I love math, but Statistics is my true love.

Statistics plays a lot in everything you do, and everything around us.

Statistics do not lie. Humans do.

A famous quote goes “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics”

Proof that lies happen… there are more women than men, and more white women than white men. Yet women are considered a minority…

So when i saw that the SCOTUS was going to review Affirmative Action I grew excited (source).

Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity are nightmares.

The supposed goal of one is to prevent abuse of minorities.. the other is supposed to give opportunities to minors who would not otherwise have earned them. Or did I flip that?

Regardless what we have is a system neither representational nor fair.

Oh the lefties will bring out math to try to say it is representational, and emotions to say it is fair…

But let me break this problem down.

In Chicago there is whole areas filled with only “African Americans”, in some areas of California there are whole counties filled with “Latino Americans”, and in some areas of Alaska you have whole tribes of Inuit’s only. Diversity my backside. Those regions just are what they are.

You can visit huge regions where a white man is a minorty, a black man a minority, or whatever floats your statistical boat.

Then we have other statistical flukes.

I drive a semi truck for a living. It is really hard work, the average work week is 60-70 hours, I am never home, I put on some serious weight, and liberals see you as a monster, States see you as a piggy bank, and the Federal Government is set to ruin you as much as they can.

Sadly few women are in the industry. Especially as solo drivers. Over-all there may be 1 in 20 drivers being that other sex, but less than 1 in 100 (based upon experienced observations) are solo driving females.

Next lets look at Secretaries… holy female empire batman! Yeah you guessed it… men need not apply or do they just care not to apply?

Sports is a good show of regional and identity differences… Basketball versus Hockey. Do I need to say more about the spectrum difference, or how regional differences play into it?

When you try to tell a company they need a certain number, based upon a math model, you are automatically using a wrong math model. There can be no doubt that no model can adequately cover regional differences, sexual choice differences (not as in changing sex, but what each sex prefers to do), religious differences, sociological differences, and other factors.

Then we can talk education. College is supposed to be for higher education, universities for the best and brightest seeking higher education… so the idea of putting enough seats on the side for minorites to enter even if they have less than ideal grades is grotesque.

“The sports teams refused me, the music director said i have tone deafness, so the only other thing with scholarships is brain suregon” sort of talk should scare you. I want someone who went after the choice of a career before hand versus someone who chose a career cause it was someplace they could get in to. That reads poorly…. I would rather you pushed hard for that career than getting it because your supposedly underpriveledged and you think it could be good money.

I rather Bill Gates do what he likes than if he was given a center position on the Blazers team due to a lack of nerds there (for the record I self identify as a nerd, suck it).

So if I were called to testify about Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action I would say they are racist, sexist, regressive, and un-American. PERSUE YOUR DREAM!

“…where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

You may or may not agree with every idea, religiously or politically, that Martin Luther King Jr. had, but the well-known statement above is a principle that is sound. We live in a country that has been so blessed by God that we are free from the tyrannical oppression that classifies countries around the world. In this nation, we believe that “all men are created equal” and that we are all “endowed by our Creator” with rights that should never be taken away. Several years ago, slavery was a real problem. There were white people abusing colored people, even to death. As conservatives, we find ourselves assaulted with the idea that we would still have black people “on the plantations”, that we hate the President because of his race, and that we don’t want black people to have equal rights. But what is the truth about racism, and are conservatives really racist?

Racism, in its most basic form, is when one individual or group of individuals discriminates against another individual based on race.  Here is what racism is not  limited to–a white person discriminating against a black person based on race. Yes, if a black person is discriminated against by a white person, the white person is racist, but that isn’t racism in its entirety; that is simply one example.

A conservative position on the color of one’s skin is simple, it does not matter! A true conservative would vote for a yellow person if they adhered to conservative principles–the color of skin does not matter. Here is the dividing line betweeen a conservative and a liberal–the conservative believes that all people, male or female, rich or poor, black or white, tall or short, ect. deserve equal rights. The conservative believes that no matter who you are, where you come from, or how much money you have (or don’t have), that you are entitled to every right that another individual is entitled to. Oppositely, the liberal believes that minorities (such as African-Americans, Hispanics) and lower class citizens deserve special rights. The liberal believes in discriminating against the majority in order to discriminate for the minority; the conservative believes in giving the minority and the majority the same, equal rights.

