Tag Archives: Politics

Immigration, Politics, Race Relations

Where Do Anchor Babies Come From?

Justice Brennan’s Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies

by Ann Coulter

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you’re 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves — many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)

Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it’s amazing the drafters even considered the amendment’s effect on the children of aliens.

But they did.

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, the Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement — who, I’m guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.

Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such “plausible distinction(s)” before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than “lives within walking distance.”

But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.

Combine Justice Brennan’s footnote with America’s ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.

Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:

“Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa … gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa’s 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. … The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies.”

In the Silverios’ munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.

It’s bad enough to be governed by 5-4 decisions written by liberal judicial activists. In the case of “anchor babies,” America is being governed by Brennan’s 1982 footnote.

Economy, Fair Tax, Politics, Uncategorized

Want More? Tax Less. Tax More? Get Less.

That about sums up the one an only truism about taxation. That politicians become drunk with power once they have the ‘tax hammer’ in their hot little hand is another. But that is more of a moral issue than an economic one. I came across this publication from the U.S. Treasury called The History of the U.S. Tax System. It’s something that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner should read. As Congress and the Obama administration seem to be on a mad dash to tax us into prosperity and borrow our way out of debt, this piece from the Treasury Dept. should be required reading.

Lower marginal tax rates were ‘essential to a strong economy.’ Meddling with the system with that ‘tax hammer’ can make it worse.

The economic boom following the 1982 recession convinced many political leaders of both parties that lower marginal tax rates were essential to a strong economy, while the constant changing of the law instilled in policy makers an appreciation for the complexity of the tax system. Further, the debates during this period led to a general understanding of the distortions imposed on the economy, and the lost jobs and wages, arising from the many peculiarities in the definition of the tax base.

History demonstrates, whether you want to learn from it or not, that taxing business excessively, ‘over-reaching,’ leads to collapse.

The 1986 Tax Reform Act was roughly revenue neutral, that is, it was not intended to raise or lower taxes, but it shifted some of the tax burden from individuals to businesses. Much of the increase in the tax on business was the result of an increase in the tax on business capital formation. It achieved some simplifications for individuals through the elimination of such things as income averaging, the deduction for consumer interest, and the deduction for state and local sales taxes. But in many respects the Act greatly added to the complexity of business taxation, especially in the area of international taxation. Some of the over-reaching provisions of the Act also led to a downturn in the real estate markets which played a significant role in the subsequent collapse of the Savings and Loan industry.

The power trip, aka tax hammer, became addictive for the politicos. It never occurred to them to quit increasing government spending. Only how and where and what to raise taxes on.

Between 1986 and 1990 the Federal tax burden rose as a share of GDP from 17.5 to 18 percent. Despite this increase in the overall tax burden, persistent budget deficits due to even higher levels of government spending created near constant pressure to increase taxes. Thus, in 1990 the Congress enacted a significant tax increase featuring an increase in the top tax rate to 31 percent. Shortly after his election, President Clinton insisted on and the Congress enacted a second major tax increase in 1993 in which the top tax rate was raised to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge was added, leaving the effective top tax rate at 39.6 percent. Clearly, the trend toward lower marginal tax rates had been reversed, but, as it turns out, only temporarily.

The tax code becomes a vehicle for spending programs. Wielding the tax hammer for social engineering increases public debt. Lesson not learned here is that money doesn’t grow on trees and, stop increasing the spending. But it’s OK if you can use the tax code to buy votes. What? This is where the class envy/class warfare tactic, as connected to the tax code, was taken to a higher level.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 made additional changes to the tax code providing a modest tax cut. The centerpiece of the 1997 Act was a significant new tax benefit to certain families with children through the Per Child Tax credit. The truly significant feature of this tax relief, however, was that the credit was refundable for many lower-income families. That is, in many cases the family paid a “negative” income tax, or received a credit in excess of their pre-credit tax liability. Though the tax system had provided for individual tax credits before, such as the Earned Income Tax credit, the Per Child Tax credit began a new trend in federal tax policy. Previously tax relief was generally given in the form of lower tax rates or increased deductions or exemptions. The 1997 Act really launched the modern proliferation of individual tax credits and especially refundable credits that are in essence spending programs operating through the tax system.

“There’s no difference at all in terms of the effects on the federal deficit,” says Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center. “It’s perfectly equivalent. It’s just easier to say, ‘I cut your taxes’ as opposed to ‘I created a new federal program to send money to people.'”

Reducing taxes helped, not hurt, economic recovery.

