Monthly Archives: June 2015

WHITE PRIVILEGE/MALE PRIVILEGE…WHAT ABOUT LIBERAL PRIVILEGE?

An article posted to American Thinker, yesterday, June 16, 2015, authored by Christopher Chantrill, entitled “The Only Privilege in America is Liberal Privilege,” says it all.

In the last couple of years, we are hearing the term, “white privilege.” Frankly, I wasn’t sure what it meant, so I googled it, and I’m still not sure if I have a firm grasp on “white privilege.” “White supremacy” was a term used several decades ago with much of its use by the Ku Klux Klan, and the phrase is now surfacing in the 21st century, used by liberals desiring to label all white Americans as inherently racist and bigoted.

In his writing, Mr. Chantrill indicates that “white privilege” and “male privilege” make good catchphrases for community organizers and social justice warriors. They can make anyone who is not a male and who is not white victims and blame the men and the white folks.

I never thought of the term, “liberal privilege” until I read Mr. Chantrill’s article. Liberal privilege exists! A liberal can say anything and get away with it. Remember when the late Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia, used the n-word on the Senate floor? Very little was said about it and the liberals gave him a pass. Also, the late Senator was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. That little fact very seldom surfaced and when it was brought out, mostly by conservatives, liberals were quick to dismiss it indicating that the Senator was a changed man. If a Republican was running for the House or Senate and had once been a member of the KKK, he would be immediately demonized and forced out of the race.

When speaking at the 100th birthday party of the late Republican Senator Strom Thurmond from South Carolina, Senator Trent Lott, Republican from Mississippi told the attendees that this country would have been much better off if Senator Thurmond had been elected President in 1948 when he campaigned for the presidency under the States’ Rights Democratic (Dixiecrat) party. Senator Thurmond had some personal issues and was a strong segregationist. Senator Lott ultimately had to resign his position as House Majority Leader because of a speech made at a private birthday party honoring a 100 year old gentleman. The movement to demonize Senator Lott was led by liberals, of course.

I have mentioned so many times in my posts that liberals change the definition of racism to meet their needs of the moment. What passes for racism these days is beyond me. But as I’ve indicated many times on many posts, I have not evolved, so I’m an unenlightened oaf and incapable of understanding liberal thought.

A liberal can accuse a conservative of anything and it doesn’t have to be true. Then, the burden of proof is on the conservative to prove what the liberal said is false. When former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was running for president in 2012, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, on the Senate floor accused candidate Romney of not paying his taxes. Of course, Governor Romney had paid his taxes and had to show proof that he did. When asked about his lies on the Senate floor about Governor Romney, Senator Reid responded, “He didn’t get elected.” There was no remorse on the part of Senator Reid for his deliberate lies.

If you’re not convinced that liberal privilege is dominant in American political culture, remember Brendan Eich who was forced to resign his position as CEO of Mozilla, because he made a donation to a group that supported traditional marriage (that between one man and one woman).

Liberals “holler” to the top of their lungs that conservatives are ignorant, racists, bigots, uneducated, haters, morons, etc. They get away with it and it’s left to the conservative to prove that what liberals are saying about them s untrue. In fact, I believe it’s the liberals who are the racists, the bigots, and the haters.

How do we stop liberal privilege? It’s hard to do when the main stream media has their back. In addition to being racists, bigots, and haters themselves, liberals are also bullies. And what happens when you turn on a bully and give it right back to him or her? They usually roll over. We have to remember that liberals can’t win argument on the facts, conservatism is much more defendable that liberalism. When liberals begin their usual methods of operation, hurling insults and attempting to force conservatives to lose their train of thought, conservatives must be prepared, stay focused on the issue(s) at hand, and suggest a reasonable debate of the issue(s). That will make a liberal turn and run quicker than anything.

I want to thank Christopher Chantrill for his coinage of the term “liberal privilege” and his valuable insight to the real privileged in America today.

Facebooktwitter

WHO KILLED TAMIR RICE?

Tamir Rice, a twelve year old boy was shot to death by Cleveland police officer Timothy Loehman on November 22, 2014. Loehman and another officer, Frank Gamback, responded after receiving a dispatch call of a male sitting on a swing and pointing a gun at people in a city park. Supposedly, the caller indicated that the male was probably a juvenile and the gun was probably a fake. Upon their arrival, Tamir was said to have reached towards a gun in his waistband. Loehman fired two shots at Tamir, and the child died the following day. The gun was later determined to be fake.

While the two bullets that left Timothy Loehman’s gun entered Tamir’s body and ultimately caused his death, who is ultimately responsible for the death of Tamir Rice? Liberals/Democrats/progressives, the blood of Tamir Rice is on your hands.

