Proof Democrats Take African-American Votes For Granted (The Party Is Pushing Blacks Aside To Focus On Hispanics)

Democrats don’t want Democrats to win.  Their only goal is to prevent Republicans from winning, no matter what the cost.

Former President Bill Clinton tried to persuade Florida Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek to drop out of his U.S. Senate race and support Gov. Charlie Crist’s independent candidacy in hopes of thwarting a victory by Republican Marco Rubio.

People familiar with the matter said the former president and other top national Democrats worry a win by the charismatic Mr. Rubio, a 39-year-old Cuban-American, would make him a political phenomenon capable of boosting the GOP’s chances with Hispanic voters.

That’s right.  The Democrats don’t want Meek to win, they just want Rubio to lose.  The nation’s first black president knew that the African American voters were so locked in to Democratic orthodoxy and marching orders that they could even be talked out of voting for a black Democrat and persuaded in to voting for a white, life-long Republican (who only quit the party when he lost in the Republican primary).

It seems to be working.

Apparently, the Hispanic vote isn’t so solidly Democrat as the black vote.  As a consequence, if you have to push some black guy off the bus to make room for white guys (only in the back, though) in order to keep the Hispanics from leaving the party, so be it.

— uo

Published in: on October 30, 2010 at 3:18 pm  Leave a Comment  

Proof of Media Bias, and Why Newspapers Are Getting Everything They Deserve

Two headlines this morning provided the absolute perfect opportunity to point out media bias in full force.

The front page of this morning’s New York Times and the front page of this morning’s Wall Street Journal each contained a story about how a very large outside organization was trying to influence the election.  Both papers used financial contribution statistics to report to their readers on the gigantic financial impact this was having on the election.

Here’s the punchline.  Despite having the same access to the same financial contribution database, the left-leaning New York Times targeted its ire on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, while the right-leaning Wall Street Journal focused its attention on the government employees union.

From The New York Times:

Top Corporations Aid U.S. Chamber of Commerce Campaign

From The Wall Street Journal:

Campaign’s Big Spender: Public-Employees Union Now Leads All Groups in Independent Election Outlays

Presumably both sets of reporters, fact checkers and editors have access to the same data.  But one paper chose to write about the influence that large corporations are having, while the other chose to write about the influence that large unions are having.

Besides proving that two people can look at the same database and come to two completely different conclusions, it proves that the highly credentialed writers in the mainstream media are susceptible to the concept of confirmation bias.  That is, they ignore information that is contrary to what they already believe, focusing only on what supports their preconceived ideas.

What they really need is some diversity of opinion in the newsroom.

Oh wait, if you think differently, that will get you fired!

— uo

Published in: on October 22, 2010 at 12:19 pm  Leave a Comment  

How To Stay Employed At NPR: Advocate the Death of Your Opponents and Their Grandchildren

Comments that get you fired by NPR:

Juan Williams, speaking to Bill O’Reilly about jihad that O’Reilly claimed that is aided and abetted by some Muslim nations: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

Comments that get you admonished, but do NOT get you fired by NPR:

Sarah Spitz, writing about what she would do if Rush Limbaugh had a heart attack while she was around: “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out.” “I never knew I had this much hate in me, but he deserves it.”

Nina Totenburg, speaking about then-Senator Jesse Helms: “… because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion. Or one of his grandchildren will get it.”

So wishing harm to another person with whom you disagree is fine.  But stating your honest opinion — an opinion that is remarkably similar to what the president’s beloved and praised grandmother felt — is a reason for termination.

— uo

Published in: on October 21, 2010 at 11:51 am  Comments (2)  

Google to HP: “You incompetents only got your taxes cut by 13 million?”

News today about California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina, who was CEO of  Hewlett-Packard till February 10, 2005.  Apparently, on January 25, 2005, just a few days before her departure, the company asked for and was granted a tax refund of $13 million dollars.