The 2001 tax cut will provide additional strength to the economy in the coming years as more and more of its provisions are phased in, and indeed one argument for its enactment had always been as a form of insurance against an economic downturn. However, unbeknownst to the Bush Administration and the Congress, the economy was already in a downturn as the Act was being debated. Thankfully, the downturn was brief and shallow, but it is already clear that the tax cuts that were enacted and went into effect in 2001 played a significant role in supporting the economy, shortening the duration of the downturn, and preparing the economy for a robust recovery.

One can only hope that the next generation of political leaders will have learned something from the past and not repeat that which has failed before. Here’s hoping that the next chapter in The History of the U.S. Tax System describes unprecedented economic recovery after abolishing  the current income-based tax system and going to the consumption-based tax system called the FairTax.

Links: History of the U.S. Tax System |  The Income Tax System Is Broken

2010 Election, Economy, Fair Tax, Media, Politics

What Happens When Bush Tax Cuts Expire?

1 Comment

Income taxes punish work, stifle innovation (except in ways to avoid a tax liability) and risk-taking. Coming to a network news outlet near you, in addition to all the racial stirrings provoked by the ‘post-racial’ Obama administration, prepare yourself for the next chapter in the Obama administration’s (aka Saul Alinsky) handbook; class envy/warfare.

It comes around in election seasons, which seem to never end nowadays. And it comes around whenever tax reform is discussed in the form of ‘tax cuts for the rich.’

Barring any intervening legislation, these are the numbers by income tax bracket of how the tax rates will change when ‘the Bush tax cuts’ expire.

• Up to $16,750: Rises from 10 percent to 15 percent
• From $16,751 to $58,200: Stays same at 15 percent, but entire bracket pays 5 percent additional on the first $16,750
• From $58,201 to $68,000: Rises from 15 percent to 28 percent
• From $68,001 to $137,300: Rises from 25 percent to 28 percent
• From $137,301 to $209,250: Rises from 28 percent to 31 percent
• From $209,251 to $373,650: Rises from 33 percent to 36 percent
• $373,651 and up: Rises from 35 percent to 39.6 percent

The spreadsheet below shows how much more of your income (not counting all the income credits and re-distribution schemes contained in the 75,000+ page Internal Revenue Code) you will owe Uncle Sam on every dollar you earn beginning January 1, 2011. Note the gimmick in the second tax bracket, where the poor and not as poor ‘working people’ reside. You know, the one class that Obama claims to advocate for. These brackets capture the majority of the income earning population. The tax rate remains the same, but the entire bracket pays 5 percent additional on the first $16,750. The consequence of this magic trick is putting the largest tax burden, as a percentage of income, square on the backs of the poor. The rate of increase on the next bracket, those whose income falls between $58,201 and $68,000, goes up by a massive 86.67 percent. The so-called ‘working people.’ I add ‘so-called’ to the discussion because this administration would like the dumb masses to believe that rich people don’t work. ‘Working people’ is class envy for the poor aimed at the rich, by the ‘uniter’ himself. It is a necessary function of class envy, which this administration so effortlessly employs. And so far gets away with.

From $ To $ From % To % $ Increase % Increase Increase as % of Income
$0 $16,750 10.00% 15.00% $838 50.00% 5.00%
$16,751 $58,200 15.00% 15.00% $9,568 0.00% 16.44%
$58,201 $68,000 15.00% 28.00% $8,840 86.67% 13.00%
$68,001 $137,300 25.00% 28.00% $4,119 12.00% 3.00%
$137,301 $209,250 28.00% 31.00% $6,278 10.71% 3.00%
$209,251 $373,650 33.00% 36.00% $11,210 9.09% 3.00%
$373,651 $500,000 35.00% 39.60% $23,000 13.14% 4.60%

Obama’s Tax based on his 2009 income. $5,505,409 35.00% 39.60% $253,249 13.14% 4.60%

Don’t be fooled by the tax brackets or these numbers either. They give the illusion that everybody is actually paying taxes. Everyone is not paying taxes. The truth is, for 2005, the top 1% of income earners paid 39% of all tax revenue. That’s up 2% since President Bush took office in 2000. 86% of all federal income taxes were paid by the top 25% of income earners. And 97% of all taxes paid are paid by the top 50% of income earners.