On Thursday, June 11, a judge in Cleveland ruled that probably cause existed to charge the two police officers that were dispatched to the park where Tamir was fatally shot by one of them. I’m not going to take you through the details of the investigation, you can research and read them yourself.

Liberals, of course, rushed to judgment, disparaging the police officers without knowing any of the facts? What else is new? Liberals are not supporters of our police and start salivating anytime an incident involving white police officers and black individuals takes place. I don’t know what liberals hope to gain by disparaging our nation’s local law enforcement officers? Could they possibly want federal control of our local police? That’s a possibility.

In June 1962, the Supreme Court first ruled that government-endorsed prayer in public schools was unconstitutional. Since then liberals have worked toward taking God out of our society and unfortunately, they are succeeding. With the left’s assault on God and Christianity there are increases in crime, the number of babies born out of wedlock, the number of irresponsible fathers (and mothers), illegal drug use, alcohol abuse, etc. This country has also seen human lives devalued.

With the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, liberals rushed in and set up various programs to “help” blacks and other minorities affected by this legislation. While their intentions may have been good at the time, fifty years later, we are still being told that we must treat blacks differently from whites because of their history of oppression. It is even being suggested that blacks be given lenience for misbehavior because they are still an oppressed people and live in a country where institutional racism is rampant. In other words, you don’t have to meet the behavioral standards that white folks have to meet, we’ll give you a pass if you misbehave.

Ever since I can remember, the left has been at war with the second amendment. While they have not yet attempted to take our guns away from us, they have sought to discourage gun ownership by American citizens. An elementary school student can be suspended for just drawing a picture of a gun. Forget bring a toy gun to school and pointing it at other students…bang, bang, you’re dead. I grew up with boy cousins who were close in age to me. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been shot and killed. Fast forward to today and anything looking faintly like a gun, possessed by someone is shamed. Firearms have been excessively demonized by the “tolerant left” of this nation. Funny thing, though, ask an “anti-gun” person if they’re willing to put a sign outside their house reading “gun free zone,” and none of them say yes.

I dare say that twenty-five years ago, a child at a playground with a gun would attract very little attention and anyone witnessing a child playing with a gun on a playground wouldn’t feel the need to call the police. Little boys like guns and have them as toys.

It breaks my heart that Tamir had his young life stanched away from him by what appears to be an over-aggressive police officer. It makes me furious, though, that the environment surrounding this tragic event was totally and completed created by this country’s left. Liberals/democrats/progressives, you have the blood of Tamir Rice on your hands.

Facebooktwitter

HOW FAR WILL THIS PRESIDENT GO?

According to The Hill, the current administration is moving forward with regulations designed to help diversity America’s wealthier neighborhoods. Of course, this is drawing fire from critics who denounce the proposal as executive overreach in search of an “unrealistic utopia.”

Executive overreach is too mild a term to describe this potential action. This evil, pure evil. Just when you think he’s done all the damage he, as president, can possibly do to our great nation, he does something else. Our country was based on giving its citizens the freedom to proper or not prosper. While we can’t guarantee that hard work and dedication will get you that house in that upscale neighborhood, it’s still a pretty good bet, though. In America, you can work seven days a week to start and make your business profitable like I’m doing now or you can work for someone else and draw a salary. You can aspire to any lifestyle, simple, opulent, in between, whatever.

The Hill goes on to say that a final Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rule due out this month is aimed at ending decades of deep-rooted segregation around the country. I’m not sure what is meant by; deep-rooted segregation, but again I’m just an unenlightened oaf.

The regulations, which will use grant money to provide incentives for communities to build affordable housing in more affluent areas are under fire from some conservatives who argue that “American citizens and communities should be free to choose where they would like to live and not be subject to neighborhood engineering at the behest of an overreaching federal government.

Duh! American citizens certainly do have a right to choose where they want to live, and if they can afford, they should have the opportunity to live there. Private businesses build housing developments to make money. For the government to tell a private business person how to conduct his or her own business is just wrong.

A week ago, a good jobs’ report came out and liberals have been struttin’ around all week touting it. However, during the weekend in Germany at the G7 Summit, the current president admitted that the United States had no strategy with respect to defeating ISIS. A year and a half ago, he called them “JV.” A few months later everyone found out or should have found out that ISIS is probably the most evil group since the Nazis. And we just don’t know how we are going to deal with them. The president must be thinking that maybe they won’t attack on American soil. That’s they’re stated goal, though.

In his talking points early in the week, Bill O’Reilly stated that this president had no desire to conquer ISIS and was hoping that he would be out of office before ISIS attacked. Then if they did, it would be under the new president’s watch. I’m not sure that’s the case at all. I think this president is working under the radar to implement policies with his pen and his phone that will take down the United States of America. Is he working on something sinister such as arranging at attack on the United States that will happen when he’s out of office? Are the people that are manipulating him planning to take care of him once he’s out of office and the attack takes place?

