Recently in Race Category

article-2203544-1505C2F5000005DC-68_634x354.jpgIf it weren't for the UK's Daily Mail, I never would have heard about this horrible Ohio case. The ongoing spate of black-on-white assaults and murders is deliberately covered up by the national media. Only occasionally do situations get coverage. Dr. Thomas Sowell has recently written a column about it, "The Censored Race War." However, his fear about the possibility of a violent white backlash some day in response, sort of a pent-up demand for justice, is highly unlikely.

Why a young woman with two small children would commence a relationship with a recently released convict? And the disgustingly light sentence of involuntary manslaughter this convict had earlier received for another murder in 1997, when he bound 18-year-old Misty Keckler's hands behind her back, strangled her, and submerged her in a bathtub full of water is a Theordore Dreiser An American Tragedy-type clarion call what's wrong with today's society. And Curtis Clinton's feeble explanation of sexual games gone awry never should have been given a moment's consideration in a despicable plea bargain.

The maximum sentence for first-degree felony is only ten years, thanks to the 1994 Truth in Sentencing Law? That's shocking, considering serious crimes often do get plea bargained from murder to manslaughter. That's according to Rick Decker of Toledo, a Facebook commenter for the linked story above. And this Curtis Clinton animal stayed in longer for misbehavior, when he misbehaved by biting an officer's hand. Yet, after 13 years he gets out and promptly is alleged to have raped a woman, killed another woman, and strangled two small children in a shocking way that Shakespeare describes with the two young princes in Richard III.

Obviously, mistakes were made with this animal. But not just by the criminal justice system. What was the young lady thinking? We had a similar situation in Wolfeboro, where a mother of five was stabbed to death on Mother's Day in 2009. The first murder in that picturesque town since 1961. The police have so far made no arrests, made no public signs that the crime has been solved.

Could it be that the mother had a restraining order on her ex-husband, was simultaneously dating several men, two of whom got in a fistfight the night before the murder, and she was stabbed multiple times in the early morning hours only to be discovered by her children in their pajamas? Do women know the power of sexual jealousy? Have they lost their minds?  As Shelley Rubin writes:

Drinking. Clubbing. Picking up strangers at bars. Trusting that being single and independent confers on them a mantle of indestructibility. All young. All female. All encouraged to believe that they were immortal, with far too few parents reminding them that they are not.

Asian Is the New Jew

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
I've kept thinking about this John Derbyshire VDare piece, showing the winners of the premier math competition for high school students. The link to the photo shows how at variance the portrayal of such things is in Hollywood--no females, definitely no Hispanics or blacks, maybe just one white--from the truth, what we who have an affinity for socio-biology, first coined by E.O. Wilson in the 1970s and now rebranded fro reasons that escape me, evolutionary psychology.

There's even a shorthand moniker for it among blogs that deal with reality, not egalitarian nonsense: HBD.

Notice the four winners from Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire. Is it four? I'm not so good at math.
It--"The Talk"--got him dismissed as a writer for National Review. But then again that mag has declined in significance for being less truthful and incisive about race and immigration than it used to be.

An unfortunate story has come out of Doc River's hometown of Maywood, a gang-ridden suburb of Chicago with 26,000 people (20 murders there in 2003, three more than for all of NH), which has seen a severe increase in crime. The demographics have also gone from largely blue-collar white to nearly 75 percent black, as reported n the 2010 census.

The sad anecdote that reveals a lot is in England's Daily Mail, where I chiefly go to find out what is happening in my country, though this time local coverage provides more info.

An off-duty cop on a motorcycle late on a Saturday night is traveling. A four-year-old girl, obviously not properly supervised after 10 pm and imprudently let out with an 18-year-old male cousin to a chicken restaurant across the street, darts out into traffic, not anywhere near a crosswalk, in a way that makes it impossible for the man on the motorcycle, an eight-year veteran with the Chicago police, to avoid striking both the little girl and her cousin.

