Black Democrat Spreads Bogus Charges: Claims GOP Abetting Terrorism

These days it is extremely difficult to find an honest Democrat.  I can name Evan Bayh.   There are many, many honest and honorable blacks, but almost none of the go into politics.  It is hard for those raised in  a one party plantation culture being taught one party prejudices and hates.  It is hard to learn truth in such cultures.     To be “the Man” requires stealth and timely circumventions of what is true.   Lying becomes so commonplace it becomes a way of every day give and take. 

Do many Americans know how heroic  those in the black community truly are  who rise above the deceit and con-artistry which  pass as honor and truth in the inner city black community?

Make a list of American black politicians for yourselves.  Star which ones you find honor driven.  Double star those who openly express their brand of racism.  Triple star those who are in, have been in,  or are going to jail.  Include those who should be in jail….and explain why, and why they aren’t in jail.   

Check out the communities which they are supposed to represent.   And then, in all honesty with a touch of reality, explain who is responsible for such corruption.  Which race?  Which political party?  

Or perhaps the representatives of these communities well represent the culture from whence they come?   Why has so much dishonor befallen this American community which in my youth was far poorer in possessions than today, but was emanately honorable and trustworthy?

There are many heroes in America these days.  Outside of the American military, most on  my list are American blacks……..all of whom have risen above the baseness stoked by 50 years of failed leftwing Democrat policies and actions, consisting  mostly of bribes and phony promises concocted by white politicians.  Admittedly some folks  were well meaning, but most plans were based on handouts to secure votes.

Now we have Congressman Clyburn of South Carolina stirring a common and often used pot of porridge.

The following comes from today’s powerline:

Democratic Congressmen walking through Saturday’s antiObamacare rally at the Capitol have charged that they were subjected to racist and bigoted epithets by protesters. Andrew Breitbart does a great job of summarizing the circumstantial evidence that these charges are bogus.

At the center of these charges over the weekend was Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, who now accuses Republican of aiding and abetting terrorism. Subtle he is not.

Rep. Clyburn is a member of Nancy Pelosi’s House leadership team, the highest ranking black House member, and a past master of deploying the race card. In 2008 Clyburn was a key participant in the Obama team’s efforts to racialize the primary campaign. Princeton Professor Sean Wilentz provided this useful account at the time:

Once again — and for the last time — the Democratic primary campaign has moved into a southern state, North Carolina, with a large African American population as well as a considerable university and college town liberal vote. Once again, the Barack Obama campaign and its supporters, fresh from a stinging defeat, are trying to stir up false accusations that Hillary Clinton and her campaign have cynically injected racial animosities into the campaign.

The latest round of charges about the Clintons have come from a familiar source, Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, the highest-ranking black leader in Congress. In January, after the Obama campaign suffered stunning defeats in New Hampshire and Nevada, Rep. Clyburn, although nominally uncommitted, joined a chorus of concerted complaint about Hillary Clinton’s supposed denigration of Martin Luther King, Jr. and his contributions to the 1964 Civil Rights Act because of her observation that President Lyndon Johnson had played a crucial part in guiding its passage. (Clinton’s actual remarks, rarely reported, praised King enormously and were historically accurate.)

Clyburn then jumped on flimsy accusations that former President Bill Clinton had supposedly made subtle racial remarks by calling Obama’s claim to unwavering opposition to administration policy in Iraq a “fairy tale,” and by likening Obama’s eventual victory in South Carolina to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. (The first had nothing whatsoever to do with race: Obama had said in 2004, 2005 and 2006 that he didn’t know how he would have voted on Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq because as a state senator he had no access to the intelligence, and Obama voted consistently for war funding as a U.S. senator. On the second matter — again, rarely reported in full — Bill Clinton’s remark was delivered as part of his praise of Obama’s campaign in every state, and Jackson himself publicly deemed it inoffensive.) Clinton had apparently done his wife’s campaign a lot of good with his work in New Hampshire and Nevada; but the targeted attack on him had the double effect of marginalizing him while advancing the race-baiter charges.

