Democrats are the party that promotes blacks - NOT

There is an idiotic meme that needs to be combated, namely that Democrats are the party of civility and respect between the races while the Republicans are racist troglodites. We see this meshed with the even more idiotic "Nixon Southern-Strategy" (A meme is an idea that, analogous to a gene, replicates and evolves. So the idea that Republicans are racist spreads and spreads until it becomes an acknowledged truth.)

Let's look at a few facts.

• The Republican Party formed as the Anti-Slavery Party
• The first President of the United States to invite a black man (Booker T. Washington) for a state dinner was Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican.
• The first President to appoint a black National Security Advisor was Ronald Reagan.
• The first President to appoint a black Secretary of Defense was George Bush (41).
• The first President to appoint a black Secretary of State was George W. Bush (43).

Of course the first black President was a Democrat, but I'm not arguing that Democrats are racist (even though most of the evil done in the south ... drumrole please ... was done by DEMOCRATS.) I'm only combating the divisive propaganda that Republicans are evil racists.

Those are rather little things. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed only because Republicans were on board. The Democrats had huge majorities in both the House and Senate and couldn't pass it. As a matter of fact the Democrats tried to kill the bill several times.

Let's look at the details. H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964.  The Democrats had 246 Congressmen. Only 152 voted in favor of the bill. 96 Democrats voted against it. It took the Republican Party to pass the bill. 138 Republicans voted for and only 34 voted against it.

Let's look at the Senate. Democrats had 67 senators, way more than the currently held super majority, and still they couldn't pass the bill on their own. 46 Democrats voted for the bill and 21 against. Of the 33 Republicans 27 voted for the bill and 6 against it.

So, if 1964 Civil Rights Bill is an example of government fighting racism and intolerance then let the Republicans be praised for their efforts along with the Democrats.

In case you didn't know racist southern whites refused to vote Republican for generations as they were the party of Lincoln and integration. The South has become Republican, not because of appealing to racists, but because of two reasons: one the hard core racist, anti-Republican generation slowly died off and became demographically insignificant by the early 1990s; second immigrants to the south who went there for jobs and opportunity that they didn't find in the North brought anti-union, anti-progressive -- hence anti-Democratic Party --sentiment to the south.

And finally Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy had nothing to do with appealling to Southern Racists.

Why has this meme taken hold? Because the Republicans are fighting the Progressive agenda. And, as we all know, only dumb, evil, racist fools could be against Progressive nirvana. Therefore Republicans are racists.

The Copenhagen Accord

Witness the following that came from the Copenhagen seers:

"We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required...with a view to reduce global emissions by 50 percent in 2050 below 1990 levels"

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/chinas-delaying-tactics-threaten-climate-deal-1844661.html

These peoples are liars and frauds; and the people who believe in this shit are too ignorant for words. The key point is below:

The draft retained plans to limit a rise in world temperatures to 2.0 Celsius over pre-industrial times but added a review in 2016 that would also consider a tougher limit of 1.5 Celsius.

This assumes that the global temperature has held steady UNTIL humans began industrial activity. It conveniently forgets that there have been numerous (24 over the last 2.5 million years) ice ages and in between each of thes periods of global cooling there have been periods of global warming. DUH!!!

Copenhagen, Chavez

Start at 3:47

What's Green on the outside and Red on the inside?

I know many environmentalists who aren't socialistic in the least. They have a hard time believing me when I insist that many of their compatriots are not just "liberal" but socialist.

Years ago the Black Power movement came up with the "Oreo" cookie (black on the outside and white on the inside). Some Asian groups have a similar term: banana (yellow on the outside and white on the inside.) I would love to use the term: watermelon (green on the outside and red on the inside) however the word watermelon is, in the United States, so over-laded with racial overtones that one would spend too much time dealing with a side issue (racism) and one would never be able to focus upon the issue at hand; and that is the hijacking of the environmental issues by socialists to pursue their end of government control over the economy.

To see watermelons in action view the video below:

Coburn : The Senators Should Understand the Bill Being Brought Before Them

I ask the unanimous consent that that amendment be agreed to and accepted that’s exactly what the American people expect us to be doing. ... But we ought to — we ought to take and embrace this idea of transparency and responsibility that the American people can expect every one of us to have read this bill plus the amended bill and — and certify that we have an understanding for what we’re doing to health care in america with this bill. And I would ask unanimous consent that that be accepted.

Not surprisingly the motion was shot down. Don't you just love these guys?

Obama the great conciliator

Once again we hear about Obama irritating and snubbing people abroad. We almost never hear it in the US media. But here's another one:

Barack Obama's trip to Oslo to pick up his Nobel peace award is in danger of being overshadowed by a row over the cancellation of a series of events normally attended by the prizewinner.

Norwegians are incensed over what they view as his shabby response to the prize by cutting short his visit.

The White House has cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children's event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre.

He has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway.

According to a poll published by the daily tabloid VG, 44% of Norwegians believe it was rude of Obama to cancel his scheduled lunch with King Harald, with only 34% saying they believe it was acceptable.

