Cleveland's Green Snitch Trashcans

Great... This article from the Cleveland Dealer (h/t Michelle Malkin) relates the latest efforts to invade your privacy and garner fines for not recycling.

From the article by Mark Gillispie:

"It would be a stretch to say that Big Brother will hang out in Clevelanders' trash cans, but the city plans to sort through curbside trash to make sure residents are recycling -- and fine them $100 if they don't.

"The move is part of a high-tech collection system the city will roll out next year with new trash and recycling carts embedded with radio frequency identification chips and bar codes.

"The chips will allow city workers to monitor how often residents roll carts to the curb for collection. If a chip show a recyclable cart hasn't been brought to the curb in weeks, a trash supervisor will sort through the trash for recyclables.

"Trash carts containing more than 10 percent recyclable material could lead to a $100 fine, according to Waste Collection Commissioner Ronnie Owens. Recyclables include glass, metal cans, plastic bottles, paper and cardboard.

"City Council on Wednesday approved spending $2.5 million on high-tech carts for 25,000 households across the city, expanding a pilot program that began in 2007 with 15,000 households.

"The expansion will continue at 25,000 households a year until nearly all of the city's 150,000 residences are included. Existing carts might be retrofitted with the microchips."

Electronic snitches in your front yard. And perhaps it's coming to your neighborhood soon...

"The chip-embedded carts are just starting to catch on elsewhere. The Washington, D.C. suburb of Alexandria, Va., earlier this year announced it would issue carts to check whether people are recycling."

And what's the next step? Hard to say but...

"Some cities in England have used the high-tech trash carts for several years to weigh how much garbage people throw out. People are charged extra for exceeding allotted limits."

As the government (federal, state, and local) begin to run out of money to spend, what are the odds that new "green" regulations and hefty fines will be wheeled out to fill those coffers-- or rather to stave off insolvency for another year or so.

"The city stepped up enforcement of ordinances governing trash collection last year by issuing 2,900 tickets, nearly five times more tickets than in 2008. Those infractions include citations for people who put out their trash too early or fail to bring in their garbage cans from the curb in a timely manner.

"The Division of Waste Collection is on track to meet its goal of issuing 4,000 citations this year, Owens said."

Yup. Right on goal to collect $400,000 (at least) for the city. So let's review. Cleveland is now issuing snitch trashcans in their ongoing effort to issue trash citations and collect money-- with goals and everything.

And nearly hidden in the bottom middle of the article is this wonderful news for landlords:

"The new law also prohibits people from setting out excessive amounts of trash on tree lawns, which officials say has been an ongoing problem. Fines for excessive trash will range from $250 to $500 depending on the amount.

"In either case, the property owner receives the citation. Landlords are responsible for making sure their tenants follow the law."

Hmm. Well, at least those poor old tenants who are using their lawns to store trash won't be fined. There's an adage that one should never, never, never, sue poor people. Do you think Cleveland City Council's taken that idea to heart?

Ray Bradbury's "Dark" Thoughts: "We've got to remember the government should be by the people, of the people and for the people."

The L.A. Times (h/t Drudge Report) had a brief write-up on Ray Bradbury, one of my favorite writers. Bradbury's work has consistently espoused individual freedom-- especially in the book Fahrenheit 451 where the thoughtful individual Guy Montag found himself confronting a politically correct (an often ignored aspect of the book) and vapid totalitarian society.

Taking into account his work, it's not too much of a surprise that Bradbury isn't a fan of Obama and company's hard-Left agendas. Susan King of the LAT seemed rather surprised, however.

From King's brief article:

"Ray Bradbury is mad at President Obama, but it's not about the economy, the war or the plan to a construct a mosque near Ground Zero in New York City.

"'He should be announcing that we should go back to the moon,' says the iconic author, whose 90th birthday on Aug. 22 will be marked in Los Angeles with more than week's worth of Bradbury film and TV screenings, tributes and other events. 'We should never have left there. We should go to the moon and prepare a base to fire a rocket off to Mars and then go to Mars and colonize Mars. Then when we do that, we will live forever.'"

"The man who wrote 'Fahrenheit 451,' 'Something Wicked This Way Comes,' 'The Martian Chronicles,' 'Dandelion Wine' and 'The Illustrated Man' has been called one of America's great dreamers, but his imagination takes him to some dark places when it comes to contemporary politics.

"'I think our country is in need of a revolution,' Bradbury said. 'There is too much government today. We've got to remember the government should be by the people, of the people and for the people.'"

So espousing a belief in limited government, and a government that is employed by and answerable to the American people comes from dark places in the imagination according to King? Hmm. I seem to remember the whole "Hope and Change" idea being tied to a revolution, as well. But that was uplifting, inspirational, etc. and not the product of a dark imagination.

North Korea Rattles Saber Once Again

North Korea is, once again, playing tough with more warnings of dire consequences for joint South Korean/American war game exercises.

From the AFP story:

"North Korea's military threatened Sunday to launch the 'severest punishment' against South Korea for staging massive joint war games with the United States this week.

"The North's army and people will 'deal a merciless counterblow' to the allies 'as it had already resolved and declared at home and abroad', a spokesman for the country's army General Staff said in a statement published by state media.

"'The military counteraction of (North Korea) will be the severest punishment no one has ever met in the world,' he said.

"The warning came a day before US and South Korean troops begin the 10-day computerised war games called 'Ulchi Freedom Guardian (UFG)'."

[...]

"This week's exercise is one of a series planned by the South -- either alone or jointly with the United States -- in the aftermath of the sinking of a South Korean warship in March.
The North has angrily denied responsibility for the sinking, which killed 46 sailors and sharply raised tensions on the Korean peninsula.

"Last month South Korea and the United States held a massive joint naval and air drill in the Sea of Japan (East Sea), which were opposed by Beijing.

"A week ago South Korea ended its largest-ever anti-submarine drill including live-fire training near the disputed Yellow Sea border.

"The war manoeuvres including the UFG exercise 'represent the phase of practical actions aimed at a full-dressed military invasion', the North's spokesman said.

"'The more recklessly the warmongers persist in the war rackets as a result of wrong policy option, the faster and deeper they will fall into the grave of self-destruction,' he said."

This is pretty standard rhetoric by the overheated North Korean regime. Reading through the official North Korean news source in English (a sure way to depress yourself) while picking random dates (I kid you not) one finds pretty constant warnings of dire consequences for the provocations of the US, South Korea, and Japan.

Stories from two dates I randomly selected:

December 1st, 1999:

"On November 20 the U.S. pacific command made public the size of the U.S. forces to be quickly hurled into the Korean peninsula for a total war there and its 'timeframe.'

"This proves that the 'operation plan 5027,' a scenario for the second Korean war of aggression published by the U.S., is not a mere fiction that poses threat but it has been carried into practice in full swing.

