Common Sense Political Thought

I have previously reported on liberal racism on several occasions, such as Let’s Talk About Racism, which is my personal experience facing racism, Liberals Are Racists, which is my personal experience on “Sadly, No!”, a brain-dead liberal blog which uses profanity and a lack of logic to push the left agenda, Democrat Civil Rights History, where I gave a long history of Democrats opposing the granting of civil rights to blacks. (I did not research that history. I copied it, with permission, from Black&Right.)

Remember this Democrat Party line:

Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws… On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.

That is blatant revisionist history. That is a blatant lie. As the Democrat Civil Rights History article showed, Democrats have been on the front line, fighting against equal opportunity for all Americans. On the vast majority of civil rights issues, Democrats have been forefront in opposition, as history shows. Where Democrats have been in favor of civil rights for all, it has been on issues of personal choice and not issues of personal being.

And even in the realm of personal choice, Democrats are racist and exclusionary. This is very obvious. Try being a prominent black Conservative, or weaker, a prominent black Republican. According to a huge number of Democrats, especially in positions of power, those blacks are race-traitors. Hispanic Republicans and Conservatives are also race-traitors. My article showing my experience at “Sadly, No!” proved it, case closed. The person going by the moniker “Some NY Guy” very clearly said, beyond a shadow of a doubt, any non-whites who vote Republican are traitors to their race. And that is a clear example of racism and the exclusionary nature of “personal choice” that Democrats would love for you to ignore, while they claim to be the champions of the opposite.

But you needn’t go to the outrageously inflammatory and intellectually vacuous site “Sadly, No!” to see the inherent racism among Democrats and Liberals. You only need witness the left’s treatment of Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes, both staunch Conservatives, JC Watts, a Republican I believe to be a staunch Conservative, Condoleezza Rice, a hispanic woman who I believe is a Conservative and is most definitely a Republican, and Michael Steele, a wishy-washy Republican. Steele actually had oreos thrown at him! And, of course, Thomas is castigated by members of the left for doing the unthinkable: marrying a white woman. Talk about racism.

In many cases, today’s Liberals and Democrats are no less racist than those of yesteryear. And today’s Liberals and Democrats, many of them, focus on racism when anyone attempts to counter anything the current half-white President pushes. It is a major wedge issue those on the left use, while hoping most of the population never learns the truth. And the truth is Democrats and Liberals have been wedded to racism for over 150 years.

I have shown how today’s Liberals and Democrats are very much racist, calling any non-white “race traitors” and hurling insults and objects at non-white Conservatives and Republicans. I have given a link showing the very long history of Democrats fighting against equal treatment of blacks. I have given the quote showing the very blatant Democrat revisionist lie. Today’s “affirmative action,” which had its uses back in the day (remember your history regarding Democrats and Liberals), is another example of racism. If you’re a member of the “wrong race,” you get extra points on your test scores for college placement and job placement. That means, if you’re a member of the “wrong race,” you’re too dumb and unqualified to get the job without special assistance. What could be more underhandedly racist than that?

But there are those of the left who always try to shift the goalposts. They don’t want to talk about the history they lied about. They don’t want to talk about current events they lie about. They want to bring up another subject, which they also lie about. And here’s the current revisionist Big Lie: Republicans became Democrats and Democrats became Republicans. That’s right, somewhere along the lines, everyone switched sides. And, amazingly, many people who actually hear about the history of Republicans and Democrats actually buy that lie.

I got this comment from my Democrat Civil Rights History article:

[T]hose whom you quoted as white southern democrats now affiliate themselves with the republican party. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.

If you disagree there are plenty of places to start at wiki. And if you disagree with wiki, pickup a high school American History textbook. It’s all spelled out in history’s narrative.

Now the full comment was an attack-and-condescension-filled comment, as if I didn’t know anything about anything. But there was another comment I recently read on a different topic by a different commenter whose chosen moniker is unfit to be used on my site.

The real Constition, JH, not the one the Texas Textbook Taliban fantasizes about when they rewrite history.

