Dick Morris Wrongly Thinks Obama Will Be Held Responsible for His War Failures

With each of his policies, Obama takes a gamble.  If they work, he’s OK.  If they don’t, he’s on the hook for the outcome.  Consider the extent of his exposure:
 
* His involvement in Libya makes him responsible if Gaddafi stays in power and slaughters his own people and/or renews his connections with international terrorism. Obama will be equally responsible should Gaddafi be toppled and an Iraqi-style civil war erupts between his deposed supporters and the new government.  As General Powell said “you break it, you own it.”

* His support for the rebellion in Egypt and his action in forcing Mubarak from power makes him responsible should the Muslim Brotherhood take over the nation and use it as a basis for promoting terrorism and battling Israel, undoing the Camp David accord.  * Obama’s anti-oil drilling policies make him vulnerable should oil prices resume their upward march, particularly so if the Saudi monarchy is toppled and prices surge.  In that event, he will be subject to blame for encouraging the wave or revolutions on the one hand and neglecting our domestic energy resources on the other.   * Attorney General Eric Holder’s weakening of our domestic anti-terror efforts and his curbs on investigatory tactics make Obama responsible for any major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.   * Should the economy enter a double dip recession, it will be Obama’s recession.  No longer will the public blame Bush, but they will realize that it is Obama’s policies which have led to disaster.

 

That’s all a lot for a president to have on his plate.  But Obama keeps helping himself to more responsibility without clear exit strategies and with only a hope and a prayer standing between him and disaster.  He is now so dependent on the actions of other players — Egyptian Muslims, Libyan rebels, Saudi insurgents, domestic terrorists, and global economic forces — that he is no longer in control of his own destiny.  
 
He is now truly the hostage of events.  Not a good place for a president facing re-election to be.”

Comment:   Who is going to make anything stick to Obama even if he fails at everything foreign and domestic?  How is this leftwing press going to abandon their darling no matter what he does?   More than anything in the world the American left hates Republicans in general, conservatives, the Tea Party kind, in particular.  

Most Republicans in Congress are Democrat tag-alongs and will refuse to do anything their constituencies might believe is conservative when they get back home.   I don’t know of a Congressional Republican who is as dishonest as Barack Hussein Obama, but many of them like to run in the shadows of the Democrat handout life. 

Americans have  long ago abandoned honest and fairness as a personal code for Leftwing largesse.  It is likely most college kids at university are thieves and cheats as well……

 

Lefty Judge Sumi, Freezes Wisconsin’s Law Restricting Public Sector Union Power

No surprise: Wisconsin judge expands TRO to block

further implementation of collective bargaining law

 by Allahpundit  at HotAir:           Marxist Judge Attacks Wisconsin Legislature

Remember how the state’s Legislative Reference Bureau published the law on Friday, arguing that because the judge had only mentioned the Secretary of State in her TRO and not the Bureau that it technically wasn’t barred from acting?

Well, everyone’s barred now.

“Further implementation of the act is enjoined,” said Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi.

Sumi noted her original restraining order issued earlier this month was clear in saying that the state should not proceed with implementing the law. The Walker administration did so after the bill was published Friday by a state agency not included in Sumi’s earlier temporary restraining order.

“Apparently that language was either misunderstood or ignored, but what I said was the further implementation of Act 10 was enjoined. That is what I now want to make crystal clear,” she said.

But minutes later, outside the court room, Assistant Attorney General Steven Means said the legislation “absolutely” is still in effect.

The judge conspicuously didn’t rule on whether the publication of the law on Friday by the LRB was valid or invalid under the original TRO. She’s going to take more testimony on that issue later this week. If she rules that it was invalid, today’s actions by the state to collect higher contributions from public employees’ paychecks towards pension and benefits will presumably have to be undone. If she rules that it was valid because she screwed up in the original TRO, then the law is in effect and the TRO enjoining publication will become moot. At that point, the court would proceed to the underlying question of whether Republicans violated the state’s Open Meetings Law by failing to give enough advance notice before it called the conference committee that led to the CB bill being passed. Got all that? If you can spare five minutes, I recommend following the link up top and reading the Journal-Sentinel story in full. The legal thicket that’s already sprouted around the new CB law is mind-numbing, and the partisan politics at play are so intense that the court’s appointed independent counsel for the Democratic secretary of state because he and the Republican attorney general are at odds. The grand point, in case you’re missing it, is that next week’s state supreme court election is very, very important, and given the amount of energy on the left right now, we should be very uneasy about our chances.”

Click on to hear the words of the Democrat Secretary of State explain:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/29/no-surprise-wisconsin-judge-expands-tro-to-block-further-implementation-of-collective-bargaining-law/

It should be noted that Judge Maryann Sumi’s son has been a Union organizer.   The judge never should have been allowed to rule on this or any labor case for her prejudice.   The Left in America does not quite get away with murder, but the get away from just about every other crime.     Murder will be next.

“Peaceful” Islam’s Psalms in America are HATE filled.

 by Scott W. Johnson at PowerLine:

Commentary’s Alana Goodman picks up one of the stranger moments of Senator Dick Durbin’s hearing on “Protecting the Civil Rights of American Muslims.” It came today when Senator Jon Kyl’s began questioning Farhana Khera, the executive director of Muslim Advocates, about whether she would condemn death threats against other minorities – and Khera undertook the dance to which he have become accustomed. As Goodman puts it, she “seemed to try to filibuster out of answering the question.” Goodman quotes this exchange:

Kyl: I wonder if you’ve made any public pronouncement or statement condemning those religious leaders who’ve employed violent or hateful rhetoric or promoted hateful views of other’s religious groups. Have you done that or has your website done that?

Khera: Well let me, maybe by way of background, just clarify…

Kyl: As a former staffer you know that my time is very limited. I don’t have a lot for background. I have three quick questions here, have you done that?

Khera: Well let me just clarify, Sen. Kyl, my organization’s work is focused on protecting and upholding our constitutional values.

Kyl: So you haven’t condemned the hateful speech of those who have criticized others in the way that I mentioned then.

Khera: I guess I would have to know more specifically which particular case you’re talking about.

Kyl: Let me just ask you this. Would you today criticize threats of death or physical harm directed at writers or commentators who’ve criticized Islamic extremism? You would condemn that today, would you not?

Khera: I think we have, in our country, very cherished fidelity to the first amendment and that includes the freedom of speech –

Kyl: I’m not questioning whether people have the right to speak. The question is whether you would agree that that speech is helpful or hurtful, whether you would condemn it or be neutral about it.

Khera: Those who would threaten to kill somebody because of their political views, religious views – that’s inappropriate.

Goodman comments:

Inappropriate? For someone whose job is to combat religious discrimination, that seems like somewhat of an understatement. It contrasted with Khera’s passionate denunciation of discrimination against Muslims during her testimony, which she called “a growing menace to the safety and social fabric of our nation,” that is “so vile,” and “has real life and death consequences for Muslim, Arab, Sikh and South Asian Americans and their families.”

I think it’s fair to observe that “inappropriate” falls somewhat short of a condemnation. One can only wonder why.”