The cop does everything he can to avoid injuring the people, though, sustaining injuries to himself, by leaping from the bike so it goes on its side. But the girl & cousin are still struck, though the injuries to both are minor--the abrasions on the girl's face turn out to be more painful than life threatening.

That's when an ugly situation gets uglier.

Reverse Discrimination

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
In 2008 incoming New York state governor or his aides wanted to have the white guys on his security detail allegedly replaced by ones deemed more appropriate--solely on the basis of race or ethnicity.

And silly me thought that stuff was illegal.
Although a law prof at a place that covets those who publish, it's becoming increasingly obvious that Democratic candidate for the Senate seat held by Scott Brown, Elizabeth Warren used her bogus claim that she's "Native-American," whatever that's supposed to mean, to get her job at Harvard Law in the first place.

Aren't you as tired as I about affirmative racism, er, "action"?

Quick, as I read in David Mamet's _Secret Knowledge_, about his conversion from Jewish birthright lib to a thinking conservative, what did Custer say at Little Bighorn? "Look, here come the _______ ?"

Anyway, a new name making the rounds for Warren is not Fauxcohantas but She Will Sioux. More here.

Thomas Sowell writes on the ongoing black-white intifada, "A Censored Race War?" He's the smartest man in America, and it's obvious the dead tree media refuses to make clear how much interracial crime is taking place. It's much more black on white than the other way round.

Trying to keep the lid on is understandable. But a lot of pressure can build up under that lid. If and when that pressure leads to an explosion of white backlash, things could be a lot worse than if the truth had come out earlier, and steps taken by both black and white leaders to deal with the hoodlums and with those who inflame the hoodlums.
Listening to a podcast of a CSPAN interview with Max Hastings and his WWII history, _Inferno_, I learned about a genocide that I had never heard about before: the Bengal famine or 1943.

Are you going to celebrate Towel Day this May 25? How?
You should have fled to Peru, your mother's home country, when you had the chance, George.

The cops who investigated the shooting death of Trayvon Martin didn't even conclude the evidence warranted manslaughter. Witnesses corroborated your testimony. The district attorney general's office believed it could not meet the burden of proof.

Now you're being charged by a politically minded special prosecutor interloper with second degree murder. Second. Degree. Murder.
According to Pat Buchanan's latest book, using FBI crime statistics, blacks are much more likely to commit crimes against whites than vice versa. His latest column references Heather MacDonald's piece that I have repeated done that 98 percent of all gun assaults in NYC are done by blacks or hispanics. (Liberals are up in arms  that 67 percent of all stop and frisks are done on the same groups.)

Here's an example of a terrible black-on-white crime that, if the races had been reversed, would have been national news.

A man in North Carolina leaves an Applebee's late at night when he is accosted by a group of blacks who call him a "tree honkey." Funny, that.

When he asked for a clarification, he was brutally attacked. Here, see for yourself. Isn't it reasonable to ask why some interracial stories become national stories and some don't?

Let me be as frank as I think I need to be: It's open season on whitey. If the usual script isn't followed, and a white is described as attacking or killing a black, then Matt  Lauer will be all over it.

It's one of the reasons I don't get my news from the TV. It's astonishing what doesn't get national play. And I'm supposed to sit back and pretend it's not happening? Because most people have been conditioned by liberal TV and liberal schooling and liberal Hollywood?

I don't think so. Some of us are still individualists, not amenable to be liberal.  I've lived in some of these hellholes where the racism of blacks against whites was a jaw-dropping phenomena.

Here's an example from the family lore.
Devastating piece by Lawrence Auster--you gotta read it. If only...

Certain hate crimes aren't properly called as such, by liberal prejudice.
The cultural significance of the media's despicable coverage, saturated with the racial politics of the Left, cannot be overstated.

I congratulate blogger OneSTDV for laying it out in its unvarnished ugliness.