"Now the double-dealing tactics of the U.S. reminiscent of both sides of a coin is becoming clearer.

"By nature, the DPRK has never reposed expectations in the 'appeasement policy' of the U.S. crying for 'improved relations.'

"Out of the stand to solve the Korean peninsula issue only through dialog and negotiations it Decided to have high-level talks with the U.S. It was generous enough to stop missile test-fire which belongs to the sovereignty, during the negotiations with the U.S.

"Contrary to the sincere efforts of the DPRK, the U.S. had one war confab after another in an attempt to invade the DPRK and made public what it calls 'timeframe' for the deployment of the U.S. forces in emergency on the Korean peninsula, stepping up war preparations.

"This stand taken by the U.S. behind the scene of the negotiations for the 'improvement of relations' clearly shows that its Korea policy still remains unchanged to stifle the DPRK by force of arms rather than to pursue a peaceful settlement of the Korean peninsula issue.

"It is clear to anyone that the U.S. seeks to unleash a war of aggression at any cost, while paying lip-service to 'dialogue' and 'engagement.' This compels the DPRK to think of the negotiations with the U.S. again.

"The U.S. moves to stifle the DPRK militarily forced the DPRK to increase its self-reliant national defence capabilities in every way.

"It is the fixed stand of the DPRK to return force for 'strength,' dialogue for dialogue.

"Reckless military threat and blackmail cannot frighten nor bring the DPRK to its knees at all."

July 26, 2000:

"Rodong Sinmun today in a signed article calls upon the Korean people to frustrate the Japanese reactionaries' moves to grab Tok Islet, a prelude to their reinvasion of Korea.

"The article assails the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan for claiming in its 2000-year 'diplomatic bluebook' that Tok Islet is their 'proper territory.' This is a grave infringement upon the dignity and sovereignty of the Korean nation, the article says, and goes on: Tok Islet has been part of Korea's territory since olden times.

"According to historical materials and documents of Korea and Japan, Koreans discovered Tok Islet before 500 A.D. and have since used this as a fishing center.

"A state measure was taken to bring Tok Islet under the jurisdiction of Uljin Prefecture, Kangwon Province in 512 A.D.

"The Japanese reactionaries once again laid bare their true colors as savage plunderers who stoop to nothing to achieve their design for territorial expansion when they raised this claim.

"Japan's aim to grab Tok Islet is to loot natural resources abundant in the area surrounding the islet and build a military springboard on it from which to launch reinvasion of Korea.

"The Japanese reactionaries' moves to grab Tok Islet have reached a very grave stage.

"Recently the Japanese government took an administrative measure to apply Japanese census register to Tok Islet.

"The three services of the Japan 'Self-Defence Forces' secretly staged an 'exercise of taking over Tok Islet' in Iojima recently.

"They seek to let Japanese settle on the islet with their family registers and deploy 'SDF' there under the pretext of 'protecting' them.

"The Japanese militarists' comeback to Tok Islet is near at hand.

"Japan is keen on a war, not peace and watching for a chance for reinvasion of Korea.

"The Korean people will never pardon the Japanese reactionaries' moves to grab Tok Islet, part of their inviolable territory.

"The Japanese reactionaries should clearly understand the will of the Korean people and drop their absurd dream of grabbing Tok Islet. [emphasis mine]"

Did you know that the Japanese were planning to invade North Korea in 2000? No? Well welcome to the world of North Korean "news" reporting.

Related post: North Korea Shells South Korean Island

Sarah Palin Responds to Obama's Ground Zero Mosque Endorsement

I think Sarah Palin has come up with one of the best responses to Obama's endorsement of the Ground Zero Mosque.

Obama decided that the GZM issue was a wonderful opportunity for him to lecture all of us on the concept of religious tolerance. Of course, this is a complete misreading of the issue since polls show that Americans are well aware of and strongly support religious freedom. This poll shows that "61 percent of voters think the Muslim group has the right to build a mosque in lower Manhattan" while at the same time "64 percent think it would be wrong to put a mosque there." In other words most people believe that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, et al. possess the right to build a mosque there, Americans just believe that they should not build it there.

It's rather telling that Obama's response seems to be unable to distinguish between legal rights and what is correct. Of course, many schools of thought on the Left (including socialism and Marxism) believe recognized legal rights to be the only legitimate morality in this world-- but that's probably best for another post.

On her Facebook page, Palin writes:

"Legitimate Questions for the President"

"Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade. If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive 'cross-cultural engagement' and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven't they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite? Mr. President, why aren't you encouraging the mosque developers to accept Governor Paterson's generous offer of assistance in finding a new location for the mosque on state land if they move it away from Ground Zero? Why haven't they jumped at this offer? Why are they apparently so set on building a mosque steps from what you have described, in agreement with me, as 'hallowed ground'? I believe these are legitimate questions to ask."

Bravo! Palin, once again, really nail on the head with this response.

When will Obama and the Left learn to distinguish between what is legal to do and what ought to be done?

UPDATE: Obama has sought to backpeddle on-- uh, I mean, clarify his comments.

From FOXNews.com via the AP:

"President Obama on Saturday sought to clarify his comments supporting the building of a mosque near ground zero that have ignited a political firestorm ahead of a difficult election season for Democrats.

"During a trip to Florida for a family vacation, Obama said his comments from Friday night were only directed at the constitutional right of the mosque to be there, and whether preventing the mosque’s construction impinges on the right to freedom of religion.

"'I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,' he said in response to a reporter's question after he spoke about efforts to aid the Gulf Coast region. 'I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about.'"


So, let me get this all clear in my head-- Obama was not making an endorsement of the Ground Zero Mosque, but rather was very specifically responding to something that most Americans have not said. Hmm. And he just made it sound like he was endorsing the mosque. Got it? Sure...

Sham Elections in Myanmar Scheduled for Nov. 7

The military junta ruling Myanmar has set a date for elections. Not surprisingly the whole thing is a ruse-- as the 2008 constitution that the junta dictated guarantees that 25% of the Parliaments' seats will go to the military. It's kind of hard for an election to be free when 25% of the outcome is already decided by law...

From the AP uncredited story:

"Myanmar's ruling junta said the country's first election in two decades will be held Nov. 7, finally announcing a date Friday for long-awaited polls that critics have dismissed as a sham designed to cement military rule.

"Foreign governments have urged Myanmar to ensure the polls are open, fair and include the party of detained pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi. But her party already had decided to boycott the vote, saying the junta imposed unfair rules including ones that effectively bar the Nobel Peace laureate from being a candidate.

"The junta's date for the elections came as yet another symbolic blow to Suu Kyi's chances of participating — they will fall just days before her latest term of house arrest is due to expire on Nov. 13.

"Suu Kyi's party won a landslide majority in the 1990 election. But the junta refused to honor the results and has kept her locked away mostly under house arrest for 14 of the past 20 years, ignoring global pleas for her freedom."

