Tag Archives: blacks

Obama's Useful Idiots are less happy than 2 years ago

elections have consequences
Useful idiots (df): Supporters for a cause whose goals they do not understand, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.
Racial “minorities” and young people were among the biggest supporters and voters for President Lucy. But a recent survey found that those groups are the least happy of Americans.
A Harris Poll of 2,345 U.S. adults surveyed online April 10-15 by Harris Interactive found that only a third of U.S. adults say they are very happy. Certain groups, such as minorities, recent graduates and the disabled, show particularly pronounced declines in the past two years.
The Harris Happiness Index is calculated by asking Americans if they agree or disagree with a list of statements, some positive and others negative. Those who say they strongly agree with all of the positive statements, such as “my relationships with friends bring me happiness”, ” I rarely worry about my health” and “at this time, I’m generally happy with my life”, and strongly disagree with all of the negative ones, such as “I frequently worry about my financial situation” and “I rarely engage in hobbies and pastimes I enjoy,” are considered very happy.
Among the survey’s findings:

  • Minorities show particularly pronounced declines in happiness in the two years since the Happiness Index was last measured, with especially low happiness levels observed among the Hispanic American population. Fewer than 3 in 10 Hispanics (28%) are very happy — a decline from 2011’s 35%.
  • African-Americans appear to be less happy than in 2011, with 36% qualifying as very happy – down from 44% in 2011. However, though happiness is down among them, they remain roughly as happy as whites (34%).
  • Among Americans with disabilities, the percentage of those very happy has dropped from 34% to 31%.
  • College graduates’ likelihood to qualify as very happy has dropped since 2011 (from 35% to 32%), a possible casualty of a challenged job market and increasing questions of whether a college degree in this day and age is returning on the time and monetary investment.
  • Americans earning under $50,000 per year are also less likely to qualify as very happy than in 2011 (from 33% to 29% among those earning <$35,000; from 35% to 32% among those earning between $35,000-$49,999).
  • Younger Americans are less happy: Those 50 and older (36% ages 50-64, 41% ages 65+) are more likely to be very happy than their younger counterparts (31% ages 18-24, 30% ages 25-29, 28% ages 30-39, 30% ages 40-49).

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Why Obama Will Win in 2012?

This essay is being circulated via e-mail. It is mistakenly attributed to conservative black economist Dr Walter Williams. But he did not write it.
The essay originated in April 2011 but is no less descriptive now. What the anonymous real author has to say is credible — and depressing. Our only hope is if the key Dem demographic groups not turn out to vote in the large numbers they did in 2008.
Note: In republishing this essay, I’ve done some tweaking and editing. Feel free to circulate the essay, but please, don’t attribute it to Dr. Williams!
H/t my dear friend Sol.
~Eowyn

Amerika in 2016

Why Obama can not lose the 2012 election

by Anonymous

Can President Obama be defeated in 2012?
No.
He can’t.
I am going on record as saying that President Barak Obama will win a second term.
The media won’t tell you this because a good election campaign means hundreds of millions (or in Obama’s case billions) of dollars to them in advertising.
But the truth is, there simply are no conditions under which Barak Obama can be defeated in 2012. The quality of the Republican candidate doesn’t matter. (Though the quality of the voters DOES matter!)

Obama gets reelected. Nine percent unemployment? No problem. Obama will win. Gas prices moving toward five dollars a gallon? He still wins. The economy soars or goes into the gutter. Obama wins. War in the Middle East? He wins a second term.
America’s role as the leading Superpower disappears? Hurrah for Barack Obama! The U.S. government rushes toward bankruptcy, the dollar continues to sink on world markets and the price of daily goods and services soars due to inflation fueled by Obama’s extraordinary deficit spending? Obama wins handily.
You are crazy. Don’t you understand how volatile politics can be when overall economic, government, and world conditions are declining? Sure I do.
And that’s why I know Obama will win. The American people are notoriously ignorant of economics. And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated.
Even when Obama’s policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics Obama and his supporters in the media will use to explain why it isn’t his fault. After all, things were much worse than understood when he took office.
Obama’s reelection is really a very, very simple math problem. Consider the following:
1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly. Period. Doesn’t matter what he does. It’s a race thing. He’s one of us.
2) College educated women will vote for Obama. Though they will be offended by this, they swoon at his oratory. It’s really not more complex than that.
3) Liberals will vote for Obama. He is still their great hope.
4) Democrats will vote for Obama. He is the leader of their party and his coat tails will carry them to victory nationwide.
5) Hispanics will vote for Obama. He is the path to citizenship for those who are illegal and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party.
6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. He is their key to money and power in business, state and local politics.
7) Big Business will support Obama. They already have. He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more everyday. Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda.
8) The media love him. They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him. After all, to not love him would be racist.
9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him. Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him because they won’t vote Republican. American Indians will support him. Obviously homosexuals tend to vote Democratic.
10) Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama. And he doesn’t need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups previously mentioned. And lastly….
11) There is one last group, and it’s a huge group. The group overlaps with some of the groups listed above. What’s this last group? I’ll call this group The Parasites. They are the nearly one-half (43% at last count) of all U.S. adults who do not pay any federal taxes, most of whom receive money from the government. These people will vote for Obama because they will not do anything that might jeopardize the flow of taxpayer dollars to themselves.
Obama will win an overwhelming victory in 2012.

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Fatherless Boys More Prone to Delinquency


America is in a slow-motion cultural suicide.
Did you know that we have the dubious distinction of ranking high among the world’s countries in the percentage of single-parent households?
A recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that, of the 27 industrialized countries studied, the United States had 25.8% of children being raised by a single parent, compared with an average of 14.9% across the other countries.
That means more than 1 in 4 children in America is being raised by a single parent. The figure is even higher among Blacks: Nearly 3 out of 4, 72%, of Black children are raised in a single parent household.
In 2009, Native Americans ranked next highest in the % of children in single-parent households, at 53%; followed by Hispanics/Latinos at 40%; non-Hispanic whites at 24%; and Asians and Pacific Islanders at 16%.
Most of the single-parent families are single-mother households. The number of children in single-mother families has risen dramatically in the United States over the past four decades. Single-mother families are defined as families headed by a female with no spouse present—living with one or more own, never-married children under age 18.
In 2009, there were about 18.1 million children in the United States living in single-mother families. Single-mother families are a subset of female-headed families, which include mother-child families as well as children in the care of grandparents or other relatives. In 2009, there were 19.6 million U.S. children residing in female-headed families, i.e., households with no fathers.
Researchers have identified the rise in single-parent families (especially mother-child families) as a major factor driving the long-term increase in child poverty in the United States. The effects of growing up in single-parent households have been shown to go beyond economics, increasing the risk of children dropping out of school, disconnecting from the labor force, and becoming teen parents. Although many children growing up in single-parent families succeed, others will face significant challenges in making the transition to adulthood. Children in lower-income, single-parent families face the most significant barriers to success in school and the work force.
Now, using U.S. data, an Australian study has found that fatherless boys are more prone to delinquency.
Thaddeus Baklinski reports for LifeSiteNews, Dec. 12, 2011, that a study carried out by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne has found that adolescent boys who have a father figure in their lives are significantly less likely to engage in subsequent delinquent behavior than are their peers with no father in their lives.
Unlike previous studies this research examined the full range of father figure roles and modern family structures. The study used American data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Three factors were studied in the role of fathers influencing youth delinquency: parental involvement and interaction, contribution to household income and engagement with a father figure by simply being present at home.
Professor Deborah Cobb-Clark, Director of the Melbourne Institute and lead author of the study, explains:
“The sense of security generated by the presence of a male role model in a youth’s life has protective effects for a child, regardless of the degree of interaction between the child and father. Fathers provide children with male role models and can influence children’s preferences, values and attitudes, while giving them a sense of security and boosting their self-esteem. They also increase the degree of adult supervision at home, which may lead to a direct reduction of delinquent behaviour.
Our study included residential and non-residential, biological fathers and residential stepfathers and their influence on adolescent behaviours. Our detailed data also allowed us to simultaneously consider mothers’ relationships with their children as well as the multiple pathways through which fathers might matter.”
The study found that any form of delinquent behavior was reduced by 7.6 percentage points for boys who were living with their biological fathers, and 5 percentage points for those living with non-biological fathers only.
“Fathers are associated with a particularly large reduction in the incidence of violent behavior and gang fighting among adolescent boys,” the study notes.
The researchers also say that while increased involvement with their sons is related to decreased incidence of delinquency, the largest portion of the positive effects appear to be related to the mere presence of a father figure, regardless of the level of involvement.
“Overall, when taken together our results strongly suggest that much of the overall (baseline) impact of fathers on their adolescent sons’ delinquent behavior reflects the effect of fathers’ presence rather than their involvement with their sons or the financial contribution they make to household income,” they write.
The researchers found, on the other hand, that the presence of a father figure did not have a major impact on the levels of delinquency amongst daughters. “Adolescent girls’ behaviours are less closely linked to this, which may be attributed to the inherent levels of risk-taking that vary between males and females,” Professor Cobb-Clark concluded.
The full pdf text of the study titled, “Fathers and Youths’ Delinquent Behaviour” is available here.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

White Liberals Want Herman Cain to Stay on the Plantation

October 13, 2011

White liberals say they're pro-blacks but approve of only one of the above. Why's that?

Arrogant white liberal tells Herman Cain how to be black

By Lloyd Marcus – Renew America – Oct 13, 2011
This article is for my black brother, a community leader and little league football coach who gets his news solely from the liberal mainstream media. Hopefully it will help him to understand why I, his big brother, is working with those white tea party people against his beloved black president.
This article is also for my black relatives who gave me a chilly reception at my grandmother’s 100th birthday party. I learned through the family grapevine they resent my involvement in the tea party and consider me an embarrassment to the family.
Well, I say to my embarrassed relatives, blame my instincts on the mentoring and leadership of my dad. My dad has been a Christian man of character and honor all of my life. So, when I see a characterless liberal political hack occupying my beloved country’s Oval Office, I refuse to join the flock of black sheep worshiping him because we share the same skin color.
To my relatives who have thrown their Christian values, principles and brains out of the window to give their black idol a pass, you guys are the ones who should be ashamed of yourselves. Marcus family tradition has drilled into us that it means something to be a Marcus; an adherence to a higher standard. YOUR SELLOUT TO SKIN COLOR EMBARRASSES ME! If you detect a bit of anger, you are correct.
Watching MSNBC white host Lawrence O’Donnell chastising black presidential candidate Herman Cain for not participating in the 1960s civil rights movement infuriated me. O’Donnell accused Cain of cowardly sitting on the sidelines while blacks and whites marched and protested for black civil rights. How dare this white guy who does not have a clue what it was like to be black in America in the 1960s attack a black person for not responding to racism the way he thinks he should have responded.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wmpBXFJLqw&feature=related]
In the 60’s, most blacks did not march or protest in the streets, but fought for freedom in their own private ways; entrepreneurship, prayer, striving for excellence and etc. A black buddy of mine who went from being incarcerated as a teenager to becoming an art director in a prominent advertising agency attributes his success to a black high school art teacher, Lindy Jordan. Mr. Jordan mentored so many black youths, a scholarship was founded in his honor. Mr. Jordan was never seen in the streets protesting for civil rights. I submit that Mr. Jordan fought for black liberation and equality in the best way he knew how to fight; by mentoring black youths.
But, leave it to this probably former hippie spoiled brat white boy, O’Donnell, to think all blacks who did not march in the streets must have been Uncle Toms. O’Donnell’s liberal arrogance is off the chain. In my opinion Lawrence O’Donnell owes Mr. Jordan and other black American civil rights pioneers an apology.
O’Donnell is yet another white racist arrogant liberal attempting to dictate what is and is not acceptable black behavior. White liberal actress Janeane Garofalo displayed the same racist arrogance when she proclaimed black Republicans Michael Steele and Herman Cain to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
LISTEN UP, O’Donnell, Garofalo and all you other pompous liberal plantation slave massas. By the Grace of God, we black Americans are FREE; free to be successful entrepreneurs such as Herman Cain and countless other blacks rather than government dependent welfare recipients.
We blacks are free to live outside of your liberal stereotypical dictates. I prefer sushi over fried chicken. Does that make me “less” black? Probably yes, in the minds of arrogant liberal racists. How dare white liberals appoint themselves authorized to dictate what is and is not authentic black behavior.
O’Donnell followed up his program in which he spanked Cain for not being black enough with analysis from liberal plantation black overseer, Rev. Al Sharpton. As expected, Sharpton further trashed Cain.
Based on Sharpton’s betrayal of black America and his racially divisive and evil Tawana Brawley scandal, Al Sharpton is not even worthy to shine Herman Cain’s shoes. And yet, this is the guy the left has appointed “spokesperson” for black America; again confirming their arrogance. Herman Cain’s story is one of inspiration, courage and honor which epitomizes the American Dream.
If these paragons of tolerance and compassion on the left such as O’Donnell and Sharpton truly gave a d — about black America, they would herald Herman Cain as a hero. They would celebrate Cain as a shining example for black youths, illustrating the limitless success which can be achieved via education, hard work and character.
Sadly, inspiring black youths to pursue their dreams is NOT the intention of O’Donnell, Sharpton and the left. Their intention is to create another generation of Americans dependent on big government for survival. With Obama leading the campaign, they seek to create dumbed down Democrat voters who view themselves as victims and hate everything which has made America great; including capitalism and individual freedom.
O’Donnell’s question to Cain about his lack of involvement is the 1960’s civil rights movement was to portray him as an Uncle Tom. It was despicable. So, every time I hear these creeps on the left pontificate about their compassion for blacks, it turns my stomach.
The left views and values blacks only as pawns in their quest to portray America as the greatest source of evil in the world. The left deems happy America loving blacks who have achieved success via traditional routes such as education and hard work to be “paradigm breakers” and MUST be destroyed.
So, please forgive my lack of respect for my white “would be” liberal slave massas and their traitorous black overseers. These people are evil and must be defeated.
~Posted by Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Children Make Up Record Low % of US Population

Even with the inflooding of illegal aliens — who have a higher fertility rate than resident Americans — the share of children in the U.S. is at a record low.
This has implications for the future. For one, how will a shrinking work force support an expanding elderly population with their Social Security checks and Medicare coverage, when the government is already straining to cut spending for health care, pensions and much else.
For another, there is a racial component in fertility rates. Simply put, whites are not reproducing. Already, white kids are now the numerical minority in some counties in the United States.

Hope Yen reports for the Associated Press, July 12, 2011, that the latest 2010 census data show that children of immigrants make up one in four people under 18, and are now the fastest-growing segment of the nation’s youth, an indication that both legal and illegal immigrants as well as minority births are lifting the nation’s population.

But the share of children in the U.S. is falling from the previous low of 26% in 1990 to the current 24%. The share is projected to slip further, to 23% by 2050, even as the percentage of people 65 and older is expected to jump from 13% today to roughly 20% by 2050 due to the aging of baby boomers and beyond.

In 1900, the share of children reached as high as 40%, whereas the share of seniors 65 and older was only 4%. The percentage of children in subsequent decades held above 30% until 1980, when it fell to 28% amid declining birth rates, mostly among whites.

“There are important implications for the future of the U.S. because the increasing costs of providing for an older population may reduce the public resources that go to children,” said William P. O’Hare, a senior consultant with the Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation, a children’s advocacy group.

Pointing to signs that many children are already struggling, O’Hare added: “These raise urgent questions about whether today’s children will have the resources they need to help care for America’s growing elderly population.”

The numbers are largely based on an analysis by the Population Reference Bureau, a nonprofit research group in Washington that studies global and U.S. trends. In some cases, the data were supplemented with additional census projections on U.S. growth from 2010-2050 as well as figures compiled by the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Kids Count project.

Nationwide, the number of children has grown by 1.9 million, or 2.6%, since 2000. That represents a drop-off from the previous decade, when even higher rates of immigration by Latinos — who are more likely than some other ethnic groups to have large families — helped increase the number of children by 8.7 million, or 13.7%.

The slowing population growth in the U.S. mirrors to a lesser extent the situation in other developed nations, including Russia, Japan and France which are seeing reduced growth or population losses due to declining birth rates and limited immigration. The combined population of more-developed countries other than the U.S. is projected to decline beginning in 2016, raising the prospect of prolonged budget crises as the number of working-age citizens diminish, pension costs rise and tax revenues fall.

Japan, France, Germany and Canada each have lower shares of children under age 15, ranging between 13% in Japan and 17% in Canada, while nations in Africa and the Middle East have some of the largest shares, including 50% in Niger and 46% in Afghanistan, according to figures from the United Nations Population Division.

In the U.S., the share of children under 15 is 20%.

Depending on future rates of immigration, the U.S. population is estimated to continue growing through at least 2050. In a hypothetical situation in which all immigration — both legal and illegal — immediately stopped, the U.S. could lose population beginning in 2048, according to the latest census projections.

Since 2000, the increase for children in the U.S. — 1.9 million — has been due to racial and ethnic minorities. Currently, 54% of the nation’s children are non-Hispanic white, compared to 23% Hispanic, 14% black, and 4% Asian.

Over the past decade, the number of non-Hispanic white children declined 10% to 39.7 million, while the number of minority children rose 22% to 34.5 million. Hispanics, as well as Asians, Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders and multiracial children represented all of the growth. The number of black and American Indian children declined.