The power to use the ‘tax hammer’ to micro-manage voting, social and economic behavior is the drug the politicians must be weaned from. The FairTax takes that tax hammer away by putting the economic power where it belongs, with the people. All the people. Not Washington politicians and lobbyists. Because the FairTax is transparent, the FUD factor goes away. The Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt goes away, and citizens and entrepreneurs can make business decisions with some certainty of risk and tax consequences. 

The FairTax unleashes the potential for economic activity, innovation, job creation, personal wealth and financial security without the interference of Washington and without increasing the national debt. And as a not insignificant side effect, the class warfare game with taxation becomes a thing of the past. Allowing the elected officials to concentrate their efforts to serving their constituents instead of trying to rob them.

Politics, Whiners

Liberals And Speech, Part 3, Right-Wingers, Cut Your Hand Off

While Obama was accusing Republicans of playing politics on the backs of the unemployed last week, for holding to the principle of extending the $34 billion in unemployment benefits without adding to the already unsustainable debt, I tuned in to the Mike Malloy Show to see what they were talking about.

What I heard was more of Obama’s words coming out of Malloy. And then some. He accused Republicans as just being mean and hateful for not caring about the unemployed. And, that they just don’t care about the unemployed. Upon reflecting on the possibility of Republicans regaining control of the House, Malloy opined that it would just serve Republicans right to watch them ruin the lives of future generations by all their deficit spending. Then after the country would be brought to its knees by their reckless spending, then they would be out of power for generations.

I had to laugh at the idea that he apparently believed what he was saying. What he said sounded like the Obama administration’s prescription for the economy.

This chart shows which political party is robbing future generations of Americans.

public debt chart

That Republicans are holding to the pay-go law does not seem like right-wing drivel, as Malloy calls it. I have to ask, who is it that is playing politics on the unemployed by denying them $34 billion out of the over $350 billion of the still unspent ’emergency’ stimulus package that had to be passed immediately or else the country would fall into ruin in a matter of weeks some eighteen months ago? Never mind that that money is held by China as our debt and really isn’t in the bank. But using that ‘money’ would not increase the debt.  No. Obama insists on keeping that slush fund and increasing the debt. Nor could Congress find $34 billion to trim out of the $3.7 trillion budget. This administration is the one playing politics on the backs of the unemployed and on the backs of future generations of Americans.

Besides all that, look how wisely he used the stimulus money. He used it to grow government and the government sector, not to stimulate self-sustaining private sector business and jobs. Government employment is way up. To those capitalists out there familiar with business, none of whom are in The White House, you understand that  increasing government size is increasing the ‘overhead.’ And who in their right mind would increase their overhead at a time when business is down? Only someone hell-bent on remaking America would do that. Oh that’s right. We elected just such a person, Barack Hussein Obama, Mmm Mmm Mmm.

Enough of the background already. So I called the show and told Malloy that Republicans did want to help those 2.5 million people whose unemployment benefits had expired. But they wanted it done without increasing the debt. There are plenty of resources available to do it.

It was about that time that he hung up on me and went on to say that I was just parroting what I had heard from Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. Actually Mike, I heard it from the same place they heard it from, the floor of the House of Representatives and from the Senate. It was not ‘right-wing drivel.’ It so incensed him that he lost it, he pleaded to any other right-wingers listening out there (two or three of us?) to not call his show. We can listen if we want to but, he said, ‘please, don’t call.’

All that from a so-called radio talk show host who is even more rabid than Mike Papantonio. Malloy’s rantings makes Papantonio seem like a pussy, if you can believe that. Malloy pleaded to right-wingers . . .

Whenever you get the feeling that you really want to call this program, break your wrists or cut your hand off, or or do something to stop yourself from dialing this program.

This whole experience is instructive on a few levels about Liberals. Liberals don’t want to engage on issues. Liberal talkers really don’t want to hear a viewpoint that upsets their karma. And Mike Malloy’s talk radio show is for lemmings only.

Below is Malloy’s response to our brief dialog. It begins a little after he dropped the call, in a not very ‘Christian’ (his words) way. The show’s producer (Malloy’s wife) has not responded to requests for the audio portion of the dialog between Malloy and myself, but you can hear what happened afterward from the link below.

Related Link: Obama: My Economic Policies Are Unsustainable

Immigration, Politics, Supreme Court

Obama Administration v. Arizona v. The Constitution

The straw man argument of the year is Eric Holder’s challenge to Arizona’s law that deals with illegal immigrants which, is no different from federal law. You will recall all the hoopla by Obama and his people crying about the Arizona law being all about racial profiling, which is illegal. Apparently Eric Holder does not believe his boss’s assertion, otherwise he would have filed his suit against Arizona on that basis. He didn’t.

