What is the White Privilege Conference? It’s just another avenue for Democrats to cash in using black people. Democrats cashed in on blacks as slaves, now they use the black struggle to gain sympathy for other causes … socialist and communistic goals.
The Independent Institute, Oakland, CA — with Shelby Steele, Author of “White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era” — Moderated by David J. Theroux, President and Founder of The Independent Institute
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Antonin Scalia discusses his public and private life in a remarkably candid interview with Lesley Stahl.
Gateway Pundit draws some attention to an issue many know about, especially conservative women. Here is an old AIM article noting this intolerance in the tolerant left:
…A former Stanford grand poobah, classical pianist and Ph.D. in everything international, Rice has an unassailable set of qualifications for her national security role. But, destruction awaits uppity women who don’t toe the feminist line. No matter how she tried to soar, she would be relegated to coach class. No matter what her skills and ability, she was destined to be but a sharecropper in the feminist estate. Condi has conservative cooties.
Political lines have always determined the efficacy of affirmative action programs in presidential Cabinets. Clinton appointees Ron Brown, Mike Espy and Janet Reno made diversity bean counters rejoice. Bush Cabinet members Colin Powell, Rod Paige, Gale Norton, Ann Veneman, Elaine Chao and Condi don’t. Selective affirmative action also applies to U.S. Supreme Court justices. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a Reagan appointee, didn’t count until she started voting for abortion and began ranting about incorporating Euro kerfuffle into our judicial decisions. Clarence Thomas, a Bush Sr. appointee, has been treated as if he were the cousin who did time for a pyramid scheme involving really expensive lotion and bug spray.
Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court enjoyed the same type of reception when she was nominated for the federal bench. A conservative black woman, who apparently didn’t get the memo on uniform views for powerful women, Brown was pilloried for acts of treason such as interpreting, not making, the law….
Here is an excerpt from Gateway’s post:
The liberal media was singing the praises of their own as history makers before Thursday night’s Democratic Party presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee hosted by PBS. Articles previewing the debate highlighted the false claim by PBS that the moderator pairing of PBS Newshour co-anchors Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff marked the first time an all-female duo had moderated a presidential debate.
[….]
“Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff will bring the same high journalistic standards and integrity to this debate that they bring to the PBS NewsHour every day,” said Sara Just, Executive Producer of the NewsHour and Senior Vice President of WETA. “I’m looking forward to seeing the first all-female moderating team at a presidential debate.”
After Thursday night’s debate the same liberal media started editing headlines and appending corrections to their articles acknowledging that it was Fox, via its Fox Business Network subsidiary, that actually had the first all-female debate moderators–and that it was just a month ago!
Huffington Post: Gwen Ifill And Judy Woodruff Make History As First All-Female Duo To Moderate A Presidential Debate:
Time: Here’s How the Democratic Debate Moderators Will Make Major History:
Read the “real story” at Elle magazine: As The First Female Duo To Moderate A Presidential Debate, Sandra Smith And Trish Regan Have Made History
The larger interview of both Tavis Smiley and Cornel West can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/ls6nrtw
In this portion Larry Elder deconstructs Tavis Smiley’s view of Ronald Reagan and his impact on the black community in the 1980’s. In fact, even though Tavis promises to rebut Larry’s stats… to date Larry has received no such response. And Larry often notes this in his radio show and in writing:
Black America — What if Obama Were White?
…Smiley: Every stat you cited, vis-a-vis people of color, does not measure up when you talk to the people of color who had to live through the hell of those eight years of Ronald Reagan.
Elder: What do mean, “talk to the people”? I’ve just given you labor stats, census stats — these are facts, Tavis. Unemployment fell faster in the black community than the white community — it fell faster for teens, it fell faster for adults, it fell faster for Hispanics. And you’re telling me when you talk to people, they don’t like Reagan, so therefore stats go out of the window?
Smiley: Larry, your numbers are not true. When I get back to my office, later today or tomorrow, I’ll send you some more numbers. You know this — numbers don’t lie, but people do. The numbers are very clear.
[….]
And Tavis Smiley’s “more” numbers have yet to arrive.
There were a lot of long faces at Fox News Tuesday night, but there’s a silver lining for Sen. Marco Rubio. Now he can go be a bartender like his dad! (Have you heard him tell the story about his father being a bartender? Rubio was his pop’s best customer after the debate.)
He can wear a flowered shirt, tell yarns about his father, and if he’s asked to make any complicated concoctions: JEB CAN FIX IT!
Gov. Chris Christie will always be remembered for the noble service he performed for his country Saturday night. He must have known his campaign wasn’t lighting the world on fire, but he was damned if he was going to stand by and let that pretty-boy mountebank win.
