WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

One group of folks are never asked, by the Legacy Media at least, which American political parties they prefer. Yet, you can look between the lines of the Legacy Media and see a few signs.

Take the bombing of the New York City Army recruiting station in Times Square this morning. Who would do such a thing? Personally, I find it telling that eight Democrats from New York received letters ranting about America and including a photo of the station. Why would they send them to Democrats?

Then again, there's this story from South America. It seems that, when Colombian forces took out that FARC camp in Ecuador, they found a bit of intel. One of the terrorists killed in the attack had a laptop computer, which gave up all sorts of evidence that Hugo Chavez, the diminutive dictator of Venezuela, has been helping them along for the last ten years.

This laptop contained correspondence between Raul Reyes, the lead terrorist killed who also served as the "public face" of FARC; Manuel Marulanda, the legendary supreme leader of the Marxist group; and Ivan Marquez, FARC's man in Venezuela. The upshot of the documents on the seized laptop is that Venezuela is working with FARC to overthrow the government of Colombia, which is an American ally.

Also, little remarked upon in the Legacy Media, is this little datum: it seems that FARC and Chavez are rooting for Saint Obama in the US presidential race. Reports World Net Daily:

Writing two days before his death, Reyes tells his secretariat comrades that "the gringos," working through Ecuador's government, are interested "in talking to us on various issues."
"They say the new president of their country will be (Barack) Obama," noting that Obama rejects both the Bush administration's free trade agreement with Colombia and the current military aid program.
Reyes said the response he relayed is that the U.S. would have to publicly express that desire.

So, apparently, someone in Saint Obama's camp is working with Marxist narco-terrorist, who fund their operations with the poison sold to our people, who murder, bomb and kidnap, and who seek the violent overthrow of a government friendly to the United States. Where have we seen this before?

Looking at past behavior, one can be certain that the Democrats in Congress, as well as those vying for the Presidency, will not be entirely friendly with the Colombian government. After all, Charlie Rangel (D-NY) feted Fidel Castro, another friend of FARC, when he last visited New York. And more recently, he had a trip to Cuba partly funded by the Castro government.

We all remember, also, the hapless Jimmy Carter, who allowed one ally of the United States after another to fall to Marxist and Islamo-fascist forces. And the Democrats who sided with Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, while President Reagan, whose power it was as President, was trying to unseat the Marxists and let the people of Nicaragua have a chance at electing their own government.

Well, Ortega got elected el Presidente of Nicaragua last year, and he's been pretty chummy with Chavez and the Castro boys. Now, he's dabbling in American politics. The International Herald Tribune reports Saint Obama has received the endorsement of formet Soviet lackey and Marxist thug Daniel Ortega.

It just gets more and more surreal, folks! Not only does Saint Obama have a rather sordid and Marxist past (see It's An Obama-Nation!) he is now garnering the support of noted, if not in all cases still breathing, Marxists from South America.

Is he walking and quacking enough like a duck yet?

Aaron Kline, the Israeli journalist and author of Schmoozing With Terrorists, has documented exhaustively the preference of Jihadists and other Islamo-fascists for Democrats and Liberals in American politics. Take any video or audio tape by Osamma bin Ladin, for instance. Every point he raises comes straight out of the Democrats talking points memos.

The Democrats, I've often pointed out, cannot be trusted to define, let alone defend America's national interests. Historically, they have been on the wrong side, every time:

• The sided with the Confederacy


• They promulgated Jim Crowe and fought the Civil Rights Act of 1964


• The started (with a lie) the Viet Nam War and then tried to hang Nixon with it, in the end causing us to quit, rather than to achieve victory.


• They opposed the liberation of Kuwait.


• They opposed Reagan's efforts to win the Cold War.


• And now they oppose America actually winning another, more dangerous, war, the War on Terror.

With a track record like this, is it any wonder that America's enemies are rooting for Saint Obama?

Copyright March 6th, 2008

THROUGH RACE COLORED GLASSES 2/18/08

A gentleman posted a series of comments on to my column of last week -- "And Now, Back to the Frontrunner". True to form, anonymous didn't waste any time claiming that the GOP and Conservatives (by extension, I would assume, he would also include me) are the home of racism today.


He started out by taking issue with the Democratic Party's historical relationship with various racist policies in America's past, to wit: slavery, Jim Crowe, the Klan, segregation, etc. His comments seemed to have exposed a bit of racism on his part however: "...see, when they [the Democrats, I think] moved away from that [racist policies, maybe?], all the honkies went GOPiggy."


In later posts, he referred to Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice as "Toms". So, apparently, his racist views aren't just aimed at whites, but also to blacks who don't stay on the Democratic plantation regarding "proper" Liberal ideology.


I thought that today, I would expand upon my claim that it is really the Democratic Party, with its irrational addiction to identity politics, which is the racist party, as opposed to the color blind Conservatives, who look at people as individuals, regardless of the color of their skin.


