Say Anything Blog

Clarice Feldman

After first reducing the charges against him, the government has dropped all charges against Marine Lance Corporal Tatum:

[...]

Not a single word of apology yet from Time which first floated the lie that the marines had engaged in a deliberate massacre in Haditha nor from Congressman Murtha who accused the Marine company involved with “cold blooded murder.”

But this is another major instance where the blogosphere had the story right and the major media with all their resources, propagated a lie and kept it in circulation long after it was apparent the story of the Haditha “Massacre” was a bit of enemy propaganda.

And by “enemy propaganda”, I take it to mean the Dem Party and all the lefties who are trying to smear our military and the war on terrorism.

Shame on them!!!

Find it here

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Solutions for the American Economy

Philadelphia, PA

Monday, March 24, 2008

[...]

Ultimately the true currency of today’s American economy is confidence. When people lose confidence in the economy and our president’s ability to manage it, problems become crises and crises lead to more crises. So we need a president who can restore our confidence, a president who is ready to confront complex economic problems with comprehensive solutions, a president who will act at the first signs of trouble, working with experts to identify the problem, with agencies to adapt regulations, with congress to pass necessary legislation, working to prevent crises rather than just reacting too little too late. We need a president who is ready on day one to be Commander-in-Chief of our economy. If you give me the chance, I will be that president. I will start by facing our economic situation as it is, not as we wish it would be.

[...]

That’s straight-out socialism, folks.  Why would we want to replace the best economic system in the history of the world with stagnant socialism?

One of the creepy things about our “need to have a conversation about race” is the assumption that whites can somehow make blacks feel better, or be happier, or be more self-accepting. Nobody has the power to do that, except what individuals do for themselves, one person at a time.

Most people don’t come close to lasting happiness in their own lives. So the popular Leftist charge of America’s “institutional racism” comes down to saying that “The Great White Conspiracy is responsible for rescuing you from your bad feelings.” That is just cockeyed.

Far too many black people don’t feel good about themselves, and are constantly looking for answers from somebody else. That quest for the impossible has been turned into an accusation against the invisible but all-powerful white racist establishment. Michelle and Barack Obama were indoctrinated with those toxic beliefs at Princeton and Harvard, so that they are now making more than a million bucks a year, living in a mansion in Chicago while still feeling sorry for themselves. Give me a break. (Michelle Obama’s salary increased by almost 200,000 dollars in one year at the University of Chicago. How many people get that kind of raise?)

No doubt the Obamas tell themselves that they are the lucky exceptions, and that they are just identifying with poor blacks, who surely are out there in the hundreds of thousands. But that’s just the self-serving generosity of politicians handing out taxpayer money. The Obamas are rich, highly educated, extremely successful professional politicians. They are the darlings of white liberals. Are they anything more than that?

For politicians, voter dissatisfaction is the fuel of personal careers. You can’t get anywhere by promising all the answers to people who don’t need you. So the first order of business is to find dissatisfied voters, and if they’re not there, stir up some dissatisfaction. That’s why Obama needed the Rev—to get him in good with a proletariat, any proletariat, in this case a black one. If Obama had stayed back in Hawaii or Indonesia, he would suddenly have discovered his inner Hawaiian or his authentic Balinese. Now he is “authentically Black,” and the Rev guarantees his blackness. That’s why Obama can’t renounce the Rev. The Rev is his meal ticket.

[...]

The very notion of “whites” versus “blacks” being like so many M&M’s in different candy boxes is a purely political creation. Humans are enormously variable. It makes about as much sense to divide people into sports fans versus music lovers, or fatties vs. skinnies. If politicians could get voting mileage from those divisions, the Left would be telling us all about the oppressive conspiracy against the fat, or the persecuted skinnies all over the world. “Divide and conquer” still works like a charm.

[...]

Politicians are expert manipulators, and manipulation works best when people don’t think they are being manipulated. That’s Obama’s biggest talent—to make the suckered masses feel good while playing on them like an old banjo. So far there’s no there there at all—no substantive ideas that make Mr. Obama any more interesting than the standard-issue ultraliberal Democrat. Oh yes, there’s the color of his skin. Big deal.

No, it all goes back to the usual race politics of the post-Civil Rights era, which always needs to pick at that old scab of racism, remind blacks of their old injustices, and convince them that white racism is still keeping them down. It’s a disgusting political trick, and many blacks are catching on. If a genuinely self-determining black person ever runs for president without the usual race games, I’ll vote for him or her in a minute.

