Did a Racist America vote for a Black President and 12 Years a Slave?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 9th, 2014

Week in Review

On a recent Daily Show they did a skit about racism in America.  A lot of people say there is no more racism in this country.  So they showed how racist people were in their little sketch.  But with a black president one has to ask themselves is there structural racism in the United States?  Or were they finding racism where there really wasn’t any?  Perhaps we can ask a higher authority (see Oscars: ’12 Years a Slave’ puts spotlight on Hollywood’s approach to race by John Horn posted 3/4/2014 on the Los Angeles Times).

Was it ultimately a race about race?

The best picture Oscar is meant to honor the year’s greatest achievement in film, and “12 Years a Slave” had no shortage of supporters before winning the top honor Sunday. But for all the film’s artistry, the undercurrent of many “12 Years a Slave” conversations hinged on race and how Hollywood has for decades given short shrift to one of the most inglorious chapters in the nation’s history…

All the same, two Oscar voters privately admitted that they didn’t see “12 Years a Slave,” thinking it would be upsetting. But they said they voted for it anyway because, given the film’s social relevance, they felt obligated to do so…

Though most Oscar ceremonies carry a bit of suspense, the tension inside the Dolby Theatre on Sunday night was palpably different.

Would “Gravity,” an apolitical thriller about a space accident, return to earth with the best picture? Or would Oscar voters endorse “12 Years a Slave,” a film that many feared was so unsettling they put off viewing it until the last moment, if they watched it at all? Or as DeGeneres said in her opening monologue, “Possibility No. 1, ’12 Years a Slave’ wins best picture. Possibility No. 2, you’re all racists.”

Well, there you have it.  The movie 12 Years a Slave won.  Therefore, we are not racists.  It’s good to have settled that once and for all, isn’t it?

Imagine the poor filmmakers whose movies didn’t have to win the best picture Oscar to prove America wasn’t racist.  But I’m sure they’ll get over losing eventually.  I mean, what’s winning when there is the greater good to serve?  Besides, how important is winning an Oscar anyway?  It’s not like they have an annual ceremony where people are overwhelmed by emotion and have better career prospects after being honored by the Academy.  Well, come to think of it, there is.  So apparently winning an Oscar is a big deal.  Unless, that is, there is a social statement to make.  Then it means nothing to the people who lose even if they had a better picture.  While at the same time meaning everything to the winner.  Even if it’s only a social statement made with a potentially inferior film.

Of course we’ll never know what film was the best film.  Not when people vote for a film they’ve never watched because they felt it was the right thing to do.  Gee, do you think that’s how President Obama won both of his elections?  For it sure looked like people voted for him without ever looking at his record.  I mean, even the Nobel people awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama even though he didn’t do anything yet to earn it.  It was for the peace he was going to make.  A bit risky giving out awards for future achievement.  As we can see by the world becoming a less peaceful place during the Obama years.  Unrest in the Middle East.  Two uprisings in Egypt.  Civil War in Syria.  Al Qaeda in Iraq.  Air strikes in Libya.  Four dead Americans in Benghazi.  Drone strikes killing innocent civilians.  Iran working on a nuclear program.  North Korea testing rockets.  Russia invading Crimea.

Perhaps the Nobel people will ask for their Peace Prize back.  For unlike an Academy Award where the judging is subjective events on the ground are objective.  And real.  Whatever the Nobel people thought President Obama was going to do it is clear he didn’t do much to advance peace.  Making it look like the Nobel people voted for President Obama the same way some of the Academy members voted for 12 Years a Slave.  Because it seemed like it was the right thing to do.  Making a decision based solely on race.  Hmmm, making a decision based solely on race?  That reminds me of something.  I think there is a word for that.  What was that?  I can’t recall.  It just slipped my mind.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New York City Abortions changing the Color of the City

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrat’s most sacred issue is abortion.  Any attempts to restrict abortion and the left immediately starts bleating that the Republicans have a war on women.   As if the only thing women care about is having an abortion.  But could there be another reason behind their defense of abortion rights?  Perhaps.

New York City (NYC) requires that all abortions are reported.  They just released a report summarizing abortions in 2012 (see SUMMARY OF VITAL STATISTICS 2012 THE CITY OF NEW YORK PREGNANCY OUTCOMES released in February 2014).

All pregnancy outcomes, whether a live birth or a spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy, are required by law to be reported to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.  This report compiles the information reported about these events to monitor the health of women and their infants in New York City.  For additional tables, technical notes and samples of NYC certificates of birth, please see the Bureau of Vital Statistics website at www.nyc.gov/vitalstats.

In Table 1. Pregnancy Outcomes, Pregnancy Outcome Rates*, and Pregnancy Rates* by Mother’s Age Group, Racial/Ethnic Group, and Borough of Residence, New York City, 2012 we see the information summarized here.

 NYC Live Births and Abortions R1

According to the U.S. census the demographic breakouts are approximately non-Hispanic white (63%), Hispanic (16.9%), non-Hispanic black (13.1%) and Asian and Pacific Islander (5.3%).  Which agrees with the order of the percentage of live births in the table above.  But things are different on the abortion side.  Where non-Hispanic blacks top the list of abortions.  With Hispanics a close second.  While non-Hispanic whites only come in third.   Despite their making up the largest percentage of the population.

If you look at the ratio of live births to abortions we see some startling statistics.  For every Asian and Pacific Islander abortion there were 4.71 live births.  For every non-Hispanic white abortion there were 4.03 live births.  But for every Hispanic abortion there were only 1.60 live births.  While for every non-Hispanic black abortion there were only 0.79 live births.  Or for every 10 abortions there were approximately 8 live births.  Meaning that more non-Hispanic black women are having abortions than having a live birth.

So what does this tell us about abortions?  That non-Hispanic blacks are more likely to have an abortion than any other group in NYC.  With Hispanics a close second.  Interesting.  For Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks typically vote Democrat.  As the Democrats constantly tell them that Republicans hate them.  Even though Republicans oppose abortion.  So if Republicans had their way there would be more black and Hispanics babies being born.  Which would suggest that it’s not the Republicans that don’t like blacks and Hispanics.  But the Democrats.  Because keeping abortion legal is making NYC whiter.