[...]

"The elections are the final step in the junta's so-called 'roadmap to democracy,' a seven-step program for shifting from 50 years of military rule.

"Ahead of the polls, the government passed many laws criticized as undemocratic by Suu Kyi and the international community. The laws effectively bar Suu Kyi and other political prisoners — estimated at more than 2,000 — from taking part in the elections.

"Tight rules for campaigning bar parties from chanting, marching or saying anything at rallies that could tarnish the country's image."

[...]

"The leader of the Democratic Party said that the group complained Tuesday to the Election Commission that police are intimidating its members.

"A 2008 constitution adopted as part of the junta's roadmap to democracy stipulates that 25 percent of parliamentary seats go to the military. It stipulates that no amendments to the charter can be made without the consent of more than 75 percent of lawmakers."

So, there's no "tarnishing the country's image" while running a campaign against a military dictatorship that's ruled it for the past 50 years or so... That makes it a little rough for the opposition party to run a campaign, doesn't it?

Announcement: Will Be Back Blogging Soon

Just wanted to drop a little note. I've been very distracted the last week or so (nothing bad), but I should be back blogging soon.

Check out any of the blogs in the My Blog List. There's some good stuff is there.

Yukio Ngaby

The 10 Broken Promises of ObamaCare

"Just words..." right?

Check out this highly recommended article "ObamCare: The sum of all fears" at HotAir.com by guest bloggers Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson:

"On March 21, after more than a year of contentious debate, Congressional Democrats finally passed their health care reform bill without a single Republican vote in either house. The president has challenged Republicans to run against his unpopular health care law—implying that they don’t have the political courage to do so. He may be right on that point; he may not—but the facts show that (a) many of the highest-profile selling points employed by the Left to drag Obamacare across the finish line were either incorrect or intentional distortions, (b) the consequences of not repealing this law are dire, and (c) the public’s enduring hostility toward Obamacare demonstrates a political appetite for repeal.

"Recent polls reflect America’s zeal for repeal, as does an August ballot referendum in Missouri rebuking the individual mandate, which succeeded by a margin of 71-29. Throughout the lengthy public debate, President Obama and his surrogates consistently ridiculed and denounced critics of the bill as bad-faith, fear-mongering propaganda merchants.

"The facts now prove there was plenty to fear in good faith."

Read the entire article at the link above, but the ten broken promises and their bottom lines from the article are:

Promise #1: If you are satisfied with your existing health care arrangement, you can keep it.

"Despite what the president told us repeatedly, it’s quite possible you will not be permitted to keep your health care plan– no matter how much you may like it. Supporters of health care reform argue that government mandates for certain kinds of coverage will only change health care plans for the better, making them more comprehensive, so no one will be negatively impacted. This argument ignores the loss of both choice and money inflicted by government mandates, but even if it were true, that wasn’t the promise, was it?"

Promise #2: Reform will lower America’s health care spending.

"Obamacare supporters were wrong when they told the country the legislation would lower the nation’s health care costs. Ten years after its passage, health care will represent a larger percentage of GDP than the current projection."

Promise #3: Reform will lower Americans’ health care premiums.

"Contrary to the president’s commitments, your premiums could increase under Obamacare. Why? Just count the reasons. Or ask Dick Durbin."

Promise #4: Obamacare will not lead to a doctor shortage, or escalate the primary-care physician shortfall.

"Thanks to Obamacare, America’s doctor shortfall will accelerate and it will become more difficult to get quality, timely care from a doctor."

Promise #5: There will be no government rationing of medical care.

"Whether dressed up as “comparative effectiveness research” or described bluntly by Mr. Reich or Berwick, government rationing is a frightening and unavoidable byproduct of government-administered and –regulated health care."

Promise #6: “The firm pledge” – Ninety-five percent of Americans will not see any form of tax increase because of Obamacare (or anything else).

"Hold on to your wallets."

Promise #7: Health care reform won’t add “a single dime” to the deficit—and will actually cut it.

"The president’s bill won’t add a single dime to the deficit. It will pile trillions upon trillions of dimes atop an already mountainous debt."

Promise #8: Health care reform will help businesses—employers and employees, alike.

"Some House Democrats have since realized the folly of this anti-business imposition, and have offered a bill to repeal this part of Obamacare, but are balking at the loss of revenue. They say realizing you have a problem is the first step to recovery. Let’s hope they’re right, as even Democrats begin to relinquish the farce that this bill can be all things to all people and all paid for, all at the same time."

Promise #9: Obamacare will not allow for funding of abortions with taxpayer money.

"Were it not for watchful pro-life activists and the wide unpopularity of federally funding abortions, the bill would already be paying for them in at least one state."

Promise #10: Obamacare will not only satisfy each of the promises above, but satisfy all of them at the same time with virtually no downsides.

"In defense of the administration, it did start lowering expectations shortly after passage. On Obama’s post-passage p.r. push, he gave a speech in Iowa that included this decidedly un-lofty section:

"'Now, it’s going to take about four years to implement this entire plan — because we’ve got to do it responsibly and we need to do it right. So I just want to be clear: that means that health care costs won’t go down overnight; not all the changes are going to be in place; there are still going to be aspects of the health care system that are very frustrating over the next several years.'

"With all due respect to the president, we weren’t pitched “This’ll take four years of frustration but it won’t be as bad as Republicans say it is” for $2.5 trillion. We were pitched perfection.

"Every substantive criticism was met with charges of 'fear-mongering.' We were pitched a bill that expanded coverage and increased subsidies without increasing the deficit, mandated new levels of coverage without taxing citizens, that changed everything unless you didn’t want anything to change, that cut costs without rationing, and that enacted 2,500 pages of law without any unintended negative consequences."

This law must be repealed. No compromises.

Missouri Voters Overwhelmingly Reject ObamaCare

From the St. Louis Dispatch article by Tony Messenger:

"Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance, rebuking President Barack Obama's administration and giving Republicans their first political victory in a national campaign to overturn the controversial health care law passed by Congress in March.

"'The citizens of the Show-Me State don't want Washington involved in their health care decisions,' said Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, one of the sponsors of the legislation that put Proposition C on the August ballot. She credited a grass-roots campaign involving Tea Party and patriot groups with building support for the anti-Washington proposition.

"With most of the vote counted, Proposition C was winning by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1. The measure, which seeks to exempt Missouri from the insurance mandate in the new health care law, includes a provision that would change how insurance companies that go out of business in Missouri liquidate their assets.

"'I've never seen anything like it,' Cunningham said at a campaign gathering at a private home in Town and Country. 'Citizens wanted their voices to be heard.'

"About 30 Proposition C supporters whooped it up loudly at 9 p.m. when the returns flashed on the television showing the measure passing with more than 70 percent of the vote [emphasis mine]."

Huh... winning with more than 70% of the vote. I wonder if Obama is still openly mocking calls for the repeal of ObamaCare?