So it’s obvious the left wants to focus on history books, but only the history books the left writes. Without revisionist history or total ignorance, the left loses. And, unfortunately, many Americans do not know their own history, nor do they care about history at all. Let’s take this idea that Republicans became Democrats and Democrats became Republicans, as that commenter on my site suggested (along with a large number of leftists). When did this happen? Before or after the Democrats fought every effort to make blacks equal to whites (where they dishonorably claim to the uninformed they fought for every effort to make blacks equal to whites)? Apparently, they choose to suggest to the moderately informed that the change occurred during the Dixiecrat days. Or they suggest the “everybody switch sides” event occurred at the famous “Democrat” civil rights victory of 1964. This is merely a furtherance of lies and revisionism.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, over which a Democrat President presided, was made possible by Republicans in spite of, rather in cooperation with, Democrats. Yes, Democrats were the major blockage. The true history shows:

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

Mackubin T Owens provides more insight into the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which supposedly established the Democrats’ bona fides on race, was passed in spite of the Democrats rather than because of them. Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pushed the bill through the Senate, despite the no-votes of 21 Democrats, including Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd, who remains a powerful force in the Senate today. In contrast, only four Republicans opposed the bill, mostly like Barry Goldwater on libertarian principles, not segregationist ones.

So, obviously, the purported 1964 Democrat victory was actually a Republican victory in furtherance of black rights, despite revisionist leftists’ claims. So the sudden “let’s switch parties” game happened after 1964. After the then-102-year history of Republicans supporting equal rights for all races and both genders and Democrats fighting against civil rights for some races and females, everybody switched sides. Think about that. Is there any logic in that at all?

But leftists like to claim that southerners quit being Democrats and became Dixiecrats and then became Republicans, which made the entire change for both parties. Nevermind that the Dixiecrats were very much regionalized to the former slave states. Nevermind that the Dixiecrats reached their zenith in 1968, where they won 4 states and garnered less than 10 percent of the overall vote during the Presidential general election, where the Republican garnered nearly 56 percent of the overall vote. Forget about the fact Robert Byrd filibustered the bill for 14 hours all by himself. Forget about the fact Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr (recognize the names?) both voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Forget about the 21 Democrat Senators voted against the bill, which would, at the very minimum, equal 10.5 states while the Dixicrats won only 4 in 1968. Ignore all those facts.

According to Democrats, when talking to people who actually know a thing or two about history, everyone switched sides between 1964 and the Reagan Revolution of 1980. The goalpost-shifting left, when talking to people who actually know history, ignore their lies about the longitudinal racist nature of the left and push lies about short-term history and push the totally unbelievable concept that everyone switched sides over a brief 16-year span. They claim a large group of Democrats became Dixiecrats and then all the Dixiecrats became Republicans, when the facts show the vast majority of Dixiecrats returned to the Democrat Party.

The left hopes you don’t know your history at all. And when the left finds out you do actually know history, they try to revise recent history in absurd ways without even so much as a mea culpa about longitudinal history. All the while, the left continues its racist agenda, overt and covert alike.
_______________________________
Cross Posted on Truth Before Dishonor

President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, that is.

Via Sister Toldjah, I found this gem. Apparently, actor Sean Penn, someone who apparently cherishes his own freedom of speech, thinks that people who refer to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a dictator should be jailed.

Sean Penn: Journalists who call Hugo Chávez a dictator should be jailed

Actor accuses US media of smearing Venezuelan president
Rory Carroll in Caracas

Sean Penn has defended Hugo Chávez as a model democrat and said those who call him a dictator should be jailed.

The Oscar-winning actor and political activist accused the US media of smearing Venezuela’s socialist president and called for journalists to be punished.

“Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.”

Penn, who has visited Chávez in Caracas, said Venezuela’s poor majority had willingly embraced his leftist revolution, but that this view was concealed from Americans.

“We are hypnotised by the media. Who do you know here who’s gone through 14 of the most transparent elections on the globe, and has been elected democratically, as Hugo Chávez?”