For the sake of argument let’s change the title from ‘Abortions” to ‘Infant Mortality’ in the table above.  What do you think people would be saying then?  Probably not what they’re saying now about these abortion numbers.  Which is nothing.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Contrary to our Public Education Slavery Preceded and Succeeded America’s Original Sin

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 20th, 2013

Week in Review

President Obama escapes a lot of criticism.  The mainstream media is very gentle with him.  Unlike they were with George W. Bush.  Who they pilloried on a daily basis.  But not President Obama.  Part of the reason is because he is a Democrat and the mainstream media has a liberal bias.  But there is something else.  He’s black.  And there are some who will call any criticism of a black president racism.  Something no one wants to be accused of.  But there is still something else.  And it goes back to America’s original sin.  Slavery.

If you’re not familiar with world history you probably think that the United States invented slavery.  And that the white Founding Fathers created a racist nation.  Which only ended when the great ‘Democrat’ Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves.  ‘Democrat’ is in quotation marks because Lincoln was not a Democrat.  He was a Republican.  But as our kids leave our public schools believing that Republicans are racists they just assume the Great Emancipator was a Democrat.

So with this background a lot of white people went to the polls in 2008 and voted for Barack Obama.  To atone for the sins they never personally committed.  To finally end racism in America.  To absolve the nation of its original sin.  The ‘creation’ of slavery.  Even though the Americans did not invent slavery.  Nor did the abolition of slavery in America end slavery in the world.  In fact, it still exists today (see New global index exposes ‘modern slavery’ worldwide posted 10/17/2013 on BBC News World).

Nearly 30 million people around the world are living as slaves, according to a new index ranking 162 countries.

The worst offenders are included in a table:

Estimated Number of Slaves

Western nations that embrace free market capitalism are conspicuous by their absence from this list.  Which just goes to show you that with economic freedom comes liberty.  For when people buy and sell in mutually beneficial exchanges the people win.  When the government controls the economy and decides what’s best for the people the people lose.

The index was compiled by Australian-based rights organisation Walk Free Foundation using a definition of modern slavery that includes debt bondage, forced marriage and human trafficking…

The organisation’s estimate of 29.8 million slaves worldwide is higher than other attempts to quantify modern slavery. The International Labour Organisation estimates that almost 21 million people are victims of forced labour…

For all the faults the left says America has (it’s racist, unfair, favors the rich, etc.) there is no debt bondage, forced marriage, human trafficking or forced labor.  In fact, the people from every country on that list would love to trade their debt bondage, forced marriage, human trafficking or forced labor for life in the fault-ridden United States.  No matter how bad the left says America is.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

FDR hated Gay Men and used Undercover Men to Deviously out Gay Men in the Navy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 1st, 2013

Week in Review

When it comes to liberal icons they don’t come bigger than FDR to the left.  He is their god.  His New Deal began the transformation of the country into the quasi social democracy it is today.  And because of this they will never find any wrong with what the man did.  And he did what the left would call some pretty horrible things.  Like the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.  And this (see To crack down on gays in the Navy, FDR created a special unit that performed oral sex on men in order to out the gay ones  posted 9/1/2013 on OMG Facts).

It’s incredibly ironic, but prior to his presidency, FDR signed off on a secret Navy unit to seek out homosexuals…

It later became known as the Newport Scandal. Newport, Rhode Island’s Naval Base had numerous complaints of sexual solicitation by males around the base. So, FDR’s Navy unit sought to entrap these men. Surprisingly, the unit was ordered to perform oral sex on suspected homosexuals on base, including a clergyman! Once the story broke, FDR claimed memory lapse and never admitted to signing off on the operation.

Apparently liberal icon FDR didn’t care for the homosexuals.  He would have opposed having gays serving openly in the military.  And he would have opposed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  Because he hated homosexuals and didn’t want them serving in the military.  Apparently.  Based on his entrapment policy of seducing gay men.  Even men who might only have thought about being gay.  What a mean, horrible man FDR was.

But the left worships him.  And will discount these things as being a part of those times.  Just like Senator Byrd being a member of the KKK.  It was just something that Democrats did back then.  It didn’t mean that they were racists.  And the fact that FDR persecuted homosexuals doesn’t mean that he was anti-gay.  But if Paula Dean should say the ‘n’ word back in those times, well, it’s obvious that she’s a racist today.  Because she’s not advancing the liberal agenda.  So she should never be forgiven.  And should burn in hell.  Apparently.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Only 5% of Black Students Graduate High School Ready for College based on ACT Scores

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 24th, 2013

Week in Review

The left keeps saying we need to have a discussion on race in this country.  By that they mean they don’t want to have a discussion on race.  They just want to keep saying this as they turn any incident into a racial incident.  Thus keeping the races apart, not together.  Why?  Because if there is racism in this country then there is a need for them to end racism in this country.  Which they do with a bloated and growing government bureaucracy at every level (city, county, state and federal).  And how has that worked for black Americans?  Not well (see Latest ACT test results reveal huge race gap as only 1 in 20 African Americans students ‘fully ready’ for college by ASSOCIATED PRESS posted 8/21/2013 on the New York Post).

Just a quarter of this year’s high school graduates who took the ACT tests have the reading, math, English and science skills they need to succeed in college or a career, according to data the testing company released Wednesday.

The numbers are even worse for black high school graduates: Only 5 percent are fully ready for life after high school…

When the testing agency broke down the results by race, fault lines emerged. Just 5 percent of black students are ready for college work in all four areas. Among American Indians, 10 percent are ready in all subjects, while 14 percent of Hispanics are ready. Pacific Islanders post a 19 percent readiness rate for all four subjects. White students have a 33 percent rate, and 43 percent of Asian-American students are ready for studies in all four subjects.