Comment:  Whereever modern “Peaceful” Islam treads, it causes disruption and disunity yet preaches peace and innocence.   It practices the rites of the drug hoodlums to stretch the bands of law even beyond breaking to establish its tyranny of 16th Century ignorance, intimidation and  intolerance.

Ten Questions for Tommy Robinson from the Amsterdam Post

Nearly the entire continent of Europe is being overwhelmed by an invasion of extremist Islamists devoted destroy whatever democracy still remains in the continent by using democratic institutions to intimidate and defeat the native populations, too frightened and complacent to defend themselves.   Politicians are either bought off, too frightened, or too ignorant to contend.

In the United Kingdom Tommy Robinson, a young ‘upstart’ from the laboring class has been rallying his troups to defend the nation from the invaders from  16th Century Islam.    Establishment England, both Labor and Conservative view him as trash in much the same way Establishment America, particularly the LEFT, but also some conservatives depict Sarah Palin.

The following article was printed February 17, 2011 at the Gates of Vienna:

Introduction

“Ten Questions” is a initiative launched by the Dutch Defence League and the Amsterdam Post. Periodically readers and members are given the opportunity to ask questions of certain people who are active in the front line against the Islamisation of their country or the threat of sharia law. This initiative was designed to give the people of Holland a better insight into these people or the organizations they represent.

The answers are published on several websites in Holland, Germany, and the rest of the world (ICLA, Amsterdam Post, Gates of Vienna). Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was the first one, Tommy Robinson the second.

1. G. Deckzijl:

How big is the support for the EDL in the UK, and is anti-Islam resistance growing in the UK?

We’ve been holding demonstrations in cities all over England, and each time we manage to attract thousands of supporters. We’re doing well, but we’re still growing. We’ve got a new website, we’re making new alliances, we’re being taken more seriously by the press, and last week, just before the EDL returned to where it all began — my hometown of Luton — the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, gave a speech that echoed a number of the things that we’ve been saying. We started as a small band of people protesting against the treatment of the Royal Anglian Regiment by Muslim extremists, and now we’re looking at upwards of 75,000 supporters.

So resistance is definitely growing, but we’re still getting some unfounded criticisms. For instance, I don’t think it’s fair to say that we’re simply ‘anti-Islam’ — we’re opposed to the terrible things that Islam has brought with it — the support for terrorism, the oppression of women, the intolerance of other religions and other lifestyles, the self-imposed isolation and rejection of the most basic British values. Islam’s got to be held accountable, it’s got to change — but above all else, it’s these things that we need to fight against.

Groups like ours are really only called ‘anti-Islam’ because people are either too scared to criticise Islam, or they don’t realise that there are many good reasons for these criticisms. People have been purposefully kept in the dark by the politicians, by the media, and by those who want to convince us that Islam is simply the religion of peace. Now we’re being told that critics of Islam are all ‘Islamophobes’ (as if we’re all suffering from some kind of mental disorder!) — our opponents really are getting desperate.

What we do believe in is freedom, democracy and individual rights. And we believe that British culture is pretty good at celebrating these things. If we’re to properly resist the threat posed by Islam then we’ve got to convince people that being ‘anti-Islam’ means not being afraid to make important criticisms — it doesn’t mean being ‘far right’, it doesn’t mean being an ‘extremist’ — it means recognising the problems and not being afraid to talk about them — it means doing your bit to defend your country and its ideals.

I’d judge our success by how willing people are to actually talk about Islam — how much they’re willing to challenge it. The more people realise that the media and the government have been covering up the problems, the more they’ll look to the EDL to help voice their concerns — and the more supporters we have, the easier it’ll be to make the politicians listen. Things are getting better, but there’s still a long way to go.

2. Ingrid, Wachters, Fummifan, Frans Groenendijk:

The EDL has had a lot of negative publicity in the press. They were associated with neo-Nazis and football hooligans, who are suspected of joining the EDL just to cause trouble and give the EDL a bad name. Is there any truth in it, and did the EDL succeed in distancing itself from Nazi sympathizers, and what does the EDL do to improve its reputation? For example: were you able to convince Maryam Namazie (onelawforall.org) of your distance from the BNP?

I don’t like that we’re constantly being asked to convince people that we’re not Nazis, hooligans, or members of the BNP. I’d prefer it if people looked at what we’re saying, and asked themselves whether it’s compatible with the views of any of those groups. Last week in Luton I made clear that we’re not at all interested in race, and that I’d rather stand with one proud black patriot that a thousand scumbag racists. Why would I say that if it wasn’t true? I don’t say one thing to journalists and another to our supporters — I’m very open about my views, and we’ve published a mission statement on our website, for anyone who’s still unclear.

Yes, people have tried to use the EDL to cause trouble — but we always deal with them swiftly. At our local meets, the division leaders are constantly working to educate new members as to what we’re all about, and to make sure that people aren’t joining up for the wrong reasons. We’ve also introduced stewards at our demonstrations to help identify and remove troublemakers.

We want to have an open membership policy — to let anyone join, whatever their background, whatever their political beliefs, whatever their skin colour, whatever their religion — so that means that it’s important that anyone wanting to join does understanding what we do and do not stand for. Back in the early days we were filmed burning a swastika — we thought we’d made it pretty clear then — both to our opponents, and to our potential supporters. The EDL is about opposition to a dangerous form of Islam, and the protection of our country. That’s it.

The people that still call us all those kinds of things (racists, fascists, etc) are actually the ones that are guilty of the sort of prejudice that they’re accusing us of. We don’t demand that every Muslim convince us that they’re not an extremist — so people shouldn’t make similar demands of us. Maryam Namazie is an Iranian Communist — but we don’t ask her to prove that she’s not some kind of dangerous Stalinist. So, I don’t know if we’ve managed to convince Maryam that we’re not connected to the BNP — she should be able to work it out for herself.

3. G. Deckzeijl, Veteraan:

Is it possible to stop this Jihad talk by hard cold facts? Why for example are the black Jihad flags not forbidden?

Facts are of course important, and we’re doing all we can to tell people things we feel they need to know, as well as encouraging them to find out about Islam for themselves. But it’s difficult to convince people of things when the media will immediately find a so-called ‘moderate Muslim’ who will tell everyone that we’ve just misunderstood the issue, that Islam is the religion of peace, and that it’s us who are being offensive.

We have plenty of facts, but the constant message from the media and the government is that we don’t understand them.

What this means is that although we hear about crimes where Islam has played a part almost every day, many people still refuse to accept that there is any connection at all. It’s almost as if it’s too obvious, that if the connection was real then the government would be doing something about it. People take the government’s silence to mean that there’s not really a problem — not that the government has no idea how to deal with it.

The black Jihad flags aren’t forbidden because so few people actually recognise what they are, and because so many people would happily pretend that there aren’t all these problems with Islam.

4. DSV:

In Europe, we see various counter jihad movements popping up: next to the EDL and its affiliates in other countries, there is SIOE, the Paris Manifesto movement, Geert Wilders planning to go international, political parties like Die Freiheit in Germany and a plethora of anti-Islam(ist) blogs.

