Like Slimey Cockroaches & their crooked President, Liberals Spread Disease

[Diane Amberg]

Just for interest. Executive orders by president.
FDR 3,728,   Ron Reagan 380  George H W.165  Bill Clinton 363  George W. 291

[Patriot]

Just for interest. Executive orders by president.
FDR 3,728,   Ron Reagan 380  George H W.165  Bill Clinton 363  George W. 291

Oh!  Look!  Dandelions!

[Warph]

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/22/cracking-the-fortresses-of-the



Cracking the Left's Fortresses

By Peter Ferrara on 8.22.12 @ 6:09AM

Conservative ideas can break into urban areas like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami. Here's how:

Check out one of those maps of the county-by-county results for a recent presidential election. The Democrat counties are in blue, and (perversely) the Republican counties are in red. What you will see, no matter the year, are islands of blue engulfed by a sea of red.

The typical interpretation is that the islands of blue are the urban areas where all the people live, and the seas of red are the rural areas where all the rubes live. But that is not the real story these maps tell.

Yes, the blue counties are more urban and populous. They are politically dominated by African Americans, more recent Hispanic immigrants, younger single people, government employees, and welfare dependents. If these groups were not overwhelmingly Democratic, there would be no Democrat party.

But the most salient point about these enclaves of blue is not that they are populous, but that they are virtually monolithic. Democrats win many of the blue counties with 70, 75, or 80 percent of the vote. That is how the urban islands of blue match the surrounding seas of red.

The opinions in these urban fortresses creep out into less monolithic but still predominantly Democrat suburbs, which reflect the pervasive left/liberal media of those areas. But these urban fortresses that make a political difference are surprisingly few: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, St. Louis, New York, Philadelphia, the Miami to West Palm Beach corridor, New England. (Other towns like Atlanta present the same urban core and extremist media, but they don't swing their entire states as a result.)

This concentration of the liberal/left vote is a vulnerability, not a strength. If their wins in these strongholds can be reduced just from around 80-20 to something along the lines of 60-40, the Democrats would cease to be a nationally competitive party. Maintaining such culturally monolithic majorities requires keeping alternative ideas out and demonized. Tough to do in a still (for now) free country, with aggressive conservative advocates.

Breaking Through
Cracking these left/liberal fortresses is all the more possible because Democrat politics are not thoughtful, but reflexive. Hispanics and even African Americans have many more conservatives in their ranks than voting patterns would indicate. This is even more true of Asians. Even American Jews are more conservative than their ballots suggest. All these groups vote so predominantly Democrat because the Democrats tell them the Republicans hate them. The Republicans and conservatives tell them nothing, which seemingly reinforces the Democrat narrative.

Note that there is no significant conservative organization focused primarily on taking free market, pro-growth economics and family values social conservatism into these minority communities. I am not talking about political outreach for the Republican Party, or for particular campaigns, though there is far too little even of that. I am talking about an organization focused on spreading conservative values, ideas, initiatives, reforms, and proposals among African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and other minorities.

The opening to reach African Americans and Hispanics is through the churches, whose attendees are already the more conservative of the population. Imagine this: A conservative organization, call it Empower America (which was never nearly aggressive enough in these communities), hosts a meeting of African-American pastors in Philadelphia or St. Louis to present a dynamic speaker on school choice and the parent trigger. He or she explains how these reforms shift power to African-American and Hispanic parents and away from failing education bureaucracies. The speaker then offers to talk on the same subject at a meeting at each of the churches the pastors and priests represent. No one brings up politics or candidates or campaigns. The discussion is only about ideas and reforms.

Or the organization calls a meeting of Asian small businessmen in San Francisco to discuss how tax reform would boost business, increase employment in their communities, and make more capital available for their companies to grow. The speaker explains the boom in minority businesses produced by Reaganomics. The presentation is all about logic and facts, not politics.

Another speaker talks to Hispanic entrepreneurs in Miami and Los Angeles about how a personal account option for Social Security was implemented in Chile, and how in American similar reforms could empower working people for the first time to accumulate substantial nest eggs that could serve as springboards for the next generation. The organization could even fly in José Piñera, who crafted Chile's plan, to speak about it in Spanish.