To suggest that conservatives are upset with Barack Obama based on his race is absolutely absurd, and is in itself racism. First of all, the conservative believes that a man is to be judged based on character. The conservatives have studied the policies and actions of the President and are totally displeased with his preformance–race is a non-factor. However, the liberal proves his/her own racism when ignoring the character of the President, the substance of his policies and the results of his laws, and puts trust in the President based solely on his position in the African-American minority.

Put simply, analyze a man’s character and make a judgement based on that, and you believe in liberty. Analyze a man’s skin color and make a judgement based on that, and you are a racist. Supporting someone based on race is equally racist and equally immoral as opposing someone based on race! There is one reason why conservatives do not support the President–his policies.

New Warning Signs Were Installed In DC The First Time Joe Biden Was Elected

There’s no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy. The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults… Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice..

(HT: Yahoo.com)

I used to pity Vice President Joe Biden. I wondered how a man with decades in the Senate and a degree from THE Gawd-Almiddy Hahvad University could sometimes appear to be so insensitive. Now I understand. Fightin’ Scranton Joe must be a stealth Conservative.

Read More →

We’ve all heard the story “The boy who cried wolf” about the boy who falsely cried out so often that when the wolf finally appeared none of the townsfolk came to his assistance because they assumed he was once again lying. The same thing has been happening in the United States with the charge of racism. The problem is, when the word racism is used so often by so many people in such patently absurd contexts the charge and the word cease to have any value.

Of course, what many people often refer to as racism is in reality racial discrimination, and in most cases the activity charged as racism is neither.

Racism is a belief in an inherent difference in the cognitive and physical abilities of members of different groups based on race, which manifest themselves in social and economic achievement. Such differences are usually organized in hierarchical manner putting the proponent of the theory’s race in the superior position.

Racial discrimination is the treatment or making a distinction, gift or punishment for or against, a person or group based on the race to which that person or persons belong rather than on individual / group merit.

The dilution of the charge of racism has been going on in the United States for decades. The housing crisis that brought about the economic meltdown in which we find ourselves today was the direct result of federal regulations intended to counteract false claims of racist / discriminatory practices on the part of mortgage lenders.

More recently the cries of racism have been thrown around like rice at a wedding since Barack Obama became a candidate for President. From individuals to Tea Party activists to radio talk show hosts, every disagreement with the policies of Barack Obama is at some point reduced to the simple charge of racism. It does not even appear as if race itself is a defense against such claims as can be seen by the denunciations of Herman Cain.

Is it possible that by 2012 the overuse of the charge of racism has finally contributed to its own demise? Perhaps two absurd events from last week will be a sign of the false charge’s swan song.

The first comes from Dallas and has to do with Microsoft’s purported “Avoid the Ghetto” app for smartphones – a name suggested by critics rather than the company. The app, which is said to use crime statistic data, is supposed to offer drivers and pedestrians the opportunity to set routes to their destination that avoid high crime areas.

Dallas NAACP President Juanita Wallace seems to be unhappy about the as of yet unavailable product: “It’s almost like gerrymandering,” she said. “It’s stereotyping for sure and without a doubt; I can’t emphasize enough, it’s discriminatory.” However, the app will not label communities based on race. It is not going to tell users to avoid minorities or minority communities. It is is rather simply going to inform users about neighborhoods where a high number of crimes have been reported and offer them alternative routes to getting to their destinations. Certainly James Cooper and James Kouzaris could have used it.

Whatever the demographics of the neighborhoods drivers or pedestrians avoid as a result of Microsoft’s app, claims of racism or racial discrimination are absurd. Crime is crime, regardless of who perpetrates it. Indeed, it is President Wallace who has suggested the connection between crime and minority communities, not Microsoft.