The question that needs to be asked is this: How can this anti-white liberalism be combated? The escalation of the deceit--notice the games the media has played with the photos--means that Yankee shyness of sensitive, even troubling racial topics can no longer be avoided.

The war, if there is one, can be more accurately described in ways diametrically opposite what the Shallow Stream Media would have you believe.

As a side note, the crime rate of the 260-unit complex is certainly noteworthy. Taking a stand against thuggery is as American as baseball.

The next thug may think twice about his deviant behavior if more virile and vigorous men acted like George Zimmerman. EDIT: Assuming of course that the recently reported injuries of George Zimmerman--a broken nose and bruising on the back of his head--consistent with Zimmerman's being vigorously attacked and legitimately fearing for his well-being.
Over the past year and a half I've listened to a large number of people disparaging the Tea party movement. Most of them have been card-carrying Democrats (or at least those with the belief they know how to spend my money better than I do). Others have been RINOs or part of the so-called "Establishment" Republicans.

The Tea party has been excoriated in the press, with the New York Times, the Washington Post, and a number of other media organs of the Left leading the way. Washington politicians and other Beltway insiders have derided the Tea party as "hobbits", "terrorists", "Nazis", "racists", "jack-booted thugs", and a whole host of other derogatory labels.

As the volume of hateful rhetoric aimed at the Tea party and its supporters has increased, it has made me and others realize that the groups making these accusations must be really getting nervous. As one commenter to this piece wrote, "If you're getting a lot of [flak], you must be over the target." And so it must be as the Tea party gains supporters throughout the country at a local, state, and national level because they're tired of being ignored by the Coastal elite and the Beltway intellectuals.

My most memorable run in with an unabashed Tea party hater took place at our business when one of our customers went on a rant about "those goddamn Tea partiers wanting to take everything away from us!" There was no way I could not respond, so I asked her where she'd gotten that idea. Apparently she'd read it in the paper, in this case the Boston Globe. (One must remember, the Globe is owned by the NYT and has the same editorial policies as its parent corporation.) I calmly informed her that if her opinion was based solely on what she'd read in the Globe, then she'd been misinformed and lied to. She saw the Tea party as a bunch of religious fundamentalists bent on depriving the poor, doing away with Social Security and Medicare, and undoing decades of civil rights advances. I had to remind her that many of the civil rights advances came from the GOP, not her sainted Democrats. I reminded her the KKK were primarily Southern Democrats, not Republicans. I reminded her it was the Democrats who started us down this path of unsustainable spending going all the way back to FDR. I reminded her that it was LBJ who decided his Great Society was the answer to all of our society's problems, that it had failed miserably, and that it was funded by stealing from the Social Security trust fund.. I reminder her it was the Democrat majorities in Congress going back to 2007 that multiplied the annual deficits to many times that of all of Dubya's deficits combined.

I gave her the URL for the Contract From America website which explains the Tea party platform, none of which deals with social issues she claims the Tea party is involved with. She wasn't interested. Instead she chose willful ignorance and adherence to libelous propaganda from those who do not have her best interests at heart.

Maybe she will care when the country is unable to pay its bills and all of the government support she is 'owed' ends because there's no money left to pay for it all. Maybe she will care when all "the rich" she's constantly complaining about are either driven into bankruptcy or flee with their wealth to friendly climes and no one is left to pay for everything she is owed.

But I'm not holding my breath.

UPDATE:It appears Senator John Kerry has decided to add fuel to the fire by expressing his opinion that the media should not give equal time to those "absolutely absurd notions" voiced by the Tea Party because their opinions "are not factual."

What a putz.
At least according to a recent study that Randall Parker links to, joking that he hopes the egalitarian PC won't drag him away in the middle of the night.

There's even a book written on the subject, peer-reviewed and all that, by Richard Lynn and a Finnish scholar, _IQ and the Wealth of Nations_.  Why is wasn't given a larger hearing among the chattering classes is solely because of a childish disregard for group differences.
It's a dirty little secret.