Holder’s case is based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. I’m not a lawyer, I make sandwiches, but it seems to me that you can’t prove a supremacy argument by laying down and not enforcing federal law like Eric Holder and President Obama are doing.

Besides, it’s not like this issue has not been before the Supreme Court. Ann Coulter, who is a lawyer, sums it up as only Ann can . . .

The court -– per Justice William Brennan — said that the federal government’s supremacy over immigration is strictly limited to: (1) a “determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country,” and (2) “the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain.”

So a state can’t start issuing or revoking visas, but that’s about all it can’t do.

Manifestly, a state law about illegal immigrants has nothing to do with immigrants who enter legally or the condition of their staying here. Illegal aliens have neither been “admitted into the country” nor are they “legal entrants.”

Indeed, as Brennan noted in the De Canas case, there’s even “a line of cases that upheld certain discriminatory state treatment of aliens lawfully within the United States.” (You might want to jot some of this down, Mr. Holder.)

So there’s no “field pre-emption” of state laws dealing with aliens, nor is there an explicit statement from Congress pre-empting state regulation of aliens.

Related Links:

2010 Election, Economy, Florida, Pensacola, Politics

Khavari, Florida’s Best Chance And Choice

You are cordially invited to the 2010 Fundraiser Event in support of Dr. Khavari’s gubernatorial campaign. The event will take place on July 24, 2010 from 6pm-8pm at the Hilton Palm Beach Airport on 150 Australian Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida. Dr. Khavari is an economist who has written nine books and various articles that address solutions to the economic situation in Florida. His economic plan—The Khavari Economic Plan, has been referred to as the most solid economic plan.

Dr. Khavari will be making a presentation at the fundraiser to discuss his plan for Florida in further detail and due to your ongoing support throughout his campaign, will be honored to have you there to support him. The presentation will include a Q&A session, and will be followed by a reception with special guests from the NFL.

If you cannot attend this event but still wish to show your support to Dr. Khavari’s campaign, you can visit http://www.khavariforgovernor.com/contribute/ to make a donation to support our campaign efforts.

Economy, Politics

I Will Not Rest . . .

May 12, 2010, Deepwater Horizon Disaster

My Administration and I will not rest — or be satisfied — until the leak is stopped at the source, the oil on the Gulf is contained and cleaned up, and the people of this region are able to go back to their lives and livelihoods.

May 7, 2010, Jobs

We’re not going to rest until we’ve put this difficult chapter behind us.  And I won’t rest until you, and millions of your neighbors caught up in these storms, are able to find a good job and reach a brighter day.

April 2, 2010, Jobs

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood . . .
President Obama and I will not rest until every American who wants a job can find one.

February 10, 2010, Economy

So the economy may be growing again, but that growth has not nearly made up for the terrible pain and dislocations that rocked businesses and families over the course of a very difficult two years.

So we’ve got a lot of work to do.  And I’m here to tell you, I will not rest — I know Harry will not rest — until we’re not just recovering, but we’re prospering.  I don’t want Vegas just to be getting by — I want Vegas to be thriving.  And I know that’s what you want as well.  (Applause.)

February 2, 2010, Economy / Jobs

And the thing, New Hampshire, when I was up here campaigning, I told you — I didn’t run for President to kick these challenges down the road.  I didn’t run for President to play it safe.  I didn’t run just to keep my poll numbers as high as possible for the next election.  I ran to solve problems for the next generation.  (Applause.)  I ran to get the hard things done.  That’s why you elected me.  (Applause.)

So I won’t rest until businesses are hiring again, and wages are rising again, and the middle class is thriving again, and we’ve finally got an economy that works for all Americans, not just some Americans.  I won’t rest until we do what we know has to be done to secure our leadership in the 21st century.  I don’t want to cede our future to China and India and European countries.  I’m not willing to settle for second place — not for the United States of America.  (Applause.)

January 25, 2010, Jobs

But more than 7 million have been lost as a consequence of this recession –- an epidemic that demands our relentless and sustained response.  Now, last month the House passed a new jobs bill.  The Senate, as we speak, is hard at work developing its own job creation package.  Creating good, sustainable jobs is the single most important thing we can do to rebuild the middle class -– and I won’t rest until we’re doing just that.

January 21, 2010, Jobs

I called for the extension of emergency relief to help hurting Americans who’ve lost their jobs.  And you can expect a continued, sustained and relentless effort to create good jobs for the American people.  I will not rest until we’ve gotten there.  (Applause.)