Christie smacked Rubio down at the GOP debate by dramatically exposing the fact that Rubio’s only skill is a weird ability to regurgitate “the memorized 25-second speech that is exactly what his advisers gave him” — as the governor memorably put it.
In a surprising move, Rubio responded by regurgitating the memorized 25-second speech that was exactly what his advisers gave him. And then he did it again three more times.
This is what Rubio said, all within about 3 minutes:
(1) “But I would add this. Let’s dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is trying to change this country.”
(2) “And let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing.”
(3) “Here’s the bottom line. This notion that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing is just not true. He knows exactly what he’s doing.”
(4) “I think this notion — I think this is an important point. We have to understand what we’re going through here. We are not facing a president that doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows what he is doing. That’s why he’s done the things he’s done.”
Far from “an important point,” it’s an incredibly boring point: The president knows what he’s doing! But Rubio kept pounding out the words as if he were announcing the theory of relativity…..
This should be read with this post: The Democratic Party Are Run By Old, Rich, White (Obstructionist) Men
Mind you, below is dated material… THAT BEING SAID, this information was current at the time the mantra was spoken to me and so shows the lack of depth in people relating truth in general conversation.
(A conversation from 2004 at a buddies wedding weekend)
I wanted to isolate a previous discussion and get some of your input on us “greedy conservatives.” The only reason I bring this up is that while playing golf in Vegas I got into a discussion with one of the caddies about politics and faith. The conversation started out very interestingly though. Democrats/Liberals place a lot of emphasis on feelings in their anti-Bush diatribe.
This elderly caddy – maybe in his mid-fifties – said he wouldn’t vote for bush because his wife worked for the phone company making good money for fifteen-years. She lost her job and is now a receptionist for a Veterinarian. He said, “
I pointed out, politely, so as to not make him explode, that it is not Bush’s fault that his wife does not have a degree or a specialty that can get them by in these lean times. He realized that his wife’s life choices put them in the spot their in, not Bush (with a little coaxing from me of course). So I explained some of the following during our conversation, passerby’s stopping and patting me on the back for such a great example of conservatisms’ values at work.
If you can remember back to the 2000 election here in the U. S. and the “blue state,” “red state” scenario of which state voted for Gore and which voted for Bush, I’m sure you do, even if another country. Once in awhile stats are done to see which part of the country (which states in fact) give more to charity per-capita than other states. Do you know which of the top twenty states gives the most to charity? You got it, Bush country!
Every single one of the red states in that top-twenty are the middle-income fly-over states. Guess how many red-states got the lower twenty of giving? Two. Eighteen States that were in the lowest “giving ratio” to charity were Gore states. This is even more interesting with a few recent poles. Just under 66% of republicans go to church regularly, and a third of them go every week. Just fewer than 66% of democrats do not even go to church at all. DRAT those nasty religious / conservatives!
New Stat that I am adding to my arguments by the way:
Only one of the top 25 donors to political 527 groups has given to a conservative organization, shedding further light on the huge disparity between Democrats and Republicans in this new fund-raising area.
The top three 527 donors so far in the 2004 election cycle – Hollywood producer Steven Bing, Progressive Corp. chairman Peter Lewis and financier George Soros – have combined to give nearly $24 million to prominent liberal groups. They include Joint Victory Campaign 2004, America Coming Together and MoveOn.org.
Dems the richest five senators? Financial statements revealed the five richest members of the United States Senate are Democrats. The annual disclosure allows senators to represent their net worth inside a broad range.
Presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) is far ahead of his colleagues with $163 million, most of it coming from his wife’s inheritance of the Heinz fortune. The actual estimate is over $400 million. Lagging behind is Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) at $111 million. The Wisconsin senator’s family owns a department store chain. Sen. John “Jay” Rockefeller (D-WV) comes in third with a personal fortune reported to be $81 million.
Former Goldman Sachs chairman Sen. John Corzine (D-NJ) weighs in at $71 million, with Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) rounding out the top five at $26.3 million. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) breaks the string of Democrat multimillionaires in sixth place at $26.1 million. Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Bill Frist (R-TN), John Edwards (D-NC), and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) complete the top ten.
Democrats are 10 of the top 15 richest senators.
(More Recently We Have This)
(Link in Pic)
UPDATED via Politico:
Democrats love to cast Republicans as the party of big money, beholden to the out-of-touch billionaires bankrolling their campaigns.
But new numbers tell a very different story — one in which Democrats are actually raising more big money than their adversaries.
Among the groups reporting the biggest political ad spending, the 15 top Democrat-aligned committees have outraised the 15 top Republican ones $453 million to $289 million in the 2014 cycle, according to a POLITICO analysis of the most recent Federal Election Commission reports, including those filed over the weekend — which cover through the end of last month.