Do you see any movement towards a pan-European umbrella organization, which would be strong enough to influence (or counter) national or European legislation, with respect to the ongoing Islamisation of Europe? Does the EDL work towards establishing such a movement? In relation to this: Which are the preferred partners of the EDL, both in Europe and elsewhere? Whose views do you most identify with?

We recognise that radical Islam is a global problem, but we’re mainly concerned with doing what we can in this country — as are the other defence leagues, and similar organisations, in their respective countries. The more successful we become, the more we’ll be able to help our foreign allies.

That said, we are proud to be members of the European Freedom Initiative (EFI), a group whose member organisations fight to preserve freedom of speech, and who oppose the spread of Islamism and Sharia law.

As for whose views we most identify with, that’s difficult, because it’s not like we’re a political party — there are lots of different views already within the EDL. As long as other groups believe in the values that we do — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, support for democracy, equal rights for women — and share our belief in the need to criticise and expose militant Islam, then they’re welcome to become part of our growing network.

Our friends in the EFI certainly share with us a number of key concerns and beliefs, and we look forward to working with them more in the future.

5. Veteraan DDL:

Is there going to be an umbrella organization for the different Defence Leagues that are forming?

It’s difficult to say exactly what’s going to happen in the future. We are seeing defence leagues, loosely based on the EDL model, cropping up all over the world. We’re proud to have inspired these people, but at the moment we don’t think there would be much point in creating any new umbrella organisation. We’re in regular contact with most of these groups, and we look forward to supporting each other’s efforts.

6. Frans Groenendijk:

What is your relation to UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) and vice versa? The UKIP is not anti-Islam. Is the EDL planning to start a political party in the future?

We have no plans to become, or to found, a political party. But we cannot discount the possibility of having to adopt a more political stance if our politicians continue to fail the British public. We are working to defend principles that are more important that party politics. Radical Islam isn’t just a threat to certain types of political parties; it’s a threat to the whole system of liberal democracy, because it wants to replace our laws and our politics with Sharia Law.

That’s one of the reasons why we’re such a diverse organisation — we have supporters with all different kinds of political views (it’s also one of the reasons why it’s ridiculous to call us ‘far right’). We want to pressure all politicians of all parties to start addressing the issues, to stand up for freedom of speech, and to make clear that they will not ignore the threat posed by radical Islam.

At the end of the day, we’d only enter politics if we were forced to by inaction — if none of the political parties listened to us. But I believe that we have the momentum — the growing support — to make sure that they will.

We’ve received quiet words of support from all of the main political parties in the UK, but have yet to agree a constructive working relationship with any of them. We do not wish to be party political, but we are more than willing to cooperate with those with whom we find common ground (be they political parties or other organisations). We would hope that the ruling Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition would begin to take seriously our concerns, because a clear and consistent message from government that acknowledged the extent of the problems we face, and which demonstrated a sincere commitment to overcoming them, would do a lot to reassure the people of Britain.

David Cameron does seem to be making some positive steps — but he’s got a long way to go to prove that he’s really on our side.

7. G. Deckzeijl, Templar NL:

Is the EDL aware of the meaning and existence of Taqiyya and Tafsir? Do you think that a moderate Islam exists, or is that part of their strategy?

Yes, we’re aware of the terms. Taqiyya is lying to protect or advance Islam — it’s a common tactic of Muslim organisations that pretend to be interested in building bridges between communities, when they’re only really interested in looking after their own interests, or which want to hide their real intentions. We should also mention Kitman: the strategy of pretending to accept the laws and beliefs of your enemy, whilst all the while plotting against them and looking to undermine them — a strategy very familiar to those who would push for Sharia in the UK.

Tafsir is the study and interpretation of the Koran, Hadith and Sunnah by scholars of Islam. It’s something that has so-far failed to produce a convincing blueprint for peace between Islam and ‘the West’.

We don’t always think that it’s helpful to divide Muslims into ‘moderates’ and ‘radicals’. Whilst there is some truth to it, we’re talking about people — who are rarely simple. I think it’s better to say that what we call ‘radical Islam’ is far more influential and widespread than most people realise. In some towns and cities, even in Britain, it threatens to dominate the local Muslim population.

Obviously some radicals do realise that it’s a good idea to appear to be moderates (and we’ve seen reports from organisations like the Quilliam Foundation that show that many supposed moderate Muslim organisations are actually infested with dangerous radicals). But I don’t think you can take that as evidence that there aren’t plenty of decent Muslims who love this country and are genuinely ashamed that others hold such intolerant views.

However, there are many opinion poll results out there that suggest that these people may actually be a minority. Regardless of the exact numbers, I think it’s undeniable that radical Islam is far too influential a force in Britain — and serious questions need to be asked if we’re to work out how to deal with it. Why, for instance, does tafsir continue to help justify the actions of the radicals and extremists rather than supporting the growth of so-called ‘moderate Islam’?

8. rias politica:

What are the possibilities of achieving a formal prohibition of the Sharia courts in GB?

We believe that it would be possible to attempt legal challenges against judgements handed down by Sharia court, but ultimately our success would rest on the political will needed to combat these courts. Judges can only operate within the law, and subject to the common consensus — and I don’t think they’ve had enough run-ins with Sharia courts to consider them a serious threat as yet.

If we’re going to prevent things from getting that far, then we need to educate people about the role Sharia courts play in undermining our laws, perpetuating intolerant and oppressive behaviours, and helping to keep the Muslim population segregated from the rest of society. Only the government is in a position to outlaw Sharia courts, and that won’t happen until we’ve won a lot more arguments.

9. DutchViking, Templar:

Will the government ever wake up before it’s too late? Do you think that politicians in GB and Europe will come to their senses and listen to groups like the EDL, or will it have to come entirely from the people?

I think they’ll listen, even if they never admit that we played an important role in convincing them that something must be done. As I mentioned earlier, David Cameron’s said some things recently that do give us hope. But even though he’s started echoing what we’ve been saying, he’d never acknowledge that he’s responding to the pressure that we’ve been putting on him. Instead, he’ll pretend that we hold extreme views — that we’re part of the ‘far right’ — even if he does come round to agreeing with exactly what we’ve been saying.

There’s still a lot of resistance to criticism of Islam. There are still a lot of people that think we need things like ‘multiculturalism’ because we should still feel guilty about the British Empire — so they hate anyone who isn’t ashamed of this country. The more people reject that view — whether they support the EDL or not — the better position we’ll be in.

10. Nederlander:

How far is the EDL prepared to go in the fight against Islamisation?

We may need to change tactics at some point along the way, but we shall always remain peaceful — anything else would be counterproductive. We believe in the need to defend certain rights and freedoms from the threat posed by certain forms of Islam, and we’d never do anything to undermine those very same rights and freedoms.

Exactly what needs to be done to turn the tide of Islamisation depends largely on Islam itself — on its ability to reform, adapt and conform to Western culture, laws, politics and respect for human rights. Of course, it also depends on the willingness and strength of conviction of individual Muslims to be part of this process.

11th Bonus Question:

What can the people in The Netherlands and on the rest of the continent do to support you?