Others could talk about how the welfare reforms of 1996 reduced poverty in New York City. They could explain how extending those same reforms to Medicaid would empower lower income families to get market health insurance through vouchers, which would greatly expand access to middle class doctors, hospitals, and health care.

The focus would be ideas, not politics. But political leaders who campaigned on policy innovation, rather than personality, would be effective in leading one or more such organizations. These include Newt Gingrich, who knows this outreach is necessary for conservatives, and Herman Cain, who the public recognizes as a straight talking man of ideas.

Are We Really That Crazy?
New England presents a different problem. There the issue is white liberal guilt, as too many people are ashamed of the wealth they have created and earned. They don't do the right thing as dictated by their supposed values, which would be to get that filthy wealth off their hands (I would be glad to hold it for them!)

Instead they cast ballots for Democrat soft Marxists, confident that such irresponsible voting will never have any real world implications for them. Across the country, the most left/liberal districts are found in either the poorest neighborhoods and in the richest ones, where limousine liberals vote Democrat the same way sinners once bought dispensations from the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.

But the rise of the Obamunistas may be changing that attitude at long last. At least some limousine liberals are starting to realize that their personal fortunes are on the menu at the Obama Occupy Wall Street Diner. It is time for candidates to challenge the reigning orthodoxy in these districts.

The theme for these campaigns should be "Are We Really That Crazy," and they should point out the more insane policy positions in liberal enclaves. For instance: unilateral nuclear disarmament; four straight years of trillion dollar deficits when the highest previous figure was less than half a trillion; and income tax hikes on "the rich" when "the rich" already pay almost all the income taxes. The limousine liberals know firsthand who pays those taxes, and will not be offended by those who point it out.

What they don't know is the vast expanse of America's welfare empire: hundreds of federal/state programs focused on the poor, bureaucrats who spend close to a trillion dollars a year (not counting Social Security and Medicare) and who create more poverty than they solve. Limousine Liberals tend to believe quite mistakenly that America is way too cheap when it comes to the needy. That view could not be more divorced from reality, but it does move votes in these areas. Spreading the truth about the actual extent and real world effects of America's welfare empire, and promoting proven reforms, would produce transformative political differences in these areas.

The Two Americas
Spreading the message further would require challenging the other pillar of liberal/leftist domination in these urban fortresses: the Democrat friendly media.

Yes, we have witnessed the rise of new media, which includes conservative talk radio available around the dial almost everywhere. There are established, enlightened institutions such as the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor's Business Daily, and Fox News. And we have openly conservative publications that continue to thrive, such as this website and its companion magazine, National Review, the Weekly Standard, Reason magazine, and others.

But these outlets are having no effect on the politically significant fortresses of left/liberalism noted at the outset of this commentary. The mass communication explosion of the Internet, now carried on mobile phones everywhere, has only reinforced the monolithic enclaves, as audiences patronize only those institutions that follow the established party line.

Indeed, the so-called "mainstream" media teaches its audiences to disparage alternative views as morally and intellectually inferior. But I challenge you any day to compare the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times, Fox News to MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh to Ed Schultz, The American Spectator to the Nation... and you tell me which is morally and intellectually inferior.

To break through, we need to challenge the media that browbeat those enclaves into submission. The market opportunity is in the suburbs. New newspaper operations might be launched there to focus on the political corruption and scandals that can always be found at the urban core. They should expose the fallacies and intellectual corruption at the dominant paper. They should follow the examples of the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal and include multiple opinion pages with first rate columnists and commentators.

The other opportunity is in African American, Hispanic and Asian communities. The Left has already jumped out with Hispanic TV stations and African American radio stations. But it is not too late. Fox is already establishing a new Hispanic TV network. But that is only the beginning of what is possible.

These minority communities know that they are stagnant or worse under the status quo. Check out the perpetual 15 percent African-American unemployment rate, the perpetual double digit Hispanic unemployment rate, and the growing poverty and declining real wages and incomes under Obama the Savior. These communities will be receptive to new initiatives focused on their empowerment and prosperity.