Once again, I must remind everyone that ObamaCare is economic Fascism by definition. From the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:

"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the 'national interest'—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions [emphasis mine]."

Obama Refers to Black Americans as "a Mongrel People" on The View

Oh, great...

From The Hill article by Sam Youngman:

"President Obama waded into the national race debate in an unlikely setting and with an unusual choice of words: telling daytime talk show hosts that African-Americans are 'sort of a mongrel people.'

"The president appeared on ABC’s morning talk show “The View” Thursday, where he talked about the forced resignation of Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod, his experience with race and his roots.

"When asked about his background, which includes a black father and white mother, Obama said of African-Americans: 'We are sort of a mongrel people.'

"'I mean we're all kinds of mixed up,' Obama said. 'That's actually true of white people as well, but we just know more about it.'

"The president's remarks were directed at the roots of all Americans. The definition of mongrel as an adjective is defined as 'of mixed breed, nature, or origin,' according to dictionary.com.

"Obama did not appear to be making an inflammatory remark with his statement and the audience appeared to receive it in the light-hearted manner that often accompanies interviews on morning talk shows."

Well, I'm glad Youngman gave us the dictionary.com definition of mongrel-- because I was confused. Of course dictionary.com wouldn't mention that white supremacists have been using the term "mongrel race" to refer (disparagingly) to Black Americans and other ethnic minorities for a hundred years or more. UPDATE: Donald Douglas noted that Wikipedia does mention this however-- "Among humans, mongrel and mongrelize are derogatory terms for the mixing of 'races', known as miscegenation." I think that Obama probably shouldn't use that phrase too much in the future. Just sayin'...

Also amusing was this line (probably the prize winner for most snort-worthy) from Obama's stint on daytime talk shows: "My hope is that I've tried to set a tone in the debate that says, 'Look, we can disagree without being disagreeable.'"

Obama said that and expected us to believe that he's sincere? Are you kidding me? I know he thinks we're all stupid children but...

So, let me compile a partial list, off the top of my head, as to exactly how Obama's attempted to set that non-disagreeable tone. Well, he arrogantly insulted the former president during his own inaugural address (an inauguration which included a benediction that referred to Asians as "yellow"). Obama has steadfastly refused to consider any other viewpoint except his own on the stimulus, economy in general, health care, unemployment, financial reform, the mislabeled Honduran "coup," etc. The White House asked citizens to flag "fishy" comments found on the internet and in blogs. Obama attempted to shut out Fox News from White House access, and accused them of not being a real news organization-- all the while giving preferential treatment to Huff Po. He called out Sarah Palin in all but name in a major speech before Congress, and he chastised the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address. He initially refused to meet Israel's Prime Minister. Obama's used children as shills in town halls while promoting his agendas (nothing like avoiding disagreeableness by stacking the deck with children of your campaign workers, I suppose). The OFA (Obama for America) promised to deliver "super-hero karate chops" to opponents of the Obama's health care "reforms."

As I said, that's just from off the top of my head. Just think what political debate would be like if Obama was adopting a more confrontational attitude toward his opponents...

White House is Predicting $1.47 Trillion Deficit for 2010

It's kind of amusing to watch Andrew Taylor of the AP try to spin this into good news-- or at least not dreadful news.

From the article:

"New estimates from the White House on Friday predict the budget deficit will reach a record $1.47 trillion this year. The government is borrowing 41 cents of every dollar it spends.

"That's actually a little better than the administration predicted in February.

"The new estimates paint a grim unemployment picture as the economy experiences a relatively jobless recovery. The unemployment rate, presently averaging 9.5 percent, would average 9 percent next year under the new estimates.

"The Office of Management and Budget report has ominous news for President Barack Obama should he seek re-election in 2012 — a still-high unemployment rate of 8.1 percent. That would be well above normal, which is closer to a rate of 5.5 percent to 6 percent. Private economists don't think the unemployment rate will drop to those levels until well into this decade."

[...]

"The gaping deficits are of increasing concern to voters. But Obama and Democrats controlling Congress are mostly taking a pass on deficit reduction this year as they await possible recommendations from Obama's deficit commission.

"While there's a slight improvement in the deficit for the current year compared to the administration's February forecast, next year's predicted $1.42 trillion worth , next year's predicted $1.42 trillion worth of red ink — that's 37 cents of borrowing for every dollar spent — is looking worse. It's about $150 billion more than previously predicted, because of still-slumping tax revenues."

Personally I find the line "But Obama and Democrats controlling Congress are mostly taking a pass on deficit reduction this year as they await possible recommendations from Obama's deficit commission" to be most amusing.

Hmm, I really wonder why the deficits are so huge? It wouldn't have anything to do with a $787 billion dollar political pay off... uh, I mean stimulus package, or that $1 trillion+ health insurance control... um, I mean refrom law-- for starters. Oh, what on Earth can we do to reduce the deficit? We'll have to wait from a partisan commission's recommendations on that... But we'll get back to at date TBD.

Geez...

Unconstitutional ObamaCare

Check out the opinion piece at The Wall Street Journal by J. Kenneth Blackwell and Kenneth A. Klukowski:

"The Justice Department announced last week that it would defend the new federal health-insurance mandate as an exercise of Congress's 'power to lay and collect taxes,' even though Barack Obama had insisted before the bill's passage that it was 'absolutely not a tax increase.' The truth is the mandate is not a tax—and if it were it would be unconstitutional.

"A tax is when the government takes money from individuals, puts it in the Treasury, and plans to spend it. With the health-insurance mandate, the government is not taking money from private individuals; rather, it is commanding them to give their money to another private entity, not to the Treasury. If individuals don't obey the mandate, they pay a penalty to the Treasury. But penalties aren't taxes. The mandate is legally separate from the penalty.

"Even if the Justice Department were to get the mandate considered a tax, it would be an unconstitutional one. Unlike states, the federal government has limited jurisdiction. Under the 10th Amendment, the federal government has only those powers enumerated by the Constitution, and all other powers are reserved to the people or the states. Every federal action must be authorized by a constitutional provision. If there is no such provision, then the action is unconstitutional. No provision of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to command people to buy insurance."

Read the whole thing. It's short and highly recommended.

As I have said before, demanding that citizens buy products and services from private enterprises regulated by the state for the social good of all fits the definition of fascist economic theory.

From the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:

"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the 'national interest'—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions. [emphasis mine]"

This law must be repealed. No compromises.

Daily Caller: "Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright"

Not that this is a real surprise for anyone paying a modicum of attention...

From The Daily Caller article by Jonathan Strong (h/t Clifton B at Another Black Conservative):

"It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign."

[...]

"Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. 'George [Stephanopoulos],' fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is 'being a disgusting little rat snake.'

"Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage."

[...]

"Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, 'why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?' Schaller proposed coordinating a 'smart statement expressing disgust' at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.
'It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,' Schaller wrote.