No surprise, really.  For the government helps no group of people more than impoverished black Americans.  And after over 40 years of trying life has gotten worse for them.  Not better.  And the data bear this out.

The key to wealth and prosperity is a college education.  Doctors and engineers can become wealthy and prosperous.  But to get to college you have to do well in high school.  If you look at data from the past few years (see High School Graduation Rates, Out-of-Wedlock Births and Median Family Income posted 7/25/2013 on Pithocrates) you see a similar trend in high school graduation rates as you see in ACT test results.  Asians graduated high school 93% of the time.  Whites graduated 83% of the time.  While blacks only graduated 66.1% of the time.  Is it because Asians are genetically smarter than whites and blacks?  No.  It’s because of the Asian family.

Asians have the lowest out-of-wedlock births at 11.3%.  While whites come in at 29.2%.  And blacks come in at 67.8%.  Children that have a mother and a father do better in school.  Because they have more parental supervision at home.  Twice as much as a single-parent household.  Two-parent households are pushing their children to do their homework.  To do well in school.  So they can score high on the ACTs (and SATs).  So they can go on to college.

A lot of single mothers are heroes.  Sacrificing so much in their life for their children.  But it’s hard. Much harder than a two-parent household.  Where you can have a full-time income earner.  And a full-time stay-at-home parent.  Where two are sacrificing for their children.  Instead of one.  While providing a powerful male role model.  Which is why more Asians are graduating and going on to college than whites and blacks.  Especially blacks.  Which is probably the discussion we should be having.  What destroyed the black family?  Who took the father out of the black household?  Something facilitated that.  And it wasn’t racism.  Was it the coarsening of society?  A bloated welfare state?  A nonjudgmental attitude?  Finding racism even where it doesn’t exist?  All of the above?  Perhaps.  For it was something.  It just didn’t happen.

When there was horrible segregation blacks fought and suffered to go to college.  Today 95% of black high school kids just don’t care.  So what’s different between then and now?  The disintegration of the black family.  And LBJ’s Great Society.  Which tried to do good.  But only ended up destroying the black family.  By replacing black fathers with Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).  And placing single-mothers into housing projects.  Where groups of fatherless children joined together in gangs.  Got into trouble.  And took that trouble into their schools.  This is how it started.  With government.  And now the Democrats exasperate it.  Why?  Because it gives them the opportunity to be the party trying to end racism.  Giving them the black vote.  Which is all they want.  And they just don’t care about the lives they destroy in the process.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

According to a Baltimore School Teacher it’s not Bad Teachers but Bad Students that are the Problem

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 4th, 2013

Week in Review

The left keeps saying we need to have a dialog on race.  Which means do nothing, excuse bad behavior and spend more money.  That’s their idea of dialog.  Because for them there’s nothing to talk about.  For when it comes to racial issues they have two simple rules.  Rule #1:  Whites are to blame.  Rule #2: When blacks are to blame see Rule #1.  Why?  To curry favor in the black community.  To get them to vote for them.  And that’s all they care about.  Even if they worsen the condition in the black community in the process.  Because they don’t care about the plight of black people.  They just want their votes.

In today’s society you cannot criticize blacks behaving badly without the left calling you a racist.  Even if you don’t mention race.  If you say ‘Joe is behaving badly’ and Joe is black then your comment ‘Joe is behaving badly’ reeks of racism.  Because of this people are reluctant to criticize blacks behaving badly.  Because it will bring the wrath of the left down upon you.  Stirring up trouble for you where you work and where you live.  Which is the last thing most people want.  So they don’t criticize blacks behaving badly.  Which only encourages some blacks to behave badly (see A brave Baltimore teacher speaks the truth about schools, students by GREGORY KANE posted 8/1/2013 on the Washington Examiner).

Dave Miceli doesn’t know me from a hole in the ground, but he’s my new hero.

Anyone that can dredge up the guts to teach in Baltimore’s public schools automatically becomes a candidate for hero status in my book, especially if said anyone has taught in these schools for 20 years, as Miceli has.

But it was his bold, insightful, no-punches-pulled letter to the editors of the July 15 edition of the Baltimore Sun that put Miceli on my hero’s list…

“I have taught in the Baltimore public school system for the past two decades. What we need is better students. We have many excellent teachers. I cannot count the number of students who have physically destroyed property in the schools.

“They have trashed brand new computers, destroyed exit signs, set multiple fires, destroyed many, many lockers, stolen teachers’ school supplies, written their filth on the tops of classroom desks, defecated in the bathrooms and stairwells, assaulted teachers (beyond constantly telling them to perform certain impossible acts upon themselves) and refused to do any homework or class work.

You can bet that Baltimore school honchos and some elected officials want Miceli fired so badly they can almost taste it. Oddly enough, what probably saves Miceli from being canned are two things that conservatives — rightly so, in most cases — feel are precisely what’s wrong with American education.

That would be teachers’ unions and tenure. With his two decades of teaching, Miceli has tenure. Members of the Baltimore Teachers Union — and its leaders — probably don’t know whether to love or lynch the guy.

So Miceli probably knew that he wouldn’t be fired for his letter, but he’s courageous for saying what he said in a city that’s majority black, with a school system that’s majority black, and where most of the elected officials are black Democrats.

A majority black city?  A majority black school system?  And a majority of black elected officials?  So it’s safe to say that at least some of these students behaving badly are black.  And if these predominantly black Democrat cities have a high black unemployment rate perhaps the conversation we should be having is why aren’t these students doing their homework?  Why aren’t they doing their class work?  For if they aren’t doing their school work how are they going to possess the skills an employer would expect of a high school graduate?  And if they’re not doing their work in high school how are they going to be able to go on to college.  Which is just a much harder high school?

Perhaps this is the reason for the high black unemployment rates in our big Democrat-controlled cities.  Because the left sacrifices these kids for political reasons.  So they can blame racist white Republicans for preventing these kids from doing their homework and their class work.  For remember rule number 2.  Which states, “When blacks are to blame see Rule #1.”  Which states “Whites are to blame.”  Even when it’s black teachers in a black school district in a black city run by black Democrats.