Let a black man say it—as so many already have, without media support and coverage. Larry Elder’s “personal pledge” is one great example. This is the real key to black liberation, just as it has been the key to all the oppressed and persecuted people who rose from poverty and low self-esteem in America.

* 1. There is no excuse for lack of effort.

* 2. Although I may be unhappy with my circumstances, and although racism and sexism and other “isms” exist, I know that things are better now than ever, and the future is even brighter.

* 3. While I may be unhappy with my circumstances, I have the power to change and improve my life. I refuse to be a victim.

* 4. Others may have been blessed with more money, better connections, a better home environment, and even better looks, but I can succeed through hard work, perseverance, and education.

I’ll vote for that.

Find it here

[...]

The white “resentment” that Obama speaks of does not primarily come from direct effects of affirmative action or the welfare state. It comes from the societal message that the majority of white people, who have had no part in oppressing anyone, are asked again and again and again to take responsibility for ills they did not cause (and, in many cases have been caused by earlier attempts at assuaging white guilt, like paternalistic welfare). They are lectured about creating a healing “dialogue” in which they don’t feel free to speak, lest they employ the wrong politically correct buzz word and confirm their “inherent prejudice.” They must feel guilt for “institutional racism” when many of them have never been a part of any racist institution. They’re flagellated for benefiting from “white privilege” when many of them don’t feel terribly privileged at all.

And, despite engaging in this years-long culturally honored guilt-fest to atone for sins they did not commit, they know that they’d instantly become trogolodytic racists in the eyes of the world for one wrong word, while Jeremiah Wright is excused and even applauded in some quarters for a 20-year stream of hate.

[...]

Obama asks white people to perform the same rites every leader before him has, atoning for the country’s historic racism by understanding more fully and funding more heavily, and doing it without question. He asks little to nothing of anyone else.

Politically, it will likely work, because white guilt is a powerful thing indeed. Practically, it achieves none of the ascendancy Obama has promised. Philosophically, it’s a cop out.

[...]

True that.

By Ed Kaitz

“The anger is real. It is powerful, and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.”
- Barack Obama

Back in the late 1980s I was on a plane flying out of New Orleans and sitting next to me was a rather interesting and, according to Barack Obama, unusual black man. Friendly, gregarious, and wise beyond his years, we immediately hit it off.  I had been working on Vietnamese commercial fishing boats for a few years based in southern Louisiana.  The boats were owned by the recent wave of Vietnamese refugees who flooded into the familiar tropical environment after the war.  Floating in calm seas out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, I would hear tearful songs and tales from ex-paratroopers about losing brothers, sisters, parents, children, lovers, and beautiful Vietnam itself to the communists.

In Bayou country I lived on boats and in doublewide trailers, and like the rest of the Vietnamese refugees, I shopped at Wal-Mart and ate a lot of rice. When they arrived in Louisiana the refugees had no money (the money that they had was used to bribe their way out of Vietnam and into refugee camps in Thailand), few friends, and a mostly unfriendly and suspicious local population.

They did however have strong families, a strong work ethic, and the “Audacity of Hope.” Within a generation, with little or no knowledge of English, the Vietnamese had achieved dominance in the fishing industry there and their children were already achieving the top SAT scores in the state.

While I had been fishing my new black friend had been working as a prison psychologist in Missouri, and he was pursuing a higher degree in psychology. He was interested in my story, and after about an hour getting to know each other I asked him point blank why these Vietnamese refugees, with no money, friends, or knowledge of the language could be, within a generation, so successful.  I also asked him why it was so difficult to convince young black men to abandon the streets and take advantage of the same kinds of opportunities that the Vietnamese had recently embraced.

His answer, only a few words, not only floored me but became sort of a razor that has allowed me ever since to slice through all of the rhetoric regarding race relations that Democrats shovel our way during election season:

“We’re owed and they aren’t.”

In short, he concluded, “they’re hungry and we think we’re owed.  It’s crushing us, and as long as we think we’re owed we’re going nowhere.”

[...]

Read the whole thing.  IMO, this is the big problem with Obama’s type of racism and the entire matter of “black liberation theology”.  It harms black people who buy into it even more than a President Obama would harm the rest of America.

