is supposedly based on the greater good; but the greater good does not rest with the "paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it," FDR. The result is a paradox where government is viewed by the left as the ultimate good and the tax payer as evil. The inescapable conclusion is collective bargaining and the public sector are mutually exclusive.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Fallacy of the Republican/Democratic Flip/Flop on Civil Rights and Racism
Once again Paul Krugman tries to re-write history as he explains why the South deserted the Democrats; not because they outgrew segregation, but because Republicans were willing to abandon the founding values of their party for Southern votes; it's the old flip/flop theory the Democrats have espoused to try and falsely place themselves on the right side of history. “There was a time when Republicans used to refer to themselves, proudly, as “the party of Lincoln.” But you don’t hear that line much these days. Why? The main answer, presumably, lies in the G.O.P.’s decision, long ago, to seek votes from Southerners angered by the end of legal segregation. With the old Confederacy now the heart of the Republican base, boasting about the party’s Civil War-era legacy is no longer advisable.” Abraham Lincoln, Inflationist
Before I delve into history, lets quickly look at human nature. History is replete with racists and bigots that have matured and grew spiritually to renounce their bigotry. However there is simply not a case for the reverse; one would have to look far and wide to find a group that was a champion of civil rights and suddenly became bigoted toward the same group; the concept is absurd.
The short answer of why the Republicans took the south in the 60's and lost the black vote is looking back to the end or WWII when the Southern Democrats continued segregation, while the rest of the country saw this rightly as black oppression. President Truman de-segregated the military (after it had been re-segregated 40 years earlier by Southern Democrat President Woodrow Wilson; probably the most racist president the country has ever known) and then President Eisenhower's Civil Rights act of 1957, which was filibustered and watered by the Southern Democrats lead by the then Speaker of the House Lyndon Johnson. However the writing was on the wall and the Democrats, lead by now President Johnson, realized that the racism of the Southern Democrats would probably end the Democrats prospects for another Democratic President, unless they could persuade black voting block to leave the Republicans and vote Democratic (“Johnson wanted a cosmetic bill that would enhance his presidential ambitions without alienating his white Southern base. “Ike liked Civil Rights” by David Nichols (09-12-2007).); to this purpose Johnson pushed through his1964 Civil Rights Bill, and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” and “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.” and “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”
While as LBJ said, this was to insure that blacks would be compelled to vote Democratic for generations (200 years), it was not by helping the black man prosper, but by making blacks almost totally dependent on hand outs from the government, destroying the black family by mandating recipients could not have the father living in the household, and subsidizing illegitimate black births which increased from 9% in the 50's to 70% today. Johnson's Phony War on Poverty (V)irtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat! Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism
The problem of course is Democrats are on the wrong side of history on this, so liberal revisionists have been trying for 40 years to wash the stench of Jim Crow and segregation from their party. Lets look at history for a moment. First, Abraham Lincoln is the founder of the Republican Party, which was born from the abolitionist’s movement. There has never been a moment that Republicans have not referred to themselves other than the party of Lincoln. Next you have the Civil War, where the Southern Democrat slave owners fought tooth and nail against the Republicans and the Northern army to preserve their way of life. During the reconstruction era, the Northern army occupied the south and federally protected the civil rights of the freed slaves. The only deal that was cut was the “Compromise of 1877,” where the Republican and Southern Democratic Presidential candidates had both won about 50% of the vote. Realizing appointing the Republican Rutherford Hayes would likely re-ignite hostilities in the South, Rutherford made a deal with the Democrat Samuel Tilden, that we would withdraw the Northern troops from the south. The result was the “Redeemer” democrats took control and initiated the Jim Crow laws.
“Historians argue that the assurances offered to some Southern Democrats to prevent a filibuster were not a "compromise"(Peskin, 1973). Others argue that the Republican party abandoned Southern Blacks to racist Democratic party rule in order to gain Democratic support (DeSantis, 1982). In any case, Reconstruction ended, and the supremacy of the Democratic Party in the South was cemented with the ascent of the "Redeemer" governments that displaced the Republican governments. After 1877, white supremacy generally caused the South to vote Democratic in elections for federal office (the "Solid South") until 1966.” Wikipedia
To even propose that the old Confederacy is now the heart of the Republican party is to ignore the rise of the Klu Klux Klan, that even ex-President Bill Clinton said of Robert Byrd, was a necessity in the South, “He once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows from West Virginia. He was trying to get elected.” But the Left continues perpetuate the idea that somehow a group of people that have historically been an advocate and savior of black freedom and liberty, would somehow become racist for political purposes. The reality is the only group of people that retained their racism for political purposes were the Democrats that wanted to keep the Democratic party together during the 1950's.