This is the dialog the left wants to have.  So the right understand these two rules.  So they, too, do nothing, excuse bad behavior and spend more money.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Unemployment Rate and the Labor Force Participation Rate tell Two Different Stories

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 7th, 2013

Week in Review

The June jobs report is out.  And already they’re putting a positive spin on it.  Because of the new jobs reported in June.  But that’s about as far as anyone wants to dig into the report.  For the rest of it is rather dismal (see Employment Situation Summary posted 7/5/2013 on Bureau of Labor Statistics).

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 195,000 in June, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 7.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment rose in leisure and hospitality, professional and business services, retail trade, healthcare, and financial activities.

Yeah.  195,000 new jobs.  This was better than expected.  And the markets rallied.  While the Obama administration made the perfunctory statement that their economic policies are working.  Eternal optimists.  Never willing to admit that it is their economic policies that have given us the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  What with things like Obamacare causing a nationwide freeze on new hiring.  And their war on fossil fuels raising energy costs.  Further strangling business growth.  It’s all there in the Employment Situation Summary.  If you read further down the report.

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for adult women (6.8 percent) edged up in June, while the rates for adult men (7.0 percent), teenagers (24.0 percent), whites (6.6 percent), blacks (13.7 percent), and Hispanics (9.1 percent) showed little or no change. The jobless rate for Asians was 5.0 percent (not seasonally adjusted), down  from 6.3 percent a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

Interestingly, strong supporters of President Obama in the last election (women, teenagers, blacks and Hispanics) either have rising unemployment rates (women) or unchanged unemployment rates that are well above the national average (teenagers, Hispanics and blacks).  The president may talk about being the guy for them.  But his actions sure would suggest otherwise

In June, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks  or more) was essentially unchanged at 4.3 million. These individuals  accounted for 36.7 percent of the unemployed. Over the past 12 months,  the number of long-term unemployed has declined by 1.0 million. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate, at 63.5 percent, and the employment-population ratio, at 58.7 percent, changed little in June. Over the year, the labor force participation rate is down by 0.3 percentage point. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) increased by 322,000 to 8.2 million in June. These individuals were working part time because their  hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)

In June, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 1.0 million discouraged workers in June, an increase of 206,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.6 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in June had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

So there were 195,000 new jobs in June.  But there is still a net loss of jobs over the year as the labor force participation rate fell by 0.3 percentage points.  Meaning that there were fewer people in the labor force in June than there were in January.  Because the job market is so bad people are discouraged and give up trying to find a full-time job.  Work a couple of part-time jobs instead.  Live on their spouse’s income.  Or on their retirement nest egg.  The Obama administration and their economists and the mainstream media talk about positive signs with every jobs report.  That we’re turning the corner.  That the president’s economic policies are working.  But they’re not.  As you can see if you look at the official (U-3) unemployment rate and the labor force participation rate since he’s been president (the following numbers were pulled from the Bureau of Labor Statistics).

U-3 Unemployment Rate and Labor Force participation Rate 2009-2013 R1

The economic numbers show a decline in the official (U-3) unemployment rate starting sometime in 2010.  But it wasn’t because of an improving economy.  It was because people were just disappearing from the labor force.  For the fall in the labor force participation rate is GREATER than the fall in the unemployment rate.  That is, even though the official unemployment rate showed more people were entering the labor force (i.e., fewer people unemployed) the labor force participation rate showed an even greater number of people leaving the labor force.  (Note: If both graphs were plotted on the same vertical axis the graphs would have nearly the same slop.  Perhaps with the unemployment rate falling at a slightly greater rate.  However, because the actual number of people working far exceeds the number of people unemployed each percentage point move in the labor force participation rate represents a far greater number of people than each percentage point move in the unemployment rate.  So the above graph shows the trend in the number of people more accurately than it does in the percentage of the totals of each data set.  That is, there are more people who have lost a full-time job than have found a full-time job.)  Throughout the Obama presidency the economy has been getting worse.  Not better.  So there is nothing to cheer about in this jobs report.  Or in the many to come.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If Taxing the Rich won’t Reduce the Deficit then it’s not Tax Reform, it’s Class Warfare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 25th, 2011

The Rich are Paying Far More in Taxes than People like Warren Buffet’s Secretary

It’s tax reform.  It’s not tax reform.  They may not have their story straight.  But this much we know.  Obama’s Warren Buffett tax will do nothing for deficit reduction.  But it sure will fan the flames of class warfare (see WH self-contradicts, admits tax hikes arent reform by Joel Gehrke posted 9/25/2011 on The Washington Examiner).

President Obama and White House Senior Adviser David Plouffe have adopted contradictory rhetoric regarding  President Obama’s proposed tax increases, which the president has touted as “tax reform…”

Plouffe responded that “the president would like to do tax reform . . . But absent tax reform,  the president believes the right way to get our fiscal house in order is to ask the wealthy to pay their fair share.”

So according to Plouffe, raising taxes isn’t tax reform.  It’s to punish the rich.  That’s what making them ‘pay their fair share’ means.  Even though, right now, they’re paying more than their fair share.  Far more.  (More on that later.)  Obama, though, sees it differently.  And the way he sees it punishing the rich is reforming the tax code.

When two people can’t get their story street it typically means one thing.  They’re lying.  And can’t keep their stories straight.

Now, the Republicans say they’re in favor of tax reform.  Let’s go.  Let’s reform this tax code.  And let’s reform it based on a very simple principle:  Warren Buffett’s secretary should not be paying a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. It’s a simple principle.

Why not?  Warren Buffett is still paying more tax dollars.  The rich are paying far more in taxes than people like Warren Buffet’s secretary.  So why keep saying this?  Can be for only one reason.  To punish the rich.  And to show the people that you want to vote for you that you’re punishing the rich.