How can the Democrats be racist? I mean, more that 90% of the black vote goes to the Democrats every time. What is it about them that would make me think the Party is racist?


First, a bit of history:

• The Klan was started by the Democratic Party to undo or minimize the efforts of Reconstruction.


• Jim Crowe laws were promulgated by Democrats.


• Lyndon Baines Johnson, during the 1950's, spent most of his congressional career obstructing the Civil Rights Act, a bill that was supported, by the way, by Dwight Eisenhower.


• It was Eisenhower who sent the troops into the South to enforce desegragation.


• John F. Kennedy had his brother, Bobby who was then the head of the Justice Department, spy on Martin Luther King in an effort to discredit this Civil Rights pioneer.


• Democrats resisted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Al Gore's Dad led that obstruction. Had it not been for Republican support, it would never have passed.


• More recently, we have Sen. Robert Byrd, who has never renounced his membership and leadership in the Klan. Strom Thurmond, on the other hand, not only quit the Klan very publicly, he switched parties to distance himself from them.

Other, superior minds than my own, have catalogued the specific policies which, while ostensibly claimed to be helpful to minorities, actually did them more harm than good. I suggest the writings of Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and Charles Murray for a more indepth look at Liberal calumny diguised as "compassion".

And to the specious claims that it is the Conservative end of the political spectrum that is the new home of racism in America? Let's look at a few examples:

• Opposition to affirmative action? That's merely discrimination against other folks, rather than traditional discrimination. (More on this later)


• Failure to embrace identity politics? I thought that was what Martin Luther King was talking about: "...judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character..." What's racist about that?
  
• Tax cuts? Despite the claims of Rep. Charlie Rangel (D.NY) -- "It's not 'spic' or 'nigger' anymore. They say, 'Let's cut taxes.'" -- tax cuts have absolutely no racial or ethnic component. In fact, tax cuts are good for minorities in that they spur the economy and create more jobs, while allowing wage earners to actually keep more of their money.
  
• And what is so racist about appointing the first and second black Secretaries of State, not to mention the first black female National Security Advisor? Not even Bill Clinton, dubbed by Toni Morrison as "America's first black President" can make that claim.

No, anonymous doesn't recognize any of these things as being color blind. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice are nothing but Uncle Toms, in anonymous' exalted opinion. You see, they have strayed from the Liberal Plantation of Thought Control to actually embrace individual effort and an escape from identity politics.

Now, for more on affirmative action. This is nothing short of tit-for-tat, "You-hit-me-I-hit-you" childishness. Worse, it doesn't even strike at the actual perpetrators of the crimes committed against American blacks in our past. It is merely striking out at anyone who who looks like the real criminals, most of whom are, thankfully, dead.

Consider it this way: Let's say that my great-great grandfather robbed banks. This information was widely known and documented but, for whatever reason, he was never prosecuted or imprisoned for his misdeeds. Now, 100 or more years later, we are finally going to do something to set this terrible injustice right. So, we are going to put you in jail, since my ancestor is beyond the ken of our justice system.

Wouldn't that, in an of itself, also be an injustice? After all, neither you nor your ancestors robbed any banks. Why should you have to pay for the crimes of someone else's ancestors?

Well, the same argument can be made about affirmative action. While I am white, my ancestors weren't even in America during the days of slavery, nor were they involved in any of the Jim Crowe laws. I have never engaged in bigotry and, to the best of my knowledge, neither have any of my ancestors. So why should I have the deck stacked against me to right some wrong that had nothing to do with me or my ancestors?

And what does affirmative action say about the folks it purports to help? "You're too stupid and too incapable to deal with life on life's terms, so we enlightened Liberals are going to help you." Wow! That's uplifing, isn't it? No wonder Thomas Sowell often expresses gratitude that he was educated before it became cool to like black people!

Someone (I forget who, but it wasn't me) once said that affirmative action is the ultimate in masochism, since it forces someone who thinks you're a turkey to hire you anyway. How true that is!

Look, racism is not only bad, it's stupid. I don't want to see any kind of racism, whether we're talking about the Bad Old Days of Jim Crowe or the supposedly enlightened days of affirmative action.

Furthermore, I have decided to limit anonymous and his postings to avoid giving a forum to his bigotted and scatological screeds. If he wants wants to make a point or an argument and can control his demons, then, by all means, he will be heard.

If not, I reserve the right to silence him on my blog. Let's just hope he can act like an adult.

Copyright Feb. 18th, 2008

THROUGH RACE COLORED GLASSES 2/12/08

One of the many joys in my life is to watch Political Correctness run, head on, into itself. This year's presidential election is perhaps the most extreme case I've seen in my life.