"Tomasky approved. 'YES. A thousand times yes,' he exclaimed.

The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, 'I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.'

"Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be 'Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,' Bernstein wrote."

[...]

"'Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,' agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. 'But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.'
Ackerman went on:

"'I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.'

"'And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.'

[...]

"Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.

"'Spencer, you’re wrong,' wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. 'Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.'"

So this our current fourth estate-- shilling for Obama, talking political strategy (which includes metaphorical assaults), doing their utmost to keep racists (I guess not counting people who would agree with Wright) out of the White House. Do we really want "facts" from these people informing our opinion?

Clifton B at Another Black Conservative had this astute reaction: "What is astounding is that none on the listsev objects to making up racism, they only object to whether or not the strategy will backfire on Obama. Given the racial tensions that already exist in this nation, I find it a particularly evil to add to that tension by making stuff up for political gain."

I highly recommend reading the entire article, and email links to The Daily Caller's article to anyone who doubts a Left-biased mainstream media.

NAACP Speaker and Probable Racial Separatist Zaki Baruti Defends Calling Kenneth Gladney an "Uncle Tom"

Zaki Baruti is the name of the man who called Kenneth Gladney an "Uncle Tom" during an NAACP rally in support of Gladney's attackers (my own post about this here). After this rally was recorded and posted on the internet by the NAACP, Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit posted the excerpt and it made its way through the blogosphere and onto the MSM's radar. Now with his fifteen minutes of fame in full swing, Zaki Baruti, aka Lavoy Reed, went on Fox News and was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly (video here). Once there, Baruti didn't disappoint and once again reaffirmed that it's okay to call black people beaten by SEIU attackers (one white and one black) an "Uncle Tom."

In the interview, Baruti said "I would say that most of the people would agree with that terminology of Uncle Tom being applied to him," and "I most definitely stand by the statement that was made with regards to Mr. Kenneth Gladney and stand very strongly with Rev. Elston McCowan [one of the defendants facing charges for attacking Gladney]." He then hawked his newsletter to the Fox News crowd. Classy...

Baruti's speech excerpt from the NAACP rally was this:

"Back in the day, we used to call someone like that, and I want to remind you, when uh... this incident occurred, I was really struck by a front page picture of this guy, which we called, a Negro. I mean that we call him a Negro in the fact that he works for not for our people but against our people. In the old days, we call him an Uncle Tom. I just gotta say that. Here he is, ironically the day after a young brother, a young man, I didn’t mean to call him a brother, but on the front page of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, ironically, he’s sitting in a wheelchair, and being kissed on the forehead, by a European. Now just imagine that as a poster's child picture, not working for our people.."

Although his unfocused, rambling speech and amateurish interview with O'Reilly may make it hard to believe, Baruti seems to have managed to make a career out of his racial activism. A small amount of research shows him to be an all too common, small-time racial activist. He is the "president/general" of The Universal African Peoples Organization (UAPO), an organization whose website boasts that they are "Develop[ing] programs to assist youth in preparing for the 21st [Century is the word presumably left off]." I guess they should get right on that-- I mean the 21st century is right around the corner. Their mission statement also says that they "are seeking at least 144,000 people who share our aspirations." When I was there the their web counter rang me up as #28,820 and I for one am not somebody that shares their aspirations-- so they still have a ways to go yet.

Baruti's resume posted at the website lists various standard Left-wing activist jobs-- student leader, political action chairperson, "Housing Activist," author (of two educational booklets), publisher of a newsletter, founder of an organization (the UAPO), co-chair of "Coalition Against Police Crimes And Repression," etc. Two of his boasts particularly caught my eye-- he was a "Delegate to African Anti-Zionism Movement - Tripoli, Libya 1989" and "Delegate to World Conference Against Racism - WCAR Durban, South Africa 2001." The second is the infamous Durban conference, a UN hosted meeting that basically devolved into a shameful, anti-Semitic rant. So, anyone care to bet that Baruti believes that Jews are trying rule the world and oppressing the black race?

Going by by the UAPO's published "Vision & Principles," Baruti's racial stances are pretty much standard racial separatism and racial collectivity, not unlike Ron Karenga, aka Ron Everett, the inventor of Kwanzaa (my Karenga/Kwanzaa posts are here: Part One and Part Two). In fact, the UAPO's platform reads to be rather similar to Karenga's "sevenfold path of blackness" as published in The Quotable Karenga.

According to Karenga the "sevenfold path of blackness is think black, talk black, act black, create black, buy black, vote black, and live black." With that in mind, let's take a look at the UAPO's platform section of their "Visions & Principles" web page.

"We will improve the lives of our people when we do the following:

"1. Develop, support, and expand the growth of African-American businesses. Increase the number of African-American skilled professional. Gain our share of the tax dollars and services generated by national, state, and local businesses. End redlining of the African-American community. Develop international trade ventures. [In other words: "buy black."]

"2. We seek to the quantitative/qualitative number of African-Americans to elected public offices in proportion to our population at national, state, and local levels. We seek the passage of legislation that would directly enhance the quality of life for African-Americans. [In other words: "vote black."]

"3. Support the development and expansion of independent African-American schools. Support African centered curriculum in the public schools. Control local public school boards with Afrocentric thinking people. Increase the literacy rate and level within our community. ["Think black," "act black," and "talk black."]

"4. Institute community control of police departments and end racism within the judicial system. Support and expand educational, job training, and community-oriented programs within the penal institutions. Use community service programs as alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders.

"5. Develop greater emphasis on health care, knowledge, and accessibility. Support a universal assistance program responsible for providing a minimum standard of living to rebuild two parent and/or extended families. End homelessness. ["Live black."]

"6. Develop programs to assist youth in preparing for the 21st. We believe in the total equality and advancement of women within the private, public, and domestic sectors of our society. We also believe that all women should be respected and protected. ["Live black," again.]

"7. End all types of pollution, especially industrial, of Mother Earth, the water and air.

"8. Support and work diligently for the complete liberation of Africa, the Carribean [misspelling theirs] Islands, and other regions/countries in the world. Actively support the principles of non-interference in the affairs of other nations. ["Create black" in this case, black nations.]"

Karenga's antipathy for religion ("Jesus said, 'My blood will wash you white as snow'. Who wants to be white but sick 'Negroes', or worse yet-- washed that way by the blood of a dead Jew. You know if Nadinola bleaching cream couldn't do it, no dead Jew's blood is going to do it." page 28 of the The Quotable Karenga) is not shared by the UAPO whose motto is "One God! One Goal! One Destiny!" However Karenga's enthusiasm for racial separation and racial collectivity is evident throughout the UAPO's website. The Quotable Karenga says "There is no such thing as individualism, we're all Black," (page 1), " "If we could get a nigger to see how worthless, unimportant, and weak he is by himself, then we will have made a contribution," (page 2), "Individualism is a white desire; co-operation is a Black need," (page 5), and "Thinking Black is thinking collective minded," (page 5).