There has been some talk about why the Navy SEALS are that way. Talk to one of those humble studs, and he'll quickly get defensive. I speak from experience.

Truth be told there is a biological explanation, as blacks have greater bone density and higher muscle mass--probably as a result of having on average more testosterone--they sink more.

I know. Once one of the state's best swimmers as a young boy, I took to weight lifting in the seventh grade. It ruined my ability to glide as effortlessly through the water. And it also destroyed my jump shot I had spent countless hours perfecting.

But talk like this will make me a laughing stock with those whose approach to biological differences is childish and PC.
Charles Murray wonders if NY Times writers read the paper's science section? Nicolas Wade says 25 genes are involved just in melanin in the skin. Race is clearly more than skin deep.

And I never knew that Caucasins and Negros have "wet" ear wax, while Asians have a "dry" version.

And, like Chan, I've distanced myself from most traditional liberal-dominated news outlets. See below, his statement about not watching 60 Minutes much any more.

Is there much wisdom any more? We've largely abandoned it, even as the pointy-heads celebrate their own intelligence--while simultaneously denying intelligence is 1) largely inherited; 2) an impressive indicator of future success; and, 3) not present in the same distributions for different racial groups.

While at college, one can't make statements that working-class people can and do make all the time. Here's one: Girls like assholes. Don't need a study to prove that, when a weekend on the Jersey shore does the trick.
Only a BBC reporter would cover this--the American left, of which the Old Stream Media has largely been a part, is too embarrassed to do so--the dramatic, difficult to be believed rise and fall of Gary, Indiana. Truly stunning. To see what it used to be--representing the best of America (albeit with vicious racism), notice the idyllic old footage of the downtown that looks like Keene, NH, with a vibrant downtown with people with dazzling smiles--and now what it's become, the ghost town of largely Underclass Blacks that's it's become is worthy of the novelistic approach of a Tolstoy or Dreiser.

I'm almost speechless.
The percentage of recent Mexican immigrants who think of themselves as being white has gone down from 98.9% to a little less than a third--all in the span of four decades. What's going on here? White is the new uncool, I guess. My best friend and my brother both married women of partial Hispanic ancestry. They like the option open for their children to be able to be put on the preferential track.

The late great Aaron Wildavsky explains how white males finish last. I'll never forget his analysis of affirmative action, which encourages people to self identify into groups that receive preferential treatment. But he figured it was something like 116% of the population thought that.
I'm still in shock over the coverage of crime and race by the New York Times. I covered it earlier here. The paper was making a front-page story of the fact that 68 percent of stop and frisks are conducted on blacks and Hispanics. Only later do they allow a police spokesman to state that 98 percent of all shootings in metropolitan New York are done by blacks and Hispanics. This isn't journalism, it's something else. Perhaps "criminal enterprise," Lawrence Auster's words, is it.

Here's what the great--I don't care if she's an atheist--Heather MacDonald says:

Here are the crime data that the Times doesn't want its readers to know: blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city's population). Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city's population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown.
We're not Rhodesia Zimbabwe yet. But...there must be a reason 88 percent of whites in Alabama voted against Obama: they're a heck of a lot smarter--contrary to popular opinion--than whites in the Northeast who voted very differently.

White people are being pushed out, like my neighbor who taught in the Newark, NJ, public schools for over thirty years. Blacks took over in the administration and the aged whites were given assignments to encourage their retiring. In my neighbor's case he had the detention room where the hard-core troublemakers went.

Looking up at the concrete ceiling in the windowless room and viewing the ricochet marks from the gangbangers' bullets, he said to himself, "What the hell am I doing here?" And this former shop teacher left equipment that his less-qualified replacement didn't know how to use.

And he retired to lily-white NH north of the capital, even though the winters are brutal.

And, oh yeah, you're a racist if we say so, Judge Charles Pickering, even if the evidence from your actions in the past speak directly to the opposite. Truth doesn't matter.