I’m throwing out some fringe stuff here, but I have not been shown any evidence that this president is a fan of the United States of America. When you think back to all of the bad things that have happened to this country since the president took office in 2009, bad things that were driven by him, plus the regulation calling for all neighborhoods to offer affordable housing, plus his lack of urgency in developing a plan to defeat an evil force whose goal is to destroy the United States of American, how can you not come to the conclusion that this president is not only out to fundamentally transform the United States of America, but he is out to destroy the United States of America?

The Hill and alanbwest.com provided much of the material in this article.

Facebooktwitter

DO LIBERALS WANT RACISM TO END?

The fiftieth anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” will take place later this summer. Of course, the Democrats will take full advantage of this milestone to promote their racist, bigoted agendas. I have no doubt that Republicans/conservatives will be demonized to the fullest. I can just hear the current President now talking about how horrible white folks were and still are in the South. Of course, the current President is not fit to wipe the boots of Dr. Martin Luther King.

I’m predicting that the Democrat/liberal leaders, including the current President will ignore the many accomplishments of blacks and other minorities and say that there is still much racism and bigotry in the world because of the Republicans. I would love to be a part of the celebration, but I’m afraid I wouldn’t be welcome at them.

Liberals make everything about race. I remember when Hurricane Katrina came ashore in Pass Christian, Mississippi, bringing destruction all around. Levies were breached in the City of New Orleans and much of the city went underwater. Because of the lame efforts of the then Mayor of New Orleans and the then Governor of Louisiana, both Democrats, many folks suffered greatly. The folks primarily affected were not blacks, they were our neighbors a half days drive from us. There were horror stories coming out of New Orleans and it certainly affected me as it would affect any caring person.

Then the Democrats had to interject race into the mix. George W. Bush was president and he was blamed along with a Republican administration for the catastrophes. Instead of focusing on the problems at hand, the Democrats interjected race and possibly made matters worse by pitting people against people. I won’t get into the particulars of what happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. That may be an articled reserved for later this year for the tenth anniversary of the landfall of Katrina.

From the Michael Brown incident in Ferguson, Missouri to the recent allegations in Texas of white policeman using excessive force on blacks, Democrats/liberals have chosen to ignore facts and rushed to judgment concluding that white police officers are prejudiced against blacks and wake up in the morning eager to do bad things to blacks. They always root against the white policeman and express remorse if evidence shows that the white policeman acted appropriately. Where is the tolerance and fair-mindedness that liberals boast about having?

Race hustler, Al Sharpton has indicated that he wants white police officers to treat blacks differently than they treat white people. In fact, I believe that he’s even said that any white person should not be aggressive toward a black person even if that black person is attacking the white person. That tells me that he thinks that whites should allow themselves to be injured or even killed if their attacker is black. While Al Sharpton is full of it and we all know it, he obviously doesn’t adhere to the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King and desires to undo everything so many of us have worked toward for the last fifty years. That is to judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

Now, some on the left are advocating that teachers in a classroom have to treat black students different from white students when they misbehave. The reasoning for this, according to advocates is that many black children aren’t taught discipline in their homes and therefor, they don’t know any better. This idea is insane beyond words.

Dr. King, in his dream, envisioned blacks and whites working together, worshipping together, breaking bread together, living side by side, etc. Fifty years from the “I Have a Dream” speech, race should not matter except for identification purposes and maybe for business purposes. If I’m trying to sell tanning products, my target market would not generally include blacks.

With all of the above, it should be obvious to anyone that the liberals don’t want racial harmony to exist in the United States of America. I’ve said this many times and will continue to say it, the definition of racism, according to liberals, changes sometimes hourly. We never know what the definition of the moment might be and when an innocent statement made by a conservative might be construed as racist with the liberals seeking to do everything they can to destroy that person.

The current President certainly doesn’t desire racial harmony because he needs to blame conservatives and accuse them of racism and bigotry to take the focus away from him and his disastrous policies. The first lady of the United States obviously doesn’t desire racial harmony. Her venomous racially charged addresses to graduates these last few weeks demonstrates that.

I doubt very seriously we will have the racial harmony in this nation, the kind Dr. King envisioned, in my lifetime. Liberals/Democrats, that is solely because of you!

Facebooktwitter

OBAMA FOLLOWER CLAIMS REFUTED

On Friday, liberals/Democrats/Obama supporters got what they considered some good news on the economic front.
• 280,000 jobs were added in May
• One million jobs added so far in 2015
• Wages grew by the highest level in two years
• 12.6 million jobs created over 63 straight months under Obama, the longest streak of job creation in American history

Well, I guess the “tolerant left” will be kicking their feet up and have their noses stuck in the air so high that if it rained, they’d all drown.