LONDON (Reuters) - Gold fell sharply on Thursday as investors took profits on a rally earlier this week that took prices to a record above $1,000 an ounce but analysts said bullion still held long-term appeal.

The flagship precious metal, widely seen as a safe haven asset as well as a hedge against inflation, peaked on Monday at $1,030.80, up 23 percent since the start of the year.

But on Thursday spot gold fell as much as 4 percent to a one-month low as investors sought cash to cover margins and losses in other markets.

It bottomed at $904.65—a level last seen on February 18—versus $944.20/945.00 late in New York on Wednesday, before paring some losses to trade at $921.90/922.80 at 1600 GMT.

Commodities have stumbled across the board for two days, with gold diving 6 percent on Wednesday in a dash for cash which analysts said was sparked by a smaller-than-expected U.S. rate cut on Tuesday.

“There has been a lot of long liquidation, I think primarily driven by the flee to cash to cover other losses ... especially in equities and currencies,” said Daniel Hynes, metals analyst at Merrill Lynch.

Dan Smith, analyst at Standard Chartered, said he saw some support for the market at $900 an ounce and then again at $850, adding that trading could be “pretty rocky” in the near future.

“We are looking for the dollar to strengthen short term which will keep gold in check for the time being,” he said.

[...]

Find it here

The Democratic leadership in congress has done it again. By a narrow margin, they have passed the biggest tax increase in the history of our nation. The majority leadership managed to pass a budget plan for 2009 that raises taxes on everything from starting a family, to starting a family business. All to finance a reckless tax and spend agenda.

[...]

The 2009 budget eliminates nearly every tax cut Republicans fought to pass through Congress. In its place, the bill gives the American taxpayer $683 billion in new taxes – far and away the single largest tax increase in the history of the tax code.

The Democrats have slashed the child care tax credit in half (from $1,000 per child to $500) and brought back the marriage tax penalty that Republicans once successfully eliminated. The Democrats have replaced the 10-percent tax bracket (the lowest percentage one can pay and still pay income taxes) with a new lowest bracket of 15 percent so we all can pay more; they have increased the current 15 percent tax rate on capital gains; they have raised the tax burden on dividends; they have paved the way for the Death Tax to rise again from the dead in 2011; and they are trying to ensure that an estimated 116 million American taxpayers pay an average of $1,833 more to the federal government in 2008 than they did in 2007.

Among those who will experience a tax increase if the Democrats’ plan ever becomes law:

26 million small business owners, by an average of $3,960.
48 million married couples, by an average of $2,899. (Marriage Tax)
42 million families with children, by an average of $2,181.
12 million single women with children, by an average of $1,082.
17 million senior citizens, by an average of $2,270.

Unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security systems will grow from $38.7 trillion today to over $50 trillion by 2013, but the Democrats have decided to put their head in the sand and ignore the pending insolvency of these important programs. In fiscal year 2009, congress will oversee the spending of more than $3 trillion of Americans’ hard earned money, balancing the budget with another $600 million in Fiat Money in the form of IOU’s.

Congress needs to either lead the way and reduce the growing tax burden on average Americans by cutting spending and reducing taxes, or get out of the way. Those in congress who voted for this huge tax increase, regardless of what political party they belong to, should be thrown out in the November 2008 election.

After years of whining about President Bush’s spending, the Dems are going to demonstrate, once again, their stupendous hypocrisy.

From Historychannel.com:

America’s Original Sin

Today Senator Obama remarked that across the street from where he was, the Declaration of Independence was signed. But it was unfinished [flawed]. “It was stained by the nation’s original sin of slavery.”

This is how Senator Obama began his speech. And this poses the question that if Senator Obama is the Christian he professes to be, is he saying that his belief that original sin transfers to the children, that all white people are not born with the original sin of slavery?

Does that include the 360,000 soldiers of the Northern Army that fought to free his wife’s ancestors? Are they also guilty of original sin? How about all our soldiers who have gone to foreign nations to free others from the boot heel of tryanny? And those who marched with Dr. King, do they also bear that original sin? What about those who came here after the Emancipation Proclaimation and never owned slaves? Do they inherit the “original sin” due to the color of their skin?

It was reported that Senator Obama wrote the speech himself. If that is so, it says more about the Senator than he really wanted people to know.

