Policia de Catalunya

Last night, the NAACP condemned and denounced the Tea Party's racism. The resolution was motivated mainly by the Congressional Black Caucus's claims that one or more Tea Party folks called John Lewis and others the "N" word and spit upon them, when caucus members showed up at a Tea Party rally back in March of this year.
From what I've seen, the video clips of this Tea Party rally show no evidence that any such thing occurred. And there were an awful lot of videos taken that day that would presumably have captured this reprehensible conduct.
Which is not to say the claims aren't true. Indeed, Andrew Breitbart offered to donate $10,000.00 to the United Negro College Fund if anyone had any evidence that anyone said the "N" word. And, if they don't have it on video, that's fine, too. He'll donate the same $10,000.00 if anyone who heard the "N" word being hurled will take and pass a polygraph.
So far, no one has come forward.
Hillary Clinton's supporters have a documentary out called "We Will Not be Silenced." It's about alleged voting fraud in the 2008 presidential primaries. I'm starting to feel silenced, too. That if I dare to disagree with anything Obama says or does, the NAACP or Hollywood or someone will brand me racist.
Remember back in 2009, when high-profile actress Janeane Garafalo claimed that any person who opposed Obama was a racist?
Now that her hopes for Obama have turned to disappointment, maybe she'll be more tolerant of dissenting views. ("I have to say I was surprised how disappointing the Obama administration has turned out to be. That did take me by surprise," she said in June of 2010).
Umm, Janeane, you kind of sound like the people who weren't "the ones we've been waiting for," . . . (you know -- the racist rednecks who didn't vote for him).
But maybe Janeane has come around. Perhaps Ms. Garafalo now realizes that non-racist people can have principled disagreements with Obama's love for Keynesian economic policies (e.g., "borrow and spend and tax our way out of a recession") and "income equality for all." Truth be told, this Keynesian stuff strikes a lot of people -- even liberal people -- as just plain dumb.
So, umm, would it be okay, NAACP, if I, uh, vehemently disagreed with Obama's economic policies? No? Okay. Could it be meekly, then?
A prominent leader in the Dallas Tea Party movement, an African American woman named Katrina Pierson, says the NAACP has gone too far with its charges of racism. She makes an impassioned and persuasive case against the NAACP, and she does not mince words.

Said Ms. Pierson, in response to the NAACP's Tea Party "renunciation,"
"The existence of the NAACP, and others like it, are threatened by the existence of the Tea Party. The reality is that we colored people no longer require the assistance from other Negros for advancement in 2010. These groups run to the rescue of distressed brown people only when the media deems it newsworthy. Meanwhile, there are inner city black children who continue to grow up fatherless while sharing a neighborhood with stray bullets, drugs and a plethora of liquor stores on every corner.* * *
The NAACP has been completely ineffective in my lifetime, and the lack of leadership in the black community has contributed to the ability of these groups to speak on behalf of the rest of us.
* * *
They are Democrats who bow to a Democrat master today as they once did two hundred years ago. Once this is realized by the forgotten society, race in this country will be as irrelevant as those who thrive off of it."(emph. added).
Powerful stuff.
But I can't say I blame her.
After watching the video clip below, of New Black Panther Samir Shabazz, I have to ask:
Has the NAACP denounced the racism irrefutably in evidence in the New Black Panther Party?

I'm just sayin' askin'.

Labels: Denunciation, John Lewis, Katrina Pierson, Keynes, Naacp, National Black Caucus, New Black Panther Party, Obama, Obamacare, Renunciation, Samir Shabazz, Tea Party