"Of all the things he is cancelling, I think the worst is cancelling the lunch with the king," said Siv Jensen, the leader of the largest party in opposition, the populist Progress party. "This is a central part of our government system. He should respect the monarchy," she told VG.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/09/obama-nobel-peace-prize-snub

I should start collecting his snubs in France; England; Germany and now Norway.

Fisting for Junior High: Hmm, Hmm Good

Think of all the jobs created or saved while producing these lesson plans and handouts.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/08/fistgate-ii-high-school-students-given-fisting-kits-at-kevin-jennings-2001-glsen-conference/

Saving on TARP, the return of Wilma Flintstone

All this talk about saving money on TARP from congresspeople and pundits that can now be spent on a jobs bill. They sound like Wilma Flintstone who crows that she didn't max out her credit card so now she has some "saved" money that can be spent elsewhere.

Honduras

The Wall Street Journal has a good article on the Honduran election. For those that forgot. President Zelaya proposed a referendum that would have overturned the Honduran constitution's ban on re-election and scraped much of the existing constitution. A Chavez ally, Zelaya was locked in a growing confrontation with the Honduran Congress and Court.

The Honduran Supreme Court ruled the vote to be illegal because the Honuran Constitution banned Constitutional referendums within six months of elections. The military, backing the Supreme Court, refused to distribute ballots (a normal function of the Honduran military). President Zelaya fired the chief of the army and continued his course. The Supreme Court ordered him to stop his action and the military ousted Zelaya.

According to The Wall Street Journal in an article In Elections, Honduras Defeats Chávez authored by MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY

... militants inside Honduras took to exploding small bombs around the country in the weeks leading to the vote. They hoped that terror might damp turnout and delegitimize the process. They failed. Yesterday's civic participation appeared to be at least as good as it was in the last presidential election. Some polling stations reportedly even ran short, for a time, of the indelible ink used to mark voter pinkies.

Latin socialists tried to discredit Honduran democracy as part of their effort to force the reinstatement of deposed President Manuel Zelaya. Both sides knew that if that happened the electoral process would be in jeopardy.

The rule of law and popular representation pushing back statism. Beautiful, simply beautiful.

Ms. O'Grady continues that the election was

If not Hugo Chávez's Waterloo ... [it] marks a major setback for the Venezuelan strongman's expansionist agenda.

The losers in this drama also include Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Spain, which all did their level best to block the election.

I would add that the Obama White House is among the "losers in this drama."

Later in the piece she writes that:

At least the Obama administration figured out, after four months, that it had blundered. It deserves credit for realizing that elections were the best way forward, and for promising to recognize the outcome despite enormous pressure from Brazil and Venezuela. President Obama came to office intent on a foreign policy of multilateralism. Perhaps this experience will teach him that freedom does indeed have enemies.

I wish I was as optimistic as she is. I think that Obama has a lot more in common with Chavez than most people think. I judge the man by his associations and his deeds, more than his rhetoric.

From America.gov: the US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Arturo Valenzuela, said the US was "disappointed" as it had hoped Honduran lawmakers would reinstate Mr Zelaya.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY VALENZUELA: Yes. Thanks very much. As you know, the Honduran congress voted yesterday not to reinstate President Manuel Zelaya to the Honduran presidency. We’re disappointed by this decision since the United States had hoped the Congress would have approved his return. And our policy since June 28 has been consistently principled, and we’ve condemned the coup d’état and have continued to accept President Zelaya as the democratically elected and legitimate leader of Honduras throughout this political crisis.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the Swiss Ban on Minarets

The key line is:

If those people who cry that Europe is intolerant are right, if there was, indeed, xenophobia and a rejection of Muslims, then we would have observed the reverse. There would have been an exodus of Muslims out of Europe.

What follows is an extensive quote from the article in which she argues that we must discern between the metaphysical aspects of the religion and the quest for political supremecy by Islamists.

In the battle of ideas, symbols are important.

What if the Swiss voters were asked in a referendum to ban the building of an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles as a symbol of the belief of a small minority? Or imagine a referendum on building towers topped with a hammer and sickle – another symbol dear to the hearts of a very small minority in Switzerland.

Political ideas have symbols: A swastika, a hammer and sickle, a minaret, a crescent with a star in the middle (usually on top of a minaret) all represent a collectivist political theory of supremacy by one group over all others.

On controversial issues, the Swiss listen to debate, read newspapers, and otherwise investigate when they make up their minds for a vote.

What Europeans are finding out about Islam as they investigate is that it is more than just a religion. Islam offers not only a spiritual framework for dealing with such human questions as birth, death, and what ought to come after this world; it prescribes a way of life.

Islam is an idea about how society should be organized: the individual's relationship to the state; that the relationship between men and women; rules for the interaction between believers and unbelievers; how to enforce such rules; and why a government under Islam is better than a government founded on other ideas. These political ideas of Islam have their symbols: the minaret, the crescent; the head scarf, and the sword.

The minaret is a symbol of Islamist supremacy, a token of domination that came to symbolize Islamic conquest. It was introduced decades after the founding of Islam.

