Black Man Bob Herbert at New York Times Gives Black View

Mr. Herbert reports for the New York Times blackly.   He  is a supporter of inner city contemporary black plantations managed by  Democrat Party field hands.  He was pleased that the Mayor of Washington DC, Adrian Fenty, who aggressively addressed the education crisis in the Capital City, was defeated recently.  Mr. Fenty should have danced better.  Mr. Herbert writes:

 ”….. race is still a very big deal in the United States, which is precisely why black leaders like Mr. Fenty and Mr. Obama try so hard to behave as though they are governing in some sort of pristine civic environment in which the very idea of race has been erased.

These allegedly postracial politicians can end up being so worried about losing the support of whites that they distance themselves from their own African-American base. This is a no-win situation — for the politicians and for the blacks who put their hopes and faith in them.

Mr. Fenty was cheered by whites for bringing in the cold-blooded Michelle Rhee as schools chancellor. She attacked D.C.’s admittedly failing school system with an unseemly ferocity and seemed to take great delight in doing it. Hundreds of teachers were fired and concerns raised by parents about Ms. Rhee’s take-no-prisoners approach were ignored. It was disrespectful.

Blacks responded last week by voting overwhelmingly for Mr. Fenty’s opponent, Vincent Gray, who is also black. This blowback undermined whatever Ms. Rhee and Mr. Fenty had hoped to achieve. Thanks to their ham-handed approach to governing and disregard of the sensibilities of their constituents, both of them will soon be gone. But the children they claimed to care so much about will still be locked in a lousy school system.

Black voters across the country are not nearly as discontented with Mr. Obama as blacks in Washington were with Mr. Fenty. But neither do they have the same enthusiasm that they had in the historic 2008 election.

Mr. Obama has seldom addressed black concerns directly, although many of his initiatives have benefited blacks. What has taken a toll is the perception that the president has consistently seemed more concerned about the needs and interests of those who are already well off, who are hostile to policies that would help working people and ethnic minorities, and who in many cases would like nothing better than to see Mr. Obama fail.

Most blacks are reluctant to publicly express their concerns about the president because they are so outraged by the blatantly unfair and often racist attacks against him from the political right. But many blacks are unhappy that Mr. Obama hasn’t been more forceful in the fight to create jobs. And there is disappointment over the dearth of black faces in high-profile posts in the administration.

The Shirley Sherrod fiasco fed the belief that the Obama administration was excessively concerned about the racial sensibilities of whites. The secretary of agriculture fired Ms. Sherrod without even giving her a hearing after an excerpt from a video appeared to show that she had discriminated against a white farmer. She had done no such thing, and she would later decline an offer to rejoin the administration.

There is real danger here for black people. In many cases, because of an excess of caution, policies that would help people in need are never even seriously considered, much less implemented. Forces that are hostile to blacks are not aggressively confronted, which, of course, empowers them. Perhaps more important, when you have to tiptoe around absolutely anything that has to do with blacks, it can leave the insidious impression that there is, in fact, something wrong with being black, something to be ashamed of.

We need to be careful not to corrode the joy and pride felt by blacks in the triumphs of African-American leaders.”

Comment:  There seems to me to be a long list of items honest blacks could claim to be, if not ashamed about, at least embarrassed about.   Electing their Representatives to Congress should certainly near  the top of the black list.    Mr. Obama may be a mixed bag regarding embarrassments.  Then there is the popular black minister corps starring  Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton.

Leading anyone’s  list of embarrassments which should be at the very top of the black list, is the allergy so rife in its  community toward education……and civil learnings supposed to go with it.  Someday Mr. Herbert’s protected community might even discover civil behavior by practicing representative democracy.  Perhaps they might even need a Tea Party movement to help straighten things out.

If I were black, I’d be terribly ashamed, not about being black, but about the condition of the black community’s one party plantation culture and the leaders to control it.   Name your stars who are honorable and influencial in the community, Mr. Herbert……who exemplify by word and deeds not narrow bigotted mouthy racism, but classic  honorable values.  We could begin with honesty.

I am often ashamed at my American community these days, Mr. Herbert, which includes Americans who happen to be black.

Mr. Obama has thus far been a miserable failure as president of Americans.  And so, I am ashamed, not of his white part or his black part, but of his pretense at being a uniting president and his preachments to promote a Marxist society for our nation. 

I am ashamed that he knows so little about America and its citizens.  He embarrasses me almost every time he speaks in public.    Worse, if, indeed, he is a Marxist, as I believe he is through his background and his work and talk, he is an enemy of the democratic process.   That is worse than an embarrassment.

