Archive for the ‘Progressives and Left’ Category

I am also immediately reminded of the Christian/Newsome murders, and this mob attack yesterday in Mississippi.  There are a myriad more examples that are conspicuous by their absence from the national debate, as well as the easy punditry of “what would the story be if the races were reversed?”

AJ Delgado over at NRO wrote a piece titled “Black Americans: The True Casualties of Amnesty”, and opens it up like this:

One of the sleeper issues surrounding the debate on amnesty for illegal immigrants – an inconvenient one that no proponent of a widespread amnesty wishes to acknowledge – is the devastating effect so-called immigration reform will have on African Americans.

The black unemployment rate is almost 11 percent, far higher than that of any other group profiled by labor statistics. African Americans are disproportionately employed in lower-skilled jobs – the very same jobs immigrants take. As Steven Camarota asked in a recent column, why double immigration when so many people already aren’t working?

The answer is pretty simple, really.  The Democrats want a new underclass of voters.

Black folks are increasingly wandering off the reservation when it comes to supporting Democrats.  Black Louisiana Senator Elbert Guillory changed party affiliation last year because he saw that the point of the left is control, and that the left’s promises are all betrayals and failures:

Black folks like Bernadette Lancelin may not have thought through and realized that “White House money” comes from taxpayers, but she knows that her community is being betrayed in favor of illegal aliens.

Black folks like Elaine from Baltimore want to know where they can get asylum:

US Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow wrote the Congressional Black Caucus warning of the economic issues:

peter kirsanow

“The obvious question is whether there are sufficient jobs in the low-skilled labor market for both African-Americans and illegal immigrants,” Kirsanow wrote. “The answer is no.”

He referenced a 2008 commission hearing in which witnesses testified that illegal immigration “disproportionately impacts the wages and employment opportunities of African-American” males. Scholars noted that 40% of the 18-point decline in the black employment rate from 1960 to 2000 was due to immigration. He noted that illegal immigrants and blacks “often find themselves in competition for the same jobs.”

He pointed out a host of factors (many influenced or caused by progressive policies) that lead to large numbers of black Americans competing for the same jobs that no-skill/low-skill illegal aliens do.  What I didn’t see him mention is that the illegal alien can operate under the table and save their employer compliance costs for things like minimum wages, workman’s comp or social security – thus an employer can pay an illegal in cash, saving the employer resources, and allowing the illegal alien to unfairly compete in yet another way with American citizens.  And as noted, a large percentage of those poor Americans who are forced out of yet another job are black.

Democrats still have a huge number of black folks voting for them as a block, and they expect it to stay the same.  But the Democrats want new guaranteed voters and cheap labor (and many amoral Republicans want cheap labor, too).  A huge influx of teenagers moved around the country to strategic districts who will be voting Democrat not just next election but in every subsequent election – and they will be voting – that’s why Democrats oppose voter ID laws – that demographic change is how Democrats expect to dominate the nation in one party rule forever (flipping Texas is their most public focus).

Not sure if they’ll declare a thousand-year-reich or a people’s collective immediately afterwards.  Could go either way.

 

From Politico, a glowing retrospective on what a wonderful angel Eric Holder is and how everyone who questions his actions is racist.  Fast and Furious has been rendered a footnote to the left.

Holder, people close to him say, isn’t much hurt by the criticism over Wall Street, Gitmo, KSM or even the leaks; he remains confident that his decisions ultimately reflected the priorities of his boss. The same cannot be said for the 2012 vote by the GOP-controlled House to hold him in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over emails and documents linked to the Fast & Furious operation—a Justice-led gun sting that resulted in the death of a veteran Border Patrol agent in 2010. The vote was unenforceable. But no other sitting Cabinet member had ever faced a similar rebuke, and it remains the sorest of subjects with Holder.

Holder views the vote as emblematic of Republicans’ disrespect for Obama and himself, and he thinks that race is one, but not the only, factor in their attacks. Two people in his orbit told me he has described appearing before congressional committees as an experience akin to staring at a hostile “wall of Southern men.” (For the record: All of the 22 Republican members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are white, 21 are male and more than half are from Southern or border states).

“It was all about politics and had nothing to do with law enforcement,” insists former Holder spokesman Matt Miller. “They wanted to get his head.”