Penn, speaking on Bill Maher’s HBO chatshow, is part of a small but vocal pro-Chávez Hollywood group which includes Oliver Stone and Danny Glover.

They have remained steadfast even as Venezuela’s leader has lost fans at home and abroad. Inflation, crime and water and electricity shortages have hit his popularity and led to defections from his socialist party.

The Organisation of American States recently accused Chávez of intolerance and authoritarianism, and a Spanish judge accused Venezuela of cosseting Farc and Eta terrorists, sparking a diplomatic spat with Madrid.

Chávez thanked Penn for his support in what he said was a daily battle for public opinion.

“I was reading the declarations from our friend Sean Penn, the famous American actor,” he told a televised rally in Caracas. “Penn defended what he considers to be the truth.”

The Hollywood star was an ally in the effort to counter a campaign to “confuse” Venezuelans, said the president, who has been in power for 11 years. “From here I thank you very much.”

Other celebrity endorsements have come from the linguist and writer Noam Chomsky and model Naomi Campbell.

I’d note here that this story didn’t come from RightWingNews or The Washington Times. Rather, it came from the left-wing British publication, The Guardian.

Me, I find it interesting that Mr Penn would think that people criticizing the government ought to be subjected to criminal prosecution and imprisonment, though to be fair, Mr Penn said nothing at all about criminal prosecution; he just said to throw them in jail!

Anyway, on Thursday, 14 September 2006, Mr Penn exercised his freedom of speech by criticizing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and President George Bush. On Saturday, 24 March 2007, Mr Penn ranted:

You, Misters Bush and Cheney; you, Ms. Rice, are villainously and criminally obscene people, obscene human beings, incompetent even to fulfill your own self-serving agenda, while tragically neglectful and destructive of ours and our country’s.

Mr Penn has spouted off, saying that he hopes critics of his actions “die screaming of rectal cancer,” among other charming things. If the United States had the restrictions on criticizing the President that Mr Penn thinks ought to be appropriate for criticizing Hugo Chavez, Mr Penn would have been in jail years ago.

Of course, President Chavez agrees with Mr Penn, as even the left-wing Guardian has noted: it seems that internal critics of President Chavez are finding themselves in prison.

So, what is the freely and democratically elected President of Venezuela doing?  From Pam Meister:

• The takeover of numerous banks has caused the Venezuelan dollar to plunge in value.
• His dream of ending presidential term limits was realized a year ago.
• He supports the Basque terror organization ETA as well as the Colombian FARC.
• This oil-rich nation that depends upon “green” sources for its electricity is now rationing said electricity, and Chavez is threatening to “punish” businesses that use what the government deems to be too much, further putting a strain on that nation’s economy.
• Chavez ordered the takeover of a number of privately-owned businesses, including U.S. food giant Cargill, assets of 60 oilfield services companies, and he continues to tighten his grip on private media.
• Schools that do not implement his socialist curriculum will be nationalized.
• Always concerned that the Venezuelan public doesn’t get enough of him, Chavez has a Sunday television show called “Hello, President” that can go on for hours, frequently orders television and radio stations to air his speeches (threatening to close them down if they don’t comply), and now has a new radio program called “Suddenly Chavez,” where radio broadcasts can be interrupted by Dear Leader at any time, day or night, in a bid to “serve to define the lines of communication of the Bolivarian Revolution.” Oh, and just a couple of weeks ago, Chavez himself was the victim of his own bad policy when his live television broadcast was briefly cut off due to a loss of power.

Of course, the final turning of the corner will come when Mr Penn decides to tell us that critics of President Obama should be locked up as well. As far as I know, he hasn’t said that yet, but give it time, give it time.

There’s something just amazingly hypocritical about people exercising their freedom of speech to criticize a government they don’t like saying that people who criticize a government they do like should be punished for saying it. Thing is, with Sean Penn, even if he read this, he’d probably never recognize his own hypocrisy.