The analysis shows the fundraising edge widening in August, when the Democratic groups pulled in more than twice as much as their GOP counterparts — $51 million to $21 million. That’s thanks to a spike in massive checks from increasingly energized labor unions and liberal billionaires like Tom Steyer and Fred Eychaner.
So, even as Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are working methodically to turn conservative megadonors like the big-giving conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch into the boogeymen of 2014, the party itself is increasingly relying on its deepest pockets as the best chance of staving off a midterm wipeout forecast by oddsmakers.
For example, Steyer, a retired San Francisco hedge fund billionaire, on Aug. 15 stroked a $15 million check to his own NextGen Climate Action super PAC that single-handedly exceeded the combined monthly total raised by the two GOP congressional campaign committees. And his political lieutenant, Chris Lehane, hinted that Steyer, one of the biggest individual donors of 2014, may give more to his super PAC than his $50 million pledge, which Lehane said “should not be seen as a ceiling.” Steyer’s spending — and that of other Democratic billionaires — has helped fuel an advertising gap favoring the party’s candidates in key races across the country….
More info at FEC linked in graph at top. See — Democrats Outpacing Republicans in Spending on Political Ads
The top-five out of the ten are donating to Democrat “causes.” What is the lesson here? Money doesn’t matter! Here is the NYT’S ASSESSMENT of outside groups:
…Outside groups working on behalf of Democratic candidates have extended the advantage. Super PACs, environmental organizations and abortion rights groups have spent more than $4.8 million on ground activity in Senate races in Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan and North Carolina. Republican-leaning groups have kicked in only $369,000…
And if you look at the total donations given in all cycles, you see dark and light blue dominating politics in the TOP-50 money-shakers (see below). Unions are the biggest giver to politics, and almost all of them give to Democrats — they even take due from their Republican members and line Democratic pockets with this cash!
Um, because there’s a scintilla of difference between them:
(Gateway Pundit) A reporter in New Hampshire recently asked Hillary Clinton why she’s getting beaten by a socialist like Bernie Sanders. This is a good question considering the fact that Hillary is a socialist at heart as well.
In a conversation with someone many yearn ago, I was reminded of a quote that connects to some current issues in the gay community.
Ha, Ha! You just brought to my memory a portion of a book I read from one of my top-twenty authors. Dinesh D’ Souza wrote of his early years on the campus of Dartmouth, which was the breeding ground for today’s conservatism (The Dartmouth Review). Speaking of the politically incorrect atmosphere and a professor (Hart) he had, and a contest:
“In part because of his political incorrectness, Hart was one of the few people I have met whose jokes made people laugh out loud. His sense of humor can be illustrated by a contest that National Review privately held among its editors following the publication of the controversial Bill Buckley column on the issue of AIDS. People were debating whether AIDS victims should be quarantined as syphilis victims had in the past. Buckley said no: The solution was to have a small tattoo on their rear ends to warn potential partners. Buckley’s suggestion caused a bit of a public stir, but the folks at national Review were animated by a different question: What should the tattoo say? A contest was held, and when the entries were reviewed, the winner by unanimous consent was Hart. He suggested the lines emblazoned on the gates to Dante’s Inferno: ‘Abandon all hope, ye who enter here’.”
Dinesh D’ Souza, Letters to a Young Conservative: Art of Mentoring (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2002), 20.
This is connected more seriously with this post: Another Example of Science Being Politicized by the Left ~ AIDS/HIV
…Meanwhile… In other news, the left is incensed by a Doritos Super Bowl Ad:
If the fanatically pro-abortion feminists at NARAL were trying to persuade us they are not fanatically pro-abortion feminists, they came up a little short by putting out shrill, deranged tweets during the SuperBowl attacking pretty much every commercial for not advancing the feminist agenda (because, you know, that’s what SuperBowl commercials are supposed to do). They were furious that a Doritos commercial depicted a non-aborted baby….
[….]
As the Ayatollah Khomeini said, “An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious.”
So is it also with feminism.
Also see HotAir’s story on this.
“Big Government refers to a government that is very influential in the everyday lives of citizens, often due to its far-reaching agencies.” In other words, the growth of centralized government. Pat Buchanan once put it well:
Thomas Sowell says of this in a recent book he wrote:
Installing new powers for existing departments of government that create more legislation that straps the common man and business owner with more regulation and less freedom (an example would be the EPA and its new powers over more private property). Creating new departments and growing government in it’s scope and regulating powers (for instance, the ACA).