Video On Saturday

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
While looking for blog fodder I came across a number of interesting videos. Some of you may have already seen them. Some of you haven't. It doesn't matter since they because they're good enough to see more than once.

First, there's this from Arizona Governor Brewer, calling President Obama on the carpet for his failure to fulfill one of his primary duties as president: Protecting our borders.

Then there's this, made by an unknown author, that brings the problems with the 111th Congress and the President into focus. Some have called it a new Republican campaign ad. I think it's a warning to those in power that we, the American people, are not to be trifled with, condescended to, or ignored.

America will indeed rise on November 2, 2010. We "shall not go quietly into that goodnight."

Last, but not least, is this video from Penn & Teller's cable show, calling "Bulls**t!" about health food and the scare tactics used by shallow, holier-than-thou racists willing to let millions upon millions starve to death just so they can feel good about eating expensive organically grown, not-available-to-the-Third-World food. (Sorry, you'll have to follow the link as I couldn't find any embed code to add it here.)
Democracies, being run by the majority, often can't handle the truth. For example, we have a panel of experts on Fox in 2006 laughing at Peter Schiff's arguing that, on the cusp of the housing collapse, we were, ahem, on the cusp of a housing collapse. Watch the rest of the panel members just laugh at him.

Now who's laughing?

I think we have a similar situation involving IQ, which is largely genetically inherited. And, yes, some groups like blacks don't perform as well as whites or Asians because they're not as smart on average. Asians outperform whites, though the difference isn't as great. See this article of a conservative Senate hopeful in Wisconsin having to defend himself for permitting Charles Murray, the co-author of _The Bell Curve_, to speak at a local forum. I love Murray's email response on page 4 of the newspaper article:

Murray told The Northwestern his theory is backed by IQ test data showing Japanese and Chinese students score higher on visual-spatial components of IQ tests than whites of European origin. He said that pattern is observed in both Chinese raised in China and Chinese Americans whose families have lived in the U.S. for multiple generations.

"Can you think of any explanation of this pattern that does not involve genes?" he wrote in an e-mail to The Northwestern. "The hand-wringing reaction of the council member, and of everyone who gets upset by any mention of ethnic differences is, in my view, childish."

That would be you, Larry.

A Well Deserved Fisking

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)
This letter to the editor appeared in Monday's Laconia Daily Sun. The author, one E. Scott Cracraft managed to use every single discredited and bigoted cliché in the book in his effort to paint the TEA party and its activists and supporters as the next Nazi Party. Originally I thought to just post it and my reply and leave it at that. But after rereading Mister Cracraft's diatribe, I realized what it really deserved was a complete fisking to show what a clueless and unthinking "useful idiot" he has become.

In spite of the efforts by the Tea Partiers (and the corporate media) to make the "Tea Party" movement appear "mainstream," the movement's "core" is far from mainstream. This movement includes people who arm themselves to overthrow a legally elected government. In some states, they have advocated succession from the Union. Some anti-Obama activists have even gone as far as calling for a military coup against the Obama administration.

This guy has tried to tie just about every fringe group he can think of to the TEA party movement. I'm surprised he hasn't tried to include the Weather Underground. Oh. Wait. It's President Obama who has ties to members of that domestic terrorist organization!

Cracraft's accusations ring hollow if for no other reason that there's been absolutely no evidence tying any of the militia groups to the movement. The "core' as he calls it has no desire to overthrow the government except by the same means the present government came to power - the ballot box. But there will be one difference: we won't need to stuff ballot boxes or commit massive voter fraud in order to throw the bums out.

