“All this black woman knows is Obama is the chosen one and he is black.”

“Unhyphenated American” Lloyd Marcus takes on racists who can only see the presidency through the spectrum of race:

I received this message on Twitter from a black female, “Lloyd Marcus “F– you!”, in response to my opposition to Obama. This woman is obviously a non thinking racist who refuses to take an honest look at her black idol president. She has chosen to ignore Obama’s long list of offenses of shredding the Constitution, governing against the will of the American people and using Chicago thug tactics. All this black woman knows is Obama is the chosen one and he is black. So shut up! Whites who dare to criticize or question Obama are racist and blacks who “don’t get it” are Uncle Tom traitors to their race.One would think such small minded racist thinking would be limited to the uneducated, non achievers and welfare entitlement junkies. Unfortunately, I personally know highly educated and successful fellow blacks who feel the same about Obama as the knucklehead who sent me the “F– you!” note.

Read the whole thing.  As I’ve said before, liberals have to keep “their” groups in the party, and they will do whatever they can to keep down any black, gay, or woman who dares to be outspokenly conservative.  People like Mr. Marcus gives me hope that this will not work for much longer.


The People Don’t Know What They Want: A Review of John Samples’ The Struggle to Limit Government

The folks who oppose the TEA Party movement love to bring up some of its less logical members’ ill conceived demands to “keep government out of Medicare.” However, these demands perfectly sum up the will of the American populace as a whole, which tends towards a fickle ambivalence on what form it wants government to take.  John Samples’ book The Struggle to Limit Government: A Modern Political History, tracks the history of that ambivalence.

The Struggle to Limit Government begins with a brief overview of progressivism leading up to Franklin Roosevelt. He and other progressives cloaked that ultimate big government program, Social Security, which currently accounts for about 20 percent of our national budget, behind an aura of personal responsibility. He argued, correctly as future would show, that once the wage earners were forced to buy into the system, benefits could never be cut, lest those who paid in would lose their investment. We continue to struggle with this problem today. Social Security was politically designed to persist, and it was designed well. As time went on, the program continued to increase through an ever-growing feedback loop; the benefits would increase shortly before elections, then taxes would necessarily increase once power was comfortably entrenched.

The next major wave of government growth came with Lyndon Johnson and his great society programs. LBJ saw government as a way to remake society, and the people went along. Republicans at the time saw little to gain from opposing governmental growth policies, as the growth benefited them as well, so they did not object to LBJ’s intentions to use government to achieve his goals. LBJ’s programs were bolstered by the enormous support that they provided to higher education, leading universities to be stacked with liberals supportive of his goals. Samples points out that the war in Vietnam served the same goals as the war on poverty at home- to remake society. Government continued to grow unabated.

Reagan’s policies represented a radical new kind of Republican; inspired by Goldwater, he ran on a platform of reforming the old system and actually shrinking government. He argued for cutting taxes first, on the theory that by starving the beast, reduced revenues would force government to contract. He was largely wrong, and his policies led to unprecedented borrowing, still a problem today.

However, Reagan was not a complete failure. His theories changed the public’s perception of government growth. Some of Samples’ most interesting anecdotes are the statements that pre-Reagan politicians made about government’s goals. LBJ, for example, openly called for equality “in fact,” that is, equality of both opportunity and outcome, something no modern politician could call for. Had it not been for Reagan, Obama’s famous answer to Joe the Plumber about “spreading the wealth around” would not have been likely to even raise eyebrows. Although government never actually shrank under Reagan, he did herald in an era of illegitimacy of government that even the most liberal candidates still attempt to give the appearance of embracing today, by claiming that their policies will lower taxes and shrink government. By offering reforms, though, Reagan was ultimately an upholder of the old system; his policies allowed big, centralized government to perpetuate.

Samples is not kind to the Republicans who followed Reagan. While the Gingrich revolution brought about significant change by forcing Clinton to moderate, it delegitimatized the movement as well. When Gingrich and Clinton forced showdowns that led to temporary government shutdowns, the people, comfortable in the booming ‘90’s, favored Clinton and abandoned Gingrich’s attempts to reduce spending. Bush, with his compassionate conservatism, failed to focus on spending much at all and grew government to unprecedented levels. Samples derides the Republicans for focusing on moral issues, rather than fiscal, and losing sight of the need to shrink government. Led by the moral majority, Republicans forced their own kind of progressivism; even the Iraq war, in its intent to remake Iraqi society, was paternalistic and progressive in nature.