Far Left Richard Cohen Reports on Republican Witchcraft

“GOP Succumbs to Witchful Thinking” he snickerly heads his article in the New York Daily News:

It is  vital Americans know the issues.  Mr. Cohen clarifies them in his Witchfull article:

“Christine O’Donnell, the tea party candidate from lil’ ol’ Delaware, confesses to have once “dabbled into witchcraft” — a fittingly ungrammatical revelation that not only was to be expected but explains what has happened to the Republican Party. Someone — possibly you know who — has cast a spell on it, and now it has a candidate whose main contribution to political thought or, indeed, the plight of the poor is to have railed against masturbation, which she likened to adultery. Only a spell can explain such thinking.

Only a spell also can explain how Newt Gingrich, possibly a presidential candidate, can attribute the politics of Barack Obama to “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.” Obama allegedly picked up this behavior from his father, whom he knew only fleetingly, which is to say almost not at all, and has long been dead. This, as Gingrich and others under the spell can tell you, is proof of the demonic power that can come out of the grave, enter the White House (look, the gate-crashing Salahis did it) and pervade the very body and mind of the commander in chief. It’s enough to give you the willies.

Similarly, only a spell can explain why much of the Republican Party insists on calling Obama a socialist. To apply this label to the very man who saved Big Finance, who rescued Goldman Sachs and the rest of the boys, who gave a Heimlich to the barely breathing banks, can only be explained by witchcraft or voodoo or something like that. It has caused the GOP to lose its mind. Obama did something similar to the American auto industry, saving it from itself. He did not let it fail or nationalize it, as a socialist would have done, but pumped cash into it so that — this is me speaking — it can fail later on.

The unseen effects of witchcraft are clearly the reason about one-fifth of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. In fact, as time goes by, more and more people subscribe to this belief — a phenomenon so at odds with logic or rational thinking that the explanation has to lie in the darkest of arts — witchcraft and voodoo. (The GOP does the voodoo that you do so well.) Many other Americans think Obama was not born in the United States but abroad, in Indonesia or Kenya or even Hawaii, which unknown to a lot of people is an American state. (It’s Alaska that’s a foreign country.) The new GOP Senate candidate and tea party favorite in Alaska, Joe Miller, answers almost any question by referring to the Constitution. Nothing in it about Social Security, he observed. It also permitted slavery, he fails to observe.

This fatuous infatuation with the Constitution, particularly the 10th amendment, is clearly the work of witches, wiccans and wackos. It has nothing to do with America’s real problems and, if taken too seriously, would cause an economic and political calamity. The Constitution is a wonderful document, quite miraculous actually, but only because it has been wisely adapted to changing times. To adhere to the very word of its every clause hardly is respectful to the Founding Fathers. They were revolutionaries who embraced change. That’s how we got here.

To hear Republican conservatives at the recent Values Voter Summit was to hear speaker after speaker talk about things that could not be seen and did not exist. One is the so-called homosexual agenda, which has made a political movement out of sexual orientation. This agenda, whatever it may be, must be a mystery to gay conservatives, of which there are several.

O’Donnell is where the GOP has been heading for some time. The party’s leaders have steadfastly refused to take a stand against any idiocy, even suggesting they agree that Obama might not be a Christian. Their intellectuals have supported and advanced the know-nothingness of Sarah Palin. Nothing to them is beyond the pale. This party is not fit to govern. It would support the Joker but not Batman, who hangs too much with Robin.

So now it has a candidate in Delaware who truly is a career politician. She seems to have no means of support except campaign funds. She supposedly lives in her headquarters, although this is somewhat in dispute. Whatever the case, she has no job and no views worth a moment’s consideration. (She even appalls Karl Rove.) She’s not likely to win, but the way things are going this year, she just might. People are angry. People are mad. The night is dark.

Witch way out of here?…..”

Comment:  The above is the opinion of Richard Cohen, Far Leftist.  Dennis Prager reminds us again and again the Left NEVER offers honest debate on issues, but NEARLY ALWAYS relies on smearing to attack its opponents.

If anyone has ever studied Marxism in its century of active existence, whether it is the Marxism of Barack Obama or  that of Nikolai Lenin, knows truth is used only when it has a purpose.  Few populations enjoy enslavement under an all controlling  government.  In any more free society where voting is at least somewhat fair and honest, Marxists are likely not going to win.  At a table of debate, what could be said on behalf of government managed human life designed to create a equal but dronelike existence for ones future?   And remember, programs for the drones will not be  programs for  those Barack Obamas, Harry Reids and Nancy Pelosis who direct the drones.

Mr. Cohen lies.  He is a Marxist propagandist.  The Republican Party does not support or engage in witchcraft.  Nor does Ms. O’Donnell who “dabbled” probing into matters when she was still a teen ager.  Appearing on the Bill Maher show certainly showed poor taste, but Mr. Cohen doesn’t seem to note that.