You should focus on what you can do in your own countries. We’d love to see you at our demonstrations, and would hope to lend you our support when we can. But what we’d really like to see would be you having your own successes, inspiring us to continue doing what we do, and setting an example of what can be achieved. In The Netherlands you have Geert Wilders — a politician unlike most of the others — who is committed seriously addressing the root cause of the problems of Islamic extremism. In The Netherlands you have the potential to achieve a great deal, and to be an example to the rest of the world. Best of luck to you all, and thank you!

Posted by Baron Bodissey at 2/17/2011 03:20:00 PM Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz

Comment:   How refreshing  Tommy Robinson is to me.   I am used to hearing the American political world led by Marxist progagandist, Barack Hussein Obama, who says so many words so often in so many speeches that don’t amount to anything because nothing he says means today what it meant yesterday or an hour ago.

Tommy Robinsons caries  a core as a base for his beliefs.  As young as he is, he is actually an adult.   He has not taken eloqution lessons, thinking lessons, writing lessons, television appearance lessons, coiffure lessons and so on from advisors.   Tommy Robinson has the special advantage of knowing something he dearly believes in and can articulate it extremely well without fumbling, because of that wonderful core of belief.

Unlike the quicksand of so many American politicians, Mr. Robinson is a rock of Gibraltar.  I’m proud he is on my side.

Wikipedia on the English Defence League

Association with violence and anti-social behaviour

The English Defence League protest in Newcastle, England

“The group states that its aim is to demonstrate peacefully in English towns and cities,^[14] but conflicts with Unite Against Fascism (UAF), local opposition and other opponents have led to street violence, anti-social behaviour and arrests. A proposed march in Luton in September 2009 was banned by the police, citing a threat to public safety.^[74] There is normally heavy policing of these demonstrations, due to the likelihood of violence. The cost of policing these demonstrations has ranged from £300,000^[45] to £1 million.^[39] Journalists that have covered EDL marches have received death threats,^[75] for instance journalist Jason N. Parkinson from The Guardian wrote about receiving a death threat by email from someone he described as an EDL organiser, as well as death threats sent to Marc Vallée, a fellow journalist.^[76] The National Union of Journalists also released a statement about journalists who had been intimidated after covering EDL demonstrations.^[75]

Four specialist national police units involved in policing hooliganism, extreme violence, and terrorism are investigating the EDL.^[15] After their second demonstration in Birmingham Assistant Chief Constable Sharon Rowe of West Midlands Police: “Really, there was no intent to protest. I think they knew that the community was very much against them coming to the city, which…potentially would generate violence”.^[33] Before their Manchester demonstration of October 2009, the EDL held a press conference, during which they burned a Nazi flag and asserted that “There is no militant undertone. We will peacefully protest but we will not be scared into silence”.^[77] During the Manchester city centre demonstration Mat Trewern, from BBC Radio Manchester reported that “At one point, earlier on, when it became extremely tense, members of the UAF tried to break the police line between the two groups” Greater Manchester Police confirmed a man, believed to be heading to the protest, had earlier been arrested in Birmingham on suspicion of distributing racially aggravated material.^[78] One week later, at a Welsh Defence League demonstration, supporters burnt an anti-Nazi flag and made Nazi salutes.^[79]

On January 2010 in Stoke-on-Trent, there was trouble as EDL members broke through police lines, four police officers were injured and police vehicles were damaged. The BBC’s Matt Cooke said there had been few problems with the Unite Against Fascism demonstration.^[41]

In March 2010 in Bolton, 74 people were arrested in the demonstrations; at least 55 of the arrested were from the UAF and nine from the EDL.^{[44][46][47][80]} Weyman Bennett, joint secretary of Unite Against Fascism was arrested and charged with conspiracy to organise violent disorder,^[81] Martin Smith, of Love Music Hate Racism and Dr Moran, joint secretary of Greater Manchester UAF were among those arrested on conspiracy charges.^[82] Police said that UAF protesters were responsible for most of the trouble and that they had turned up intending to cause trouble saying “It is clear to me that a large number have attended with the sole intention of committing disorder and their actions have been wholly unacceptable.”^[83]

At their second Dudley protest, on 17 July 2010, there was widespread damage to local property, the local council estimated the bill to be over £500,000.^[53] On 11 September 2010, police in Oldham received an advance call from the EDL. Around mid-day approximately 120 supporters had descended on the town. A separate mob of around 50 members attacked a police car with bottles. There were 8 arrests for public order offences.^[59][60]

On 9 October 2010, a police officer and several civilians were injured during protests by the English Defence League and Unite Against Fascism in Leicester. A Sky News van was attacked by members of the English Defence League^[84] who had earlier thrown fireworks, smokebombs and bricks at police^[85] and smashed windows of the city’s International Arts Centre.^[86] There were also clashes between EDL supporters and local black and asian youths as a group broke out of the EDL protest site at Humberstone Gate East and engaged with the locals. Riot police fought to maintain control over the sporadic fighting that ensued.^[87] Thirteen people were arrested, one on suspicion of assaulting a police officer,^[88]only one was from the city of Leicester^[61] and the cost of policing the demonstration was put at £850,000.^[89]

In February 2011, prior to an EDL march in Luton, national British newspapers ran headlines with expectations of violence.^[90] The march, which was held on 5 February 2011, was concluded without major incident.^[91]

Views and reactions

The British press describes the EDL as far-right.^{[92][93][94][95][96]}

Nick Lowles, the editor of anti-racist magazine Searchlight says the EDL poses two risks. One is the formation of a street army prepared to travel around the country to fight and provide organisational support. The other is the group’s tactics of carrying placards and chanting in places that are potential flashpoints. Searchlight added that not every leader of the EDL is a fascist or hardcore racist.^[15] Meanwhile, on the BBC’s sunday morning Andrew Marr show on December 13, 2010, Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti described the EDL as “modern day blackshirts”.^[97] The creation of an EDL “Jewish division” in June 2010 was condemned by various different Jewish Groups.^{[98][99][100]}

Jon Cruddas, writing in The Guardian, describes the EDL as “a dangerous cocktail of football hooligans, far-right activists and pub racists…a bigger threat than the BNP…providing a new white nationalist identity through which they can understand an increasingly complex and alienating world. In a similar way to how football hooligans once coalesced around support for Ulster loyalism and hatred of the IRA, the followers of the EDL genuinely believe they are “defending” their Britain against the threat of Islam. What makes the EDL much more dangerous is how it reflects a wider political and cultural war.”^[101]

The EDL’s leaders say they are opposed to racism and say that the EDL it is “keen to draw its support from people of all races, all faiths, all political persuasions, and all lifestyle choices”^{[citation needed]}. Trevor Kelway, a spokesman for the EDL, has denied that the group is racist. He said he had taken over as spokesman because the previous spokesman was Islamophobic. “We would march alongside Muslims and Jews who are against militant Islam,” he said. “There were none on Saturday and an all-white group doesn’t look good. But they can join the EDL as long as they accept an English way of life. It is the people who threaten with bombs and violence and threaten and bomb our troops – they don’t belong here.”^[10][102]