The second story comes from Burlington, Vermont. At a time when consumers are put off by many bank’s limited hours and increasingly automated services, TD Bank sees an opportunity to distinguish itself from its competitors by opening for business every day other than Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter Sunday and New Years Day. In the highly competitive marketplace the bank is seeking to succeed by providing more services to attract more customers. The result? The branch in Burlington, Vermont was picketed for being open and serving its customers on the MLK holiday. Protesters printed flyers suggesting the bank was racist: “Dear TD Bank, you are defying the King holiday. Shame, Shame, Shame. This is a racist act. Shame, Shame, Shame.”

In what universe is a company seeking to provide its clients – all clients, regardless of race – with better service acting in a racist, or more accurately, a racially discriminatory manner? Only in a leftist, victim mentality universe fueled by the Democratic Party.

As we approach the battle for the White House those of us who disagree with the policies of President Obama should be prepared to be labeled racists for virtually every utterance. Of course it is possible that the false charge of racism has jumped the shark and will finally be disregarded by citizens as just another Democratic tool of intimidation and slander. Possible, but unfortunately… unlikely.

I’m afraid it’s more likely to be another Hollywood creation, Freddy from the Friday the 13th franchise that more accurately characterizes the future of the false charge of racism. Even when it is so widely seen as debased and hollow, when it should be dead after so many false utterances, the charge of racism is likely to once again be an instrument of the left with which it seeks to intimidate conservatives and distract voters from the abject failure of decades of Democratic policies – whose victims are both black and white. That’s unfortunate because real examples of racism and racial discrimination do indeed exist, but because the left has purloined the charge for its insidious ends those real examples are far less likely to be taken seriously. And for that we are less well off.

A few days ago, some folks took exception with my last post about Ron Paul, claiming that the video wherein Paul stated that there was “glee” in the White House after 9/11 did not establish that Ron Paul was a truther. Silly me, I assumed that people remembered all the material from 2008 which had already pretty much proved the point, but it appears that some have forgotten. Let us review, then, some small portion of the evidence.

Much of the raw evidence, gleamed from raw footage/audio of Paul on certified nutjob and avowed 9/11 truther Alex Jones’ radio show (and other private meetings which were recorded) has since been pulled down, but this nugget remains:

The video is too long to transcribe (although Malkin transcribed most of it at the time here), but in it Paul expressly states that he disbelieves the Government’s story about 9/11 and welcomes an investigation into 9/11 headed by Dennis Kucinich. At the end of the video, he even promises to go talk to Kucinich about starting an investigation. Oh yeah, and also? Paul thinks it’s pretty obvious that the government’s story about who shot Kennedy is crap. No, seriously, it’s in the video, watch it for yourself.

Back in 2009, the Examiner likewise chronicled some of the many, many truther statements by Ron Paul, including repeated statements that the official government story concerning 9/11 was a “cover-up” and that there needs to be an investigation. This timeline, by the way, highlights Ron Paul’s usual M.O. – when he is in front of his truther buddies and college students, he is perfectly happy to say that 9/11 was a cover up and there needs to be an investigation. When he’s being interviewed by sane people (like Reason Magazine), he says there’s “no evidence of an inside job.” As his 2008 campaign progressed along and he took interviews with more mainstream conservatives, he started changing his tune and saying he didn’t support a 9/11 investigation. In other words, he stopped doing things like this:

Then, when the 2008 campaign was over, he stated that the reason he couldn’t continue to press for 9/11 investigation was that he was too busy unraveling other conspiracy theories (not that he didn’t believe it):

The evidence at this point is pretty overwhelming to any reasonable person (which I understand does not apply to the core of Ron Paul’s support): if you are a 9/11 truther and you can catch Ron Paul in a situation where he doesn’t realize that he’s being recorded or think that his statements will get out to the press, he will wink and nod and let you know that he’s really on your side. When he’s in front of the mainstream press, however, he has to play the game and pretend like he’s not an insane conspiracy theorist (only Ron Paul is so very full of crazy conspiracy theories that sometimes he can’t help himself and they burst out on national television during a debate).