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, ICE Agent Jaime Zapata, and hundreds of Mexicans are dead because of Holder’s ATF.

fast and furious 2010 massacre teens

No one has been held accountable for those hundreds of deaths since Holder simply chose to stonewall.  The left said nothing about Fast and Furious until Holder was held in contempt, and then started lying about it and protecting the Obama administration and the “survivor” Attorney General.

Holder is so disgusted with Rep. Darrell Issa, the aggressive California Republican who chairs House Oversight, that aides find it hard to keep Holder sitting still during the necessary prep sessions. Holder often commiserates about his grillings, via text messages and email, with a group of supportive African-American journalists and public figures, including Rev. Al Sharpton; Juan Williams, the NPR commentator turned Fox contributor; former CNN analyst Roland Martin; Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post; NPR’s Michele Norris; and her husband, Broderick Johnson, a White House aide—a cadre that often encourages Holder to push back harder than his more cautious in-house advisers.

Issa, in a 2012 letter to Holder, denied any other motives than “legitimate Congressional inquiry” and accused Holder of stonewalling to prevent a “co-equal branch of government” from performing its “Constitutional duty.” Members of Issa’s committee have shown no signs of backing off either.

This is what Holder sent to the Oversight & Reform committee:

That's not a print of Malevich's "Black Square".

Thousands of pages of redactions with no information.  Lies upon lies upon lies, and Holder is mad because someone dares to hold him accountable for the actions of his department and the coverup he has engaged in.  Holder, a racist, screams “white people!” if someone questions him.  Holder’s feelings are hurt because he was called out for the hundreds of dead Mexicans and two US agents killed by his operation.  Yet the left’s violent ideological blinders only allow them to see Holder’s hurt feelings in a vacuum, as though nothing has happened.

The entire Politico piece can be best summed up with: “Holder is good.  Republicans are racist and hate him for no reason.  Everything else is a lie.”

The facts of the past are entirely rewritten by the left.

Liberal Privilege

Posted: June 18, 2014 by ShortTimer in Culture, Progressives and Left

From Professor Melvyn Fein:

One of the current liberal cliches tells us “whites” are privileged. The color of their skin evidently bestows benefits others do not receive. They are therefore supposed to be grateful and defer to those who are less fortunate.

But in what does this “privilege” consist? Yes, whites have not been discriminated against the way African-Americans have. They have not been denied jobs or forced to drink from separate fountains because of the pigmentation of their epidermis. This is surely an advantage — but how big an advantage?

Charges of white privilege make it sound as if every Caucasian is automatically successful. The fact is most are not. Few are born with silver spoons in their mouths. The vast majority needs to work hard to achieve the objectives they desire.

Far more pervasive is “liberal privilege.” The very people who accuse others of not being sufficiently grateful for their status are guilty of taking their own advantages for granted. Liberals do not seem to recognize the special treatment they receive. They actually believe they are nicer and smarter than others as a result of having been allowed to get away with this conceit.

Liberals can destroy the economy, but hey, no one could have done better. They can undermine the national security, but at least they were showing the appropriate humility. They can drive their country into bankruptcy, but this only confirms their compassion.

If one is a liberal, any nasty thing one might say about an opponent is passed over in silence. The cruelest invective is regarded as appropriate, given the sins of the target. Even vulgarity is excused because it emphasizes the understandable passion of the speaker.

If one is a liberal, lies are accepted as essential to promoting benevolent causes. The rabble does not appreciate the benefits heaped upon them; hence, it is OK to manipulate them into submission. Whatever the falsehood, the worst criticism will be that one “misspoke.” Or maybe one was quoted “out of context.”

Is this not privilege? Is it not a form of protection others do not obtain? Yet liberals consider it their due. They become huffy if their motives are questioned. Then they drive up truckloads of excuses they expect to be accepted without dissent. If this still doesn’t work, they attack their critics as playing politics (which, of course, they do not).

Read the whole thing here.

Longer version here.  Remember, this is the guy who actively said he will bankrupt the coal industry.

Now, here comes a mandate for 30% cuts in emissions, which are already low.

From WSJ:

WASHINGTON—The Environmental Protection Agency will propose a draft rule on Monday seeking a 30% reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2030 from existing power plants based on emission levels from 2005, according to two people who have been briefed on the rule, setting in motion the main piece of President Barack Obama‘s climate-change agenda.

The rule, scheduled to be completed one year from now, will give flexibility to the states, which must implement the rules and submit compliance plans to EPA by June 2016. States can decide how to meet the reductions, including joining or creating new cap-and-trade programs, deploying more renewable energy or ramping up energy-efficiency technologies.