Government

British Prime Minister David Cameron stated in the 2010 election campaign, “The EDL are terrible people, we would always keep these groups under review and if we needed to ban them, we would ban them or any groups which incite hatred.”^[103] Former Home Office secretary Phil Woolas stated of the organisation’s tactics “This is a deliberate attempt by the EDL at division and provocation, to try and push young Muslims into the hands of extremists, in order to perpetuate the divide. It is dangerous.”^[104] John Denham, the then UK Communities Secretary, has condemned the EDL, saying its tactics are similar to those of the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s, although he stressed that they did not present anything like the same “potency, organisation or threat”. He was commenting after clashes between different groups at a new London mosque, during a demo by the group Stop the Islamification of Europe. He singled out the EDL in particular: “If you look at the types of demonstrations they have organised, the language used and the targets chosen, it looks pretty clear that it’s a tactic designed to provoke, to get a response and create violence”.^[105][106]

The leader of Dudley council, Anne Milward, stated after the second EDL demonstration in her city: “We are extremely saddened that Dudley has again been targeted by the English Defence League. Yet again this group of outside extremists have shown they are incapable of demonstrating peacefully and have brought public disorder and violence to our town.”^[51]

Academic analysis

Matthew Goodwin an academic who specialises in the study of far-right extremism has argued that the press are more sympathetic to the Islamophobia of the EDL than they were to the anti-Semitism of the National Front in the 1970s:

The reason why the EDL’s adoption of Islamophobia is particularly significant is that unlike the 1970s, when the National Front was embracing antisemitism, there are now sections of the media and the British establishment that are relatively sympathetic towards Islamophobia. It is not difficult to look through the media and find quite hostile views towards Islam and Muslims. That is fundamentally different to the 1970s, when very few newspapers or politicians were endorsing the NF’s antisemitic message.^[107]

International activities and support

American talk radio host Michael Savage became the first popular media figure to publicly announce support for the EDL, stating, “How does England take the Islamofascists spitting on their war dead, without letting the English Defence League wade into them with pipes and beer bottles, I’ll never understand”.^[108] Erick Stakelbeck, a terrorism analyst and commentator for Pat Robertson‘s Christian Broadcasting Network, also expressed support for the EDL and compared it to the American Tea Party movement.^[109]

The EDL is reported to be developing links with anti-islamic elements within the Tea Party movement, through individuals associated with the Ground Zero Mosque controversy.^[110]

In October, 2010, Rabbi Nachum Shifren traveled to England to speak at a rally. In his speech, he called Muslims “dogs” and told the EDL that “History will be recorded that on this day, read by our children for eternity, one group lit the spark to liberate us from the oppressors of our two governments and the leftist, fifth column, quisling press, and that it was the EDL which started the liberation of England from evil.”^[111]

Jewish Defense League has held a demonstration in support of the EDL,^[112] the JDL saying that the two groups alliance will “take a stand against the forces of political Islam”. The Canadian Jewish congress has opposed the alliance. Please click here for a video of the EDL leader, Tommy Robinson:      

^{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSyw0tpVGN4Comment:   The above is how the Establishment Left in America describes how the Establishment LEFT in the UK views the English Defence League.  I no longer spend time in the United Kingdom, but I have spent almost a year of my life in that beautiful, once proud, once quite democratic nation until the arrivial of militant Islam.}  

^{From the distance of my tiny office from London’s wars of modern English Succession, I believe that the present leader of the English Defence League, through his native intelligence, love for his England, and probably encouraged by the spark of success he has experienced leading this group of lower class language, has guided the League into a proud and honorable  Save England force against the disharmony that is inherent with aggressive Islam today.   There is NOTHING peaceful about this swarm of fanatics who use the mosque as the center of fascism which would have  made Hitler overwhelmed with jealousy.    Not only that but few in the three major Brit political parties can be trusted to defend the homeland when Arab money is so readily available.}

The British Television Establishment BBC Tries to Bully Tommy Robinson

We have seen in our own United States how the Establishment Left wing, its Democrats, its Hollywood crowd, its mass media, those who claim to be intellectuals, leftwing pundits and pundit-comedians everywhere have tried to tar the Tea Party as a racist or fascist movement instead of  a peaceful gathering of determined conservatives and old-time Democrats who are worried about the Marxificatioon of their beloved United States of America.

The threat of destruction of English culture in the UK is no longer a concern for the future.   The collapse of England as we who have been there so often remember, is upon the English this very day.  Its enemy is fascistic Islam and Bolshevik Marxists, both tyrannies after the same carcas.   The standard Conservative Party of the UK is essentially a gathering of bureaucrats of class habits who pretend the Islamic threat doesn’t exist.   Arabs have  a lot of money these days.   That money buys votes and influence both nationally and locally.   The English electorate, so common here in America as well, has been trained by the traditional Marxist left….usually at university to hate opponents…….as people uneducated, unworthy of a place and the discussion tables of human affairs unless they have taken sensitivity training, approve of whatever minorities do or don’t do, help women with their esteem and vote LABOR in the UK and Democrat in the USA for  more personal benefits……..no thinking required. 

Single women flock to the LEFT by the hundreds of thousands.    Women say they are for peace.    Women put PEACE signs in their gardens to remind themselves they are for peace.     Girls, told by the press and school  that they are the better sex, become women puffed up with slogans of self esteem  in college, by the press, the movies and theater by   Leftwingers with their  rules of engagement  put into law both in the UK and in the USA, see Islam as a reglion of peace, because Islam announces that it is a religion of peace.   To women it would be unpeaceful to challenge what Islamists claim…….and so take Islamists for their words. 

Women like President  Barack Obama and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg speak the peace of  aggressive Islam in the good old USA, by  welcoming these tyrants to mark the World Trade Center slaughter with the dog scent of Islamic  victory by aiding them to  build a mosque at that site to commemorate their remarkable victory on September 11, 2001.    Other profiteers in America also support this peace loving project.  These people don’t inform Americans how peaceful Islam is doing peacefully in Europe.

Below are two videos presenting Tommy Robinson, head of the European Defence League, the only defender in the UK of traditional Britain when Marxists from university and Islamists for the Near East are tearing the country apart.

Here a television news host representing the Establishment press, the BBC attempts to humiliate Tommy Robinson, passing him off as a hoodlum and racist:

http://co106w.col106.mail.live.com/default.aspx?rru=inbox

The following video is of the speech Tommy Robinson gives to his followers in a demonstration the English Defence League which he leads at his hometown Luton.

 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSyw0tpVGN4

Do Nazis Run the Madhouse Known as Harvard Law School?

  ………..It certainly seems so!

The following is part of an article from the Weekly Standard, May 17, 2010 written by Peter Berkowitz, titled, “Harvard Law vs. Free Inquiry”.       

The incendiary remarks are mine.   Nazis, Stalinists, and Islamists are noted  for the following Harvard Law School behavior:

“Late last month, controversy erupted at Harvard Law School after a private email written in November was leaked to the law school community.    In it, a third year student, clarifying her views after a dinner conversation with two close friends, explained to  them that she wanted to understand the science and research on whether intelligence may have a genetic component and whether African -Americans may be  “less intelligent on a genetic level.”