OK, it rained. And the University of Kentucky Wildcats were playing the Mississippi State Bulldogs for the SEC Tournament Championship.  So, what was I to do?  I know: I’ll send our younger daughter and the spare daughter downtown to take the parade pictures, whilst I watch the game on my 42″ High Definition LCD television set!

Not the best picture, but one of apparently a million bagpipe bands, and the picture clarity lets you know it was raining!

What’s a parade without a beetle?

Bagpipers Continue reading ‘St Patrick’s Day Parade in Jim Thorpe’ »

The Tea Party — TEA as in “taxed enough already” — is a grass-roots organization of people who were pissed off about the amount of money being spent by the federal government.  Our friends on the left immediately tried to demonize them, using the word “teabaggers,” which has an obscene connotation, and even some of the Republicans in Congress are not all that thrilled with the Tea Partiers.

Well, our friends on the left, having learned the lesson that you don’t let a good, conservative movement go unchallenged, have come up with the Coffee Party.  Via DRJ, I found Moe Lane’s article:

Five at the DC Coffee Party? How… quaint.

God save me from the forces of reaction, and their false revolutionary consciousness.

I wouldn’t even bother with this, except that I ran into Alex Pappas of the Daily Caller earlier this week and he’s a good guy. So let me just correct the folks at the DC Coffee Party on something:

One participant, a younger man who brought along a college buddy with him, said the biggest difference between the Coffee Party and the Tea Party is that they believe the federal government is not something that should necessarily be demonized.

In point of fact, the biggest difference between the Tea Party and the Coffee Party is that the former can get people to actually show up.

I probably wouldn’t have bothered with anything about the so-called Coffee Party, were it not for a fawning article headlined on AOL this morning:

Liberals Hope to Stimulate Obama With Coffee Party

NEW YORK (March 13) — In coffee shops — and at least one bar — people fed up with the Tea Party movement gathered Saturday to discuss issues and launch what they call the Coffee Party.

Inspired by a late February rant on the Facebook page of Annabel Park, the Coffee Party (not limited to coffee drinkers alone) declared March 13 National Coffee Party Day, and on the group’s Web site invited individuals to organize in coffee shops across the country in hopes of eventually growing into an influential political movement.

Park — a documentarian and former Obama volunteer — said in a video on her Web site that she wants to “stop the shouting” and replace “obstructionism” with action.
PRODUCTION PLAYER!!!!

“Their name is brilliant,” said Ann Morris, “because it captures patriotism.”

Morris, a psychologist, was one of the 20 people who gathered at the Bleecker Street Bar in Manhattan Saturday.

Coffee, Morris noted, became America’s beverage of choice after the tax revolt that is now known as the Boston Tea Party.

Morris usually leaves the city every weekend for her upstate home. She chose to stay, rather than make her usual journey, because she is concerned the Tea Party movement is growing too influential. “[They] are not interested in discourse,” she said. “They think different than we do.”

I don’t expect neutrality from news articles anymore, and certainly not from AOL news; the author was practically falling all over himself in approval. We’re supposed to see how gosh-darned reasonable these people are, which we are are supposed to contrast to those knuckle-dragging Tea Partiers. But he did have one paragraph I found significant:

Lamar Bennett, a university researcher from Brooklyn, who describes himself as being from the left wing of the Democratic party, pointed out that “while everyone wants lower taxes, everyone wants services, too.” Everyone in that group nodded their heads in agreement.

Translation: everybody wants something for nothing. I’ve written about this before, noting that the good citizens of California had a rather stark choice put on the ballot before them: either approve (supposedly) temporary tax increases, to stave off a budgetary calamity, or see significant cuts in government services.

There are the results: in not even one county did the voters of the Pyrite State vote for the (supposedly) temporary tax increases. The voters rejected the tax increases by 3,152,141 to 1,668,216 (65.39% to 34.61%), in a state dominated by Democrats, a state where liberal policies dominate, and a state which, just 6½ months earlier had given 61% of its votes to Barack Obama. The very much leftist-dominated San Francisco voted against higher taxes, even though all of the state’s elites were out there, telling the voters of the draconian measures, the tremendous spending cuts, that would have to be enacted if they didn’t vote for the tax increases.

(Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar) presented a budget package that he says will go into effect if his ballot propositions fail; the budget has been described as the “doomsday budget”. This budget “…would lay off thousands of workers, cut billions from schools, strip poor children of healthcare coverage, slice money for child welfare services, swipe billions from cities and send tens of thousands of convicts to county jails or federal custody, all to fill a yawning $21.3-billion hole.”

Faced with that very direct choice, far more direct than voting for a political candidate who promises to cut taxes (or not to raise them) and spending cuts while not discussing what services would be cut, the voters of California chose, by a nearly two-to-one margin, to hold the line on taxes and cut government services.

This is the time when Republicans could really make some headway. Most political analysts believe that the Republicans will gain seats in the 2010 elections, much of the impetus coming from people, like the Tea Partiers, who believe that our taxes are too high already, who want to see (undefined) cuts in government spending, and who don’t want to see President Obama and the Democrats federalize our health care system. What is needed at this point is honest Republican candidates, one who will tell the voters that yes, we will actually cut government services, and be honest about what they want to cut.

The Republicans won big in 1994, when they made pledges to cut taxes and reduce spending. They actually did attempt to do so, initially, but soon got caught up in the Washington mentality of bringing home the bacon for their districts; actually cutting spending, save on a few minor things, didn’t happen. If the Republicans had shown some actual commitment to cutting spending, they’d still control the Congress today. Instead, they ratcheted up spending, created a huge deficit — though one which pales in comparison to what the Democrats have now brought us — and lost the support of conservative voters. If the Tea Party exists today, it’s because the Republican Party stopped supporting the things that the conservatives support.

The Democrats’ huge spending boondoggles and President Obama’s proposals to spend even more, while having government seize control of our health care system, provides an opening for Republican candidates to take the lead, to give the voters a real choice for lower taxes and lower spending. I just don’t know if the Republicans are brave enough or honest enough to actually take advantage of the opportunity.

It’s raining in Jim Thorpe today, has been all day.

Well, I needed a haircut, and we needed groceries. Despite having lived here for almost eight years now, I really don’t have an established favorite place to get a haircut, and I usually go to the Holiday Hair shop in the Carbon Plaza Mall. Giant Foods supermarket is there as well, so it was one stop shopping for me.

There was no line at all at Holiday Hair, so I thought, great, I’m in luck. They have a sign-in sheet, normally used to establish the waiting line, and I printed “DANA” on the sheet, as always.

Then, the manager’s son — at least I think he is; he looks like he should be — said, “We need your last name, too.”

“Why?” I asked.

“It’s something the main office wants.”

Well, I saw absolutely no reason for them to need to know my last name, and, quite frankly, it pissed me off. The manager was standing there as well, and I said to him, “If I don’t give you my last name, does than mean that I can’t get my hair cut?”

“No, of course not.”

So, I ignored the request for my last name, and got my hair cut. Had he answered that he couldn’t cut my hair without my last name, then I wouldn’t have gotten my hair cut there, and I’d never go back again.

After the haircut, I walked over toward Giant, to get the groceries. Then I noticed a new shop, in which I’d stop after getting the grocs.

It was A Taste of Philly, and they sell hot pretzels. Ought I to mention here that I love hot pretzels, with big pieces of salt? I bought two, had them bagged up to stay warm on the drive home, and they were consumed as I was watching the University of Kentucky Wildcats thump the Tennessee Volunteers in the semi-finals of the Southeastern Conference Tournament in the comfort of my nice, warm living room, on my 42″ LCD high-definition television.  (Story from the Lexington Herald-Leader here.)

Later, I’ll be cooking a two-day pot of chili for supper.