Either buy carbon indulgencies from Global Warming High Priest Al Gore or throw money at Solyndra or go out of business.  And soon the American people will be experiencing brownouts and blackouts and power loss that will be blamed on the greedy power companies.  There will always be kulaks or counterrevolutionaries or people who are not significantly revolutionary enough who are the cause of misery, never the actual tyrants who engineered it.

The Obama administration is already claiming credit for everything that was done by Bush 10 years ago and that is coming to fruition now.  The Chamber of Commerce (though reprehensible on amnesty) has already come forth warning that the new regulations will cost upwards of $50,000,000,000 for energy producers.  Watching the second Obama video above, he outright states “the companies will pass those costs onto their customers” – you will foot the bill for this.  The EPA is already setting up a legal bulwark to prevent anyone from assailing their new regulations – they’re spending your money to raise your power rates and cut your access to energy and now they’re spending your money on their lawyers to crush anyone who would oppose them.

As usual.

regulations grow freedom dies

From the National Shooting Sports Foundation:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has  announcedthat it will be holding its second  public workshop on June 3 to discuss the implementation of California’s new lead ammunition ban, signed into law last year by Gov. Jerry Brown after being championed by the Governor’s personal dog walker and Humane Society lobbyist. While this simple public forum may appear benign, this law (AB 711) illustrates the duplicitous work of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

According to its website , HSUS is “the nation’s largest and most effective animal protection organization.” However, the group is not affiliated with your local shelter or dog and cat assistance agency.  …

Despite deceiving their donors into believing that they are supporting animal welfare efforts with their contributions, only 1 percent of its budget goes to local animal shelters.

I don’t want to steal the NSSF’s thunder here (I recommend reading the whole thing at the NSSF’s site here), but the HSUS uses virtually nothing for animal welfare and shelters, and it’s gotten so bad that states have issued consumer warnings because people didn’t know their money wasn’t going to help animals, but instead to hire lawyers and sink money into Carribean investment funds.

The big news is this:

Now, NSSF has obtained the HSUS playbook to ban hunting with traditional ammunition across the country. AB711 was the first key step in HSUS’s campaign to effectively ban all hunting through pursuing a ban on traditional ammunition.  The playbook says, “We have intentionally chosen to concentrate first on banning the use of all lead ammunition for hunting in California and pursuing a ban on federal lands owned by the Department of Interior in order to build momentum for the campaign and to spur change within the various ammunition manufacturers and state wildlife agencies.”

In its playbook, HSUS also reveals a tactic that should alarm every hunter who has viewed state and federal fish and game agencies as supportive of hunting.  Despite the fact that hunter license fees and excise taxes provide the vast majority of funding for these agencies, HSUS brags about infiltrating these agencies and expresses confidence in shaping their policies when it comes to use of traditional ammunition:

The HSUS has close working relationships with state wildlife agencies all across the country.  Our wildlife department staff and state directors regularly attend state wildlife agency meetings where they have presented to top level agency officials and developed close working relationships with wildlife law enforcement officers in the majority of states.  Our state directors attend department and commission meetings and have developed long-lasting relationships.  We are regularly contacted to participate in stakeholder meetings and asked about The HSUS position on pending proposals.  In fact, many of our staff serves on state wildlife agency appointed boards and commissions.  These existing relationships will go a long way in our campaign to end the use of lead ammunition.

We will be filing a petition to ban the use of lead ammunition for hunting purposes on federal lands owned by the Department of Interior (DOI)—which comprises about one-fifth of the total land area of the United States.

We are in a better position than other groups to spearhead this effort given our strong federal congressional and agency relationships, as well as our years of experience working through these types of reforms. We are currently in discussions with the DOI on furthering this goal, and we have great confidence—given our mainstream approach and our knack for strategy—that we will be able to achieve all or part of this goal.

The group claims they are “ushering in a new era of humane management” that will only work to outlaw lead ammunition, not ban hunting. However, in an interview posted this month an HSUS spokeswoman revealed their true agenda:  “We are the Humane Society of the United States, so we do not support hunting.”

It’s one more step in the long march.

Banning lead ammunition makes hunting more expensive, which pushes people away from the sport.  Banning lead ammunition on public lands and all DOI lands (which is quite a lot when you look at the agencies they run) pushes poorer hunters out of the sport… which is the point.

Change it from a normal tradition for Americans to one that’s expensive and marginalized and it can be slowly destroyed… as is their objective.