Wallace pointed out to Plouffe that “the top 10 percent pay 70 percent of federal income taxes. Meanwhile, 46 percent of households pay no federal income tax at all.” Plouffe countered that “you can manipulate the statistics in any way you want,” and also said that “they are making a ton of money” while “we have inequities,” presumably in the tax code. And then Plouffe offered what would qualify as an argument for tax reform, except that Plouffe is admittedly not pushing for tax reform:

The American people are screaming out saying it’s unfair that the wealthiest, the largest corporations who can afford the best attorneys, the best accountants, take advantage of these special tax treatments that the lobbyist have, along with lawmakers, have cooked in the books here. So, the question is: how are we going to move forward as a country?

Wallace interjected, “Because 70% isn’t enough?”

For tax revenue?  Yes.  That 70% should be enough.  Perhaps too much.  But for class warfare?  No.  Because there’s a lot more money they can take from the rich.  And the more they take the more votes they gain from that 46% that doesn’t pay any federal income taxes.

It’s not that the President is Losing White Independents.  It’s just that Blacks Refuse to Give Up on Obama.

So why the class warfare?  Because it’s election time.  And when you don’t have a good record you don’t win reelections running on that record.  So you don’t.  Instead, you go class warfare.  Pit one group against the other.  Find narrow slices of the population that you can turn against your political opposition.  And, if you get enough of these slivers, you may just have a chance at reelection.  Despite your horrible record while in office (see Obama 2012 campaign’s Operation Vote focuses on ethnic minorities, core liberals by Peter Wallsten posted 9/25/2011 on The Washington Post).

President Obama’s campaign is developing an aggressive new program to expand support from ethnic minority groups and other traditional Democratic voters as his team studies an increasingly narrow path to victory in next year’s reelection effort.

The program, called “Operation Vote,” underscores how the tide has turned for Obama, whose 2008 brand was built on calls to unite “red and blue America.” Then, he presented himself as a politician who could transcend traditional partisan divisions, and many white centrists were drawn to the coalition that helped elect the country’s first black president.

The problem is that Obama is about as partisan as they come.  That’s why the tide has turned against him.  A lot of people hated George W. Bush.  And thought Obama was going to bring in the love.  Make the country as a whole link arms and sing Kumbaya.  But that hasn’t happened.

He spent more than George W. Bush.  Giving us record deficits.  And he keeps blaming his spending on the rich not paying their fair share of taxes.  The people see what’s going on, though.  They’re not blind.  It’s his spending.  Not a lack of taxes.  And all that spending hasn’t done a thing to help the economy.  The economy was, after all, far better under George W. Bush.  So they’re seeing the same old tax and spend liberal.  Not the candidate that was going to get us all to link arms and sing Kumbaya.

But not everyone is turning against this president.  The blacks haven’t turn on him.  They would have but for one reason.  He’s black.  The black community is furious with him.  But they still can’t abandon him.  As the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Maxine Waters, said in Detroit.  “If we go after the president too hard, you’re going after us. When you tell us it’s all right and you unleash us and you’re ready to have this conversation, we’re ready to have the conversation,” Waters said.

Today, the political realities of a sputtering economy, a more polarized Washington and fast-sinking presidential job approval ratings, particularly among white independents, are forcing the Obama campaign to adjust its tactics.

Operation Vote will function as a large, centralized department in the Chicago campaign office for reaching ethnic, religious and other voter groups. It will coordinate recruitment of an ethnic volunteer base and push out targeted messages online and through the media to groups such as blacks, Hispanics, Jews, women, seniors, young people, gays and Asian Americans.

It’s not that the president is losing white independents.  It’s just that blacks refuse to give up on Obama and join the exodus from him.

When you’ve been a poor president.  When your policies have made things worse.  There’s only one thing you can do.  You do everything to divide the American people.  Drive wedges.  Find reasons.  Why blacks should hate Republicans.  Why Hispanics should hate Republicans.  Why women should hate Republicans.  Why seniors should hate Republicans.  Why young people should hate Republicans.  Why gays should hate Republicans.  Why Asians should hate Republicans.

When you have failed you become what you said you weren’t.  Or stop pretending to be something you never were.  And you incite hatred.  Fan the fires of class warfare.  You pursue policies that further divide the American people.  Even if those policies hinder the economic recovery.

The campaign officials say they have not given up on wooing independents, and the 2012 presidential election will certainly involve a fierce fight for the college-educated whites and suburbanites who were more likely to back Obama in 2008 than the working-class whites who have always been more skeptical.

By ‘college-educated’ they mean ‘favorably-educated’.  Universities lean left.  Continuing the work of the public school teachers.  Both of who depend on government funding.  And growing tax rates.  So they need government to grow.  And will always vote for the party that will grow government.  And will ‘teach’ their young students to do the same.

Working-class people, on the other hand, have spent more time in the real world.  They’ve had a chance to get deprogrammed from their public school indoctrination.  That’s why it’s harder to fool the working-class.

When you’ve ‘Jimmy Cartered’ the Economy you can’t Run on your Record

It’s election season.  Little more than a year to go before the 2012 election.  So candidate Obama is back.  Running like he wasn’t the president for the last 3 years or so.  Somehow trying to explain to his most loyal base that he’s made things better than his predecessor.  George W. Bush.

But he hasn’t.  However you measure it.  GDP.  Unemployment rate.  Consumer confidence.  Whatever.  And the kicker is that the cause for the Subprime Mortgage Crisis that started under Bush wasn’t caused by Bush.  Putting people into houses they couldn’t afford was a liberal Democrat policy.  So housing wasn’t exclusive to only those who could afford a house.  Policies the Obama administration favors.  And policies that they want to implement again.  Despite having just suffered the Subprime Mortgage Crisis because of those policies.  Why?  Because it gets you more votes at election time.