I find this as objectionable as Wright’s hateful and racist remarks, because it’s sneaky.  It’s not only historically wrong, but badly mischaracterizes the United States in the bargain.
Do we really want a person who believes this to be our President?
The United States briefly had slavery in some areas due to its former status as a colony of Great Britain.  At no time in our history did a majority of US citizens own slaves or traffick in them.
Historically, slavery is almost as old as humanity itself, so calling it an “original sin” of the United States is just flat wrong.  In fact, the vast majority of black slaves in this country were originally bought from black African slavemasters in Africa.  All races have been enslaved at some point in history, so skin color has nothing to do with it.

The Republican Party was founded to end slavery in the United States, and Obama’s political party, the Democrats, were the Party of not only slavery, but of segregation, Jim Crow Laws, poll taxes, the KKK and all the rest.

IMO, Obama and all the other race pimps and race hustlers are cynically playing the race card in order to grab political power.

By Rich Noyes

Exactly five years ago, an international coalition of troops led by the U.S. invaded Iraq, overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical dictatorship in just three weeks. Since then, Iraqis have voted in free democratic elections to seat a representative parliament; Saddam and several of his henchmen have been tried and convicted in public war crimes trials; and a bloody insurgency fomented by al Qaeda in Iraq is in retreat after a surge of U.S. troops and a shift to more aggressive counter-insurgency tactics.

Analysts at the Media Research Center have studied TV news coverage of the Iraq war from the beginning, even before the first bombs fell on Baghdad in March 2003. The record shows the networks have trumpeted bad news — setbacks for the U.S. coalition and allegations of misdeeds by American troops — while minimizing good news such as the success of the 2007 troop surge and acts of heroism by U.S. soldiers.

■ Pre-War Opponents. Contrary to prevailing liberal mythology, all three networks (especially ABC) tilted their pre-war news in favor of Bush administration opponents. Covering the congressional debate over using force, for example, the networks gave a majority of soundbites (59%) to the losing anti-war side. Reporters also sanitized the “peace” movement, masking the radical affiliations of left-wing organizers while showcasing more sympathetic “middle class” demonstrators.

■ Combat Coverage. Soon after coalition troops liberated Iraq, MRC reviewers awarded decent grades to most of the TV networks, praising the fine, factual reports presented by the embedded journalists who rode along with U.S. troops. But poor marks went to TV reporters stationed in Baghdad, who often passed along the enemy’s unverified propaganda. Worst of all was MSNBC’s Peter Arnett, who reported lies about U.S. use of “cluster bombs” against Iraqi civilians. Arnett was later fired for denouncing the U.S. in a Saddam propaganda video.

■ Hyping Misdeeds, Hiding Heroes. In less than two weeks during the spring of 2004, NBC alone pumped out 58 stories on the Abu Ghraib prison abuse story, but in the preceding year devoted only five stories to the discovery of mass graves of Saddam’s victims. In 2006, the networks jumped on unproved charges of a Marine “massacre” at Haditha, with more than 200 minutes of coverage in three weeks. During the preceding five years, those networks gave just 52 minutes to the stories of America’s highest-decorated soldiers in the war on terror.

[...]

A 2005 survey of top journalists conducted by the Pew Research Center found the media were far more anti-war than the general public. The networks’ performance over last five years makes that painfully obvious.

Read the whole thing.  There’s a really cool graph.
Is there any doubt that the MSM functions as the Propaganda Ministry for the Dem Party?

Much has been made of Obama’s close association with the hatemonger Jeremiah Wright, with his pronouncement of “God damn America” as a substitute for “God Bless America”. I think it’s obvious that Obama hasn’t previously had a problem with that sort of speech, but now has to disavow it to convince people to vote for him in November.

I don’t claim that Obama entirely subscribes to Wright’s corrosive hatred and racism, either. My problem is with the “Black Liberation Theology” preached by Obama’s Church of twenty years. To sum up, “Black Liberation Theology” maintains that the interests of Black Americans are counter to the interests of the rest of America.

We already have a problem with divisive Dems who want nothing to do with Americans, black or white, who are conservative in their political and economic beliefs; most conservatives assume that our interests will be of little or no concern to a Dem administration, that we will have little or no voice in a Dem government. A President who is a disciple of “Black Liberation Theology” would be even more divisive, especially one from the Dem Party.

I think the President of The United States should represent all Americans, and not just a very narrow political and ethnic segment of the population. So far, Obama seems to offer a very narrow spectrum of interest, and I think that’s wrong for America.