In a radio interview Bill Clinton defended himself and said the Obama campaign had “played the race card on [him].” Wilentz’s 2008 post has more on Clyburn, all of it worth reading in light of current events.

As Wilentz notes, Clyburn was a protagonist in dealing the race card on behalf of Obama against Clinton in 2008. When Clinton complained about having the race card played on him, he himself was an expert on its use and knew what he was talking about. Breitbart demonstrates that Clyburn et al. are at it again, this time against the opponents of Obamacare.

Mississippians have their tuxedos; Canadians have their niqabs! Mark Steyn Comments on the Latter

Many observers of politics and culture claim America, on its way to Marxist perdition,  is tomorrow’s Canada.  The latter  is about a decade or two ahead of the United States in its devotion to leftwing  developments of  control, intolerance and consequent retribution.  On the way to this perdition, however, sometimes they are in tune one to another.

In Mississippi the urchin  was Constance and her tuxedo.  In Quebec it is Naema’s niqab. 

Mark observes:

“The other day, a reader wrote to say that, while en vacances au Québec, he had espied me in a restaurant. With a couple of obvious francophones. And, from the snatches of conversation he caught, I appeared to be speaking French. “Appeared” is right, if you’ve ever heard my French. Nevertheless: “You’re a fraud, Steyn!” he thundered. The cut of his jib was that I was merely pretending to be a pro-Yank right-wing bastard while in reality living la vie en rose lounging on chaises longues snorting poutine with louche Frenchie socialists all day long.

I haven’t felt such a hypocrite since I was caught singing The Man That Got Away in a San Francisco bathhouse two days after my column opposing gay marriage. But yes, you’re right. I cannot tell a lie. I have a soft spot for Quebec. Not because of its risible separatist movement, for which the only rational explanation is that it was never anything but one almighty bluff for shakedown purposes. Yet, putting that aside, I’m not unsympathetic to the province’s broader cultural disposition. I regard neither Trudeaupian Canada nor Quietly Revolutionary Quebec as good long-term bets, or even medium-term bets. But, if I had to pick, I’d give marginally better odds to the latter. And the reasons why can be found in the coverage of Ms. Naema Ahmed and her “illegal” niqab, the head-to-toe Islamic covering that only has eyes for you.

The facts—or, at any rate, fact—of the case is well-known: a niqab-garbed immigrant from Egypt has been twice expelled from her French-language classes at the Saint-Laurent CEGEP and the Centre d’appui aux communautés immigrantes by order of the Quebec government. That much is agreed. Thereafter, the English and French press diverge significantly. The ROC reacted reflexively, deploring this assault on Canada’s cherished “values” of “multiculturalism.” In the Calgary Herald, Naomi Lakritz compared Quebec’s government to the Taliban. So did the Globe and Mail, in an editorial titled “Intolerant Intrusion.” In La Presse, Patrick Lagacé responded with a column called “The Globe, Reporting From Mars!”

The headline was in English, and on the whole M. Lagacé’s English is better than the Globe’s French. He began by noting their unbelievably stupid editorial on O Canada, in which they endeavoured to balance their charge of sexism in the English lyrics (“in all thy sons command”) by uncovering sexism in the French—“terre de nos aïeux” or “land of our forefathers.” Where, fretted the Globe for a couple hundred words, are the foremothers? This is what happens when your claims to be Canada’s national newspaper rest on the translation services of Babel Fish. As M. Lagacé pointed out, “aïeux, en français, englobe hommes et femmes.” Englobe maybe, but not in Globe.

It’s not surprising, then, the anglo media wasn’t quite up to speed on “les nuances et les détails” of La Presse’s and the other French coverage. Ignored in the rush to raise the rainbow banner of multiculturalism were, for example, the teacher’s insistence that she needed to see the pupil’s mouth move to teach her a new language; Mme Ahmed’s demand that male pupils remove themselves from her line of sight; her refusal to participate in discussions round a table; the school administration’s attempt to accommodate these various difficulties; and, since Mme Ahmed has now gone to the Quebec “Human Rights” Commission, the right of the other students not to have their classes disrupted and their own attempts to learn French set back by one pupil’s intransigence.