So when you’ve ‘Jimmy Cartered‘ the economy you can’t run on your record.  The best you can hope for is to paint your political opponent as being everything the slivers of your most loyal base hate.  Attack the rich.  And promise more free stuff to that 46% that doesn’t pay any federal income taxes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Obama Bus Tour Steers Clear of Black Communities, Focuses on 2012 Election instead of Jobs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 17th, 2011

The Professor Lectures and Scolds on the Listening Tour more than he Listens

Once again President Obama emulates George W. Bush.  First he attacked a Muslim country like Bush.  Now he bought Canadian-built buses for a pro-America jobs tour (see GOP attacks Obama bus, but Bush did same by Rick Pearson posted 8/17/2011 on the Chicago Tribune).

As President Barack Obama traveled to the first of two “town hall” stops in western Illinois today, top national and state Republicans criticized his campaign-style visit and criticized his use of a taxpayer-funded Canadian-manufactured bus as part of a jobs tour.

But no mention was made by Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus or Illinois GOP Chairman Pat Brady that a re-election seeking President George W. Bush used a bus from the same manufacturer, Quebec-based Prevost, for a spring 2004 “Yes, America Can” campaign tour through the Midwest.

Hey, if it was okay for Papa it’s okay for Obama.  I’m sure that’s what the President believes.  So he used these imported buses for a 2012 campaign tour.   Just like his surrogate papa did.

The bus tour, which included the states of Minnesota and Iowa that Obama won in 2008, has had a distinctive campaign appearance though the White House has described the three-day event as a listening tour.

Oh, it’s not a campaign tour.  It’s a listening tour.  Funny.  Because he didn’t want to listen to Ryan Rhodes.  In fact, he got rather professorial with the impertinent Rhodes.  Who asked the president why his vice president, Joe Biden, called the Tea Party people terrorists.  Obama said he never said any such thing (even though Biden did call them terrorists).  They talked about the balance budget amendment.  Or tried to.  The president grew impatient.  Wasting his time talking to someone clearly undeserving of his time (see The Props Talk Back to Obama posted 8/16/2011 on Rush Limbaugh).

It doesn’t sound like you’re interested in listening.

A funny thing for someone to say while on a listening tour.  It makes perfect sense on a campaign tour.  But not a listening tour.  Because on a campaign tour you want the people to listen to you.  On a listening tour, though, the president is supposed to listen to the people.  Not scold them for talking.    

Obama skips the Black Communities because he’s Sure they’ll Vote for the Black Guy Anyway

So it’s clear Obama has no time for the Tea Party people.  You know who else he doesn’t have time for?  Black people (see Black caucus: Tired of making excuses for Obama by Byron York posted 8/17/2011 on The Washington Examiner).

During a sometimes-raucous session of what’s being called the “For the People” Jobs Initiative tour, a key member of the Congressional Black Caucus told an audience in Detroit Tuesday that the CBC doesn’t put pressure on President Obama because he is loved by black voters.  But at the same time, Rep. Maxine Waters said, members of the CBC are becoming increasingly tired and frustrated by Obama’s performance on the issue of jobs. Even as she expressed support for the president, Waters virtually invited the crowd to “unleash us” to pressure Obama for action.

“We don’t put pressure on the president,” Waters told the audience at Wayne State Community College.  “Let me tell you why. We don’t put pressure on the president because ya’ll love the president. You love the president. You’re very proud to have a black man — first time in the history of the United States of America. If we go after the president too hard, you’re going after us.”

So the president can do anything he wants because he’s black?  Apparently so.  Even if his economic policies are bad for the country.  Giving above national average unemployment rates in these black communities.  It doesn’t matter.  The Congressional Black Caucus still gives him unconditional support.  Simply based on the color of his skin.  Not by his actions.  Or words.  And yet they’re perplexed why he isn’t spending more time in the black community.

The problem, Waters said, is that Obama is not paying enough attention to the problems of some black Americans.  The unemployment rate for African-Americans nationally is a little over 16 percent, and almost twice that in Detroit.  And yet, Waters said, the president is on a jobs-promotion trip through the Midwest that does not include any stops in black communities.  “The Congressional Black Caucus loves the president too,” Waters said.  “We’re supportive of the president, but we’re getting tired, ya’ll.  We’re getting tired. And so, what we want to do is, we want to give the president every opportunity to show what he can do and what he’s prepared to lead on. We want to give him every opportunity, but our people are hurting. The unemployment is unconscionable. We don’t know what the strategy is. We don’t know why on this trip that he’s in the United States now, he’s not in any black community.  We don’t know that.”

Well, based on everything Waters said the answer is obvious.  He’s not spending any time in any black community because he doesn’t think he has to.  That it’s a given that they’ll vote for the black guy in 2012.  So he’s spending time where he has to work for the vote.  The Midwest.  Especially the white Midwest.  Who are just as disgruntled as the black communities.  And the Congressional Black Caucus.  But are less likely to vote for him based on the color of his skin.

As she discussed her dilemma — frustrated with the president but hesitant to criticize him lest black supporters turn on her — Waters asked the crowd for its permission to have a “conversation” with the president.  “When you tell us it’s alright and you unleash us and you tell us you’re ready for us to have this conversation, we’re ready to have the conversation,” she said.  Some members of the crowd immediately voiced their approval.

“All I’m saying to you is, we’re politicians,” Waters continued.  “We’re elected officials.  We are trying to do the right thing and the best thing. When you let us know it is time to let go, we’ll let go.”

“Let go!” some in the audience yelled.

Let go indeed.  Actually the black communities may be more in line with the white Midwest.  Who both care about jobs.  And are both frustrated with the failure of the Obama administration to create jobs.  For the American electorate is colorblind on this one issue.  White.  And black.           

Keynesian Economic Policies dominated the Seventies and created Stagflation

And it really doesn’t look good on the jobs front.  In fact, it looks rather Jimmy Carter (see Editorial: That ’70s Show — Stagflation Returns posted8/17/2011 on Investor’s Business Daily).

Stubbornly high unemployment isn’t the only thing ailing this recovery. Inflation keeps rising even as growth stagnates, raising the specter of 1970s-style “stagflation.”

The word had been banished from the economic lexicon for decades. But as the Fed commits to easy credit through mid-2013, new data suggest it may be making a comeback.