By Bruce Walker

The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers’ Party.  Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are lawyers.  Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers.  John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer and so is his wife Elizabeth.  Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate.) Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Benson, went to law school.  Look at the Democrat Party in Congress:  the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer. 

The Republican Party is different.  President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen.  The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers.  Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and Dick Armey was an economist.  House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer.  The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.

Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer?  Gerald Ford, who left office thirty-one years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976.  The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work. The Democratic Party is made up of lawyers.  Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history like Gingrich.

The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America.  And so we have seen the procession of official enemies in the eyes of the Lawyers’ Party grow.  Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail?  Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.

[...]

Today, we are drowning in laws, we are contorted by judicial decisions, we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives.  America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked.  When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big.  When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great.  When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to use, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.

We cannot expect the Lawyers’ Party to provide real change, real reform or real hope in America. Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789.  Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.

[...]

Our nation is strong and free because of the rule of law, not the rule of lawyers.

Mark Noonan

New Report: “Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism”

Our leftwing friends leaped with glee on the leak about this report - because the leak had that the report was all about how Saddam wasn’t connected to al-Qaeda. This was a false leak - the report doesn’t say that. What it says (page ES-1) is that no “smoking gun” was discovered showing a direct connection between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda. This is a far cry from the leaked assertion that Saddam had nothing to do with al Qaeda. Further undermining the series of lies the left has spread about Saddam and terrorism, the report notes that Saddam’s regime had strong ties to various Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations - the left assuring us endlessly that Saddam’s allegedly secular regime was the sworn enemy of Islamic fundamentalism, and thus Saddam would never have cooperated with al Qaeda.

The report has some other interesting facts:

1. In 1999, the top ten graduates of Saddam’s terrorist training were dispatched to London, on call at a moment’s notice to conduct terrorist operations around the world.

2. Saddam’s terror masters stockpiled weapons (via “diplomatic pouch” to Saddamite embassies) in Romania, Greece, Austria, Pakistan, India, Thailand, Czech Republic, Turkey, Yemen, Azerbaijan, Lebanon and the Gulf States.

3. As war impended in 2002, Saddam’s terror masters concerned themselves with how to dispose of these terrorist weapon stockpiles in nations likely to come in to the anti-Saddam coaltion.

4. Saddam’s intelligence service developed high tech car bomb technology as early as 1999.

5. Saddam’s intelligence service developed means of smuggling suicide vests past checkpoints.

6. Saddam’s intelligence service developed means of producing IED’s as early as August of 2001.

7. There is a memo dated September 22, 2001 listing highly educated, Baath party members who are designated for suicide terrorist actions.

[...]

16. A July, 2001 memo showing a direct interest by Saddam’s regime in working with the bin-Laden affiliated terror group, The Army of Muhammed.

What we have here is a complete demolition of the leftwing narrative about Saddam vis a vis the terrorist threat we faced, and still face.

Saddam was not “boxed in”; Saddam was more than willing to work with Islamist groups; Saddam was preparing for conflict long before 9/11 - in fact, if you look at some elements of Saddam’s program, it is a clear parallel to al Qaeda…foreign fighters recruited for “martyrdom” operations and then set out to do their master’s bidding. The report cleverly notes that the best way to look at Saddam’s regime and bin-Laden’s terrorist group is like the differences between the Cali and Medellin drug cartels - competitors, but with a shared interest in thwarting US attempts to stop their activities.

The critics can keep their head in the sand, if they wish, but when President Bush stated that Saddam’s Iraq was a growing threat, he was speaking the absolute truth. Taking out Saddam’s regime has greatly reduced the ability of terrorist’s to strike at us and thus made the United States, and the world, a safer place.

Read the whole thing.

Clarice Feldman

Former Enron Chief Skilling’s is making a very explosive charge, apparently with evidentiary warrant, that the prosecution in Enron improperly withheld exculpatory evidence in its possession:

The stench of prosecutorial abuse has long hung over the Enron-related criminal cases. But the extent of that abuse became crystal clear this afternoon when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling’s motion to unseal his supplemental brief relating to the government’s interview notes of former Enron CFO and chief Skilling accuser, Andrew Fastow. I bookmarked the supplemental brief in Adobe Acrobat to facilitate ease of review.