In return, the Globe and Mail’s Margaret Wente redeemed her paper with a characteristically sharp column on the new “two solitudes”—French and English Canada’s different view of Islam, which she argued mirrored broader Franco-Britannic approaches. She’s right. France thought nothing of banning the veil in its educational establishments, whereas in Britain a teenage girl who took her school to court for the right to wear the full-body “jilbab” had as her lawyer none other than Cherie Booth, wife of then-prime minister Tony Blair.

On this one, I’m with the “intolerant” Quebecers. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a Common Law man. I like to be treated as an individual enjoying equality under the law, no more, no less. But these days that’s not on the menu in either English or French Canada. Instead, we have competing philosophies of group rights. In the ROC, the group rights that matter are those of leftist social engineers’ preferred minorities—gays, natives, Muslims, pre-op transsexuals. Quebec also prioritizes group rights, but in this case the group that matters is the majority—la collectivité. As I said, I rejoice in English law’s ancient disdain for the very concept of group rights. But, if I’m forced to choose between one view of group rights or the other, Quebec’s seems less psychologically unhealthy.

It’s the unthinkingness of the Anglo reaction that’s embarrassing: there’s a niqab-clad woman in the story? Oh, she must be the good guy. That’s Chapter One of Multiculti For Dummies, right? In the Quebec coverage, you at least get the sense they’re thinking through the questions. I dislike Islamic body bags and regard them as a form of degradation and an act of self-segregation. I say “Islamic,” but in fact as a mandatory expression of piousness they barely date back to the disco era. The niqab should command no more cultural respect than a guy walking into class in Darth Vader’s getup and demanding the women be removed from his line of vision. Except in the ROC they’d call in the Mounties over that. We would never for a moment view with equanimity large numbers of masked men on our streets. But how quickly we’ve got used to walking around, say, Tower Hamlets in East London and seeing more fully covered women than you do in Amman. Mme Ahmed’s views may be sincerely held, but, if so, they mean she can never be a functioning member of a pluralist Western society in any meaningful sense of the term. Given that the Quebec government is paying for her francization lessons, it is not unreasonable for them to reach that conclusion.”

Marxism in Venezuela: Is Barack America’s Hugo in Milder Form?

Did you know?……..Can you remember?…….That Venezuela use to be a successful, thriving democracy?

Until a Marxist thug maneuvered himself into power.  

In the last century Marxism preached violence.  The Soviet Bolsheviks mass murdered members of Russia’s upper and middle classes.  Those killed were hunted down  with the religious devotion. They were to be exterminated.  They were deemed the enemy of the people.   A few years later tens of millions of humans  were starved to death intentionally as a matter of  policy directed by government bureaucrats.   Marxists were on the march.

This experiment in a New Order of Life excited countless intellectuals, writers  and teachers in American society who believed they saw a greater good in dictating “equality of peoples”.  Hollywood stars, some paid by the Kremlin, joined the group believing in its call for universal “Peace and Brotherhood”.   Although now dead, they would  all rejoice knowing Marxism, at last, has become American.

Today in America “Sisterhood” has replaced brotherhood, but the message is about the same.  Only the means are not yet as violent.   To date America’s Marxists are not pure thugs unless one considers lying as thuggish.  No one, as yet, is causing  its opponents to be incarcerated or to disappear……but don’t tell Mark Steyn or Ezra Levant about such naevite about these  matters.  

Many Democrats in the Obama administration are lobbying for the disappearance of any American opposed to Gay and Lesbian and  black racial politics from public life.  They claim that any  criticism of their cause, no matter how fanatical their actions might be,   is “Hate Speech”……which must be silenced and the critics punished.    They learn their religious vows at your local neighbor school and university.  They are a determined  gang  among the Obama constituencies demanding “Freedom Now”.     They scream for   equality, whether it is enforced by the police, secret or otherwise, doesn’t bother them in the least…..and these are Americans who are financially supported by groups who decorate themselves in the name of “Human Rights” .