December 4, 2009, Economy / Jobs

So here’s the bottom line.  I know times are tough.  Michelle and I were talking the other day — there are members of our families that are out of work.  We’re not that far removed from struggling to pay the bills.  Five, six years ago, we were still paying off student loans.  Still trying to figure out if we pay this bill this month, what do we have to give up next month.  We’re not that far away from there.  But I promise you this:  I won’t rest until things get better.

November 23, 2009, Economy

Our economy is growing for the first time in more than a year, and we know that economic growth is a prerequisite for job growth.  But, having said that, what I emphasize today is we cannot sit back and be satisfied, given the extraordinarily high unemployment levels that we’ve seen.  We have only taken the first step in curing our economy and making sure that it is moving on the right track.  And I will not rest until businesses are investing again and businesses are hiring again and people have work again.

September 15, 2009, Jobs

I know that’s small consolation when so many people you know are still out of work.  It’s going to take some time to achieve a complete recovery.  But I want you all to know, I will not rest until anybody who’s looking for a job can find one — and I’m not talking about just any job, but good jobs that give every American decent wages and decent benefits and a fair shot at the American Dream.  (Applause.)  That’s what I’m fighting for every single day.  (Applause.)

August 1, 2009, Jobs

Now, I realize that none of this is much comfort for Americans who are still out of work or struggling to make ends meet.  And when we receive our monthly job report next week, it is likely to show that we are continuing to lose far too many jobs in this country.  As far as I’m concerned, we will not have a recovery as long as we keep losing jobs.  And I won’t rest until every American who wants a job can find one.

May 11, 2009, Lowering Health Care Costs

And that’s why I was committed to health care reform as a presidential candidate; that’s why health care reform is a key priority to this presidency; that’s why I will not rest until the dream of health care reform is finally achieved in the United States of America. And that’s why I’m thrilled to have such a broad, diverse group of individuals from all across the health care spectrum representing every constituency and every political predisposition who feel that same sense of urgency and are committing themselves to work diligently to bring down costs so we can achieve the reforms that we seek.

Evidently creating jobs and saving the economy was not the top priority. So far, everything that this administration has done (and wants to do) has stifled the economy and jobs.

How long does it take before hearing what you want to hear takes a back seat to seeing the results that you want to see?

Politics, Race Relations

Black Activists Condemn NAACP Resolution

Washington, D.C. – As the NAACP plans to use its group’s prestige to bash the tea party movement, members of the Project 21 black leadership network are urging delegates at the NAACP’s national convention not to turn the NAACP into a pawn for progressive political bosses.

“As a frequent speaker at tea party rallies around the country, I can assure the NAACP that the tea party movement’s concerns are about President Obama’s policies and not his race,” said Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli. “I’m deeply concerned that the NAACP is being used as a political tool to do the dirty work of the progressive movement. Instead of criticizing tea parties, the NAACP would be better served denouncing the racist comments made by a member of the New Black Panther Party and their voter intimidation outside a Philadelphia polling place in the last presidential election.”

According to a report in the Kansas City Star, the NAACP, which is conducting its 101st annual convention in that city, will take up a resolution as early as Tuesday to urge “all people of good will to repudiate the racism of Tea Parties, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.”

Kansas City NAACP chapter president Anita Russell said the tea party movement is “really not about limited government.” The resolution reportedly dwells on “explicitly racist behavior” that relies upon anecdotal posters opposing President Obama and allegations of the use of racial epithets by tea party participants.

Project 21’s Borelli added: “I urge the delegates to read the Contract from America – a list of policy objectives for Congress that was developed by tea party members nationwide. These objectives are clearly about limited government and liberty. In fact, the NAACP should be very concerned Obama’s cap-and-trade energy policy will lead to higher energy prices and higher unemployment – particularly among poor and minority households.”

Borelli, who has spoken at tea party events nationwide (including last year’s 912 rally at the U.S. Capitol) is the author of the commentary “Liberals Crash Tea Party, But Stay Silent On Black Panther Hate Talk,” published by FoxNews.com on July 12, 2010.