The brief reveals suppression of exculpatory evidence by the Enron Task Force on a massive scale. The entire brief is devastating to the Task Force’s prosecution of Skilling and the late Enron chairman, Ken Lay. But if you do not have time to read the entire brief, read the excellent 11-page introduction, which includes the following passage:

The raw notes are shocking. The 420 pages of contemporaneous notes, which we have spent the last many weeks comparing to the thousands of pages of trial record and the Task Force’s pretrial disclosures, confirm our worst fears. On the most crucial issues in Skilling’s case-especially where it was only Fastow’s word against Skilling’s-the Task Force suppressed vital exculpatory evidence from its “composite” FBI Form 302s for Fastow and all other disclosures given to Skilling. The Task Force then proceeded to present critical testimony and argument at trial it knew was contradicted by the evidence withheld from Skilling.

[...]

I think letting loose on businesses these ambitious prosecutors who have no idea of business practices, hold a progressive’s distaste for capitalism, have at their disposal some really nightmarish statutes and practices without substantial oversight is a recipe for prosecutorial abuse. I think that was the case here, in Anderson, in the Conrad Black matter.

I studied Soviet Law in law school and this is right out of the old Stalinist playbook, including the selective leaking to the press to demonize the defendants to the jury pool .

Read the whole thing.  I blame Bush.  His failure to “clean house” after the Clinton administration “seeded” so many govt agents with leftie appointees has produced many excesses, and this is the latest one to come to light.
I wonder what kind of DoJ we would have under President McCain?

Ed Lasky

Barack Obama, the uniter across party lines, across religions, across racial divides, wasn’t always Mr. Sunshine.  He had a different view 12 years ago, when his campaign was more localized.

[...]

“These are mean, cruel times, exemplified by a ‘lock ‘em up, take no prisoners’ mentality that dominates the Republican-led Congress. Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and towards black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white Americans couldn’t care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing.”

The right wing, the Christian right, has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, much better than the left or progressive forces have. But it’s always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia. And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility.”

[...]

Sound familiar?  Today, he claims to be singing a different tune.

Barack Obama has promised that he will rise above race. After all, his mother was white and his father was from Kenya. Senator Obama is a persuasive orator, and I am inclined to believe he is sincere. But will the race and gender industry go out of business? There’s not a chance in the world. Race and gender splitting is a goldmine that never runs out.

Suppose you had four kids, two boys and two girls. One of the girls is blonde, the other a brunette. One of the boys is an athlete, the other a nerd. You’re a compassionate liberal, and therefore you decide that you have to make up for all the historical suffering of all the non-blonde girls and all the non-athletic boys. So you openly favor your brunette daughter and your nerdy son. It warms the cockles of your heart to be so benevolent.

Naturally you tell the kids that your affirmative action program is just temporary, until the victim groups catch up to the natural advantages given to blondes and athletes. So you send your victim kids to better schools, give your non-athlete son extra basketball lessons, and send your brunette daughter to a special hair salon to become blonde forever.

The other kids are told to wait until the world changes.

That is the precise situation we are now in as a country.

What are the results? Well, you’ve just sown the seeds for lifelong hatred and envy among your children. Plus, you’ve guaranteed endless arguments—yes, your blonde daughter is pretty, but she has a weight problem and the brunette doesn’t. Your athlete son won’t be able to achieve his potential because all the gym money is going to the nerd. Etcetera ad infinitum. Congratulations, you’ve created a whole new snakepit.

That’s what we’ve done with affirmative action. Because the race and gender industry is always hungry for more victims, they will import entire new groups to feed the preference machine. In Britain, Pakistani Muslims from Peshawar are constantly imported, even if some bring a homicidal tribal ideology with them. If you criticize that policy you’re scapegoated as a racist pig and you can be put in jail. Race relations are worse today than before affirmative action immigration.

Europe started with class-war socialism. The United States started with race-and-gender socialism. The end result is the same. When affirmative action was first made the law of the land, there were lots of promises that “once the playing field was leveled,” racial socialism would be phased out. Instead, the gender demagogues, the ethnic demagogues, and the sexual sport demagogues immediately jumped on the gravy train and have been riding it ever since. Ever since the 1970s the Left has been playing race against race, gender against gender, class against class. They will keep doing that because it keeps them in power forever. You may be stupid, but they aren’t.

[...]

Until Americans turn against reverse discrimination just like they turned against discrimination against Blacks, we will be stuck in the tar sands of group hatred.