Our America is not yet a Marxist state as was the Soviet Union, or the People’s Republic of this or that.  Nor is it yet a Venezuela….yet Venezuela’s leader is a Marxist!!!!

Under this Marxist leader, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela has become a nation  besieged by this  dictator wannabe as he uses his power, fair and foul to repress any and all opposition.  Industries have been seized.  Opponents have been imprisoned.  Newspapers nationalized, and so on and so on.  Marxism is on the March in Venezuela!   There is some resistance from democrats.  Its future is for now, unknown.

Marxism is also on the March in America.  Its leader is Barack Hussein Obama accompanied by a chorus of willing sopranos and altos  to sing the ”Joys”  of Marxist equality. 

Obama is the lead baritone…..but he is a MARXIST baritone!    Russia in 1917 was not yet a Marxist state……that didn’t mean the Lenin wasn’t a Marxist.   Obama is a Marxist ……a person who believes in and advances Marxist policies is a MARXIST!  

America is not yet a Marxist nation.  

America, now saddled with a vast government run health program, government financed program, a government program forcing its will in “health matters” upon each and every citizen, makes America a helluva a lot more Marxist than the day before last Sunday.  Before that crucial Sunday, Marxism in America was still in the dream stage.

The Marxist legislation was passed in a most typical Marxist manner….lies, deception, corruption, bribery….but, as yet, gratefully,  no one has been reported as murdered. 

Marxism is an evil that cannot survive in the sunlight.

Obama, the lead Marxist in America, knows all about that  evil  by the example he set in his campaigns in 2008.  He promised to change America.   He didn’t campaign, as in a healthy democracy a candidate is expected to do, on the merits of his arguments….no, no , no.   A Marxist cannot do that.  Stealth is required!  All its leader  had to do was wear a tie, a suit, look clean and executive, be articulate and black.   Marxist change in American must arrive among clouds, the thicker, the better.  

Clouds must cover the continent.  Sweet words must win the day…..and Obama gave America sweet words………the sweet words of  the  Marxist ploy…….those that have always worked:       peace, equality, love, unity,  togetherness, and hate toward those who “persecute” that is, disagree with you for they are against:  equality, love, unity, togetherness…..and so, deserve punishment…..most of all because they are intolerant and in the way. 

Marxism has managed to murder over 100,000,000 persons who were in its way.    Most of the murders were accomplished, aided and abetted by bureaucrats performing their “legal” duties as members of the Marxist society. 

From  this history….all of it true…..Dennis Prager reminds Americans, “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.     Can you remember when Venezuela was a democratic country?   I can!

Barack Hussein is a Marxist enacting whereever, whenever, however possible the tenets of his religion.    My bet is that he knows nothing about the history of the religion.   He is an unread man……not dumb…….unread and totally inexperienced in the struggles in the human drama before yesterday……a very narrow man, fatherless outside of  ragings of Jeremiah Wright….the man he lied about…all on record….for twenty two years, Obama had claimed, of membership in Wright’s congregation, he had never heard a single racist word out of the man’s mouth….this man, his father figure described in Obama’s own writings.

Even the leftwing European news agency reports:

“Homicides in Venezuela have quadrupled during President Hugo Chávez’s 11 years in power, with two people murdered every hour, according to new figures from a nongovernmental organization.

• The Venezuelan Observatory of Violence (OVV), whose data is widely followed in the absence of official statistics, says the South American nation has one of the highest crime rates on the continent, with 54 homicides per 100,000 citizens in 2009.
• That rate is only surpassed in Latin America by El Salvador where 70 in every 100,000 citizens were murdered last year, the OVV said, citing official statistics from that country.

Crime repeatedly comes first on Venezuelans’ list of worries.  It has also begun to drag on Chávez’s traditionally high approval ratings as well as scare tourists who come to Venezuela, says Reuters.