Quotes from Baruti's UAPO website, while not as inflammatory nor as blunt as Karenga, illustrate an agenda and mind-set likewise obsessed with collective racial identity."[W]e must unite based on their commonality which is 1) we are of African descent and 2) we are oppressed within America and throughout the world[ emphasis mine]," the UAPO declares. "Our goal is the liberation of our people spiritually, economically, politically, and culturally, whereby we will control our destiny," they say. "[T]he fulfillment of God’s will for us as people to have Freedom, Justice, and Equality, no matter where we reside and whereby we as a collective will fulfill our capacity to grow, develop, and expand to our greatest height of self-development [emphasis mine]." Candy-coated separatism.

Baruti considers Gladney outside the Black collective. This is why Baruti "didn’t mean to call him [Gladney] a brother," and "we call him a Negro in the fact that he works for not for our people but against our people."

In The Quotable Karenga Ron Karenga says "White people can't be Black peoples friend. A friend is your alter-ego and a reflection of yourself," (page 30). It is any wonder why Baruti can't stand seeing Gladney "sitting in a wheelchair, being kissed on the forehead, by a European."

Well, one has to wonder exactly what life experiences would drive Baruti to this separatist point of view. Karenga made it a point to blame racism and Whites for his separatist views. He writes: "We should not be blamed for talking separation. Racism in America has already decided this. We just want to be separate and powerful, not segregated and powerless" (page 18 of The Quotable Karenga).

Well, Baruti does have an encounter with racial discrimination that he describes (link is here). He writes: "DISCRIMINATION: The only personal instance of discrimination that has occurred to me happened in 1965 when I applied for a job with Union Electric. There were three positions available and I was the only Black of five finalists for these positions. However, I wasn't chosen. Thus, the slots were filled by the White applicants. Of course, I felt a twinge of racism, but being young, I did not pursue the issue."

So, Baruti didn't get a job once-- the obvious and only reason being that he is black... I guess. You know, I've been in a group of final candidates for a few jobs before... maybe the reason I didn't get the jobs was because I am married to a black woman. I mean, what other reason could there be?

At that same web page Baruti also says "meeting the leader of the Libyan Revolution, Muammar Qadafy, is a parallel to the other [greatest] personal achievement [publishing two booklets]." This trip was made possible by "being blessed with a 10-day, expense-paid trip to Libya, Africa."

So to recap, Kenneth Gladney is a black man reportedly beaten and called a "n*gger" by a white man and black man from the SEIU. The Missouri NAACP's response is to hold a rally for the two alleged attackers, a rally that demands the two be immediately exonerated. They invite Zaki Baruti, aka Lavoy Reed, the president/general of the UAPO, a group whose writings support racial separation, to speak so that Burati can call Gladney a "negro" and an "Uncle Tom."

The NAACP is building a community by supporting physical assaults and public name calling against those they decide do not belong. Does anyone else have a problem with this?

Iranian Woman Raped and Murdered by Basij Forces in Tabriz

From Persian2English.com ((h/t Anne Leary at Backyard Conservative):

"According to HRANA, Elnaz Babazadeh, a 26 year old woman was raped and murdered by Basij forces in the city of Tabriz (northwestern Iran) last week. According to the reports, Basij forces stopped Babazadeh in her car for not following the Iranian regime’s dress code. Elnaz resisted and ignored orders given by the Basij forces.

"Then the Basij forces who had initially stopped her jumped into her car and threatened her with a gun. Two other Basij members joined in and all together they beat and raped her. They murdered Babazadeh and dumped her body close to Emamiyeh cemetery.

"After local investigation was conducted by HRANA members in Tabriz, it was confirmed at Babazadeh’s funeral that the person who killed her was the son of a high-ranking Revolutionary Guards member.

"The intentions of the savage Basij members was to put a stop to the 'improper' way women in society dressed. Basij members believe this is their duty to God."

And Iran is a member of the UN's Women's Commission...

Background on the Basij can be found here:

"The Pasdaran was given the mandate of organizing a large people's militia, the Basij, in 1980. Islamic Revolution Guards (Vezarat-e Sepah Pasdaran-e Enqelab-e Islamic) is in charge of the paramilitary national Mobilization of the Oppressed (Baseej-e Mostazafan) Organisation. It is from Basij ranks that volunteers were drawn to launch "human wave" attacks against the Iraqis, particularly around Basra.

"The precise size of the Basij is an open question. Basij membership comprises mainly boys, old men, and those who recently finished their military service. Article 151 of the Constitution says the government is obligated to provide military-training facilities for everyone in the country, in accordance with the precepts of Islam under which all individuals should have the ability to take up arms in defense of their country

"Iranian officials frequently cite a figure of 20 million, but this appears to be an exaggeration based on revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's November 1979 decree creating the Basij. Khomeini said at the time that 'a country with 20 million youths must have 20 million riflemen or a military with 20 million soldiers; such a country will never be destroyed.' In a 1985 Iranian News Agency report, Hojjatoleslam Rahmani, head of the Basij forces of the Pasdaran, was quoted as stating that there were close to 3 million volunteers in the paramilitary force receiving training in some 11,000 centers.

[...]

"The Niruyeh Moghavemat Basij - the Mobilisation Resistance Force - was the strong right arm of Ayatollah Khomeini. Its volunteers were martyred in their tens of thousands in the Iran-Iraq war, and were given the role of moral police at home. The supreme leader's equally conservative successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been careful not to let any of Iran's overlapping security forces fall under the control of his elected rival.

"Ashura Brigades were reportedly created in 1993 after anti-government riots erupted in various Iranian cities. In 1998 they consisted of 17,000 Islamic militia men and women, and were composed of elements of the Revolutionary Guards and the Baseej volunteer militia.

"The Basij, or Baseej paramilitary volunteer forces, come under the control of the Revolutionary Guards. They have been active in monitoring the activities of citizens, enforcing the hijab and arresting women for violating the dress code, and seizing 'indecent' material and satellite dish antennae. In May 1999 the Minister of Islamic Culture and Guidance stated in public remarks that the Government might support an easing of the satellite ban. However, Supreme Leader Khamenei, who makes the ultimate determination on issues that involve radio and television broadcasting, quickly criticised any potential change as amounting to 'surrender' to Western culture, effectively ending any further debate of the idea. The 'Special Basijis' are not permitted to participate in political parties or groups, although other members of the Basij can belong to political associations if they are not on a Basij mission and do not use the name or resources of the Basij for the association. Basijis can participate in specialist or trade associations.

"Hezbollahi 'partisans of God' consist of religious zealots who consider themselves as preservers of the Revolution. They have been active in harassing government critics and intellectuals, have firebombed bookstores and disrupted meetings. They are said to gather at the invitation of the state-affiliated media and generally act without meaningful police restraint or fear of persecution."