One place the left likes to point to as evidence of the Republican sudden turn toward racism is Goldwaters opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act; Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least. A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism
History also shows the realignment of the South toward the Republican Party was two fold. First as the Democrats embraced a more progressive platform they ignored their conservative religious base. "A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues." A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism
Second, the South simply became more educated and became less agricultural, which lead to a realization of the racial Birgit that was the basis of segregation .“Modernization that brought factories, businesses, and cities, and millions of migrants from the North; far more people graduated from high school and college. Meanwhile the cotton and tobacco basis of the traditional South faded away, as former farmers moved to town or commuted to factory jobs. The immediate cause of the political transition involved civil rights.” Wikipedia.
So, the idea that the Republicans abandoned the party of Lincoln to seek a voting base of racists whites in the South, abandoned by the Democrats, is a fallacy simply made up and repeated the by Democrats since the 1960's . The reality however is grounded in the fact that black oppression by the Democrats was simply no longer politically viable. The answer was to create a welfare state designed to make blacks totally dependent on the state. One of the primary vehicles was Johnson's welfare program that subsidized black illegitimacy (rose from 23% to 76%), resulting in the break up of the black family (the subsidy would only be paid if there was no male living in the house), higher incarceration rates of young black males (in 1960 1350 out of 100,000 blacks were incarcerated; by 2010 that number rose to 4250 blacks out of 100,000; certainly a major driver is their alienation from the family and responsibilities of supporting a wife and children), and abortion levels that are now to equal to live births (over 1 million a year). And of course if Republicans dare talk reform they are branded as racists.
In 1950, 17 percent of African-American children lived in a home with their mother but not their father. By 2010 that had increased to 50 percent. In 1965, only eight percent of childbirths in the Black community occurred out-of-wedlock. In 2010 that figure was 41 percent; and today, the out-of-wedlock childbirth in the Black community sits at an astonishing 72 percent. The number of African-American women married and living with their spouse was recorded as 53 percent in 1950. By 2010, it had dropped to 25 percent. The Black Family is Worse Off then 60's
In the 1960s the Democratic Party essentially changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks largely to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible.Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism
It is a shame that Krugman has the notoriety that gives him the space to write such trash. But it does give credence to the Ronald Reagan Quote, "One picture is worth 1,000 denials," or in Krugman’s case, it’s not pictures he denies, it’s the inconvenient truth of historical fact.
See more at, More about the false narrative about the"Southern Strategy"
Before I delve into history, lets quickly look at human nature. History is replete with racists and bigots that have matured and grew spiritually to renounce their bigotry. However there is simply not a case for the reverse; one would have to look far and wide to find a group that was a champion of civil rights and suddenly became bigoted toward the same group; the concept is absurd.
The short answer of why the Republicans took the south in the 60's and lost the black vote is looking back to the end or WWII when the Southern Democrats continued segregation, while the rest of the country saw this rightly as black oppression. President Truman de-segregated the military (after it had been re-segregated 40 years earlier by Southern Democrat President Woodrow Wilson; probably the most racist president the country has ever known) and then President Eisenhower's Civil Rights act of 1957, which was filibustered and watered by the Southern Democrats lead by the then Speaker of the House Lyndon Johnson. However the writing was on the wall and the Democrats, lead by now President Johnson, realized that the racism of the Southern Democrats would probably end the Democrats prospects for another Democratic President, unless they could persuade black voting block to leave the Republicans and vote Democratic (“Johnson wanted a cosmetic bill that would enhance his presidential ambitions without alienating his white Southern base. “Ike liked Civil Rights” by David Nichols (09-12-2007).); to this purpose Johnson pushed through his1964 Civil Rights Bill, and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” and “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.” and “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”
While as LBJ said, this was to insure that blacks would be compelled to vote Democratic for generations (200 years), it was not by helping the black man prosper, but by making blacks almost totally dependent on hand outs from the government, destroying the black family by mandating recipients could not have the father living in the household, and subsidizing illegitimate black births which increased from 9% in the 50's to 70% today. Johnson's Phony War on Poverty (V)irtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat! Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism
The problem of course is Democrats are on the wrong side of history on this, so liberal revisionists have been trying for 40 years to wash the stench of Jim Crow and segregation from their party. Lets look at history for a moment. First, Abraham Lincoln is the founder of the Republican Party, which was born from the abolitionist’s movement. There has never been a moment that Republicans have not referred to themselves other than the party of Lincoln. Next you have the Civil War, where the Southern Democrat slave owners fought tooth and nail against the Republicans and the Northern army to preserve their way of life. During the reconstruction era, the Northern army occupied the south and federally protected the civil rights of the freed slaves. The only deal that was cut was the “Compromise of 1877,” where the Republican and Southern Democratic Presidential candidates had both won about 50% of the vote. Realizing appointing the Republican Rutherford Hayes would likely re-ignite hostilities in the South, Rutherford made a deal with the Democrat Samuel Tilden, that we would withdraw the Northern troops from the south. The result was the “Redeemer” democrats took control and initiated the Jim Crow laws.