Still another opportunity is for conservative think tanks focused on the most stubborn left/liberal redoubts. Let us do more to spread the word in New England, San Francisco, and Seattle on the truth about the burden of taxes and the expanse of the welfare empire. Let us do more to spread the word in Philadelphia, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Miami, and Chicago about the true solutions to poverty. Let us explain the modern, free market safety nets that conservatives have developed, and how they would serve the poor and seniors far better.

The foundational truth is that economic growth, prosperity and freedom will always trump redistribution, stagnation or worse, and the tyranny of the status quo. Conservatives just need to go on the offensive to break the logjam of current politics. In part, we are stuck at a way station on the road away from the era of the New Deal era. The left/liberals have been chased to their last stands, where they maintain their lead through cultural dominance. We need to get the transformation reignited.

[Warph]

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2012/08/22/educational_lunacy/page/full/
Educational Lunacy

By Walter E. Williams
8/22/2012


If I were a Klansman, wanting to sabotage black education, I couldn't find better allies than education establishment liberals and officials in the Obama administration, especially Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who in March 2010 announced that his department was "going to reinvigorate civil rights enforcement."

For Duncan, the civil rights issue was that black elementary and high school students are disciplined at a higher rate than whites. His evidence for discrimination is that blacks are three and a half times more likely to be suspended or expelled than their white peers. Duncan and his Obama administration supporters conveniently ignored school "racial discrimination" against whites, who are more than two times as likely to be suspended as Asians and Pacific Islanders.

Heather MacDonald reports on all of this in "Undisciplined," appearing in City Journal (Summer 2012). She writes that between September 2011 and February 2012, 25 times more black Chicago students than white students were arrested at school, mostly for battery. In Chicago schools, black students outnumber whites by four to one.

MacDonald adds, "Nationally, the picture is no better. The homicide rate among males between the ages of 14 and 17 is nearly ten times higher for blacks than for whites and Hispanics combined. Such data make no impact on the Obama administration and its orbiting advocates, who apparently believe that the lack of self-control and socialization that results in this disproportionate criminal violence does not manifest itself in classroom comportment as well."

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, nationally during 2007-2008, more than 145,000 teachers were physically attacked. Six percent of big-city schools report verbal abuse of teachers, and 18 percent report non-verbal disrespect for teachers. An earlier NCES study found that 18 percent of the nation's schools accounted for 75 percent of the reported incidents of violence, and 6.6 percent accounted for 50 percent. So far as serious violence, murder and rapes, 1.9 percent of schools reported 50 percent of the incidents. The preponderance of school violence occurs in big-city schools attended by black students.

Educators might not see classroom comportment as a priority. According to a recent hire, a Baltimore high school now asks prospective teachers: "How do you respond to being mistreated? What do you do if someone cusses you out?" The proper answer is: "Nothing." That vision might explain why a 34-year veteran of the school had to be taken from the premises in an ambulance after a student shattered the glass in a classroom display case.

MacDonald reports that a fifth-grade teacher in St. Paul, Minn., scoffs at the notion that minority students are being unfairly targeted for discipline, saying "Anyone in his right mind knows that these (disciplined) students are extremely disruptive."

In response to the higher disciplinary rates for minority students, the St. Paul school district has spent $350,000 for teacher "cultural-proficiency" training sessions where they learn about "whiteness." At one of these sessions, an Asian teacher asked: "How do I help the student who blurts out answers and disrupts the class?" The black facilitator said: "That's what black culture is." If a white person made such a remark, I'm sure it would be deemed racist.

Some of today's black political leaders are around my age, 76, such as Reps. Maxine Waters, Charles Rangel, John Conyers, former Virginia Gov. Douglas Wilder, Jesse Jackson and many others. Ask them what their parents would have done had they cursed, assaulted a teacher or engaged in disruptive behavior that's become routine in far too many schools. Would their parents have accepted the grossly disrespectful public behavior that includes foul language and racial epithets? Their silence and support of the status quo represent a betrayal of epic proportions to the blood, sweat and tears of our ancestors in their struggle to make today's education opportunities available.

[Warph]

                   


Are you scared of Mormons?  The media hopes you are, especially our friends at the New York Times, which has been beating a steadily-increasing tom-tom of Mormonophobia.

We first noticed this strangeness when the Times ran an editorial which referred in one sentence to "the Mormon Romney."  There was no particular reason for this religious reference; the sentence had nothing to do with faith or any related topic.  Because of this, the modifier jumped out as though it had been printed in fire, and immediately brought to mind its ancestor-in-chief, "the Jew Roosevelt," a favorite of a former European leader.

The tempo increased with other bizarre similar references over time, but this weekend, we were treated to a one-two punch.  First, on Saturday, we got Timothy Egan murmuring darkly about Romney's "incendiary" polygamous great-grandfather:

"His great-grandfather was a fugitive, tracked by federal marshals as he tried to plant polygamy throughout the Southwest for a radical new American faith. It's a hell of a tale, Butch Cassidy with five wives."

Great-grandfather?  Really?  Butch Cassidy?  He shot people?  Robbed banks?  Are you insane, Mr. Egan?

Today, however, the Sunday opinion pages carried an article with the title "Why Race Is Still A Problem For Mormons."  The article notes that the church has been an aggressive recruiter of blacks both here and in Africa, has a black membership in the "hundreds of thousands," and from the days of Joseph Smith was "egalitarian" and unbiased in its attitude towards minorities.  But the notoriously problematic Brigham Young was in fact unfavorably disposed towards black people" which, of course, was a very unusual idea in the mid-1800s here in the US.

Yet the Times runs a headline that asserts that racism is a problem for Mormons.  How many people read the article?  Few.  How many read the headline, nodded, and moved on?  Many, many more.We should by now have learned the silliness of holding people of earlier eras to modern standards of attitude and behavior, but when it's convenient, we can't resist it.  Washington, Jefferson, and even Lincoln had very unfashionable ideas about race, and, to be blunt, back in Lincoln's day, very few black people would dare show their faces in a white congregation of any denomination.  Or in Roosevelt's day.  Or in Eisenhower's day.  Maybe even, in some places, in Obama's day.

That the Times, and other so-called "mainstream media" outlets would resort to Mormon-bashing is unhappily unsurprising, given the general tenor of this campaign thus far, but distressing just the same.  Surely there are sufficient unsavory aspects to Romney — his wealth, his unapologetic pride in his accomplishment (he thinks he built that), his patrician upbringing (oh, wait a minute — he's a Mormon), his Harvard diploma (oops), his joy in firing people, killing off the elderly poor and starving the rest — for the media to feast upon.

But then again, when you consider that the very survival of the nation rests on the outcome of this election, and are dealing with such an obvious and  fundamentally evil man, I guess anything goes.  Anyone know if Obama's great-grandfather was polygamous?  Just wondering.

[Warph]

            


Obama assists Bain takeover at OMB and tries to hide it


Posted by Dan Spencer  
Tuesday, August 21st at 3:30PM EDT
http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2012/08/21/obama-assists-bain-takeover-at-omb-and-tries-to-hide-it/

It looks like President Obama is assisting in a friendly takeover of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by Bain Capital.

As you may have heard, earlier this year Obama picked Jeff Zients to lead the OMB. You might not have heard that Zients worked at Bain from 1988-1990. The Zients White House biography did not originally admit that fact.

Now Obama has appointed another former Bain consultant, Boris Bershteyn, to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which is part of the OMB. Recognizing how awkward this is for Obama's reelection campaign, Bershteyn's tenure at Bain has been edited out of his official White House bio. This is an obvious and glaring attempt to hide Obama's friendly Bain takeover of the OMB.

The audacity of  Obama's hypocrisy in attempting to hide his Bain takeover of the OMB, while continuing to attack Romneys's private sector service at Bain and refusing to condemn the despicable ad by an Obama-supporting super PAC that attempts to link Romney to a woman's death from cancer, knows no bounds.