The Tea Partiers also include religious conservatives who have forgotten that the U.S. Constitution does not make the American Republic a "Christian Country" but rather separates church and state while providing the most religious freedom possible. Others want to ban a woman's right to reproductive freedom. Interestingly, these same people who cry out against abortion also judge "welfare moms" for having too many babies! And yes, in spite of the movement's public rejection of racism, there are some racists in that movement These people cannot accept the fact that the American people (and the Electoral College) elected an African-American President with a "foreign" sounding name. Many of these are "Birthers," who even question President Obama's right to be president even though he won the election fairly and legally. No mainstream politician of either party has supported this lie but this urban legend persists, largely due to some of whom are in the Tea Party movement or who support it.

This country was first settled by religious refugees seeking to be free to practice their religion without interference from either their rulers or the established churches. Cracraft seems to forgotten this as well as the Constitution states there is a freedom of religion, not just freedom from religion. Over the past 50 years or so too many in this country have done their best to drive free expression of religious belief underground as if it were a dirty little secret to be hidden away from prying eyes. They have used the courts to redefine the meaning of the First Amendment in such a way as to ban almost all public displays of belief. Being a person of faith is not a disqualifier for holding public office, despite what Mr. Cracraft would apparently like to believe.

He also seems to believe that only the TEA party has racists. I hate to disillusion him, but there are far more racists within the Democratic Party than the TEA parties. He also ignores the fact that quite a few TEA party supporters voted for Obama and have since come to see him for the disingenuous big-government socialist he is. That isn't racism. That's regret. The only similarity between the two is that they both begin with the letter 'r'.

Then too, the anti-immigrant sentiment on the part of many Tea Partiers can be construed as racist. I rarely hear those opposed to immigration reform talking about white, European immigrants. It is usually about Asians, people from the Middle East, and Hispanics. Racist or not, there does seem to be and element of the "politics of meanness" among the Tea Partiers.

We aren't anti-immigrant. Many of us are immigrants or children of immigrants. We are anti-illegal immigrant. There's a big difference between the two. It's possible Cracraft is incapable of telling the difference because to him all the illegal immigrants are future Democrat supporters...once they can figure out a way to grant them amnesty and a short ride to citizenship. Never mind the legal immigrants such a move will screw over.

Conservatives have frequently criticized liberal presidents in the past, including President Clinton, but no conservative has gone so far as to question their qualifications to serve. "Red-baiting" has become common on Tea Party signs and at Tea Party gatherings. No liberal candidate has been called a "communist" or a "traitor" to his or her country in a long time. This includes people that are more liberal than Obama. The Constitution, in order to protect our political freedom, narrowly defines what "treason" is and I fail to see how our current president fits this definition. Thus, I cannot help but believe that there is a strong racist element in the movement against President Obama.

As the old saying goes, "You shall know them by the company they keep." It is Obama who has consorted with known and self-avowed anti-American terrorists (Bill Ayer and Bernadine Dohrn, just to name two). It is Obama who, for almost 20 years, attended an unabashedly racist church with a pastor who spouted bigoted, racist rhetoric and called upon God to damn America, much like any radical Muslim cleric.

Of all our previous Presidents, only Obama has worked so hard to conceal his past, the details of his upbringing, his scholarship, and his vital statistics. Every other President's life was an open book. But not Obama's. We know nothing of his academic achievements. We know nothing of any articles or papers he might have authored while editor of the Harvard Law Review. And what we do know of his time at HLR is not flattering, with more than one colleague of his from his time there saying he was basically a do-nothing editor-in-name-only, deigning to grace the others working there with his presence from time to time and not much more.

The Tea Partiers are not engaging in "mainstream" talk. They have an extreme reactionary agenda which should be a concern of every American. They are using violent language, arming themselves, and even calling themselves "right wing terrorists." I have to laugh when a self-commissioned militia "colonel" spoke of defending themselves against leftists at a recent Tea Party in Washington. In case you have not heard, armed left-wing groups in the United States pretty much died out with the Weather Underground in the 1970s. It is not the liberals or progressives who are dressing up in camouflage and conducting field maneuvers utilizing automatic weapons (I think the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" with a chain of command subordinate to the elected civilian authorities and not a bunch of grown boys playing army in the woods). Nor is it the liberals and progressives who are making death threats to members of Congress with whom they disagree.