NAACP to Vote on Declaration that Tea Party is Racist

Apparently the NAACP believes that espousing federal fiscal responsibility and respect for the Constitution is racist.

From ABC News story by Huma Khan (h/t Pat at And So it Goes in Shreveport):

"The nation's largest and oldest civil rights organization will vote on the resolution Tuesday during its annual convention in Kansas City, Mo.

[...]

"'We're deeply concerned about elements that are trying to move the country back, trying to reverse progress that we've made,' NAACP spokeswoman Leila McDowell told ABC News. 'We are asking that the law-abiding members of the Tea Party repudiate those racist elements, that they recognize the historic and present racist elements that are within the Tea Party movement.'

"The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, in coordination with 170 other groups, including labor unions, is planning a protest march in Washington, D.C., Oct. 10 as the next step in building momentum against the Tea Party.

"The 'One Nation' march is designed as an antithesis to the Tea Party, and it's about 'pulling America together and back to work,' McDowell said."

So Leila McDowell is suggesting that "law-abiding" members (What Tea Party member is not "law-abiding?" Which Tea Party members have been arrested for violent political activities?)of the Tea Party essentially admit the "inherent racism" of their movement, "historic and present" (Historic? Just how old is the Tea Party movement? Less than 18 months, right? Did McDowell just cut & paste this statement from her standard "white guilt" NAACP press release kit?), and then step aside so that NAACP and Leftist political groups can continue in their "building momentum against the Tea Party." All in the name of... what?... good race relations, I guess.

Funny. The NAACP didn't seem to take exception when Kenneth Gladney was (at least) kicked while on the ground and called a n*gger by a White man from the SEIU. In fact, Missouri's branch of the NAACP held a rally in support of the White man and his co-defendant-- where they denounced Gladney as an "Uncle Tom" (video here). Apparently Blacks perceived as conservative don't deserve anything from the NAACP except insults and derision. That's good race relations for you...

By the way Ms. McDowell, perhaps you can explain to us all about this declaration at the Missouri NAACP rally. "I mean that we call him [Kenneth Gladney] a Negro in the fact that he works for not for our people but against our people. In the old days, we call him an Uncle Tom. I just gotta say that. Here he is, ironically the day after a young brother, a young man, I didn’t mean to call him a brother, but on the front page of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, ironically, he’s sitting in a wheelchair, and being kissed on the forehead, by a European. Now just imagine that as a poster's child picture, not working for our people.." Was this an example of "pulling America together and back to work"? Please, tell me.

And then, of course, there's the video of the Philadelphia New Black Panther Party leader King Samir Shibazz's shouted declaration that "I hate white people! All of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him!" This is in addition to his more widely reported statement "You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!" (video here) Is a highly publicized NAACP condemnation of that forthcoming? None that I know of. But I guess statements like that don't qualify as "explicitly racist behavior" in the NAACP's book.

I am so tired of the racist Tea Party rhetoric. The evidence that the ABC article cites is the hotly debated "racial epithets thrown at members of Congress" issue (racial epithets heard by no one, including cameras' audios, except by the members of Congress in question), have "engaged in explicitly racist behavior" (no specific examples given), and "displayed signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically" (references to a few anti-Obama signs showing him as a monkey and a picture with someone holding a sign saying "undocumented worker" below a picture of Obama-- I didn't know the birther movement was inherently racist...). If the Tea Party engages in explicitly racist behavior (such as NBPP), why is it that there are only a few, highly contested examples of it?

Strange, huh?

UPDATE: Conservative pundits have responded to the NAACP's with various posts over at Big Government:

"I Condemn the NAACP: Get Back to Freedom" by R. Dozier Gray

"The NAACP should, in my opinion, be about freedom of thought, expression and existence for all people. Instead, NAACP seems desirous of only protecting thought and expression that agrees with them. I think that is wrongheaded."

"I Condemn the NAACP" by Maria Stroughter

"What saddens me is that this organization chooses to focus on imaginary slights, while real threats to this country exist in the form of New Black Panther members who have been caught on tape intimidating voters with billy clubs. Rather than condemning this behavior, it is largely ignored by the NAACP and a presidential administration that continues to refuse to prosecute such."

"Chicago Machine Democrats Deserve NAACP Condemnation, Not Tea Party" by Cedra Crenshaw

"As the NAACP prepares to condemn the tea party movement for phantom 'explicitly racist behavior', the Department of Justice and the NAACP overlook actual instances of explicitly racist behavior by the New Black Panther Party. Blatant disregard for actual racist behavior shows the NAACP to be nothing more than a tool of hard leftists; hard leftists who are intent on creating exploitable divisions."

"NAACP Is Not At All Serious: They’ve Missed the Real Issues" by LTC Allen West (USA, Ret.)

"This NAACP Resolution is consistent with the Obama administration tactic of demonizing and blaming someone else for your own failures and shortcomings, and not take responsibility and accountability."

"The Racism of the NAACP" by Jeff Dunetz

"Take for example this rant by SEIU Executive VP Gerry Hudson where he portrays African-American workers as easy dupes 'it doesn’t take a whole lot to argue African-American workers to another place,' and stereotypes those white workers are 'so f***ing rabidly racist.'"

"Essentially he is saying that the black people he represents are all weak-minded idiots and the whites are all racists. In the old days the NAACP would have blasted Mr. Hudson for his racist comments about Blacks and Whites. But these 'ain’t' the old days."

"Tea Party Preempts NAACP" by Bill Hennessy

"At midnight, the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition sent a resolution condemning the NAACP’s false and defamatory statement to the organization’s Washington bureau. We took this action because we will not stand for their lies.

"The Tea Party’s principles are simple and clear:

Smaller federal government
Lower taxes
Fiscal responsibility
National security
Federalism

"Those are precisely the tools to lift all Americans out of poverty. They’ve worked every time they’ve been tried. In America, we just haven’t tried them in awhile, due in large part to the NAACP’s advancement of socialism."

"Black Activists Condemn NAACP Resolution Against Tea Party Movement" by Bob Parks

"As the NAACP plans to use their group’s prestige to bash the tea party movement, members of the Project 21 black leadership network are urging delegates at the NAACP’s national convention not to turn the NAACP into a pawn for progressive political bosses.

"'As a frequent speaker at tea party rallies around the country, I can assure the NAACP that the tea party movement’s concerns are about President Obama’s policies and not his race,' said Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli. 'I’m deeply concerned that the NAACP is being used as a political tool to do the dirty work of the progressive movement. Instead of criticizing tea parties, the NAACP would be better served denouncing the racist comments made by a member of the New Black Panther Party and their voter intimidation outside a Philadelphia polling place in the last presidential election.'"

UPDATE 2: The NAACP has, unsurprisingly, passed passed the resolution condemning the Tea Party.