In today's Sunday's Best, I recommend this outstanding piece, "Washington Can Hear You Now," by Senator Jim DeMint.These men and women are coming to Washington to join the fight, not the club. Their principles are clear: free-enterprise economics, limited government and individual liberty. These views are based on 200 years of American history and written into our founding documents.
Democrats have desperately called these new leaders "radical," but Americans know what "radical" means after watching the Democrats run Washington.
Creating an entitlement program while the nation is $13 trillion in debt is radical. So is raising taxes while millions of Americans struggle to pay bills and find work. So is taking over the banks, auto companies, mortgage companies, the health-care system and the financial sector.
Americans have rallied against out-of-control government for two years. "Can you hear me now?" they yelled. Thankfully, a crop of common-sense conservative Republican candidates listened.
Next, it takes the UK Telegraph to tell us what our own media won't: the "tea party" movement is not some insane, marginal tempest in a tea pot.For all the talk of how the Tea Party will help the Democrats by splitting the Republican vote, the first five of those states are highly likely to result in Republican/Tea Party wins, Nevada is in the balance and only Delaware looks like an uphill struggle. Increased conservative turnout and the energy generated by the Tea Party is likely to punish Democrats disproportionately.
The reaction to O'Donnell's win may yet lift her close to victory. No candidate since Palin has been ridiculed and lampooned as she has, mainly for Christian conservative views she expressed a decade or more ago. She has also been castigated for having been in debt and taking years to pay university bills.
This patronising condescension sits uneasily with ordinary Americans, one in seven of whom are now officially poor and most of whom have at one time or another struggled to pay the bills. Populism is a key strain in the Tea Party. Republican elites beware.
At least Peggy Noonan gets it. Finally.Everyone has an explanation for the tea party that is actually not an explanation but a description. They're "angry." They're "antiestablishment," "populist," "anti-elite." All to varying degrees true. But as a network television executive said this week, "They should be fed up. Our institutions have failed."
* * *
For conservatives on the ground, it has often felt as if Democrats (and moderate Republicans) were always saying, "We should spend a trillion dollars," and the Republican Party would respond, "No, too costly. How about $700 billion?" Conservatives on the ground are thinking, "How about nothing? How about we don't spend more money but finally start cutting."
And Ira Stolls's decimation of the New York Times O'Donnell smear piece is downright delicious.The Times also reports, "she told a reporter for The News Journal of Wilmington last March that her campaign had paid half the rent on her town house there because it doubled as her headquarters, one of several financial oddities enumerated in an article in that paper....She said that while she participated in the cap-and-gown ceremony nearly two decades ago, she was unable to formally graduate because of unpaid tuition."
This is all outrageously unfair treatment from the Times. One of its reporters defaulted on his mortgage � after all, when people who aren't Republican Senate candidates default on their mortgages, the Times tells us it is the fault of predatory subprime lenders, not of individual borrowers. If you can default on your mortgage and be an economics reporter for the New York Times, why can't you be the senator from Delaware?
Finally, James Taranto's "There is No More Molly" is not to be missed.Here's another question: Where is President Obama? Last month, speaking to a mostly Muslim audience at the White House, the president strongly defended the right of another imam held up as a moderate to build a mosque adjacent to Ground Zero. The next day, and again at a press conference last week, Obama said he was merely standing up for the First Amendment. As far as we recall, it's the only time Barack Obama has ever stood up for anybody's First Amendment rights.
Now Molly Norris, an American citizen, is forced into hiding because she exercised her right to free speech. Will President Obama say a word on her behalf? Does he believe in the First Amendment for anyone other than Muslims?

Labels: Angle, Demint, Molly Norris, ODonnell, Rubio, Tea Party

Even liberal journalists are starting to realize you can hardly argue for spending when you've got a zero balance. Logic is beginning to settle in. Indeed, to read David Brooks's column today, you'd think he was channeling Ronald Reagan.
Brooks gives concrete examples of state government dysfunction, where politicians are beholden to unions. New Jersey and California, to name a few, struggle to fund education and are forced to forgo worthwhile infrastructure projects because union pensions have them in a chokehold.
"New York City has to strain to finance its schools but must support 10,000 former cops who have retired before age 50.
California can�t afford new water projects, but state cops often receive 90 percent of their salaries when they retire at 50. The average corrections officer there makes $70,000 a year in base salary and $100,000 with overtime (California spends more on its prison system than on its schools).
States across the nation will be paralyzed for the rest of our lives because they face unfunded pension obligations that, if counted accurately, amount to $2 trillion � or $87,000 per plan participant."He concludes with this:
"Many of us would be happy to live with a bigger version of 1950s government: one that ran surpluses and was dexterous enough to tackle long-term problems as they arose. But we don�t have that government. We have an immobile government that is desperately overcommitted in all the wrong ways.
This situation, if you�ll forgive me for saying so, has been the Democratic Party�s epic failure. The party believes in the positive uses of government. But if you want the country to share that belief, you have to provide a government that is nimble, tough-minded and effective. That means occasionally standing up to the excessive demands of public employee unions. Instead of standing up to those demands, the party has become captured by the unions. Liberal activism has become paralyzed by its own special interests." By George, I think he's got it. But unions are just one problem. We've got plenty more.
Here's my "epic fail" list and I'm just getting started:
* Tax hikes: We don't want our hard-earned dollars "redistributed."
* Health care: We don't want to be forced to engage in "commerce" or pay Andy Griffith to tout it. And we don't like the government hand-picking which connected companies get to opt out of the Obamacare morass.
* Fannie and Freddie: We don't want to be the "people's" bank, lending money to poor people who can't afford a mortgage. The new FinReg law does NOTHING to stop this.
* Quantitative easing: We don't want the Fed printing more money.
* Bailouts and bonuses: We don't want to give our money to failed banks and companies so they can stay in business and put our money in their pockets.

Reagan said the Democrats spend like "drunken sailors," except the sailors spend their own money. And the drunken spending in D.C. is precisely why people are so hopping mad.
If it comes down to a choice between the Tea party and the Keg party, that's an easy call.

Labels: David Brooks, Democrats, Drunken Sailors, Keg Party, Tea Party