According to Reuters, a surge in job creation and higher wages in May triggered talk that the United States was finally entering a “sweet spot” that would push the Federal Reserve closer to a long awaited interest rate hike.

Behind the headlines, however, data showed a troubling picture that the long-term unemployed and discouraged workers were still being left behind, a key concern that has been repeatedly highlighted by Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen.

On Friday, June 5, data showed the United States added 280,000 jobs in May versus expectations for 225,000 and that wage growth nudged up to 2.3 percent from a year earlier, prompting markets to start betting on an October rate hide compared with December.

Despite the surge in new jobs, the headline unemployment rate rose to 5.5 percent as more people entered the labor force, showing the economy is still not creating enough work on a sustainable basis, according to some economists.

The jobs that were created remain primarily in the lower-paid end of the service sector, such as restaurants, leisure, and retail. Wage gains were primarily concentrated in managerial jobs. For non-supervisory jobs, the pace of paycheck growth was 2.0 percent year-on-year in May.

Reuters goes on to stay that still not all who want to work are working. The number of people working part time who wanted to work full time ticked up in May to 6.7 million from 6.6 million and the labor force participation rate is stuck around 62.9 percent, signaling the economic recovery is not complete. The number of people unemployed for twenty-seven weeks or more was at 2,502 million, the lowest since late 2008 but still well above levels seen before the 2007-2009 recession.

Furthermore, in the first quarter, the U.S. economy shrank 0.7 percent and the second quarter recovery has been tepid because consumers have not responded to lower gasoline prices by spending their money on other items.

“Even though job growth was solid, it needs to be sustained over a longer period of time in order to significantly tighten the labor market to the point where we finally see significant wage growth, “ wrote Elise Gould, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a left leaning Washington think tank.

According to Forbes, the recession ended four years ago (National Bureau of Economic Research). So, Obamanomics has had plenty to time to produce a solid recovery. In fact, since the American historical record, the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery. So, the current president should have had an easy time producing a booming recovery by now.

The current president likes to tout that we are doing better now than at the worst of the recession. But every recovery is better than the recession by definition. So that doesn’t mean much.

Peter Ferrara, in his Forbes article, goes on to indicate that the right measure and comparison for Obama’s record is not to compare the recovery to the recession, but to compare Obama’s recovery with other recoveries from other recessions since the Great Depression, worse than what every other President who has faced a recession has achieved since the Great Depression.

In the ten previous recessions since the Great Depression, prior to this last recession, the economy recovered all jobs lost during the recession after an average of 25 months after the jobs peak (when the recession began), according to the records kept by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. So, the job effects of prior post-Depression recessions have lasted an average of about two years. Under the current President, though, by April 2013, 64 months after the prior jobs peak, almost 5-1/2 years, we have not recovered all of the recession’s job losses. In April 2013, there were an estimated 135.474 million American workers employed, still down about a 2.6 million jobs from the prior peak of 138,056 million in January 2008.

Under President Reagan’s watch the economy suffered a severe recession starting in 1981, which resulted from the monetary policy that broke the back of the 1970s inflation. But all the job losses of that recession were recovered after 28 months, with the recovery fueled by traditional pro-growth policies. By this point in the Reagan recovery, 64 months after the recession started, jobs had grown 9.5% higher than where they were when the recession started, representing an increase of about 10 million more jobs. By contrast, in April 2013, jobs in the Obama recovery were still about 2% below where they were when the recession started, about 2.5 million less, or a shortfall of about 10 million jobs if you count population growth since the recession started.

Obama’s so-called recovery included the longest period since the Great Depression with unemployment above 8%, 43 months, from February, 2009, when the current President’s so-called stimulus costing nearly 1 Trillion was passed, until August 2012. It also included the longest period since the Great Depression with unemployment at 9.0% of above, 30 months, from April 2009, until September 2011. In fact, during the entire 65 years from January, 1948 to January 2013, there were no months with unemployment over 8%, except for 26 months during the 1981 to 1982 recession. That is how inconsistent with the prior history of the American economy the President’s extended unemployment has been.
THE ECONOMY IS NOT THAT GREAT. We’re too much debt and we have excessive regulations. Plus many of the “tolerant left” are posting garbage, thinking they are superior to everyone.

Much of the above was taken from David Chance’s June 5, 2015 article on Reuters.com, entitled, Big Holes Remain in Labor Market despite Blowout U.S. Jobs Report,http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/05/us-usa-economy-employment-idUSKBN0OL1YB20150605 , and Peter Ferrara’s June 2, 2015 article on Forbes.com, entitled Economically, Could Obama be America’s Worst President, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/06/02/economically-could-obama-be-americas-worst-president/.

Facebooktwitter