This is why “Dubya” always rated low in polls of people with differing political views. The left didn’t like him because he was on the opposite side of their viewpoint. The right didn’t like him because he teamed up with Kennedy and reinforced the idea of the Dept. of Education in joint legislation to increase its scope and influence WHEN it should be abolished all-together.
✦ Thomas E. Dewey stated the case against Big Government in 1950: “All-powerful, central government, like dictatorships, can continue only by growing larger and larger. It can never retrench without admitting failure. By absorbing more than half of all the taxing power of the nation, the federal government now deprives the states and local governments of the capacity to support the programs they should conduct … it offers them in exchange the counterfeit currency of federal subsidy.”
✦ Dwight Eisenhower deplored what he called “the whole-hog mentality,” which “leans toward the creation of a more extensive and stifling monopoly than this country has ever seen … you don’t need more supergovernment.”
✦ Republican House Minority Leader Gerald Ford, in 1966, blamed it all on the Democrats, labeling them “the party of Big Business, of Big Government, of Big Spending, of Big Deficits, of Big Cost of Living, of Big Labor Trouble, of Big Home Foreclosures, of Big Scandals, of Big Riots in the Streets and of Big Promises.”
✦ “The truth about big government,” said John F. Kennedy in 1962, “is the truth about any other great activity: it is complex. Certainly it is true that size brings dangers, but it is also true that size also can bring benefits.”
✦ A favorite Ronald Reagan line was “Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem.” President Bill Clinton astonished some followers and delighted some critics with “The era of big government is over.”
(Quotes are from William Safire, Safire’s Political Dictionary (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2008), 52, cf. big government.)
Professor Thies notes “what conservatism is” in a short numbered way, that defines well what the base of the GOP stands for (or doesn’t stand for):
1. Belief in a transcendent order or body of natural law that rules society as well as conscience. There is objective truth in the universe, and we can know it. All sources of knowledge testify to this truth, and therefore faith and reason must be reconciled. Furthermore, our knowledge of “self-evident truths” grows as we become more aware of our nature and that of the universe.
2. Affection for the variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrow uniformity and egalitarianism of “radical” systems. We love people, not merely “the people,” and we enjoy our culture and all the cultures of the world. We love the planet on which we find ourselves and the entire universe in its vastness and in its tiniest details. It is all utterly amazing and beyond human comprehension, and we also love that. And, we are suspicious of those who would seek to impose their designs on society, as they only reveal they have no idea of the limits of their knowledge.
3. Civilization needs the rule of law and something Adam Smith described as “useful inequality.” This is in contrast to the notion of a “classless society.” Conservatives believe there are natural distinctions among men, leading to inequalities of condition. Conservatives affirm equality before God and the law; anything more leads not only to servitude but to boredom.
4. The argument for property is more than economic efficiency. It is that by having something a person can call his own, and by earning his living as opposed to depending on the apparatus of the state, a person is enabled to see himself as a unique and wonderful creature, and to love himself; and, loving himself thusly, and relating to others on the basis of mutual advantage and affection, he is enabled to love others as he loves himself. (I got this profound insight into the moral foundation of capitalism from Pope John Paul II.)
5. That social institutions such as the family, churches, fraternal organizations, for-profit business organizations, charities and even governments, are animated and justified by the choices made by those entering into them. (This is a wholesale substitution of the fifth principle of the Kirk Center, which is merely the converse of the second principle.) (I developed this from James Buchanan’s theory of clubs. It is the nexus of libertarian and conservative thought, libertarians being concerned with freedom, and conservatives with social institutions.)
6. Conservatives recognize risk and reward involved in change. While we believe in progress, we accept that mistakes are and will be made by those engaged in the process of discovery. Hayek dedicated his book The Constitution of Liberty to “The unknown civilization taking shape in America.” Hopefully, after the election we should again be excited about the great adventure we embarked upon with the founding of this country.
Three question the left rarely [if ever] ask:
1) compared to what?
2) at what cost?
3) what hard-evidence do you have?
While media types blame Governor Snyder directly (for instance Rachel Madcow’s MSNBC title — “Flint toxic water tragedy points directly to Michigan Gov. Snyder”) for the water issue, but the New York Times says it old lead pipes. An issue that is duplicated in old cities. Twitchy has an interesting story about the water in Flint Michigan. Firstly though, the reason we hear about this and not the other water “issues” is because the Michigan governor is a Republican. We never hear nearly as much about the Aliso Canyon gas leak (in California). Here is the first graphic I grabbed from Twitchy, via VOX:
The second story is also from the same Twitchy story but from Mother Jones… and the reason I am posting links to VOX and Mother Jones is because they are both left leaning (very left leaning) orgs:
Perspective is always needed in the malaise of media… and this time I wish to thank Twitchy in bringing truth to us by way of Mother Jones and VOX!