This book provides a wealth of interesting, relevant information. While most political junkies will be familiar with the broad history, Samples breaks down the goals, incentives, and public reaction in great detail, allowing the reader to fully understand how government was made into the looming, centralized power that it is today. However, if I have one complaint about it, it is that this is not the sort of book that you can curl up and get lost in. It reads very much like a textbook, with a broad amount of information, but very little narrative flow to keep the reader engaged. The wealth of information makes it well worth the read, but slogging through it is likely to be difficult for the casual reader.

The book’s conclusion appears to break down to the fact that Americans, in their voting habits, simply cannot make up their minds about whether they want larger or smaller government. The common cliché of the citizen wanting government spending cut on everything but what is important to him is a true one. Neither party helps this issue, as both tend to offer their own takes on progressivism in efforts (sometimes misguided) to stay in power. It is our ambivalence, and give and take back, that keeps us on the path that we are on, and that ambivalence will have to change in order to end the struggle and truly limit government.

How tremendously terrible are the Democratic nominees in Shelby County, TN?

So bad, they’re not even pretending they’re not.  And they expect voters to just deal with it. 

It is understandable — if a tad abrupt — that a spokesperson for one of the two major parties in Shelby County should dismiss the other party’s freshly minted nominees for county offices as “duds.”

That’s what Shelby County Republican chairman Lang Wiseman, extolling his own “great candidates,” had to say at a post-election GOP rally concerning the Democratic victors in May 4 primary voting.

What is less customary is that such a spokesperson’s opposite number — in this case, Gale Jones Carson, one of two campaign co-chairs (the other is Dave Cambron) for the August 5 general election — should be advising Democratic cadres at a post-election rally to “hold your nose” and vote for all her party’s nominees “whether you like them or not.”

What are you going to do, Memphis, vote Republican?

And then they came for the gays

I’ve got a new article posted at NewsBlaze, where I discuss the way that liberals, believing that they and they alone have the monopoly on “oppressed people,” must destroy, by any means necessary, women, gays, and blacks who dare to outspokenly express conservative viewpoints.

“We’re not even dealing with any constitutionality here.”

CNS news collects Democrats’ opinions on why they believe that the healthcare proposals are Constitutional. 

The general consensus: something along the lines of “Why should the constitution matter to things that the government does?”

“Someone told us to be very careful with digging too deep into this, because if our hunch is right and this does lead back to the DNC and Organizing for America themselves, there are many people who will do us physical harm to keep us from exposing them.”

 In 1991, when Clarence Thomas came before Congress for his nomination process, he was bamboozled by a former employee’s outlandish, and heretofore completely un-complained of, allegations of sexual harassment.  I was only 11 years old when this happened, but even I could see that this was nothing but a shallow and desparate attempt to derail his nomination process.  But I didn’t understand why.  When he famously referred to that incident as a “high-tech lynching for uppity blackswho in any way deign to think for themselves,” I didn’t really understand what that meant.  Now, I do.   

The Democratic party, the liberals, believe that they have a hold on black Americans.  They have no reason not to believe this; blacks have, in recent memory, supported the Democrats by enormous majorities.  So Thomas was threat; he could show the public an intelligent, high ranking black man who openly and unapologetically rejected the liberal line.  “Uppity” used to refer to a black person who thought that he could rise above his rank and be on par with whites; for Justice Thomas, it was no different.  He was uppity by thinking for himself and rejecting the norm.  He had to be stopped, and Anita Hill was to do it.  While these allegations did not, fortunately, derail Thomas’s nomination, they put a serious dent in his prestige as a justice. 

But this is about far more than race.  More recently, we have seen the treatment of women who dare to speak against the liberal ideal.  Democrats have never had as tight a hold on women as they do on blacks, but they do have some significant grip.  More importantly than the sheer number of voters, though, is that outspoken women are largely liberal.  Many conservative women stay quiet; they have families and jobs and lives; they keep their heads down and don’t make waves.  Not seen means no real threat; Democrats can continue to tell us that Republicans are the party of sexism, and who’s going to challenge them?  Some man?  Hah! 

But enter Sarah Palin; enter Michelle Bachmann; enter even Carrie Prejean, and we have a problem.  If women start seeing that they, too, could speak out about their conservative beliefs, that they could do so passionately and honestly, well, Democrats could lose what hold they have.  So they don’t engage these women on their beliefs or positions.  Intelligent debate is too great a risk. These women must be destroyed, with slander, threats, and more.