Given this, I don’t know why anyone would be so hopelessly naive as to believe that Ron Paul didn’t know about the racist and paranoid ramblings that appeared for years and years in his highly profitable newsletter. Ron Paul has built an entire political career off of pandering to the paranoid and hate filled when he thinks no one is looking, as his numerous appearances on the Alex Jones show will attest. The suggestion that he somehow broke with this tradition when it came to his own newsletter simply beggars the imagination. Ron Paul’s many fawning sycophants like to pretend that Ron Paul’s problem is that he is despised by the Establishment because he’s too pure in his love for the Constitution. The reality is that Ron Paul hasn’t been given nearly the shunning he deserves for his paranoid insanity or his coddling of racism throughout his entire career. Frankly, I think Ron Paul’s retirement at the end of this campaign will be the best thing to happen to the GOP in decades.

A few days ago, some folks took exception with my last post about Ron Paul, claiming that the video wherein Paul stated that there was “glee” in the White House after 9/11 did not establish that Ron Paul was a truther. Silly me, I assumed that people remembered all the material from 2008 which had already pretty much proved the point, but it appears that some have forgotten. Let us review, then, some small portion of the evidence.

Much of the raw evidence, gleamed from raw footage/audio of Paul on certified nutjob and avowed 9/11 truther Alex Jones’ radio show (and other private meetings which were recorded) has since been pulled down, but this nugget remains:

The video is too long to transcribe (although Malkin transcribed most of it at the time here), but in it Paul expressly states that he disbelieves the Government’s story about 9/11 and welcomes an investigation into 9/11 headed by Dennis Kucinich. At the end of the video, he even promises to go talk to Kucinich about starting an investigation. Oh yeah, and also? Paul thinks it’s pretty obvious that the government’s story about who shot Kennedy is crap. No, seriously, it’s in the video, watch it for yourself.

Back in 2009, the Examiner likewise chronicled some of the many, many truther statements by Ron Paul, including repeated statements that the official government story concerning 9/11 was a “cover-up” and that there needs to be an investigation. This timeline, by the way, highlights Ron Paul’s usual M.O. – when he is in front of his truther buddies and college students, he is perfectly happy to say that 9/11 was a cover up and there needs to be an investigation. When he’s being interviewed by sane people (like Reason Magazine), he says there’s “no evidence of an inside job.” As his 2008 campaign progressed along and he took interviews with more mainstream conservatives, he started changing his tune and saying he didn’t support a 9/11 investigation. In other words, he stopped doing things like this:

Then, when the 2008 campaign was over, he stated that the reason he couldn’t continue to press for 9/11 investigation was that he was too busy unraveling other conspiracy theories (not that he didn’t believe it):

The evidence at this point is pretty overwhelming to any reasonable person (which I understand does not apply to the core of Ron Paul’s support): if you are a 9/11 truther and you can catch Ron Paul in a situation where he doesn’t realize that he’s being recorded or think that his statements will get out to the press, he will wink and nod and let you know that he’s really on your side. When he’s in front of the mainstream press, however, he has to play the game and pretend like he’s not an insane conspiracy theorist (only Ron Paul is so very full of crazy conspiracy theories that sometimes he can’t help himself and they burst out on national television during a debate).

Given this, I don’t know why anyone would be so hopelessly naive as to believe that Ron Paul didn’t know about the racist and paranoid ramblings that appeared for years and years in his highly profitable newsletter. Ron Paul has built an entire political career off of pandering to the paranoid and hate filled when he thinks no one is looking, as his numerous appearances on the Alex Jones show will attest. The suggestion that he somehow broke with this tradition when it came to his own newsletter simply beggars the imagination. Ron Paul’s many fawning sycophants like to pretend that Ron Paul’s problem is that he is despised by the Establishment because he’s too pure in his love for the Constitution. The reality is that Ron Paul hasn’t been given nearly the shunning he deserves for his paranoid insanity or his coddling of racism throughout his entire career. Frankly, I think Ron Paul’s retirement at the end of this campaign will be the best thing to happen to the GOP in decades.