There he goes again, painting a picture of the TEA party supporters as fringe militant wackos. Well guess what? All these guys are are fringe element wackos, but they aren't TEA party folks. They have as much to do with the core of the TEA party movement as you do, which means none.

If all he knows of the TEA party is what he's seen on TV or from the New York Times, Washington Post, the Huffington Post, or the Daily Kos, then Cracraft is so mis- and un-informed as to be laughable. Not one of these 'sources' is reliable, unbiased, or without a political agenda that does not have the good of the American people as their focus. Like any media source, left or right, they can't be trusted. The fact that he appears to do so shows he's become incapable of thinking for himself and can only parrot what these sources have programmed him to say.

Some Tea Partiers, in their literature and websites, even call for employers to fire liberal employees simply because they are liberal. It does not matter what the employee's work performance is like. They also want to remove liberal teachers from our schools whether or not they are good teachers. They even encourage their followers to break off social relations with liberals and to totally marginalize them. And they accuse liberals of "intolerance?"

I've heard this claim, but I haven't seen a shred of evidence. He's made the claim. It's up to him to prove it.

I know I don't want the good teachers to be fired. But what I don't want are educators that aren't teaching what they're supposed to be teaching and are instead indoctrinating our children, teaching them what to think, not how to think, how to reason things out on their own. These days far too many of our kids are coming out of school totally unprepared to make it in the real world. They haven't been taught the critical thinking skills that will allow them to succeed away from the indoctrination centers we call schools. All they've been taught is how to allow others to think for them and to not question what they've been told.

As far as tolerance is concerned. The most intolerant people I have come across in my life have all been liberals. For them, tolerance is something other people must have, not them.

The Tea Partiers and their ilk protest and claim that as a "grass roots" movement, they are not responsible if there are some "wackos" in their ranks. But, while urging the American people not to "paint them with the same brush," the Tea Partiers seem to paint all liberals and progressives as Marxists, communists or terrorists, if not worse. And, I am not sure that they are even using these terms accurately. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that many of their opponents tend to paint them as "racists" and "fascists."

When a large majority of the liberals/progressives in power spout Marxist/Communist ideals and support leftist/fascist dictators over democratically elected governments, then yes we'll call them Marxists and Communists and fascists.

When our President insults our staunchest allies and embraces our enemies with open arms, then yes, we will paint him with the same broad brush. To quote yet another old saying, "By their actions you shall know them." So far our President's "smart diplomacy" has done more damage to America's foreign relations in a little over a year than eight years of Dubya's presidency.

One also has to be cynical about the "grassroots" label: the Tea Partiers and their Tea Parties are being funded by some very wealthy conservative interests. Some of these interests do not want banking reform. Others have a personal stake in seeing that meaningful health care reform is eventually defeated. How else could Sarah Palin pull down $100,000 per speech? Also, one look at a typical Tea Party website shows the movement's close association with extreme right-wing national movements and organizations.

Oh, really?Just who is financing the TEA party movement? I notice he didn't name names. He made the claim, it's up to him to prove it.

On the other hand, the Democrats, and particularly the extreme left-wing of the party, has been heavily financed by multi-billionaire George Soros, an unabashed socialist (his claim, not mine) and someone who is not a friend of the American people. Like most on the Left, he believes we aren't capable of making our own decisions and he's willing to spend his billions to make sure our ability to do so will be stripped from us, one step, one right at a time. Also, much of the Hollywood elite are willing to support political causes most Americans find repugnant. They pour millions into the Democrat party to help elect candidates that are more than willing to dismantle the Constitution because we're too stupid to understand that we need the morally bankrupt progressives to tell us what we need.