“Personally, I’m tired of arguing with the ignorant,” said Bob Parks, a Project 21 member who has also participated in tea party events – including the rallies outside the U.S. Capitol the weekend of the House votes on Obamacare. “Al Sharpton recently tried in vain on his radio show to get me to apologize for alleged tea party racism. He tried to get me to apologize for racial epithets hurled at Congressman John Lewis that only Lewis seemed to hear. I would guess neither Al Sharpton nor the overwhelming majority of NAACP members have ever been to a tea party, so they speak from intentional ignorance. While liberals scream racism at the tea parties purely because of their audacity to oppose Obama, it’s the progressives who seem to feel free to use racial epithets against others as they know – as is seen in this instance – that the NAACP turns a blind partisan eye.”

The NAACP’s Russell reportedly is “pretty certain” the anti-tea party resolution will pass.

“Progressives have hijacked the NAACP to the extent that the group stands silent as conservative blacks suffer indignities for their beliefs. Some NAACP even egg on this appalling behavior – providing political cover and lapdog services for these elitists,” said Project 21 member Kevin Martin. “As a conservative black man, I have felt more welcomed and at home within the tea party movement than among those of my own who side with the this new NAACP. If a few random signs of President Obama looking like the Joker is indeed racist, then where was the NAACP when conservative blacks are depicted as lawn jockeys, Oreos and Uncle Toms?”

“The level and depth of ignorance and misrepresentation of truth is unquantifiable,” said Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie, another speaker at tea party events in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Michigan. “The simple truth is that the tea party movement is about smaller government, lower taxes and an adherence to the Constitution. The NAACP is welcome to disagree with the tea parties, but in making that complaint they must be truthful and not fall prey to ignorance and perceived disaffection.”

A $100,000 reward offer made by Andrew Breitbart to anyone who can provide video and audio evidence that racial epithets were shouted at Congressional Black Caucus members by tea party activists on March 20 remains unclaimed months later.

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information about the history of Project 21, visit the Project 21 website.

Energy, Pensacola, Politics

Jimmy Buffet Stuck On Stupid

In an Associated Press interview last Tuesday, Buffet said that it’s perfectly normal for people to be mad when they see oil washing up on beaches and marshes. No argument there. But then he parrots (no pun intended) the tune of the administration, putting the blame on the previous administration.

“To me it was more about eight years of bad policy before (Obama) got there that let this happen. It was Dracula running the blood bank in terms of oil and leases,” he said. “I think that has more to do with it than how the president reacted to it.”

I think that blaming Bush for this is what being stuck on stupid is.

Link: Jimmy Buffet Organizes Gulf Benefit, Blames Bush for Spill.

Media, Politics

Not Blind, Color Blind, Or Transparent

Such is the modus operandi in the administration that, according to candidate-turned President Barack Obama, is not open, not transparent, and not for equal justice but for a non-equal ‘social justice.’

The warnings of what Obama was all about when he was a candidate, which were laughed off as just angry white folk rhetoric, have all come to fruition this past 18 months. And the most egregious examples of this happened this week.

Two biggies that the Obama administration got a pass from the dead media watchdog were the dropping of a case which, by any other color, was nothing short of voter intimidation and a level of a ‘hate crime’ involving a black version of the KKK called the ‘new’ Black Panthers and the appointment of a czar to be in charge of Obamacare.

The Black Panthers were already guilty by default judgement when they failed to appear in court. All that was left was their arrest and sentencing. But AG Eric Holder’s people stepped in and said, nevermind. Case dismissed.

The amount of restraint necessary, if not pure journalistic malpractice, to not make THAT a front page above-the-fold story is both amazing and disgraceful at the same time.

Then, the recess appointing of Donald M. Berwick to administer the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was not done because Republicans would use the filibuster or try to delay him from getting the appointment. On the contrary, Republicans very much wanted to have confirmation hearings in order to hear his testimony on his widely known ideas on the rationing of health care and on the redistribution of wealth to administer health care. Like Obamacare itself, which was put into law by by-passing the normal legislative process, this appointment was made to be anything but open and transparent. But hey, you can’t say we didn’t warn you what Obama was all about.

This is not an argument about ‘all presidents make recess appointments, so this is no different. Republicans are just upset because Obama is black,’ or some such nonsense. At issue here is that the reason for the recess appointment was to keep the people from knowing exactly what Obama and Donald Berwick have in store for us regarding government-run health care.

Republicans, like the rest of America, would want to be assured that there won’t be any rationing (death panel) of health care under Obamacare or any form of government-run health care. Obama knew that having open hearings on his confirmation would bring all that out in the open for even the most fervent of Obama supporters to see.

refrain . . .

The amount of restraint necessary, if not pure journalistic malpractice, to not make THAT a front page above-the-fold story is both amazing and disgraceful at the same time.