Harvard Law School dean Martha Minow promptly responded by issuing a statement condemning the email and reminding students and faculty that the right to free speech comes with responsibilities.  Unfortunately, the dean also reinforced the most common and serious prejudice at American universities today, which targets  those who think, or who merely wish to examine critically, nonconforming or disfavored thoughts.

Dean Minow’s statement, moreover, failed to honor the scholar’s duty to restate accurately a view one is criticizing.  According to Minow, the student’s email “suggested that black people  are genetically  inferior to white people.”  That’s an incendiary revision.

What the student actually wrote is that she couldn’t “rule out the possibility that Aftican Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent.”  then, in the very next sentence, she entertained the possibility that there is no genetic variation in intelligence between the races:  “I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances.”  The student went on to speculate that “cultural differences” are probably “the most important sources of disparage test scores.”  And the student elaborated at length and argument from  Harvard Law School professor Randall Kennedy that in the student’s judgment deftly showed, despite the absence of   “quantifiable data,” that racial disparities for violent crimes were rooted in culture.  In sum, the student clearly expressed the desire to set aside conclusions of the heart, and instead examine the scientific data and consider reasoned analysis concerning the genetic basis of intelligence.

Minow’s  rewriting of the after-dinner email, however, turned the student’s competing hypotheses and interest in the scientific evidence into a crude  racist claim about people’s relative moral worth.  Unless, perhaps, Dean Minow assumes that interest in some empirical propositions is inherently racist.  Or was it the dean’s even more illiberal and antidemocratic assumption that human moral worth is a function of IQ that justified her condemnation of the student?

Furthermore, the dean implicitly encouraged members of the law school community to regard the student as a pariah when she added that “circulation of one student’s comment does not reflect the views of the school or the overwhelming majority of the members of this community.”

While devoting the longest paragraph of her brief statement to praising the Black Law Students Association for the way it handled “the hurt” caused by the email.  Minow did not counterbalance her distancing of the law school from the email’s student’s privacy involved in distributing the email, or a word of caution about the difficulties in interpreting private comments that become fodder for public controversy.

In a statement posted on their website, the Harvard Black Law Students Association echoed Minow’s misrepresentation of the student’ views, further contending that the student’s characterization of African Americans as genetically inferior to white people was “racially inflammatory,” “deplorable,” and “offensive.”

 By this time, as Dean Minow noted in her statement, the student had already issued an unequivocal apology:  “I am deeply sorry for the pain caused by my email.  I never intended to cause any harm, and I am heartbroken and devastated by the harm that has ensued.   I would give anythig to take it back.”

THIS, DEAR PRAGER FRIENDS,  IS A NIGHTMARE WHICH OCCURS WHEN WOMEN BEHAVE FEMALE  IN A FEMINIZED SOCIETY.   COMMON SENSE, HONESTY, CLARITY, RESPECT FOR PRIVACY, AND ANY SKILLS AT PROBLEM SOLVING DISAPPEAR…..ALL REPLACED BY THE IDLE, INSIPID  HYSTERICAL CHATTER OF THE FEMALE SHIVERS OF BODY CONVULSED BY  IRRATIONAL FRENZY.

Obviously  people like Dean Minow  are devoted Marxist-Democrats devoted to do the common good.  Don’t we all know she is an Obama gal or even leftier.   They likely learned these steps to do good at Harvard, Yale  or Columbia or some other similar modern  junk yard of intellectual degredation.

Dean Minow should have been fired on the spot for broadcasting someones personal private email.   Further, how did this private email become so public?   Is it from the air at Harvard Law School?   Was there a Democrat- Nazi snitcher who passed the missile to the  Harvard Gestapo chief, Martha Minow?   For what purpose…..sharing an innocent inquiry for a professional response?   or part of the plots of the majority Nazi Marxist Democrat Party crowd of fanatics generally propagated by America’s universities and colleges, from your country village to the uglies such as Harvard, Columbia, Yale, Princeton…ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

Regarding the AfricanAmerican community, its bigotry is so profound and its Leftwing noise so  constant, it might no longer know what the word reality  means…….

Dean Minow is simply the Lefty female unit  counterpart to the thugs who run the Islamic madrassas.   Both thugs represent the worst in the human sex division…..for they teach ignorance, hate, and dishonesty to the generations to come.

Nearly every American institution of learning is in free fall due to the feminizing of the culture.   It is a lethal poison.   How are the giddy and empty automatons, male or female such as Martha Minow going to defend the Islamist fanatics when they finally run amok across the good old USA?

Lefty Thugs and Their Hates Have Comforted Democrats for a Long Time

Have you folks forgotten the presidency of George W. Bush and the Democrat Party goons who expressed their right to riot, threaten and stir the worship of DEATH as often as the Islamist fanatics around the world?

What if George W. Bush had declared action against Iraq and Saddam Hussein as whimsically as this Marxist President, Barack Hussein Obama did the other day?   President Bush spent months developing his backing to remove a murderous  monster far worse in one weel  than  Moammar Qaddaffi had been in 40 years of dictatorship.

Nearly all thugs in America are confined to the Democrat Party, its liaisons with militant Islam, gangsters in the black and latino Democrat-run inner city plantations and the Unions spreading their violence in Wisconsin…..just in case you have forgotten.

REMEMBER!

Threats against Bush at public protests

Blacks Fleeing Democrat-Run Urban Black Plantations

Some articles are simply better than others….by writing, by topic, by authenticity and truth, by quality of authenticity and truth,  by humor, by sobriety, by any standard one might choose…..and by whose ever making the judgment, in this case me.      

This article by Walter Russell Meads found at his blogsite, “The American Interest”, is one:

Black And Blue 2: Blacks Flee Blue States in Droves

by Walter Russell Mead

“Two milestones in the long, painful decline of the blue social model were reached this week and reported, of all places, in the pages of the very éminence grise of the monde bleu: the New York Times.

The first was a piece of national and historical news: The Census reported that waves of blue state blacks fled the stagnant job opportunities, high taxes and rotten social conditions of the mostly blue northern states to seek better lives for themselves in the south.  The second milestone was local and literary:  Bob Herbert, for many years the only regular Black columnist on the New York Times‘ op-ed page, has written his last column before stepping down.

The Census story is a shocker.  First, according to the Times, the Blacks leaving tend to be the “younger and better educated”.  Second, the three states Blacks left in largest numbers don’t just include snake-bit Michigan; the other two are Illinois and New York.  Within those states, Chicago and the city of the New York (widely considered among the most successful cities in the country) are the places Blacks are deserting.  17 percent of the Black flight from Big Blue is from the Empire State; after almost a century of trailblazing social policy, New York State has succeeded in creating the most hostile environment for Blacks in the country.

It gets worse.  One would think that the Blacks who choose to stay in the cold, unwelcoming North would cluster in the cities where more liberal and humane governance models mandate such generous policies as “living wage” laws and where all the beautiful features of the blue social model can be experienced at full strength.