The University of Kentucky Wildcats will be playing the winner of the second semi-final, either Mississippi State or Vanderbilt, for the SEC Championship (UK already won the regular season title) and the automatic berth in the NCAA Tournament.  UK will be one of the four regional number one seeds if they win tomorrow, and would probably be even if they lose; their record is 31-2, and they’re ranked second in the country.  They have a chance at the number one seed in the tournament, but that will probably go to Kansas.

Which to choose? ‘Tis difficult, since both are musical geniuses. Floyd has been around longer and has more material to choose from, but ultimately the contest cones down to each’s top albums. In the case of Pink Floyd, it’s The Wall and for NIN it’s The Downward Spiral. Floyd are arguably the better musicians, with a style that ranges from hard rock to classical, but Trent Reznor simply rocks harder and with more intensity. And, scoring for NIN is the fact that, while both bands explore the dark side of human nature and the descent into psychosis and madness, Reznor to his credit blames no one but himself for the mess he has become whereas Floyd’s Roger Waters seems content to blame everyone else, from his mother to his rabid fan base.

At any rate, choosing a winner in this contest is a tough call, but NIN scores a perfect 10, whereas Floyd comes in a close second at about 9.8. Well, make that 9.95 if you include the movie version of The Wall.

From Brent Tantillo of the Democracy Project:

States Withhold Tax Refunds

In an incorrigible move, states such as New York and Hawaii are planning to hold on to taxpayer’s hard-earned money by delaying payment of tax refunds for months, according to USA Today.

New York, hit with a $9 billion deficit, may delay $500 million in refunds to keep the state from running out of cash, says Gov.David Paterson.

Hawaii’s Department of Taxation says some residents may not see state income tax refunds until the end of August, TheHonolulu Advertiser reported. It was part of a plan by Gov.Linda Lingle to deal with a revenue drop-off by pushing costs into the next fiscal period, which begins in July.

There is absolutely no concept by these politicos that the Government does not have the right to hold on to taxpayer’s hard-earned money one minute longer than necessary.  If a tax return is owed, it should be paid immediately.  But no, these states believe the opposite.  They believe they are providing a benefit to taxpayers by providing them a return, that the great Leviathan if it wanted could take all of your hard earned dollars and squire them away for its pet projects.  This is precisely the reason why Americans are so frustrated with government and why the Tea Party movement and others have formed to combat such violations of our inherent rights.

Unfortunately, Mr Tantillo missed one important point: while the states can hold on to your tax refund for extra time, to cope with a budget deficit, if you owe the state money, and do not pay it on time, you are subject to interest and penalties, and possibly criminal prosecution.

Many Americans consciously choose over-withholding, liking the idea of getting a refund and avoiding having to pay up on April 15th. The government likes this as well, because over-withholding provides the government with an interest-free loan. Not every state has this option (in Pennsylvania, we pay a flat-rate 3.07% of our gross), but the obvious response in states where there are options on withholding would be for people to have the minimum withheld, and face up to the prospect of owing the state money rather than having the state hold money it owes you.

Jim Thorpe’s annual Saint Patrick’s Day parade and party is scheduled for Sunday. Here are my pics from last year’s parade. Alas, Al Gort and his global warming might just rain on our parade.

Tonight Rain Lo 39 °F

Saturday Heavy Rain Hi 44 °F

Saturday Night Heavy Rain Lo 39 °F

Sunday Showers Likely Hi 43 °F

Sunday Night Chance Rain/Snow Lo 34 °F

Monday Chance Rain Hi 48 °F

Monday Night Mostly Cloudy Lo 32 °F

Tuesday Mostly Sunny Hi 53 °F

Tuesday Night Partly Cloudy Lo 32 °F

It’s really too bad. Traffic is just plain shut off on Broadway, even after the parade, because the town becomes one big block party. Plenty of green — and other colored — beer is consumed, and everybody in town at least claims to be Irish, despite the fact that a significant part of the town was actually settled by German immigrants.

If it’s not a wash-out, I’ll get pictures. If it is, you can blame Al Gort; I know that I certainly will.