This seems to fit a pattern: companies do things to try to increase the after-tax earnings for company owners!  Apparently, this concept is foreign to the writers at the LA Times.

Speaking of foreign, avoiding taxes is NOT unknown to the rabid Obama supporters at Google, who managed to avoid a staggering 238 times more in tax liability that Fiorina’s HP.  Apparently, the people at Google really are smarter than the the folks at HP!

To me, these stories exemplify the differences between those who are fiscally conservative and those who consider themselves progressives.  Fiscal conservatives advocate lower taxes, and then try to reduce their tax bill by a few million more.

Liberal progressives, on the other hand, advocate higher taxes for corporations and individuals, and then hire lawyers, accountants and tax consultants to help them set up all sorts of foreign corporations and tax-haven shell companies to reduce their tax bill by BILLIONS more, leaving folks like you and me to plug the deficit gap.

— Don

Published in: on October 21, 2010 at 11:08 am  Leave a Comment  

Separation of Church and State … It Began As A Way To Maintain Slavery

Given the delusional babbling and laughing by the EOMs (Equal Opportunity Morons) in the Delaware Senate debate, where self-proclaimed constitutional expert Christine O’Donnell forgot what’s in the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments, where her intellectual opponent Chris Coons couldn’t name the five freedoms discussed in the 1st amendment, and where the audience of highly credentialed law students showed their collective stupidity when they laughed at O’Donnell’s technically correct assertion that the first amendment contains no reference to the separation of church and state, I thought this would be illuminating.

I am not a constitutional history scholar, so this was a shocker.  The source of this tidbit, by the way, is impeccable.

The first mainstream figures to favor separation after the first amendment was adopted were Jefferson supporters in the 1800 election, who were trying to silence Northern clergy critical of the immoral Jeffersonian slaveholders in the South.

I get it.  Separation of church and state was a way for slaveholders in Virginia and the rest of the South to keep the busy-body Christians from sticking their noses into the business of slavery.  I had no idea.

There’s more:

Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed (or was it the Klansman’s Kreed?). Before he joined the Court, Justice Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.” In 1947, Black was the author of Everson, the first Supreme Court case to hold that the first amendment’s establishment clause requires separation of church & state. The suit in Everson was brought by an organization that at various times had ties to the KKK.

So separation of church and state was first used by the slaveholders of the 1800s.  It then became the legal agenda of the Robert-Byrd-era KKK of the 1940s.  Seems as though the Klan wanted to keep those pesky, empathetic Christians out of their business.

Who knew?  I guarantee you, no one at the Widener Law School knew this history.  But then they probably don’t know what happened in 1773 either.

— uo

Published in: on October 20, 2010 at 10:57 pm  Leave a Comment  

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself

Kaus on a roll: “Obama blames voters again!”

The only disagreement I have with Kaus’ narrative is the persistent assumption that Obama is smart as many people think he is.  He’s not!  I’m not saying the president is stupid.  It’s just that he doesn’t seem to be capable of accepting and learning from new information.

So when things change, when things don’t go as the academic elite predict (such as unemployment skyrocketing even after administration economists predicted the stimulus would drive unemployment down), it is the president who clings to tired and worn out ideas.  And it is the president and his handlers who, for purely scientific reasons, turn into bullies.

— uo

P.S. – Want proof these academics are not as smart as they think they are?  Look no further than this graph showing the laughably bad prediction for unemployment rates compared to the realized unemployment rate.

Earth to Obama: You can’t borrow and spend a trillion dollars, and get these kinds of results, and then think that nobody will notice or care.

Published in: on October 18, 2010 at 10:54 am  Leave a Comment  

Rejection Of Federal Dollars Leads To Highest Job Growth In The Nation

I know statistics can be manipulated to show just about anything.  But this really is a pretty amazing coincidence.