Keynesian economic policies dominated the Seventies.  And created stagflationPaul Volcker attacked stagflation.  By attacking inflation.  Starting in the last year of Carter’s administration, he reversed the Fed‘s easy credit.  This gave Reagan a nasty recession to start his term.  But he fixed that with explosive economic growth courtesy of Austrian school Reaganomics.  The growth was so great Keynesians call the Eighties the Decade of Greed.

Consumers already are squeezed. With real incomes falling, they cut their spending in June for the first time in 20 months. Household spending barely grew for the entire April-June period, inching up just 0.1% for the worst showing since the recession ended in 2009.

Enter stagflation, a term coined in the ’70s to describe a new economic malaise of continuing inflation and slumping business activity, together with high unemployment. Then as now, energy and gold prices soared.

Right now this is our more likely future.  Unless we sweep the Keynesians out of office in 2012.  And return to more Reaganesque policies.

Enough of the Hope and Change already, where are the Jobs?

Obama is on a listening tour where he prefers not to listen to the people.  Because it’s not so much a listening tour as a campaign tour.  Driving through the white Midwest where his approval numbers have dipped below 40%.  He doesn’t bother with the black communities.  Because he doesn’t think he has to.  Confident that they will vote for the black guy in 2012.  No matter how his economic policies destroy the economy.

The president may be racist in this view.  But the electorate isn’t.  They want jobs.  White and black alike.  Who aren’t buying the old campaign line.  Enough of the hope and change already, they say.  Where are the jobs?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #61: “The political elite has always exploited blacks.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 14th, 2011

The New World leaves old Prejudices in the Old World

Americans hated Catholics.  And why not?  Most Americans were British.  In the 18th century.  When Protestant Great Britain was forever at war with Catholic France.  Since the Reformation, it’s what Protestants and Catholics did.  Hated each other.  You just did it.  Eventually you would learn why.  But by then you were already hating.

Also, in the 18th century, slavery was part of normal life.  As it had been for centuries.  Slavery was often the misfortune of a conquered people.  Part of the social strata.  Or simply an economic tool.  Such as used in Mercantilism.  As European powers established colonies, they needed bodies to exploit the raw material and send it back to the mother country.  And the ‘godless’ people they were able to buy from African slave traders were perfect.  These ‘savages’ were little more than animals.  Struggling to live in a hostile environment.  They were better off in slavery.  In the New World they would have food and shelter.  And their masters would protect them from their hostile environment.  The way they saw it, they were doing them a favor.  Or so went the prevailing thought of the day.

During the Revolutionary War, George Washington commanded an army made up from all the colonies.  They were mostly Protestant.  But it also included Catholics.  So he had to tone down the anti-Catholic sentiment that was pretty pervasive among many of these British Americans.  And then there was a march into Canada by General Benedict Arnold.  To get the Catholic Canadians (once a French colony) to join the American cause.  (They passed on the offer.)  And so it was in the Army that the American cause transcended religion.  For it was in the army where the Protestant fought side by side with the Catholic.  As well as the free black.  Who yearned for that liberty, too, that the Americans were fighting for.  Giving Washington pause for thought.  Protestant.  Catholic.  Black.  White.  They were all people.  Americans.  This thing they were fighting for was greater than the individual colonies.  The New World would in fact be a new world.  The prejudices of the past would be left in the Old World.  And he learned that in the Army.  Where America was truly born. 

The Three Fifths Compromise Empowers the Planter Elite

It was many of these Army veterans that championed religious freedom.  And the abolitionist movements.  But the pull of the Deep South was strong.  Their planter elite, though a minority of the population, dominated political power.  Much like the landed aristocracy of feudal Europe.  They had money, power and influence.  Their view of the Revolutionary War was different than George Washington’s.  They weren’t looking to build anything greater.  No.  They just wanted to get rid of the British.  And go back to the way things were.

With the war won, that’s exactly what a lot of people did.  Go back to the way things were.  There were problems, though.  War debt, for one.  And a lack of unanimous consent.  The Confederation Congress required a unanimous vote to do anything.  Which was a rare thing.  The sectional interests were just too strong.  So in 1787, they gathered in Philadelphia to write a new constitution.  And create a new nation.  It wasn’t easy.  During the ratification process, some holdouts agreed to ratify if they added a Bill of RightsJames Madison agreed to this and worked tirelessly in the first Congress to deliver on this promise.  The issue of slavery?  That was a different story.

The Deep South would join only if the subject of slavery was off the table.  They agreed.  Tabled it for 20 years.  Give the South time to figure out how to end slavery.  Then they settled on issues of taxation and representation.  The majority of the southern population were slaves.  If they couldn’t count them to determine representation in the new government, the Deep South would have no say in the new federal government.  So they agreed on the Three Fifths Compromise.  They would count slaves as 3/5 a person.  It was a high price to pay for compromise.  For it gave the planter elite of the Deep South a disproportionate vote in Congress.  And in the Electoral College.  Which meant that this minority in the Deep South determined much of American policy until the Civil War.  Thanks to a large black population that couldn’t vote.

Liberal San Francisco:  White, Right and Out of Sight

San Francisco is an interesting town.  They don’t come much more liberal.  Or whiter.  Liberals are lucky if they’re 20% of the national population.  But a good chunk of that 20% apparently lives in San Francisco.  Nancy Pelosi coasted to reelection in 2010 with 80% of the vote even though her national approval numbers were horrible.  Her favorable ratings barely broke 10%.  In other words, the American people were sick of her and her far left liberal agenda.  They voted a bunch of her cronies out of the House of Representatives, and her from the Speakership, transferring control from the Democrats to the Republicans for the first time in a long time.  Her views are definitely not America’s views.  But they’re clearly San Francisco’s views.

Of course, many of the good people of San Francisco think that the other 80% of Americans are just too dumb to know better.  We exasperate them.  For they are the enlightened people.  The intelligentsia.  The caring.  And they were the first to drive hybrids.  Even South Park ridiculed them for that.  Calling San Francisco the smuggest place in America.  Where they like the smell of their own farts.  And they may very well like to smell their own farts.  But you know what they don’t like?  Black people (see Blacks and Republicans by Thomas Sowell posted 3/15/2011 on National Review).