Political Correctness (or "PC" for the remainder of this column) is strictly in the province of the Left. In simplest terms, it is a form of thought and speech control, wherein any deviation from the precepts of PC are to be met with howls of "Racist, Homophobe, Misogynist, Zenophobe!" Or, in other words, anyone who disagrees with a Liberal.

For instance, if we were to point to the serious troubles in the black family, we are told that we are "blaming the victim". Similarly, if you took the trouble to examine the actual statistice that undermine the theory of the Glass Ceiling for women, you are obviously lying, since the oversimplified statistics show just a ceiling.

Another way of looking at PC is that it is completely given over to identity politics, or the issues of people as part of ethnic groups or some other such artificial division, rather than as individuals.

In New York City, we have the very Liberal Mayor Mike Bloomberg going on a very PC war on tobacco, banning tobacco from almost every enclosed public space. Yet, in Astoria, Queens, he is unable, or unwilling as a leading proponent of PC, to confront the proliferation of Arab coffee houses that feature hookahs, or waterpipes, for the tobacco enjoyment of their patrons. This has become a bone of contention for restaraunts and bars in the area that aren't Arab-centric. Neighborhood bar? Outside with your cigarettes! A hookah? Sure, no problem! Go ahead and light up!

But the most amazing collision of PC with itself has been in the Democratic primaries of this presidential election season. On the one hand, we have Hillary Clinton, formerly the annointed candidate of the Democrats and her identity group of women and feminists. On the other, we have Barak Hussein Obama with all the hopes and dreams of Liberal blacks and other minorities. Suddenly, we find the Democratic Party and the Left in collision with themselves, all thanks to looking at life and politics "Through Race Colored Glasses".

Hillary Clinton, by past record, shouldn't have any troubles like this. After all, Toni Morrison, in 1998, had already crowned her husband, Bill as America's First Black President, citing his upbringing in a single-parent family and his serial adultery as credentials. (Personall, if I were black, I'd be insulted by this.) Hillary, Bill, and even that tree, Al Gore, have all spoken before black audiences, often, embarrassingly, adopting the speaking style of black preachers.

Now, though, Toni Morrison is endorsing Barak Hussein Obama. What's Hillary to do? Oh, sure! She can get Andrew Young, that icon of the Civil Rights Movement and former ambassador to the United Nations, to point out, simultaneously, Obama's youth and Bill's "blackness" saying: "Bill is every bit as black as Barack. He's probably gone with more black women than Barack." But this just doesn't seem to be enough.

Obama, meanwhile, has identity politics troubles of his own, albeit minor troubles. His leading star-power endorsment is Oprah Winfrey. Now, Oprah, while herself black, isn't perceived necessarily as black. She is the uber fem, the avatar of WOMAN. This makes her something of a feminist icon, since she is also the richest woman in America. The British Times Online, however, reported last month on the backlash from women and feminists (these are not necessarily the same folks, although most feminists are women) calling Oprah "a traitor to her gender", by not supporting the female candidate.

So here we have the Establishment Civil Rights guys (Jackson, Rangel, Young etc.) lining up behind Hillary along with the Feminist intelligentsia. Meanwhile, the younger Turks are ginning up for Obama, notably the Hollywood set. Throw in the Kennedy's for a little Establishment gravitas, if you will, and we have the Democratic Party in extreme meltdown mode.

Today is the Potomac Primary and it looks like Hillary is about to get her clock cleaned. Obama is running away, apparently, with the Democratic votes. But don't you dare think that Hillary is going to go off and lick her wounds. Rush Limbaugh, today, made the prediction that, whoever wins in the primaries, Hillary will be sure to get the nomination.

And if she does, what happens in the Democratic Party?

Let's imagine, for a moment, that Obama wins the majority of delegates to the Democratic Convention. Florida and Michigan, punished by the DNC won't have their delegates seated at the convention, based upon rules agreed to by all the Democrat candidates. Does anyone seriously believe that Hillary won't demand that those delegates be seated and counted as hers? After all, they were won by Hillary since she "just didn't have time" to remove her name from the ballots in accordance to the DNC's decision. And just who runs the DNC? Why it's the Clintons, since Bill was their most recent president.

Now let's imagine the response by black Democrats to the usurping of the primaries by the white candidate. Hmmm... Not pretty would be my guess!

Of course, if anyone in the Democratic Party had any sense at all, not only would they be Republicans, they would see this sort of happy nonsense coming a mile away. These are the logical results of identity politics and PC. This is the direct result of looking at people as groups, rather than individuals. These are the fruits of looking at life "Through Race Colored Glasses".

Ah! Life is good! I love watching the Left crash on the rocks of their own irrationality!

Copyright Feb. 12th, 2008

One wonders just what is in the water in Washington DC. Or is it up in Harlem, in NYC, where Charlie Rangel's district is located? Something is wrong somewhere, but I don't know where!