Buried deep in an article about polling data supporting a GOP takeover of the House, Rasmussen gets into details that may surprise pundits as to how citizens feel about their state getting federal handouts with strings attached.  You see, a politician’s success used to be measured by the pork brought home.  It seems, however, that Texans have a different opinion on the matter.

“… a plurality of Texas voters backed Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s recent decision to turn down federal dollars a program because federal strings were attached to it.”

We’ll assume that because the Texas governor “decided” to turn down the federal dollars that the U.S. government didn’t send the money anyway, forcing the state to spend money that it didn’t want to.  Which means that Texas’ decision to reject the stimulus money that had strings attached to it was granted.

If that’s the case, then this is very interesting.  The rejection of the money doesn’t seem to have hurt the state that much.  In fact …

More than half of the net new jobs in the U.S. during the past 12 months were created in the Lone Star State.

What I don’t understand is how some liberal economists in academia, in the media and in government can look at data like this, which unequivocally shows that economic activity in Texas is much better than in states where governors and senators beg for money for federal money, thinking that more stimulus money is all that’s needed to resuscitate their economy.

Clearly there seems to be no correlation, and perhaps even an inverse correlation, between federal largesse with strings attached and economic activity.  In other words, it’s not availability of money that is causing the economic bottleneck.  Access to the federal trough appears to be an indicator of weak economic activity.

Realize that correlation does not necessarily mean causation.  It could be that Texas was able to reject the federal money because the state’s economy was relatively strong.  The states that were weak, like California, accepted the federal money because they felt they had to.  In this case, Texas’ rejection of the federal dollars was merely a confirming indicator of the state’s strong economy. But if that’s the case, then you have to wonder why was Texas in so much better shape that they could reject the money while California had to go begging.

— uo

Published in: on October 18, 2010 at 9:14 am  Leave a Comment  

You Can See The Flames From His Burning Pants From Space

Caught in a complete, bold-faced, unequivocal lie, Barney Frank’s pants spontaneously caught fire Monday evening.

You could see the fire from space.

Image of Smoke Plumes Emanating from Barney Frank's pants (Source: NASA)

Here’s what sparked the incendiary pants, in all its glory.

Fuel was poured on to Frank’s pants in 2003 when, after George W. Bush proposed more regulation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Frank said:

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Two days ago, the spark that lit the fuel caused the pants to ignite when Frank said:

Low-income home ownership has been a mistake, and I have been a consistent critic of it,’’ said Frank

A consistent critic of making low-income housing affordable?  Is he serious?

My guess is that Tina Fey could smell the smoke drifting from his burning pants in Massachusetts all the way to set of SNL in New York.

— uo

Thanks for Greg Mankiw for the pointer.

Published in: on October 13, 2010 at 9:19 am  Leave a Comment  

Media Catches Up to Reality

I’ve said it over and over, the president and his gang of Ivy League elites simply aren’t as smart as they think they are.  And now, it seems as though he’s not as smart as his supporters in the sychophantic press once believed.  Here’s the key paragraph:

With the exception of core Obama Administration loyalists, most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless

“I’m laughing at the superior intellect.” — JTK

— uo

Published in: on October 11, 2010 at 11:31 am  Leave a Comment  

ObamaCare: DOA, Murdered By Obama Himself

Good lord, you’d think that after spending all his political capital on getting the health care legislation passed, the guy wouldn’t cave so frequently on every exemption request made.

Based on this, it’s as if the only thing the president wanted was to be able to claim victory.  Because if he really did want to change the way healthcare is administered, and if he really did think the legislation accomplished that objective … if the law really was as good as proponents claimed … then the Obama administration wouldn’t be granting waiver after waiver.

Maybe it would have helped if the people voting for the bill actually read it!

I’ll keep repeating, these guys are not as smart as they think they are.  What’s interesting is how the rest of the country is starting to realize how cerebral they’re not.

UPDATE:  Here’s a better article on the subject from USAToday.

— uo

 

Published in: on October 7, 2010 at 8:28 am  Leave a Comment