The black population of San Francisco is less than half of what it was in 1970, and it fell another 19 percent in the past decade…

Blacks are being forced out of San Francisco — and out of other communities on the San Francisco peninsula — by high housing prices…

The black population in three adjacent counties on the San Francisco peninsula is just under 3 percent of the total population in the 39 communities in those counties.

It so happens that these are counties where voters and the officials they elect are virtually all liberal Democrats. You might be hard pressed to find similarly one-sided conservative Republican communities where blacks are such small percentages of the population.

So, in other words, rich liberals love to have black people vote for them.  But they don’t want to live anywhere near them.

AFDC and Abortion and the Black Family

America changed in the 1970s.  The sexual revolution was in full force.  Women’s liberation.  Abortion and birth control.  And all the feel-good programs of LBJ’s Great Society to end poverty and racial injustice.  The liberals were changing America.  The black community.  And the neighborhoods of San Francisco.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) caused an epidemic in children being born out of wedlock.  Because the government was paying single women per baby they had.  So they kept having babies.  Because an inexperienced young man couldn’t get a job that would match the generosity of the government.  And it was a lot easier than being a working single-mom.  So kids grew up without a father.  Spent a lot of time on the streets.  Getting into trouble.  This destroyed families in poor neighborhoods.  Which also tended to be black neighborhoods.  It was the worst of unintended consequences.  But it sure did make the recipient of these benefits life-long Democrats.  Because if you have no skills and a large family to raise, what else are you going to do but depend on those government benefits?

Of course, liberal policies weren’t all about having babies.  They were also helping to provide a lot of abortions, too.  To empower women.  To fully liberate women and make them equals in the workplace.  Because they could now do anything a man could do.  Except pee while standing up.  But they could fool around like a man.  And not have to worry about the consequences.  Just like a man.  So with abortion, birth control and a sexual revolution going on, you can guess what a lot of people were doing.  Having consequence-free fun.  If you know what I mean.  But much like AFDC, this liberation appears to have hit the black population especially hard.  A black woman is three-times as likely as a white woman to get an abortion.  And it is the only demographic where abortions exceed live births. 

Abortion is a very controversial subject with data that is often politicized.  Also, there may be other extenuating circumstances that result in these numbers.  But it shows a trend.  Liberal policies have unintended consequences.  And blacks have suffered a disproportional share of these consequences. 

The Democrat Party is the Party of Slavery and Institutionalized Discrimination

So what does this tell us about rich liberals?  First of all, they’re mostly white.  They claim that they are not the racists yet their actions indicate otherwise (San Francisco is mostly liberal and mostly white).  Their views are a minority view.  The 2010 midterm elections clearly showed that.  Yet they wield some of the greatest political power.  How do they do that?  By pandering.  To the labor unions.  The public sector unions.  The teachers.  That usual bunch that benefits by liberal policies and liberal spending.  And, of course, blacks.

When you look at the history, the Democrats haven’t been all that kind to black America.  It was the Southern Democrats who did their best to perpetuate the institution of slavery.  It was the Southern Democrats that institutionalized discrimination in the South following the Civil War.  Yes, the Civil Rights Act was passed by the Johnson administration but it was the Republicans in the House and Senate that made that possible.  The Democrats had majorities in both houses but about a third of their members were against it.  Whereas only a fifth of the Republicans were against it.  In the final House vote, all the Southern Democrats needed was to get 37% of the Republicans to vote against it to stop its passage.  Instead, 80% of Republicans voted in favor of it.  And then, of course, there’s AFDC.  Thomas Sowell blames this (and the liberal welfare state) for destroying the black family.  And the black abortion stats would probably be called genocide in another country.  Some even call it that here.

Which brings us back to the teachers.  Because when you look at these numbers, it is clear that liberal policies have not been good to black families.  But the teachers are in tight with the liberals.  I mean, with their generous pay and benefit packages they get without the taxpayer having a say in their contract negotiations, why wouldn’t they?  The government takes care of them and they take care of government.  They emphasize multiculturalism, fairness and progressive thought.  And downplay history.  The Founding Fathers play minor roles in today’s textbooks.  But students today can all tell us that the Founding Fathers owned slaves.  But they seem to forget the part about Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, being a Republican.  And that the freed blacks voted for Republicans to protect themselves from racist Southern Democrats.  

Meet the New World.  Same as the Old World.

And then along comes Barack Obama.  The ideal liberal candidate.  And first black presidential candidate.  Because of our public education there is a lot of white guilt over slavery.  So a lot of white America would probably vote for Obama to assuage that guilt.  Which included a large part of those crucial independent voters.  Things were looking up.  But could he deliver the black vote?  He graduated from Harvard Law School.  Columbia University.  He’s an Ivy League guy.  Very professorial.  He could lecture the people.  So well that it offended some.  The Reverend Jesse Jackson said then candidate Obama talked down to black people.  He didn’t like that in the least.  Even said that he wanted to “cut his nuts off.”  So it wasn’t a sure thing.  The black vote.

Of course, Obama won that election.  He took 53% of the vote to McCain‘s 46%.  And the black vote?  All but 4% voted for Obama.  No one gets 96% of the vote.  Unless you’re a dictator in a third world country.  With blacks making up approximately 12% of the U.S. population, it is clear that the black vote determined the election.  For if the black vote followed the same percentage break down of the general vote, McCain would have won the election.

So here we are, some 150 years after the Civil War and the black population is still being exploited by the political elite.  The planter elite maintained power for half a century thanks to the Three Fifth Compromise.  And liberal Democrats today use the liberal welfare state to make as many blacks as possible dependent on government.  Use their control over the public school system to hide the failure of their policies.  Their destruction of the black family.  And their racist past.  To maintain their political power.  And minority rule.  Some things never change.

Meet the New World.  Same as the Old World.  Sadly.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries