Thursday, July 18, 2013

Someone did an experiment to test an old tale -- that a frog placed in a pot of cool water, which is then slowly and continuously heated, will be boiled to death. By contrast, if thrown directly into scalding hot water, the frog jumps out. But it turns out that, no, once the water got hot enough, the critter hopped out of Dodge. 

This raises a question. At what point does the continuous growth and intrusiveness of government make people wake up? This is not just a matter of theory or philosophy. People are hurting -- as a direct result of President Barack Obama, his party, and the inability of the GOP to make the case for a smaller, less expensive and less intrusive government.

For five years, we have watched as President Barack Obama successfully pushed the following "redistributionist" agenda for building an economy: Take from the most productive to stimulate the economy by redistributing money, often with political consideration involved or attached; allow bureaucrats to pick winners and losers in the market; issue feel-good, top-down regulations that cost jobs and do little to improve conditions; and dictate the terms of health care with ObamaCare, a monstrosity that places one-seventh of our economy under the control of the federal government.

The results are in.

This is the worst economic recovery since World War II. Unemployment remains high. So many able-bodied people are dropping out of the labor force that the "labor force participation rate" remains near a 30-year low.

In 1900, government at all three levels took about 10 percent of our income. Today, government takes nearly 50 percent, or twice as much as people say government should. Yet when pollsters ask Americans how much money should government, at all three levels -- state, local and federal -- take from them, their answer has been consistent for decades: 25 percent.

Why, then, aren't politicians in Washington, D.C., cowering under their desks, as angry constituents pound on their doors?

People, in the abstract, talk about freedom and liberty. But government dependency is so widespread that we accept the benefits -- unaware that the costs are much higher than we think.

Nearly half of the federal budget goes to the three major entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. All of these programs address problems that the Constitution never intended.

How do we know? Earlier presidents, citing constitutional reasons, rejected congressional attempts at growing the government.

In 1822, James Monroe, our fifth president, cast his only veto in rejecting an expansion of the Cumberland Road, even through it stood to economically benefit his home state of Virginia.

According to Monroe's biography on the University of Virginia's "Although Monroe personally supported the idea of internal improvements, he balked at the federal government's role in the American System being proposed by Congressmen Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun. They wanted a series of federally financed projects designed to improve and update the nation's roads, bridges, and canals. Monroe worried, however, that federal payments for such internal improvements would expand even further the power of the federal government at the sake of state power. Where would the limits be drawn?"

Economist Walter Williams writes of Presidents James Madison, Franklin Pierce and Grover Cleveland, and how they quoted the Constitution to turn away congressional attempts to spend money because, they argued, the federal government is unauthorized to do so.

Fast forward to ObamaCare and the Supreme Court. Twenty-six states sued over the law, arguing that the individual insurance mandate -- which requires every citizen in the country to purchase health care insurance or face a fine starting in 2014 -- was unconstitutional. But the court, citing Congress' authority to tax, let the mandate stand. In their dissent, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said, "The entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety." Further, they wrote, there is a "mountain of evidence" that the mandate is not a tax. "To say that the individual mandate merely imposes a tax," wrote Scalia, "is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it."

In the end, of course, we get the government we vote for. Given that information gets filtered out through the Axis of Indoctrination -- Hollywood, academia, and media -- how much hope is there that people will wake up?

The smart, the well-connected, and the well-educated will be fine. Their previously depressed stock portfolios have returned, as companies learn to do more with fewer workers. High-end real estate is back, and the top 1 percent has regained the wealth lost during the recession -- and then some.

The very people whom the left says it cares about are hurting. But rest assured, these elites care about them. They just have a strange way of showing it.
Black liberals keep bemoaning the danger to their own teenage sons after the "not guilty" verdict in George Zimmerman's murder trial. To avoid what happened to Trayvon Martin, their boys need only follow this advice: Don't walk up to a stranger and punch him, ground-and-pound him, MMA-style, and repeatedly smash his head against the pavement.

The Justice-for-Trayvon crowd keeps pretending there hasn't been a trial where the evidence overwhelmingly showed that Trayvon committed the first (and only) crime that night by assaulting Zimmerman. Instead, the race agitators are sticking with the original story peddled by the media, back when we had zero facts. To wit, that Zimmerman had stalked a young black child and shot him dead just for being black and wearing a hoodie.

Dozens of these hair-on-fire racism stories are retold in my book, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama. In the golden age of racial demagoguery, they came at a pace of about one a year. Al Sharpton was usually involved.

A normal person would hear some of the more outlandish allegations and think, "I can't believe it!" not meaning, "Wow! What a blockbuster story!" but rather, "I would like to hear the facts because I literally don't believe it." (That was much of America's reaction to the media's claim last year that a neighborhood-watch captain in Florida had hunted down a black teenager and shot him dead just for wearing a hoodie.)

Whenever a much-celebrated claim of racism turned out to be false -- which was almost always -- you'd just stop hearing about it. There would never be a clippable story admitting that the media's harrumphing had been in error: Attention, readers! That story we've been howling about for several months turned out to be a complete fraud.

A little time would pass, and then we'd get an all-new, excited "America is still racist" media campaign. Journalists are incapable of learning that they should get all the facts before launching moral crusades.

As a result, the official record shows: A few hate crimes and some unverified hate crimes with no clear resolution one way or another. As long as the fraudulent hate crimes didn't get counted as strikeouts, liberals always looked like Ted Williams.

Since they didn't keep an accurate batting average, I did it for them in Mugged.

The case most like George Zimmerman's is the Edmund Perry case. In 1985, Perry, a black teenager from Harlem who had just graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy, mugged a guy who turned out to be an undercover cop. He got shot and a few hours later was dead.

Instead of waiting for the facts, the media rushed out with a story about Officer Lee Van Houten being a trigger-happy, racist cop. When that turned out to be false, The New York Times looked at its shoes. It was the kind of story the elites wanted to be true. It should be true. We had such high hopes for that one. Damn!

The initial news accounts stressed not only that Perry was a graduate of Exeter on his way to Stanford, but that he was unarmed. (In all white-on-black shootings, the media expect the white to have RoboCop-like superpowers to detect any weapons on the perp as well as his resume.)

A few weeks after the shooting, The New York Times called Perry "a prized symbol of hope." In a telling bit of obtuseness, The Times said that "all New Yorkers have extraordinary reasons to wish for the innocence of the young man who was killed." I doubt very much that the cop being accused of being a murderous racist hoped for that.

An article in The Village Voice explained: "[L]ike so many other victims in this city," Perry was "just too black for his own good."

Luckily for the policeman, Perry had mugged him in a well-lit hospital parking lot. Twenty-three witnesses backed the officer's story in testimony to the grand jury. (Unlike Zimmerman, Van Houten's case was at least presented to a grand jury.)

As I wrote in "Mugged": "God help Officer Van Houten if he had been mugged someplace other than a hospital parking lot with plenty of witnesses." Such as, for example, a dark pathway in The Retreat at Twin Lakes. There weren't 23 witnesses backing Zimmerman's story, only about a half-dozen. But, as with Van Houten, the evidence overwhelmingly corroborated Zimmerman's story.

In Van Houten's case, even after it was blindingly clear that Perry had mugged him, the truth was only revealed amid great sorrow. When the facts were unknown, the cop was a racist. When it turned out Perry had mugged the cop, it was no one's fault, but a problem of "violence," "confusion" and "two worlds" colliding.

Perhaps, someday, blacks will win the right to be treated like volitional human beings. But not yet.

As with Zimmerman's case this week, some journalists pretended to have missed the court proceedings that supported the self-defense story. Even after the grand jury's refusal to indict Van Houten, Dorothy J. Gaiter of the Miami Herald wrote about Perry in an article titled "To Be Black and Male Is Dangerous in U.S." She asked: "How do you teach a boy to be a man in a society where others may view him as a threat just because he is black?"

Van Houten said he was jumped, knocked to the ground, punched and kicked by Edmund Perry. Grand jury witnesses backed his story. Isn't it possible that Van Houten saw Perry as a threat for reasons other than "just because he is black"?

(And please stop talking about Martin's "hoodie"! Zimmerman wasn't worried about the hoodie; he was worried about being beaten to death.)

Instead of turning every story about a black person killed by a white person into an occasion to announce, "The simple fact is, America is a racist society," liberals might, one time, ask the question: Why do you suppose there would be a generalized fear of young black males? What might that be based on?

Throw us a bone. It's because a disproportionate number of criminals are young black males. It just happens that when Lee Van Houten and George Zimmerman were mugged by two of them, they survived the encounter.

Racism for Profit
By: Diane Sori

Race has become a hot-button issue in our country right now NOT only because of the George Zimmerman case, but primarily thanks to healing racial wounds being deliberately ripped open by race-baiters the likes of Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, Louis Farrakhan, and many other ‘supposed’ black leaders. Racism for profit…be it financial, political, or just for attention, these men are at the forefront of racial hatred and animosity, and they will continue to feed into it as long as the main stream media gives them the opportunity and freedom to do so.

White on black crime…how the media just loves to capitalize on that, running story after story...24- hour a day coverage…coverage on what a racist George Zimmerman is because he killed a ‘sweet innocent black child’ NEVER once telling the truth about Trayvon Martin’s character or antics…NEVER telling the truth about him being a doper, a thug, and possibly even a thief.

Nope…NONE of that was reported on as the myth of the ‘sweet innocent black child’ had to be fed to the public just to stir up racial tensions and revive the old hatreds that most of America had long since put to rest.

And making this even worse is that the main stream media refuses to report on black on white crime…that’s left to conservative online sites and bloggers to do. And black on white crime is rampant especially now as the small but very vocal militant black minority has been stirred up by the media and for what…for a story…for ratings…for profit and NOTHING more. Whites do NOT riot and cause mayhem and destruction when jury verdicts do NOT go their way…that belongs solely to media instigated black mob violence, and that is where said profits arise so that is what will be reported on nonstop.

And let’s NOT forget that while the media beats their fabricated racism issue into the ground with their nonstop coverage of it they are NOT covering the true important issues like the IRS scandal, the AP/FOX reporter scandal, the Eric Snowden/NSA leaks scandal, and most importantly BENGHAZI.  BENGHAZI…the only scandal that can actually take Obama down for treason on grounds of ‘aiding and abetting the enemy’.

NO they will NOT report on this for they count on the many to forget that four brave Americans were left to die by Barack HUSSEIN Obama and because they, the media, is aiding in covering that up.

So like I said it’s up to the conservative online sites and conservative bloggers to get the truth out. And here is some of that truth that the likes of CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, PBS, and the others (like the liberal print media) will NEVER tell you.

The media made and continues to make Trayvon Martin the ’cause celeb’ for white on black crime NO matter that a jury of his peers found George Zimmerman acted in self-defense and therefore found NOT guilty of murder. But the media continues to call this a ‘hate crime’ because they still claim Zimmerman ‘racially profiled’ Martin for murder simply because he was black...something that is absolutely NOT true and proven so by an FBI investigation done immediately after the shooting.

And while the media keeps Trayvon Martin in the limelight there are so many examples of black on white crime that go either under reported or NOT reported on at all, but I’ll just give you just four particularly heinous ones that were swept under the rug for NO other reason than it was a black on white crime…and reporting on that is a no-no in Obamaland.

Where was the media’s reporting on this case beyond a small story being buried in a local newspaper (
is-1613310.php). On Christmas Eve 2010, 12-year-old Jonathan Paul Foster was kidnapped and tortured to death just because he was white (bound and gagged and burnt beyond recognition by a welding torch) by black Mona Yvette Nelson…burned so bad that he had to be ID’d through DNA testing. Where was the report on this…where was this black woman accused of being a racist..where was the outrage…it was NOWHERE.

Where was the media’s reporting and outrage when Georgia police arrested four black men in the March 2012 beating death of white Zachary Gamble, a former US Marine, who had bravely served two tours of duty in Iraq…murdered by blacks playing ‘The Knockout Game’ where the cowardly tactic of ‘sucker-punching’ a victim in the head from behind causes death. Where was the national coverage…where was the indignation…where was the protests…there was NONE as to report this would be considered racist. After all, according to the media we’re supposed to be tolerant of those NOT tolerant of us.

And beyond original reports by a few media outlets where was the nonstop coverage and outrage when 17-year old black teen De’Marquise Elkins (the same age as Trayvon Martin but being charged as an adult…one is a ‘sweet innocent child’ the other is being charged as an adult yet both are the same age) nonchalantly walked over to a stroller being pushed by his mom and point blank shot 13-month old white Antonio West in the face after
demanding money from his white mother Sherry West…there has been none, and the race of the suspect has been played down in all reports after the initial reporting.

And where was the media outrage and coverage when in May 2007, a white couple was carjacked, tortured, raped, and murdered by a group of black men. According to the medical examiner, Christopher Newsom was gang-raped, shot, mutilated, and set on fire. The murderers made his girlfriend Channon Christian watch, and then they gang-raped and abused her, and after pouring bleach all over her and down her throat to cover up their crimes and remove their DNA, they wrapped her up in plastic garbage bags and left her to suffocate slowly and painfully. And where were the reports and the outrage and the nonstop coverage…again NONE as the media left this story to just fade away.

And for those who have a stomach for it, click on this link and you will be taken to a list from 2008 alone of black-on-white-crimes NEVER reported on by the media:

And all this slanted journalism basically started when Barack HUSSEIN Obama first ran for president…the media who created the anointed ‘savior’ of us all could under NO circumstances report on anything that could possibly taint the candidacy of America’s hopefully first black president.

NO matter that statistics show that blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery. NO matter that blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks…forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. NO matter that when whites commit violent crime only three percent of their victims are black.

NONE of this matters to the Obama controlled media…all that matters is that political correctness rules…all that matters to race-baiters like Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his minions is that all whites are racist..all whites are out to kill ‘innocent’ black men and black children.

And the biggest losers in this game of Obama controlled media subterfuge is the 99% of black Americans who want NO part of this sham but are powerless against the small but vocal militant black minority…and that is the saddest thing of all.