“Historians argue that the assurances offered to some Southern Democrats to prevent a filibuster were not a "compromise"(Peskin, 1973). Others argue that the Republican party abandoned Southern Blacks to racist Democratic party rule in order to gain Democratic support (DeSantis, 1982). In any case, Reconstruction ended, and the supremacy of the Democratic Party in the South was cemented with the ascent of the "Redeemer" governments that displaced the Republican governments. After 1877, white supremacy generally caused the South to vote Democratic in elections for federal office (the "Solid South") until 1966.” Wikipedia
To even propose that the old Confederacy is now the heart of the Republican party is to ignore the rise of the Klu Klux Klan, that even ex-President Bill Clinton said of Robert Byrd, was a necessity in the South, “He once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows from West Virginia. He was trying to get elected.” But the Left continues perpetuate the idea that somehow a group of people that have historically been an advocate and savior of black freedom and liberty, would somehow become racist for political purposes. The reality is the only group of people that retained their racism for political purposes were the Democrats that wanted to keep the Democratic party together during the 1950's.
One place the left likes to point to as evidence of the Republican sudden turn toward racism is Goldwaters opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act; Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least. A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism
History also shows the realignment of the South toward the Republican Party was two fold. First as the Democrats embraced a more progressive platform they ignored their conservative religious base. "A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues." A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism
Second, the South simply became more educated and became less agricultural, which lead to a realization of the racial Birgit that was the basis of segregation .“Modernization that brought factories, businesses, and cities, and millions of migrants from the North; far more people graduated from high school and college. Meanwhile the cotton and tobacco basis of the traditional South faded away, as former farmers moved to town or commuted to factory jobs. The immediate cause of the political transition involved civil rights.” Wikipedia.
So, the idea that the Republicans abandoned the party of Lincoln to seek a voting base of racists whites in the South, abandoned by the Democrats, is a fallacy simply made up and repeated the by Democrats since the 1960's . The reality however is grounded in the fact that black oppression by the Democrats was simply no longer politically viable. The answer was to create a welfare state designed to make blacks totally dependent on the state. One of the primary vehicles was Johnson's welfare program that subsidized black illegitimacy (rose from 23% to 76%), resulting in the break up of the black family (the subsidy would only be paid if there was no male living in the house), higher incarceration rates of young black males (in 1960 1350 out of 100,000 blacks were incarcerated; by 2010 that number rose to 4250 blacks out of 100,000; certainly a major driver is their alienation from the family and responsibilities of supporting a wife and children), and abortion levels that are now to equal to live births (over 1 million a year). And of course if Republicans dare talk reform they are branded as racists.
In 1950, 17 percent of African-American children lived in a home with their mother but not their father. By 2010 that had increased to 50 percent. In 1965, only eight percent of childbirths in the Black community occurred out-of-wedlock. In 2010 that figure was 41 percent; and today, the out-of-wedlock childbirth in the Black community sits at an astonishing 72 percent. The number of African-American women married and living with their spouse was recorded as 53 percent in 1950. By 2010, it had dropped to 25 percent. The Black Family is Worse Off then 60's
In the 1960s the Democratic Party essentially changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks largely to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible.Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism
It is a shame that Krugman has the notoriety that gives him the space to write such trash. But it does give credence to the Ronald Reagan Quote, "One picture is worth 1,000 denials," or in Krugman’s case, it’s not pictures he denies, it’s the inconvenient truth of historical fact.
See more at, More about the false narrative about the"Southern Strategy"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)