Ms. O’Donnell seems to have matured since the show and fairly defeated Mr. Castle in the primary vote.  She did campaign against president Obama’s witchcraft attaining approval of the witchfull legislation called  Obamacare…….the law that forces Americans to buy health insurance or else, to be paid for primarily by a fantasy  fraud of one-half trillion dollars, the fraud  claimed by the Marxist witch of South Chicago,  whose magic wand  made the fraud disappear into Obamacare.

//

More on Paul Krugman Pretendings

Another Paul Krugman reviews Paul Krugman in the following article, “Paul Krugman Finally Flips His Lid” by Russ Smith at Splice Today:

The wealthy New York Times columnist pretends that he’s an “ordinary” American.

Anger is sweeping the top echelons of The New York Times. True, this white-hot rage is a minority phenomenon, not something that characterizes most of the company’s employees. But the angry minority is angry indeed, consisting of editorialists and columnists who feel that things to which they are entitled—like political influence—are being taken away. And they’re out for revenge.

Okay, so I re-jiggered the first paragraph of the wealthy populist Paul Krugman’s Times column from today, but that’s really the only way to make sense of a man who’s finally gone crackers. Krugman’s latest crusade is about the Congressional debate on the soon-to-expire Bush tax cuts and his contempt for the two percent of Americans who object, during a recession, to having their taxes raised to Clinton-era levels. It’s Krugman’s contention—and it’s here where he takes a far more novel approach than his similarly affluent and elite left-wing “big thinkers”—that the chaotic political environment today owes more to Mr. and Mrs. Moneybags than the loosely cobbled together Tea Party. Points for originality, since he didn’t even mention Christine O’Donnell, Fox News or Rand Paul in his piece, but still nuttier than even the online rants of a kook like Michael Moore.

Krugman re-states the obvious for the record: that in this prolonged economic downturn poverty has increased, jobs are scarce for the young and old alike and the housing market is a nightmare, with foreclosure signs more common in neighborhoods that lawn billboards for political candidates. It’s then that the Nobel Prize winner/Princeton professor/pundit/lecturer-for-hire begins to drown in his own spittle, writing, “Yet if you want to find real political rage—the kind of rage that makes people compare President Obama to Hitler, or accuse him of treason—you won’t find it among these suffering Americans. You’ll find it instead among the very privileged… who are outraged, outraged, at the thought of paying modestly higher taxes.”

So, by Krugman’s logic, it’s the wealthiest two percent of Americans who have swamped the polls for primary elections that have upended the political status quo; who flocked to see Glenn Beck in Washington, DC a few weeks ago; and are fomenting anti-immigrant vigilante mob mentality in the border states because jobs are being swiped from “real Americans.”

This is truly priceless. I don’t deny that the very wealthy in general aren’t happy with Obama’s rudderless economic policies and no one, except perhaps Bill Gates and his father, likes to pay higher taxes. But the reality, as Krugman’s employers might tell him in a private moment, is that extraordinarily wealthy people pay a lot of money to accountants and tax attorneys to find loopholes, shelters and the like. The editorial writers at the Times have long championed confiscatory estate taxes, a fair enough opinion, but just once I’d like to see a disclaimer that explains how the Sulzberger family, which owns the Times Co., has dodged those very taxes that would necessitate a re-structuring of their 114-year-old enterprise. As Krugman concludes in his column—in another context—“Sacrifice is for the little people.”

But richness abounds in Krugman’s 800 words. Buckle up: “The spectacle of high-income Americans, the world’s luckiest people [some wealthy Americans worked very hard, and took risks, to accumulate their fortunes, but in Krugman’s world, they’re all layabouts], wallowing in self-pity and self-righteousness would be funny, except for one thing: they may well get their way… You see, the rich are different from you and me: they have more influence.”

It goes without saying that 100 percent of America’s unemployed would gladly trade bank accounts with Krugman, and might well be offended that he has the audacity to link himself with the less fortunate who have no money and no influence.

Tom Sowell on “Running a Racial Patronage System” in a “Government-Supported-Industry of RACE HUSTLING”

Few things have captured in microcosm what has gone so painfully wrong, where racial issues are concerned, like the recent election for mayor of Washington, D.C.

Mayor Adrian Fenty, under whom the murder rate has gone down and the school children’s test scores have gone up, was resoundingly defeated for re-election.

Nor was Mayor Fenty simply a passive beneficiary of the rising test scores and falling murder rates. He appointed Michelle Rhee as head of the school system and backed her as she fought the teachers’ union and fired large numbers of ineffective teachers– something considered impossible in most cities across the country.

Mayor Fenty also appointed the city’s chief of police, Cathy Lanier, who has cracked down on hoodlumism, as well as crime.