But one would be wrong.  Blacks across the North are fleeing the urban paradises of liberal legislation and high public union membership for the benighted suburbs.  The Times interviewed a professor to get the straight scoop:

“The notion of the North and its cities as the promised land has been a powerful part of African-American life, culture and history, and now it all seems to be passing by,” said Clement Price, a professor of history at Rutgers-Newark. “The black urban experience has essentially lost its appeal with blacks in America.” [bold italics added]

When whites leave failing blue cities and states, the pundits call this racism: all those white Californians fleeing Nancy Pelosi’s utopia for less ambitious jurisdictions where ordinary people can do things like get jobs and buy homes are clearly pathetic trailer trash hicks too dumb, too selfish and above all too racist to understand the gloriously multicultural blue beauty of California today.

So what are we going to call the young, educated Blacks making similar choices?  Dumb cracker racists?

A public housing unit being demolished

The failure of blue social policy to create an environment which works for Blacks is the most devastating possible indictment of the 20th century liberal enterprise in the United States.  Helping Blacks achieve the kind of equality and opportunity long denied them was more than one of many justifications for blue social policy: it was the defining moral task that has challenged and shaped American liberalism for the last fifty years.

The Census tells us that in the eyes of those who know best, these well intentioned efforts failed.  Instead of heaven, we have hell across America’s inner cities.  Blue economic policy has cut the creation of new private sector jobs to a trickle in our great cities, while the high costs of public union urban services (and policies that favor government employees over the citizenry at large) impose crippling taxes and contribute to the ruinously high costs that blight opportunity.  All the social welfare bureaucracies, diversity counselors and minority set-asides can’t make up for the colossal failure of blue social policy to create sustainable lower middle class prosperity in our cities.

Most Blacks of course still vote blue at the ballot box, but more and more of them are voting red with their feet.  They are betting in massive numbers that southern Republicans will do a better job of helping their kids get good educations, police their communities more fairly (see this article, where NYT columnist Charles Blow blames the Black flight from New York on the racist police), offer more affordable housing and create a better business climate.  Over time, this is going to affect the balance of power in Black politics and pull the Democratic Party (and the national consensus) to the right.  Reapportionment is already pulling political power toward the South; New York today has fewer electoral votes than it did at the start of the Civil War and it is going to lose two more House seats in the next division.

The prophets of an emerging Democratic majority driven by demographic growth among Blacks and Hispanics should probably reflect that both southern and ethnic northern whites were once solidly Democratic too. As those groups became a little more affluent and moved into the suburbs, their ideologies and allegiances shifted; will Blacks and Hispanics be any different?

The retirement of one columnist hardly ranks with the migration of a people, but the end of the Bob Herbert era at the Times should not pass without comment.

Bob Herbert was a columnist for the New York Times for eighteen years (NYT)

Many readers, even true blue liberals who accept the New York Times editorial board’s view of the world lock stock and barrel, gave up on Bob Herbert years ago.  You never had to read Bob Herbert to know what he thought about any topic, and his takes on events were always earnest and moral, and usually unrealistic.  As the country’s enthusiasm for conventionally liberal approaches to social problems faded along with our ability to pay for them, Herbert sounded less and less like a prophet calling us to help the poor, and more and more like a voice of resigned despair: Cassandra unheeded.  As time went on, fewer and fewer people bothered.

Predictability was no special vice of Herbert’s; it is the nemesis of any columnist (and blogger, alas) as one applies the same political and cultural sensibilities to the news of the day.  Paul Krugman is at least as predictable as Herbert, but he is more fun to read: Herbert’s prose, like the lectures of a Methodist Sunday school teacher, lack the edge that Krugman’s hatred, rage and contempt for his opponents give to his columns.  Herbert is a good and decent man but goodness, decency and predictability often translate, sadly, into dullness in prose.

By its lights and in the context of the times, Bob Herbert’s column was a passionate advocate for the poor and especially for the Black underclass.  We need more of this today, especially as budget woes will increasingly limit the ability of governments to pay for conventional liberal programs aimed at the poor.

But doing that job, and advocating effectively for the poor and the lower middle class, is going to take more intellectual creativity and political boldness than old style liberalism can now offer.  Keeping Walmart away from the people who need its low prices the most is hardly a triumph of social engineering and now more than ever, knee-jerk liberalism is the enemy of the poor.

To begin with, advocates for Blacks and the underclass have to understand that the interests of poor children have to be put ahead — way ahead — of the interests of teacher unions and school bureaucracies.  More generally, the urban underclass and lower middle class will never find opportunities until cities figure out how to deliver decent services at a viable price: the high taxes and tangled regulations of our big cities are walls that emprison the poor more than protecting them.

This is true even though the poor don’t pay income tax.  Sales taxes (and crushing ‘sin taxes’ on some of the pleasures they enjoy and perhaps need most) cut into their disposable incomes.  Sky high property taxes jack up their rents.  High wage scales for unionized public servants, inflated by collective bargaining madness and the generally high cost of living and elevated tax levels in blue America, mean that the poor get less from the state: fewer (and often, worse) teachers, fewer cops on the beat, fewer firefighters, fewer and more crowded health services.

Worse than all this, small business is crushed by high taxes, intrusive and often irrational regulation, which means that new jobs aren’t created and new businesses don’t start.  That reduces demand for workers in the neighborhoods that need jobs most; it also curtails the ability of inner city residents to develop the entrepreneurial skills and experience that could fuel the rebirth of the Black middle class.

Disaster is too kind a word for what the blue social model has (inadvertently) built in America’s cities.  No wonder that to be young, gifted and Black today means fleeing the consequences of blue social policy as fast as you can.

Serious advocates for the poor in the 21st century will share many of Bob Herbert’s concerns.  The scandalous state of our criminal justice system is one of them.  We pay far too much to imprison far too many people and the shocking conditions in our prisons are a standing reproach to our entire society.  Our wholesale confinement of non-violent drug offenders to prison is a gross miscarriage of justice and an inexcusable misallocation of scarce resources; our failure to protect the weak and the vulnerable in our prisons shames us as a people.

The answer to many of the problems of our poor people is not “less government.”  Often, what is needed is smarter government that uses the immense power of technology to give people faster access to better services at lower cost.  In some cases, such as policing the border to prevent further mass illegal immigration, more effective government is needed to ensure that American citizens are not undercut in the labor market by desperate illegals. (On the other hand, federal immigration policy should hold the doors wide open for educated professionals and entrepreneurs who can help us lower health care costs and keep our high tech industries vibrant.)

Historically, government mistakes — like the construction of huge public housing complexes that turned into crime factories — have cost poor people as much or more than government neglect.  Honest government would help, too; corruption and bribery are all too common in cities where the poor above all depend on the honesty and competence of government authorities to protect them from unsafe working and living conditions.

Queensbridge Houses in Queens, New York – the largest public housing project in North America (Wikimedia)

In some cases, tighter regulations more rigorously enforced are part of the answer.  It’s clear that organizations like ACORN and Planned Parenthood (perhaps less as the result of national policy than of rogue employees) have taken advantage of lax regulation to exploit the poor and have failed their duties of public trust.  The huge volume of Medicare and Medicaid fraud diminishes the resources available to help the poor while often also lowering the quality of the care they receive.  There are many organizations that have built large businesses at the poorly-regulated and often profoundly corrupt intersection of government funding and urban poverty.  For the sake of the poor, those organizations and their political connections need to be regulated fairly, transparently — and vigorously.