According to KansasCity.com (h/t Jacobson at Legal Insurrection):

"Late this afternoon the NAACP passed a resolution calling on all people — including tea party leaders — to condemn racism within the tea party movement.

"Passed on the fourth day of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s annual convention in Kansas City, the resolution also urged people to oppose what it said was the tea party’s drive 'to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.'"

According to Jacobson:

"As originally proposed, the resolution was to call upon 'all people of good will to repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.'

"The NAACP shut down the video feed and barred cameras from its vote, but reportedly the resolution was scaled back slightly, to use the term 'racist elements in the Tea Parties.'

"Make no mistake, either under the original or the revised version, the NAACP has placed itself firmly within the Democratic smear machine which for two years has been attempting to portray all opposition to Obama's policies as racist.

"The purported basis for the resolution is that racist signs and epithets have been hurled at Tea Party rallies. I have addressed this before. While any such behavior should be, and has been, condemned, we are talking about a literal handful of incidents out of millions of people attending thousands of rallies carrying hundreds of thousands of signs.

"Moreover, the notion that the Tea Party movement stands for turning the country back to a pre-civil rights era is a gross and disgusting distortion, and an outright falsehood. A lie is a lie and the NAACP is lying."

[...]

"The target of the NAACP is not so much the Tea Party members, but other blacks. The NAACP seeks to isolate the Tea Party movement from a natural constituency, black social and economic conservatives. The resolution puts any black who associates with the Tea Parties at risk of being labeled an Uncle Tom or some of the other race-based epithets hurled at black conservatives by black liberals."

I'm very glad that Jacobson brings up the notion that the NAACP's actions are most directly directed at Black Americans and not so much at the Tea Party itself. By painting the Tea Party a racist group, the NAACP places even more pressure on Black Americans to conform to the NAACP's Leftist political agendas. This is the same strategy employed for many, many years by Black political leaders and activists.

The Obama Administration's Core

William Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection wrote an excellent post, "A Time to Choose Sides" on Sunday. Check it out. Prof. Jacobson usually writes good stuff, but he was dead-on in this post.

From Jacobson:

"Not to belabor the point made here hundreds of times, but over two thousand pages of Obamacare legislation will result in several thousand pages of regulations which will control the most intimate and important aspects of our lives; cap-and-trade legislation and regulations will control the means of production; financial regulation has devolved into social planning; and it goes on and on.

"We did not need to reach this point.

"What should have been a passing financial crisis has been used by the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress to achieve what -- in the famous words of Rahm Emanuel -- could not otherwise be achieved.

"Democrats took advantage of a crisis, and then doubled-down by massively increasing our national debt to advantage preferred political constituencies.

"The answer should have been to grow the pie, not to redistribute the slices, but that alternative is off the table with Democrats in control."

Jacobson has managed to put into concise language what so many Americans are feeling. Cutting through the layers of ugly partisan politics, the race-issue shield, and the media blitz, Jacobson precisely describes the core of the Obama Administration in this relatively short post. Very fine work.

UPDATE: Heh. It seems that Carol over at Carol's Closet was also impressed with Jacobson's post and wrote about it last night.

Missouri NAACP Calls Kenneth Gladney an "Uncle Tom"

You may remember Kenneth Gladney. He's the black man who was physically assaulted by SEIU members while selling "Don't Tread on Me" flags in front of Rep. Russ Carnahan's townhall meeting in Missouri (video here).

On May 5th the NAACP held a rally/press conference to support the accused attackers, Perry Molens and Elston McCowan, being brought to trial for the assault. During that rally this was said about Kenneth Gladney (h/t Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit video here):

"Back in the day, we used to call someone like that, and I want to remind you, when uh... this incident occurred, I was really struck by a front page picture of this guy, which we called, a Negro. I mean that we call him a Negro in the fact that he works for not for our people but against our people. In the old days, we call him an Uncle Tom. I just gotta say that. Here he is, ironically the day after a young brother, a young man, I didn’t mean to call him a brother, but on the front page of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, ironically, he’s sitting in a wheelchair, and being kissed on the forehead, by a European. Now just imagine that as a poster's child picture, not working for our people.."

In "the old days" they called him an Uncle Tom? That guy must not be reading too many comments and responses to people like John McWorter, Thomas Sowell, and Shelby Steele. Those guys are called Uncle Toms on a near daily basis... I guess the people hurling those insults apparently don't know that the NAACP's preferred, politically correct term is "negro." Live and learn.

The NAACP has been embarrassing itself before in a myriad of ways for past couple of decades, such as declaring that Hallmark's talking graduation cards say "black whore" instead of "black hole" despite the card's space theme (be sure to watch the video available at this link), but this whole incident really gets at a far more serious problem. Once again, we see an example of the wholesale ostracizing and dehumanization of people for the sin of being (or in Gladney's case being perceived as) a black conservative.

Fittingly, this comes on the heels of Michelle Malkin most recent posting some of the hate mail she's received-- which includes attacks on her race and gender. Ah yes, the Left's tolerance in this "post-racial" era is so inspiring...

UPDATE: Zaki Baruti, aka Lavoy Reed, is the name of the man who called Gladney an "Uncle Tom" an "accusation" he has repeated on national TV. My post about this and Baruti's organization here.

Krauthammer Slams Bolden's NASA Muslim Outreach Program

Most of us know about NASA administrator Charles Bolden's claim (video available at link) that NASA's new mission is to make Muslim nations feel good about their contributions to math and science.

During an interview on Al Jezeera English Bolden said this (as reported by Byron York at The Washington Examiner):

"When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator - [Obama] charged me with three things," Bolden said. "One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering."

Well there's been a lot of responses to this, but my favorite rebuttal is from Charles Krauthammer (h/t Gateway Pundit) who said this:

"This is a new of fatuousness. NASA was established to get America into space and to keep us there. This idea of ‘feel good about your past’ scientific achievements is the worst combination of group therapy, psycho-babble, imperial condescension and adolescent diplomacy. If I didn't know that Obama had told him this, I’d demand the firing of Charles Bolden."

Krauthammer hit the nail right on the head this time. The condescension implicit in Bolden's statement is astonishing. It really is. The phrase "adolescent diplomacy" (though a bit too polite in my opinion) is really a perfect term for the ridiculous political stance that the Obama administration has taken.

Lessons learned from Psych 101 "feel good" self-esteem classes should not be the basis for international diplomacy. Obama seems to be subjecting Muslim countries to the same programs designed to make underachieving students feel better...

Happy 4th of July!

Have a happy 4th of July everyone. Have fun and stay sane-- I guess that's decent generic advice for any day of the year...

Added New Link: Big Peace!

Just added Andrew Breitbart's newest site Big Peace to the Blog List. This site will apparently deal with national security issues and is edited by Hoover Institution Research Fellow Peter Schweizer.

Check it out!