In Europe, as in other places in the world where Muslims settle, the places of worship are simple at first. All that a Muslim needs to fulfill the obligation of prayer is a compass to indicate the direction of Mecca, water for ablution, a clean prayer mat, and a way of telling the time so as to pray five times a day in the allocated period.

The construction of large mosques with extremely tall towers that cost millions of dollars to erect are considered only after the demography of Muslims becomes significant.

The mosque evolves from a prayer house to a political center.

Imams can then preach a message of self-segregation and a bold rejection of the ways of the non-Muslims.

Men and women are separated; gays, apostates and Jews are openly condemned; and believers organize around political goals that call for the introduction of forms of sharia (Islamic) law, starting with family law.

Article of the Day, Obama

Articles worth reading:

Noemie Emery: Barack Obama is so last season
By: Noemie Emery
Examiner Columnist
December 2, 2009

For Barack Obama, the magic is gone. He's here, but the glamour has vanished. He still talks, but few people appear to be listening. ...

The base remained loyal, but three other subgroups had become disenchanted. "The thrill is gone," said E.J. Dionne, who seemed at a loss as to where it had gone to. In the interests of clarity, and of diagnosis, let us attempt to explain.

There was one group that fell for Obama the Moderate, the man who kept his head (or appeared to) in the financial meltdown last autumn, the temperamental conservative who seemed incremental, the one David Brooks would call "Burkean." Unfortunately, the temperamental conservative turned out to be an ideological radical, intent on ramming through on a narrow majority (and against the wishes of most of the country) a massive redo of the health care delivery system, an immense stack of paper that no one has read.

There was a second that fell for Obama the Story, the half-African waif, whose rise to the leadership of a powerful, once-slave-holding nation was the matter of legend, and tears. He was Reaganesque, he was JFK Redux, a figure of glamour and eloquence.

But Reagan and Kennedy saw themselves as temporary custodians of a tradition older and bigger than they were, and thought they were lucky to serve it. Obama seems to think he is doing the country a favor by gracing it. ...

Then there's the third group, perhaps the most painful, which is the young voters, who fell for Obama the Fad. ...

Obama was sold less as a pol than a fashion accessory, which is how the young bought him. It didn't hurt that he looked like the models in catalogs. He was so young and so hip, and so trendy and slender. ...

Well, quite a lot. As any fashionista will tell you, the problem with being this year's "in" fashion is that sooner or later, you're out. ...

Everyone knows what happens to fashions that go out of style: They get shoved on a rack to the back of the closet, and slide in a heap to the floor.

The Media and Tiger Woods

An excellent article regarding the ineptness of the main-stream media and, though unstated, the rise of the new media.

Of course what makes the media look so stupid is that they kept asking the question, why wont Tiger talk to the police?

Why the news media couldnt figure this out earlier is important only as it pertains to subjects much more important to the country than Tiger Woods making a hole in one with a nightclub hostess. Its why you cant trust the media when it comes to their reporting on anything, from health care to Afghanistan. And why they should do everyone a favor and stay out of the speculation business because they are lousy at it. ...

The story of Woods' affair was broken by the National Enquirer. They may not deal in "news you can use" but unlike the New York Times, CNN,and Fox News, the Enquirer, believe it or not, has proved to be the most reliable of all major national news organizations. Their accuracy rate is the best of any national news organization. They almost never get it wrong. And they virtually never print anything unless they know its true ( remember Jennifer Flowers?) And its been proved once again. ...

It didnt take Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to figure out what the Woods crash was really all about.. But as a professor of journalism once pointed out, a scandal isnt a scandal unless the news media wants to make it one. And in Tiger Woods case that is probably a decision being made right now by news directors behind closed doors.

I may not agree with this completely, especially the dig that the Enquirer "has proved to be the most reliable of all major national news organizations." But the point has been made. On major scoops it is not the MSM that breaks the story it is the alternative media such as the Enquirer, the Pajamas Media and Talk Radio.

ADDED ON 12/3/2009

Comedy Central Scoops Network News on Climate-Gate Scandal

ABC didn't cover it. CBS didn't either. And NBC apparently wouldn't go near it.

The network news broadcasts have ignored a growing scandal over evidence of a potential climate cover-up — and now they've even been scooped by the fake news at Comedy Central.

"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" produced its "reporting" on Climate-gate Tuesday night, when Stewart quipped, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!”

Stewart described leaked e-mails from Britain's University of East Anglia, including one referring to a researcher's "trick" to "hide the decline" in some temperature readings in recent decades.

"It's just scientist-speak for using a standard statistical technique — recalibrating data -– in order to trick you," Stewart said sarcastically.

Nearly two weeks since news broke of the e-mail scandal, climate change skeptics have gloated; a leading climate scientist has resigned; at least one U.S. lawmaker has called for an investigation, and countless prominent news outlets have deemed the story worthy of major reporting.

To all of you who still consider the MSM - The New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, etc... - to be the arbiter of worthy news I ask "why?"

Of course, if you're a blog reader you probably already know this.