Either one of these achievements would made mayors local heroes in most other cities. Why then was he clobbered in the election?

One key fact tells much of the story: Mayor Fenty received more than 70 percent of the white vote in Washington. His opponent received more than 80 percent of the black vote.

Both men are black. But the head of the school system that he appointed is Asian and the chief of police is a white woman. More than that, most of the teachers who were fired were black. There were also bitter complaints that black contractors did not get as many of the contracts for doing business with the city as they expected.

In short, the mayor appointed the best people he could find, instead of running a racial patronage system, as a black mayor of a city with a black majority is apparently expected to. He also didn’t spend as much time schmoozing with the folks as was expected.

So what if he gave their children a better education and gave everybody a lower likelihood of being murdered?

The mayor’s faults were political faults. He did his job, produced results and thought that this should be enough to get him re-elected. He refused to do polls and focus groups, and he ignored what his political advisers were warning him about.

No doubt Mayor Fenty is now a sadder and wiser man politically. While that may help him if he wants to pursue a political career, Adrian Fenty’s career is not nearly as important as what his story tells us about the racial atmosphere in this country.

How did we reach the point where a city is so polarized that an overwhelming majority of the white vote goes to one candidate and the overwhelming majority of the black vote goes to the opposing candidate?

How did we reach the point where black voters put racial patronage and racial symbolism above the education of their children and the safety of everyone?

There are many reasons but the trend is ominous. One key factor was the creation, back in the 1960s, of a whole government-supported industry of race hustling.

President Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty”– a war that we have lost, by the way– bankrolled all kinds of local “leaders” and organizations with the taxpayers’ money, in the name of community “participation” in shaping the policies of government.

These “leaders” and community activists have had every reason to hype racial resentments and to make issues “us” against “them.”

One of the largely untold stories of our time has been the story of how ACORN, Jesse Jackson and other community activists have been able to transfer billions of dollars from banks to their own organizations’ causes, with the aid of the federal government, exemplified by the Community Reinvestment Act and its sequels.

Racial anger and racial resentments are the fuel that keeps this lucrative racket going. How surprised should anyone be that community activist groups have used mau-mau disruptions in banks and harassed both business and government officials in their homes?

Lyndon Johnson once said that it is not hard to do the right thing. What is hard is knowing what is right. We can give him credit for good intentions, so long as we remember what road is paved with good intentions.

Statistics Which Will Help You Understand Barack Hussein Obama Better

MN Prager Group activist, Steve Anderson sent the following interesting statistics to me:

 
    A recent “Investor’s Business Daily” article provided very  interesting
statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health
Organization.
 
 Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years
 after diagnosis:
 
 U.S.              65%
 England        46%
 Canada         42%
 
 Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received
 treatment within six months:
 
 U.S.              93%
 England        15%
 Canada         43%
 
 Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it
 within six months:
 
 U.S.              90%
 England        15%
 Canada         43%
 
 Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within
 one month:
 
 U.S.              77%
 England        40%
 Canada         43%
 
 Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
 
 U.S.              71
 England        14
 Canada         18
 
 Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in
 ”excellent health”:
 
 U.S.              12%
 England        2%
 Canada         6%
 
 
 
  (Sen. Harry Reid  said, “Elderly Americans
 must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age.”)
 

Included with the above information was the following research results:
 
 The percentage of each past president’s cabinet who had worked in
 the private business sector prior to their appointment to the
 cabinet.  
 
 T. Roosevelt……..  38%
 
 Taft…………………40%
 
 Wilson …………….52%
 
 Harding………………49%
 
 Coolidge…………..  48%
 
 Hoover…………….. 42%
 
 F. Roosevelt………  50%
 
 Truman………………50%
 
 Eisenhower……….. 57%
 
 Kennedy…………..  30%
 
 Johnson……………..47%
 
 Nixon……………….  53%
 
 Ford………………… 42%
 
 Carter………………  32%
 
 Reagan……………….56%
 
 GH Bush…………….. 51%
 
 Clinton   …………….. 39%
 
 GW Bush……………. 55%

 Obama……………. 8%  
 
 
Comment:  Mr. Obama has prided himself on becoming a world rather than an American leader.  Being a student of Saul Alinsky’s brand of Marxism, he has become a disciple to force equality upon peoples.  There are two major fronts.  The nation is wealthier than any other in the world, and within our country some folks are wealthier than others.   The president is especially sensitive to the needs of the Muslim world.

Therefore, the United States as a nation must be diminished, and within this diminished nation, the people who produce must be taxed until their wealth is reduced to those deemed less fortunate, ie, the 43% of the American population which pays no federal income tax at all.

Forced equality is the major goal of any Marxist regime….. NO MATTER WHAT THE COST!