OK, there can be no more denying that a strategy is being played out here… with Rev. Jesse Jackson’s comments yesterday, it’s become real obvious that an orchestrated effort is underway. “The Tea Party is not new,” Jackson said at a luncheon honoring civil rights pioneers on Thursday. “It’s just a new name for an old game.”

This blatant accusation of racism follows within a week the vitriolic attacks by two members of the Congressional Black Caucus. First Rep. Maxine Waters told the millions of American citizens that make up the tea party that they could “go straight to hell”, then Florida’s very own Rep. Fredericka Wilson told her constituents in a town hall that “the real enemy is the tea party”.

And who was present at that town hall? Wait for it… wait… none other than Jesse Jackson and Maxine Waters. A coincidence? I think not!

Speaking on the life of Martin Luther King Jr., Jackson added, “He believed in tough negotiations and confrontation before reconciliation.” Really?

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, another member of the Congressional Black Caucus, also spoke of tough fights ahead at the luncheon. “Martin King wrote in 1961 about love, war and civil disobedience and he said we must be determined to resist reactionaries,” she said. “My friends, you are now entering a reactionary period probably worse than post-Reconstruction.”

Worse than post-Reconstruction… what a powerful comment! This era Rep. Lee refers to took place at the end of the reconstruction that followed the Civil War. It was an era known as a time of abject racism, segregation and violence toward black Americans.

Sense a prevailing theme here… civil disobedience, confrontation and resistance, coupled with inflammatory comments directed at the tea party?

With the epic leadership failure of President Obama now painfully clear for all to see, including many of his supporters, with the unavoidable realization that his policies are failing this country and with his approval ratings reaching new lows, it seems that the Far Left has now reached the moment of desperation.

Glenn Beck has said that the 2012 election will be the ugliest in modern American history and at the risk of also being accused of being a conspiracy theorist, I submit that he is correct and that we are witnessing the beginning of what will be a steady call to ‘take to the streets’.

Just a few short months ago, PBS host Tavis Smiley said on MSNBC;

“I said over a year ago that this was going to be, this presidential race… was going to be the ugliest, the nastiest, the most divisive, and the most racist in the history of this Republic.”

Ironically, Smiley was discussing what he perceived to be race baiting by Donald Trump. He goes on to say of the tea party:

“…the antics they’ve been engaged in, showing up at rallies with guns, and the Secret Service working overtime to protect this President, more threats against his life than in the history of this nation and these Presidents combined, so the the evidence is pretty clear that they will do anything and say anything to make sure he doesn’t get re-elected.”

That a black leader can be so wrong is dangerously irresponsible. We now know that the only person to show up at a tea party rally with a gun was a black American legally exercising his 2nd Amendment right who’s image was inexplicably cropped by MSNBC to hide his race.

And it’s pure myth that Obama is being threatened more than “these Presidents combined”, whatever that means. Upon Obama’s election, Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan said “the threats right now in the inappropriate interest that we are seeing is the same level as it has been for the previous two presidents at this point.”

In reality, the color of a person’s skin has little to do with what we see happening. The Progressive Left, in response to the tea party’s focus on limited government and fiscal responsibility in the face of potential bankruptcy, is desperately trying to hold on to the failed entitlement society created long ago to ensure dependence upon the Democrat Party.

And Rep. Allen West was on the money when he claimed that leaders such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Barbara Lee or Maxine Waters were the “overseers of this 21st-Century plantation,” meant to “pacify and keep the black community firmly behind [white liberals], regardless of the failures of [their] social welfare policies.”

Fortunately, there are other courageous Americans in the black community speaking out against a propaganda effort being put forth by the Far Left that would make Goebbels proud, men such as Ron Miller and Lloyd Marcus. Yet, more needs to be done to help folks understand the history of progressivism, such as what a bitter racist Woodrow Wilson, seen as the ‘father of the progressive movement’, actually was.

But make no mistake about it, the 2012 Presidential election will be a spirited event unrivaled in recent times. Radicals on the Far Left, who are as close as they’ll ever be to establishing a Euro-Socialist style of government in the United States, will do all they can to distract from Obama’s many shortcomings to hold onto their advances. And if that means tearing this nation apart at the seams through race and class warfare, well, so be it.