Chávez says he is doing his best to combat crime, which he blames on wealth inequalities caused by former governments.  He accuses foes of exaggerating the problem to foment fear, and has recently hiked pay for police officers, as well as launching a new national force.  The Interior Ministry, which last gave official crime statistics in 2004, declined comment on the OVV’s new figures.

Roberto Briceno Leon, a criminology professor at the Central University of Venezuela and at the Sorbonne in Paris, blamed a weak judicial system and ineffective and corrupt policing in Venezuela, where he said 91 percent of crimes go unsolved.  He collates his figures from police sources and media reports:

• When Chávez came to power in 1999 there were 4,550 homicides whereas in 2009 there were 16,047, the OVV said.
• That means every month Venezuela experiences about as many deaths as occurred in the Gaza Strip during Israel’s early 2009 offensive.
• With a murder rate of 140 per 100,000 citizens, Venezuela’s capital Caracas has the highest murder rate in South America, only exceeded in the hemisphere by Mexico’s Ciudad Juárez.”

Source: Eyanir Chinea, Charlie Devereux and Andrew Cawthorne, “Venezuela murder-rate quadrupled under Chávez: NGO,” Reuters, March 11, 2010

Mark Steyn Explains the Marxist Drive For Government Run Health

The article below is from steynonline, and was written by Mark Steyn at Investors.com March 12:

“So there was President Obama giving his bazillionth speech on health care, droning yet again that “now is the hour when we must seize the moment,” the same moment he’s been seizing every day of the week for the past year, only this time his genius photo-op guys thought it would look good to have him surrounded by men in white coats.

Why is he doing this? Why let “health” “care” “reform” stagger on like the rotting husk in a low-grade creature feature who refuses to stay dead no matter how many stakes you pound through his chest?

Because it’s worth it. Big time. I’ve been saying in this space for two years that the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture.

It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible.

In most of the rest of the Western world, there are still nominally “conservative” parties, and they even win elections occasionally, but not to any great effect. (Let’s not forget that Jacques Chirac was, in French terms, a “conservative.”) The result is a kind of two-party one-party state:

Right-of-center parties will once in a while be in office, but never in power, merely presiding over vast left-wing bureaucracies that cruise on regardless.

Republicans seem to have difficulty grasping this basic dynamic.

Less than three months ago, they were stunned at the way the Democrats managed to get 60 senators to vote for the health bill.

Then Scott Brown took them back down to 59, and Republicans were again stunned to find the Dems talking about ramming this thing into law through the parliamentary device of “reconciliation.”

Naive GOP

And, when polls showed an ever larger number of Americans ever more opposed to ObamaCare (by margins approaching 3-to-1), Republicans were further stunned to discover that, in order to advance “reconciliation,” Democrat reconsiglieres had apparently been offering (illegally) various cozy Big Government sinecures to swing-state congressmen in order to induce them to climb into the cockpit for the kamikaze raid to push the bill through.

The Democrats understand that politics is not just about Tuesday evenings every other November, but about everything else, too.

A year or two back, when the Canadian Islamic Congress attempted to criminalize my writing north of the border by taking me to the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, a number of outraged American readers wrote to me saying, “You need to start kicking up a fuss about this, Steyn, and then maybe Canadians will get mad and elect a conservative government that will end this nonsense.”

Comment:  By hook and more by crook, Obama, Reid and Pelosi will pull this coup off by next weekend.  ghr

Comment in review:  It did pass and much of it by crook.  It is obvious to anyone who can read, can see  that  the Constitution does not provide for the government to force its citizens to make a purchase from any enterprise, government absorbed, run, managed, mismanaged or not. 

Make no mistake.  The Obama plan just passed by Congress’ Marxists IS A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF THE HEALTH INDUSTRY!   Marxism is upon us.

It is most proper that this attack upon American freedom be challenged in court.   Not that there is much hope for honesty and forthrightness in the American Federal Court system these days.  It will depend upon the flip of the coin, not on the strength of argument whether America will become just another Marxist nanny state and be crushed by the tyranny that goes with it.