There are some areas in which a modified Bob Herbert-type agenda is needed.  Massive investments in urban and regional infrastructure would help bring economic development to poor areas — although dropping Davis-Bacon requirements on these projects would mean more jobs for more people and more infrastructure at less cost for taxpayers.

Herbert probably wouldn’t like this, but a sensible effort led by government but with lots of input by employers could reform the accreditation and credentialing system and set up reasonable and appropriate regulations that would allow inner city residents, among others, to benefit from vastly cheaper educational services.  Instead of complaining about the inadequacies and poor performance of some for-profit educational companies, we should be moving forcefully to establish the regulations and oversight that would allow these companies to flourish and grow — while protecting basic consumer rights.

Beyond this, moving aggressively toward giving education for business and entrepreneurship a more prominent place in our basic K-12 curriculum can help prepare urban minority America for the new economic realities sweeping down upon us all.  Whether it is to equip minority school teachers to organize, manage and lead charter schools, or otherwise to provide the skills and promote the outlook necessary to help people start businesses, this kind of education is vital if Black, inner-city America is going to have a chance in the 21st century.

None of this represents some kind of neo-Confederate, anti-government agenda, and all of it is necessary for the social and economic recovery of our blighted inner cities and the construction of a stronger and more entrepreneurial Black (and for that matter, white) middle class.  But ultimately we have to face the limits on the ability of government to solve the kind of human problems that blight our inner cities.  These are social problems that have to be solved by social engagement.  Synagogues and churches outside the inner cities have to form partnerships with inner city churches to operate charter or fully private schools.  The focus of activism to help the poor should NOT [note to readers: “not” inadvertently omitted in original draft; sorry for the confusion] be a movement to persuade politicians to pass laws (and raise taxes) to hire more bureaucrats and write and enforce more regulations.  We need a movement for the poor that persuades Americans to put their own time and treasure on the line by getting involved and helping out.

Americans ultimately have to accept the reality that you can’t eliminate poverty by hiring professionals with postgraduate degrees and six figure incomes to sit in downtown offices and engineer policy solutions to urban ills.  Poverty in a society like ours is a human problem and it is solved one human being at a time, usually through person to person contact: above all the parent but also the teacher, the preacher, the mentor, the entrepreneur who helps the lost and the overcome find solid ground on which to stand and build a life.

As Blacks flee the citadels of blue thought, and as the paladins of blue like Bob Herbert move toward retirement, the problems of the inner cities and the underclass are still very much with us.  Top down solutions and bureaucratic interventions have at best a limited utility in this new environment; it is time for a national re-think and a national re-engagement on the problems of race, poverty and class.”

Further comment:   One of the best articles I have ever read regarding certain reality in America.   The description of Bob Herbert is superb…..for the American universities manufactured Bob Herberts by the thousands as if they were manufactured and run out on an assembly line for packaging.

Comrade Obama, the Marxist Wimp Turns American for the Evening.

 The president is still a Marxist and pushes his Marxist programs to give all power to himself to run our common lives.  He was still his Marxist self when he paid no attention whatsoever to Congress about his American mood which suddenly governed his Marxist body and mind……that the United States of America is, indeed, an exceptional among nations, and  as such has a responsibility to do what is possible to encourage decency, dignity,  liberty,  and rule of law to fellow mankind.

The president is often moody, changing his mind not only in the same speech often, but even with in the same sentence, no matter how compound the sentence may be.   But, I believe this speech Mr. Obama gave last  evening, he confessed for a moment or two, that our great America is exceptional, has been known in the world as exceptional, and therefore must do something exceptional in Libya…….to keep a peoples from being slaughtered by a madman, Moammar Qaddaffi, their dictator.

Unfortunately, Barack Hussein Obama is more a Marxist than he is an American, so let us all, including conservatives, savor the President’s American Moment.

The following article was written by Scott Conroy at RealClearPolitics, under the inane title, “Obama Lays Out Broad Guidlines on Sanctioning Force “….as if Obama would pay any attention to any of his own guidlines if it interferes with his Marxist thing.

“President Obama used a speech ostensibly designed to update the nation on the military operation in Libya on Monday to lay out a permissive basis by which he would send American troops into combat, even in cases when the vital interests of the United States were not directly threatened.

In his address at the National Defense University in Washington, Obama defended his decision to commit American forces to a U.S.-led no-fly zone over territory held by Muammar Gaddafi’s forces, cited progress in executing the mission’s limited goals, and assured an uncertain American public that the U.S. would not become mired in yet another drawn-out conflict in a Muslim nation.

But appearing eager to respond to rampant criticism that his administration has not presented a unified doctrine by which to assess if and how the United States responds to international crises under his presidency, Obama indicated that identifying a direct threat to the security of the U.S. was not necessarily a prerequisite for a military response under his leadership.

“There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are,” Obama said. “Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security: responding to natural disasters, for example, or preventing genocide and keeping the peace, ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us. They’re problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.”

Though his speech drifted into discourses on notions of freedom and tyranny that called to mind President George W. Bush’s rhetoric in advance of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, of which Obama was a leading critic, the current president offered a somewhat more humble take on the role of U.S. leadership and made a concerted effort to highlight the importance of American allies in taking over the brunt of the remaining mission in Libya and helping to lead in future endeavors.

Still, Obama said that it would have been “a betrayal of who we are” had the United States decided to skirt its “responsibilities” in the wake of the humanitarian crisis that Gaddafi threatened turn into a catastrophe in Libya.

“Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries,” Obama said as his voice rose and took on an impassioned tone. “The United States of America is different, and as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

Obama added that the United States also had self-interested strategic reasons for acting in Libya, including the economic strains that could have resulted had refugees fled that country in large numbers, a desire to foster the broader “democratic impulses” that have grown in North Africa and the Middle East, and upholding the credibility of the U.N. Security Council.

As questions remained about whether the Libyan rebels will be able to overthrow Gaddafi, Obama said that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would visit with the Libyan opposition and leaders from more than 30 nations in London on Tuesday.

“These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve,” he said. “Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.”

Leading Republicans reacted swiftly to the speech and ratcheted up their condemnations of Obama’s handling of the situation in Libya, as they continued to accuse the president of lacking coherence on the broader issue of the proper use of U.S. military force.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said that he was “deeply concerned” about contradictions in Obama’s strategy, while Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) released his own video response to the president’s speech, in which the libertarian-leaning senator accused Obama of having “ignored our Constitution and engaged us in a military conflict without congressional debate and approval.”

Obama noted that he did speak to congressional leaders before authorizing military action but did not seem overly concerned about justifying the use of force on legalistic grounds.

Instead, the president sprinkled imagery throughout his speech designed to convince an American public that has long tired of two sustained wars and faces continued economic problems at home that the United States had an obligation to embrace its historical role as a defender of oppressed peoples worldwide.

“We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi — a city nearly the size of Charlotte — could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world,” Obama said. “It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen.”