Even worse, Obama's Bain takeover of the OMB completely undermines the core of the Obama campaign's argument about Romney's private-sector experience. After all, just last month last month Obama said:

"When some people question why I would challenge his Bain record, the point I've made there in the past is, if you're a head of a large private-equity firm or hedge fund, your job is to make money....That's part of the American way. That's part of the system. But that doesn't necessarily make you qualified to think about the economy as a whole, because as president, my job is to think about the workers. My job is to think about communities, where jobs have been outsourced."

Obama has obviously changed his mind, and private-sector experience at Bain no longer disqualifies one from public service. The proof is in the pudding, Obama just appointed another Bain man to be head of Regulatory Affairs, arguably one of the administration positions most impactful to Americans' lives and well-being. The Bain argument has always been a nothing-burger designed to distract the media and voters from the real issues. Obama himself just proved it.

[Warph]

  

How To Be A Obuma Crony


Crony:  Friend, Pal, Buddy, Acquaintance, Colleague, Companion, Mate, Chum, Comrade.....

Finally, someone has seized upon what I think is THE winning narrative in this election cycle.

It used to be that if you worked hard enough you could be successful in America. But in Barack Obama's America, you have to work hard and give to Barack Insane-Hussein Obuma.  It's all about the team you are on, not the work you do.  Here's a video that I think needs to be broken up into 30 second ads and run all over the country.


The path to success in America used to be the private sector, but what are our children learning today?:

[Warph]

             

How the U.S. manages to waste $165 billion in food each year

Posted by Brad Plumer on August 22, 2012

Each year, about 40 percent of all food in the United States goes uneaten. It's just tossed out or left to rot. And that's a fairly large waste of resources. All that freshwater and land, all that fertilizer and energy — for nothing. By one recent estimate, Americans are squandering the equivalent of $165 billion each year by rubbishing so much food.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/22/how-food-actually-gets-wasted-in-the-united-states/

[Warph]

       

Many have their views on the economy but, few of them have the financial background to really have a valid one.  Here is a fellow who knows whereof he speaks:


"...U.S. unfunded liabilities total US$222-trillion, the highest of all major OECD countries (12% of the time value of U.S. GDP) once accounting for monetary public debt, Social Security deficits and public-health-care unfunded liabilities. One can quibble with some of the calculations, but no one can doubt that the U.S. is in serious fiscal trouble, more so than any other developed economy."...
...Jack Mintz
The US, he says, is paralyzed...doing nothing to resolve things.
Do yourself a favor and read the rest of Mr. Mintz' article:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/08/21/u-s-worse-than-europe/

[Warph]

Sorry but it isn't normal to announce wars and intentions to invade for weeks, months, years before it happens.

Who does that?

Life in modern times is like living in a cartoon.

Well, the USA does it.  Netanyahu and his cronies are doing it now.

It's not normal to discuss war out in public like you are talking about what movie to go see or what restaurant to eat in.

Headline: "Netanyahu determined to attack Iran before US elections".  Badly done news film at 11.

Yeah.  Okay and in what universe is that sane and normal?

"Hey! Enemy!  Yeah, you over there in the funny outfit.  Listen up now.

We are going to attack you on Thursday the 9th of Never at 2:00AM in the morning and we will  time it to the elections for President in some other country.  Oh, by the way, here are the specifics of our troops,(names, addresses, phone numbers, allergies,etc.)

Maybe... We haven't decided yet.

But you should be quaking in your boots.  So there, take that."


Uh huh.  You just go do it.  You shut up about it, you certainly don't announce you are coming.  You just get it done.

But, see today they announce wars years before they happen and then discuss them to death and once they get into it, don't win it anyway.  They just sort of lose lives but nothing ever changes,nothing is gained and things go on like they always did before until the next long running war they will announce way ahead of time.

As  usual in this perverted world something is rotten and what they say it is about is not what it is about at all.

I am so disgusted with this world and the idiots and the rich, easy living greedy guts who 'lead' it.

There is not an honest nation or man in the bunch.

It took Alexander's men all the way to India before they finally wised up and realized they were fighting and dying to make money for that bum.

The ONLY weapons of mass destruction in this world are the leaders.

....Warph