Ultimately, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, and faith in the intelligence of the American people, we will endure the acts of desperation sure to come, and will emerge on the other side of this hatred in a land where man truly is judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. Perhaps, what the Left fears most…

Cross-Posted at Florida Political Press

Just when I thought I would get a break from comments from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she did not let me down.  While the rest of the country was watching the Weinergate scandal unfold with the DNC Chairman saying it was “a private matter between him and his wife,” she unloaded with another highly partisan comment.  When taken in the context of who Debbie Wasserman Schultz is- a woman in need of a dye job and new perm- it comes as no surprise that she would preemptively resort to race baiting to get a leg up in the 2012 elections.

This time, the esteemed leader of the DNC equated voter registration and identification laws with Jim Crow laws.  While the left was pointing the fingers at and declaring racist intent on the part of Newt Gingrich for saying the 2012 election would be the most important since 1860, DWS has invoked the specter of Jim Crow laws (ironically, enacted in the South after the Civil War by Democratic Party leaders).  It would appear that Republicans cannot, in the logic-challenged perverted mind of liberals, say the year “1860″ lest it conjure up images of slavery and such, yet they can overtly say “Jim Crow laws” with impunity and it is not racist in their mind.

So what has Wasserman Schultz’s hair all twisted up more?  Voting laws.  That’s right- Republican state legislatures that are tightening up registration laws and voter identification laws are somehow racist.  According to her, these laws are directly targeting traditional Democratic constituencies.  If by that she means the dead people or animated characters that live on vacant lots in Chicago or the Florida based football team that lives in Nevada, then she would be correct.  If she means these laws are targeting those ineligible to vote, then she is right, but then she is dissing “traditional Democratic constituencies.”

While she, the DNC, Democrats and liberals cite numerous studies indicating that actual, indictable cases of voter fraud are rare, it begs the question: “So what?”  Are we to wait for the first murder before enacting homicide laws?   The liberal mantra that the absence of widespread voter fraud does not justify voter integrity laws is actually not true.  During the Bush Administration, there were 360 investigations resulting in 140 prosecutions and 100 convictions.  But whether there are 360 or 36 or 3 investigations in an eight year period is inconsequential; the fact they happen at all creates a lack of confidence in the electoral system.

It was Donna Brazile who first broached this subject when she was interim head of the DNC before Debs was appointed to the position.  I understand that DNC chairmen have to be the attack dogs for the party, but does she have to be to damn stupid?  Does she have to resort to such race baiting tactics and comments?  Actually, Debs and Brazile and others are simply laying down the racial gauntlet, the expected preemptive shot over the bow that they will use race and whatever else they have at their disposal to make sure their man stays in the White House.  In Brazile’s case, one would naturally expect a certain degree of sour grapes being on the losing side in 2000 being involved Al Gore’s campaign.  You would think that she would support laws that sought to prevent the events of Florida that year.

When the Supreme Court decided the Citizen’s Unitedcase, Barack Obama had a hissy fit and derided the decision stating that it would invite foreign corporations to influence the outcome of our elections.  Besides being false and somewhat histrionic and over the top, it illustrates the hypocrisy of the DNC, Debs and Brazile.  The Democratic Party would rather pass laws to keep mythical foreign money out of the system while allowing individuals ineligible to vote to actually cast ballots.  Which has a greater effect on the outcome of elections: Obama’s mythical money influence OR ineligible voters casting ballots?

Republicans need to continue their efforts to strengthen voter laws and ignore the race baiting by Obama’s cronies.  And should they insist, just remind the voters that (1) it was the New Black Panther Party standing menacingly outside polling places, (2) it was Democrats who wrote and enforced the Jim Crow laws and (3) Lester Maddox who stood with axe handle defending segregation was a Democrat.  The Democrats need to cease the projection of intentions in some feeble purge of collective guilt over their racist past.