As to Sarah Palin's $100,000 speaking fee: So what? When she speaks at TEA party functions she has given that money to help fund the movement on more than one occasion. Bill Clinton pulls down that much for the same thing, but Cracraft hasn't asked who's financing his speaking engagements, has he? It's a specious point. Get over it.

I have no doubt that there are well-meaning members of the "silent majority" in the Tea Party movement who are simply afraid of government and who came blame them? The Federal Government can be scary to all of us! After eight years of George Bush, who turned a federal budget surplus into a deficit through his wars and giving tax breaks to rich Americans, who would not be suspicious of the federal government and its motives? The well-meaning Tea Partiers should consider who their real "enemy" is: the "Military/Industrial Complex" (a term, incidentally, coined by a Republican, not a liberal Democrat) which has received more taxpayer money than every "welfare cheat" combined.

First, a good part of Clinton's budget surplus was funded by borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund, which has not been paid back and never will be.

Second, Bush didn't give tax breaks just to the rich. He gave them to every tax payer...unless Cracraft's definition of 'rich' is the same as that of the Democrats in Congress - Anyone with a job.

Third, at least one of those wars was not started by us, not by George Bush. It was started by Osama Bib Laden after his follower committed an act of war against the United States, one that was greater than the attack on Pearl Harbor back on December 7, 1941.

Fourth, the other war was started by Saddam Hussein in 1990. We merely got around to finishing it.

Initially, this anti-government movement included a large number of libertarians. While not always agreeing with them, I have always respected the libertarians more than the Republicans who seek to hijack their movement. The libertarians oppose government intrusion into any aspect of our lives. While they are against taxation and "big government," at least they are consistent. They may oppose taxation but they also are champions of personal liberty and oppose government interference in what one smokes or who one sleeps with.

I have to agree that the GOP has been trying to hijack the TEA party, trying to 'bring it into the fold', as it were. But we're too pissed off at the GOP, and particularly those within the party that we call RINOS, - Republicans In Name Only. The GOP betrayed its libertarian roots and became a somewhat less liberal version of the Democrat Party with the same spendthrift tendencies.

As we have seen, the RINOS had no problem spending money the American people didn't have. But that's no excuse for the Democrats to double down and create a deficit in one year that was bigger than Bush's deficit over eight years. (And we must remember these two things: the Democrats controlled Congress during the last two years of the Bush Administration - a time during which the two biggest budget deficits occurred - and that all spending starts in the House of Representatives.)

Mainstream America is sick and tired of being ignored by our employees, who spend without our leave, impose programs upon us we neither want or can afford to pay for, and forget that they work for us, not the other way around.

Unfortunately, the Tea Party Movement seems to have been taken over by extreme GOP conservative hypocrites who are committed to protecting corporate interests. While they whine about government interference in terms of regulating business, they seem to have no problem with regulating a person's personal lifestyle choices. While the Tea Partiers oppose government getting involved in health care, they seem to have no issue with banning same-sex marriage or medical marijuana. I hope the "well-meaning" Tea Partiers eventually realize which side they are really on.

Oh, and the Democrats haven't been doing just that, and rather blatantly while they're at it? They haven't passed legislation that created 'regulations' and 'rules' and laws whose sole aim is to cripple competition and lock out the small guy. They aren't pandering to those same corporate interests?

Cracraft has attributed far too many motivations to the a vast majority of TEA party supporters and activists. Mostly, we want to be left alone by government, want government to get its financial house in order, want the government to start following the Constitution, want the government to stop spending money it doesn't have and won't have in the future. Abortion, gay marriage, and a host of other social issues aren't even a blip on our agenda. The resistance to health care has nothing to do with denying people health care, but does have to do with its unsustainable cost, its intrusive nature, and its destruction of one of the best health care systems in the world all in the name the overused and purposely misdefined term 'fairness'. My question is, fair to who?

'Nuff said.

New Finds

Expatriate New Englanders

Other Blogs We Like That Don't Fit Into Any One Category



Powered by Movable Type 4.1