What is old Charlie thinking about? It seems that every year, he proposes that America reinstate the draft.

In 2003 and 2004 he used the draft as a scare tactic. In the youth media, the idea seemed to spread like wildfire. Bush was going to reinstate the draft! The Republicans didn't have enough bodies to feed to the war machine! Old folks were going to murder more of America's youth to further their mad plans of world domination!

What was left out of all these hysterical screeds was the simple fact that it was Charlie Rangel (D.-NY) who sponsored the bill. Of course, it was all Bush's fault that he had to do it. He was just trying to save the American military from being undermanned.

So, in 2004, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives called Charlie's bluff. They put his bill up for a vote. And it failed to pass, 402 to 2.

Of course, you would guess that Charlie Rangel was one of the two. And you would be wrong! Not only did Rangel vote against his own bill, he sent out letters to his colleagues urging them to also vote against it.

He tried it again this past year, offering up another bill to reinstate the draft, but the Republican controlled House wasn't going to give him another chance to embarrass himself.

Now, with both houses of Congress in Democratic hands, Old Charlie is back! Slated to be Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, he is dusting off his old bottle of snake oil and is offering up to the new leaders of Congress.

Even with his own party in control, there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm to reinstate the draft. Little wonder, since, when given a chance, Rangel didn't even support his own bill.

This begs the question: Why would Charlie Rangel, a flaming Liberal albeit not actually clinically insane, engage in such an obvious exercise in futility? Is Charlie losing it? Or is he merely crazy like a fox?

Although I asked the question, I will refrain from speculating on Rangel's sanity. Perhaps we should look at his own explanation:

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administrationwould
never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that waspresented to
the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congressand the
administration thought that their kids from their communities wouldbe placed in
harm's way."

Ah! That explains it! This is all part of a plan to ensure that America never goes to war again! We'll ignore, for the moment, the simple fact that we went to war in the past while the draft was still in effect.

That might actually work, since the Viet Nam War garnered so much opposition due to the unpopularity of the draft. Of course, the constant misreporting of the fighting might have something to do with it.

No, there must be something more. What else could Charlie Rangel be after? Well, he had this to say on the matter:

"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I
think to do so is hypocritical."

Is that it? Another attempt to demonize Republicans? He certainly won't get Democrats to vote to reinstate the draft, especially since he won't vote for it. No, I think we have to dig a bit deeper. Here's what else Rangel had to say:

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as
somepeople have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without
adraft."

Oh, so he supports redeploying the troops from Iraq into Iran? That can't be right! He hasn't supported any military action anywhere it would actually do America any good. Haiti? Send 'em in! Bosnia? Bomb 'em into the Stone Age! Islama-fascist terrorist? Absolutely not! We might lose some soldiers and France would hate us!

Charlie Rangel has made the accusation that the voluntary military, which has done America just fine for the last generation or so, puts too many poor and minority youth into harm's way, since, according to this theory, the military is the only way for them to get an education and job skills. Again, for the purposes of this essay, we will ignore the facts, which are that the military has a higher education than the average of the American population and that it represents a pretty accurate cross section of the American population, except, of course, for those whose minds were poisoned by the Upper West Side Liberals who hate the military.

Wait a second! Hold the phone! Wasn't this exactly what that stuffed suit, John Kerry, said about our troops with his "botched joke"? I do believe it is! Said the humorously challenged Senator:

"You know, education--if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do
yourhomework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you
don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

We must be barking up the wrong tree, because this is what all Liberals think about our military personnel. What other things are Liberals interested in? What about socialism? We return to Charlie Rangel's comments. He spoke of alternatives to military service, saying:

"young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to
thisgreat republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools,
inhospitals."

And, naturally, there would be various incentives like education benefits to be handed out to those who are drafted. Yes, folks! We are talking about the Nanny State again! Cradle to the Grave, Charlie Rangel and the Left want to take care of us. Don't you feel all warm and fuzzy knowing this?

If you dig far enough into a story about the Democrats, sooner or later you get to the truth. Charlie Rangel doesn't want the draft to improve the military or to expand the War on Terror. In fact, he doesn't even believe that we are at war with Islama-fascists. He doesn't want to embarrass the Republicans. His chairmanship of the House Ways and Means committee is embarrassment enough.

No, Old Charlie wants the draft to further his dreams of a socialist Utopia, wherein all of us pull together for the "common good", as defined by the Liberal elites. Does this sound like the America we grew up in?

Do we really need a draft to get people to "volunteer" to work in hospitals and such? Can anyone really be a "volunteer" when he is drafted to do it?If you are as confuse as me, maybe there really is something wrong with the water in at least one of Charlie Rangel's offices.

I just hope it isn't contagious.

The idea of the draft is, well, daft!

Copyright Nov. 21st. 2006