And now, it’s the gays.   In case you aren’t familiar, the blog HillBuzz, which is run by some gay men who originally wanted to throw their full-fledged support behind Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, got a lot more buzz when it brazenly and defiantly rejected President Obama and the present Democratic leadership.  And how does this leave them?  Well, the fabulous gents at HillBuzzare now finding themselves working to uncover a plot against them that they describe as “defamation, threats, and harassment.”  And, from what they’re hearing, this is more than just an internet prank:

Someone told us to be very careful with digging too deep into this, because if our hunch is right and this does lead back to the DNC and Organizing for America themselves, there are many people who will do us physical harm to keep us from exposing them.

We should have seen this coming.  Gays are also beholden to the Democratic party; they’ve long voted for the D almost without thinking, and the Democrats must do no more than throw them a few crumbs every now and then to keep them onboard.  There’s reason to believe that this might be changing.  Change is bad, if you’ve already got a group under your thumb.  HillBuzz has publically broken ranks with the Democratic party, and criticized them at every turn since 2008.  HillBuzz must be stopped. 

But, HillBuzz notes something that the liberals didn’t count on:

Well, they’ve made the mistake of targeting single, gay guys with no children, no one depending on us for anything, and no real reason to sit back and let them attack us unchallenged.  We live in Chicago.  We’ve been mugged.  We’ve been physically assaulted before.  We’ve been dealing with nonstop harassment from Obama supporters for over two years now — all in service to their “Lightbringer” of Hope and Change, whose message can only, it seems, be spread through violence and thuggery.

Godspeed, Fellows.  You might just lick this thing for all of us.

Notice a Pattern??

The U.S. Census Bureau has released a list of cities over 250K strong, ranked by poverty level.  Here are the top twenty-two, which are all of those with more than 20% in poverty:

  1. Detroit (Mayor: Dave Bling, Democrat, with Democratic mayors since 1962)*
  2. Cleveland (Mayor: Frank G. Jackson, Democrat, with Democratic mayors since 1990)
  3. Buffalo (Mayor: Byron Brown, Democrat, with Democratic mayors since 1966)
  4. Newark (Mayor: Cory Booker, Democrat, with Democratic mayors since at least 1962)
  5. Miami (Mayor: Manuel Alberto Diaz, Independent but former Democrat who endorsed Obama; history of mayors’ parties unknown)
  6. Fresno (Mayor: Ashley Swearengin, ran a “Republican-like campaign” history unknown)
  7. Cincinnati (Mayor: Mark Mallory, Democrat; Democratic mayors since 1984, but hasn’t had a Republican since 1971)
  8. Toledo (Mayor: Carleton S. “Carty” Finkbeiner (or Wikipedia’s just messing with me), Democrat, Democratic mayors since 1990)
  9. El Paso (Mayor: John Cook, mayoral races are non-partisan, but all signs say liberal; history unknown)
  10. Philadelphia (Mayor: Michael Nutter, Democrat, Democratic mayors since 1952)
  11. Milwaukee (Mayor: Tom Barret, Democrat, Democratic mayors since 1960, before that, 3 Socialists, a “non-party” (kind of like an independent?), a Democrat/Republican fusion, and Democrats since 1908)
  12. Memphis (Mayor: Myron Lowery, Democrat, Democratic mayors since at least 1992)
  13. St. Louis (Mayor: Francis G. Slay, Democrat, Democratic mayors since 1949)
  14. Dallas (Mayor: Tom Lepper, “considered a Republican;” mixed history)
  15. New Orleans (Mayor:C. Ray Nagin, Democrat, Democratic mayors since at least 1936)
  16. Atlanta (Mayor: Shirley Franklin, Democrat, Democratic mayors since at least 1942)
  17. Stockton, California (where?) (Mayor: Ann Johnston, party affiliation and history unknown)
  18. Minneapolis (Mayor: R.T. Rybak, Democrat, Democratic mayors since 1977, Democratic or Independent since 1974)
  19. Pittsburgh (Mayor: Luke Ravenstahl, Democrat, Democratic (or Independent/Democrat) mayors since 1934)
  20. Tucson (Mayor: Robert E. Walkup, Republican, Republican mayor since 1998, Democrats 1987-1999)
  21. Chicago (Mayor: Richard M. Daley, Democrat, Democratic mayors since 1931)
  22. Columbus, OH (Mayor: Michael B. Coleman, Democrat, since 2000, mixed history)

There are a few exceptions, but I think the pattern is clear. 

*BTW, the official mayoral residence for Detroit is called Manoogian Mansion.  Sheesh, they deserve to be poor just for that.