A sure sign of just how close to anarchy we’ve come is this new notion that ‘democracy’ or majority rule should be a sure way to know the will of the people.  Whoever shouts loudest, longest, hardest wins the day.

The Founding Fathers knew how dangerous mob mentality can be; they’d seen in.  And so when they set out to devise government, they came up with ways to keep tyrant-kings from crushing folks with whim taxes or crushing mandates.  Freedom was paramount in the infrastructure to protect our new nation.  And so it was decided that a Republic would suit the bill.  Voices would gather to choose an official would speak on their behalf.  The ‘local level’ would work amongst themselves to figure out who would speak, and what they’d say.  This would preserve the diverse interests of our nation, while keeping the cacophonous voices organized.

It seems natural and sensible that groups would gather geographically, decide rules of behavior and govern themselves according to their beliefs.

So it was with great interest that I noticed a new lawsuit this morning.  A suit that challenges the formation of newer, smaller cities in the metropolitan Atlanta area.

Finding themselves on the fringe of the bustling metropolis and really suburb-cities with shopping zones and city services, etc. the citizens believed they could be better served by more-local voices.  After years of planning, districting, jockeying with county and city officials, working with the state…these small cities became efficient and strong; safe and clean.

What could possibly be wrong?

Blacks aren’t in control.  And we just can’t have that with a black President and a black mayor…we can’t permit there to be any areas where white people clump up and have the majority. Divide like the Red Sea this clump of white folks!

http://www.ajc.com/news/lawsuit-seeks-dissolution-of-888729.html

Maybe Atlanta wants the taxes back.  Maybe it’s because the state has a record 50/50 white to black ratio.  Whatever the case, Liberals want it both ways. They want to be the majority and the minority.  They want to be the loudest voice even if they are the fewest in the room.

Can you imagine the outcry if a white Reverend launched a lawsuit to dissolve cities that are predominantly black (and there are those) in the same area? The outcry would be Racism. And so this play is Racism.

This mood, this tactic is making the rounds.

This echoes what’s happened in Wisconsin.  Use the law as a weapon to blast into power.

And if the majority votes go against them, they cry foul…they want a court to stop everything until they can wrest control back again.

This is what’s happening in the Federal level as well.  It is not simply good enough for the Conservatives to keep the Liberals from progressing, we must beat them back; repeal their measures, bend the rules the way they’ve shown us they will…at least as far as they have.

Rep. Steve King reminds us that the Vietnam War was ended by a Liberal Congress defunding the war during a Continuing Resolution.  A Conservative Congress can surely defund ObamaCare using the same tool and the same language.

——

Follow-up…Salon.com did an article on the most segregated cities in America.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/29/most_segregated_cities/slideshow.html

But segregation does not equal racism.  The article could just as easily have been named “Black Strongholds” or “African American Supermajorities”

This posting is a duplicate.  The original posting is at

http://breadandcircusesforamerica.blogspot.com/2011/03/government-busting-liberal-style.html

This is what Madison, Wisconsin liberal talk show host John “Sly” Sylvester said last week about Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch on WTDY (office line 608-273-1000; Program Director Rex Charger) :

‘Would you like to move to Wisconsin? Would you like to move CouponCabin to Wisconsin? I’m Rebecca Kleefisch. I performed fellatio on all the talk show hosts in Milwaukee. And they endorsed me and that’s how I became lieutenant governor. And then I got colon cancer and I ran around the state to help people. Even though I have government health care, screw everyone else.’

More via Michelle Malkin: yes, in fact, that was a liberal male accusing a conservative female politician of being a literal prostitute (and mocking her for being a cancer survivor).  The man later admitted that his remarks might have gone a little too far*, which suggests that his host WTDY (office line 608-273-1000; Program Director Rex Charger) may be getting some heat for yet another bout of misogyny.  Yes, “another:” would you be surprised to hear that there’s a history there?  – You see, back in 2004 Sylvester used racist language against conservative and Republican African-Americans.  And let’s not forget the rape fantasies that this guy has.  That one’s from 2005, by the way.  The man seems to have quite the fascination with conservative women, in fact; and not in a particularly… gentle… way, either.

Read More →