In nearly one of five U.S. counties, minority children already outnumber white children. “The ‘minority youth bulge’ is being driven primarily by children in immigrant families,” said Mark Mather, associate vice president of the Population Reference Bureau who co-wrote a report released Tuesday on the subject. “They are transforming America’s schools, and in a generation they will transform the racial-ethnic composition of the U.S. work force.”

Census Bureau: www.census.gov

Population Reference Bureau: https://www.prb.org/

Kids Count: www.kidscount.org

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Scientists Discover Antibiotics-Resistant Gonorrhea Superbug

An electron micrograph of the bacteria that causes gonorrhea.

Kate Kelland of Reuters reports, July 11, 2011, that scientists have found a “superbug” strain of gonorrhea in Japan that is extremely resistant to all cephalosporin-class antibiotics — the last remaining drugs still effective in treating gonorrhea.

A “superbug” is a bacteria that has mutated and become resistant to multiple classes of antibiotics.

The World Health Organization estimates there are at least 340 million new cases of curable sexually transmitted infections — including syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia and trichomoniasis — every year among people aged 15 to 49.

But the new strain of the sexually transmitted gonorrhea — called H041 — cannot be killed by any currently recommended treatments for gonorrhea, leaving doctors with no other option than to try medicines so far untested against the disease.

Magnus Unemo of the Swedish Reference Laboratory for Pathogenic Neisseria, who discovered the strain with colleagues from Japan in samples from Kyoto, described it as both “alarming” and “predictable.” He said, “Since antibiotics became the standard treatment for gonorrhea in the 1940s, this bacterium has shown a remarkable capacity to develop resistance mechanisms to all drugs introduced to control it. Japan has historically been the place for the first emergence and subsequent global spread of different types of resistance in gonorrhea.”

Gonorrhea is a bacterial sexually transmitted infection and if left untreated can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), ectopic pregnancy and infertility in women.

It is one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases in the world and is most prevalent in south and southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. In the United States alone, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the number of cases is estimated at around 700,000 a year.

Experts say the best way to reduce the risk of even greater resistance developing — beyond the urgent need to develop effective new drugs — is to treat gonorrhea with combinations of two or more types of antibiotic at the same time. This technique is used in the treatment of some other diseases like tuberculosis in an attempt to make it more difficult for the bacteria to learn how to conquer the drugs.

Unemo said however that experience from previous degrees of resistance acquired by gonorrhea suggested this new multi-drug resistant strain could spread around the world within decades. “Based on the historical data … resistance has emerged and spread internationally within 10 to 20 years,” he said, which means this new “superbug” gonorrhea can transform a once easily treatable infection into a global public health threat.

H/t beloved fellow Anon.

Here’s some data I found on gonorrhea from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

What is gonorrhea?: Gonorrhea is a sexually transmitted disease and the second most commonly reported notifiable disease in the United States. Infections due to Neisseria gonorrhoeae, like those resulting from C. trachomatis, are a major cause of PID (pelvic inflammatory disease) in the United States. PID can lead to serious outcomes in women, such as tubal infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pelvic pain. In addition, epidemiologic and biologic studies provide strong evidence that gonococcal infections facilitate the transmission of HIV infection.

Incidence: In 2009, a total of 301,174 cases of gonorrhea were reported in the United States, a rate of 99.1 cases per 100,000 population.

  • By region: In 2009, as in previous years, the South had the highest gonorrhea rate (133.2 cases per 100,000 population) among the four regions of the country, and rates in the South and Midwest remained higher than rates in the Northeast and West.
  • By gender: Before 1996, gonorrhea rates among men were higher than rates among women. Since that time, rates have been similar among women and men, but during the past 3 years, an increasing trend shows slightly higher rates among women (Figure 15). In 2009, the gonorrhea rate was 105.5 cases per 100,000 population among women and 91.9 among men.
  • By age: In 2009, gonorrhea rates continued to be highest among adolescents and young adults. In 2009, women aged 15–19 and 20–24 years had the highest rates of gonorrhea (568.8 and 555.3, respectively). Among men, the rate was highest among those aged 20–24 years (407.5).
  • By race: In 2009, gonorrhea rates remained highest among blacks (556.4 cases per 100,000 population) (Figure 22, Table 21B). Similar to recent years, the rate among blacks was 20.5 times higher than the rate among whites (27.2). Gonorrhea rates were 4.2 times higher among American Indians/Alaska Natives (113.3) and 2.2 times higher among Hispanics (58.6) than among whites in 2009. Rates among whites were 1.5 times higher than those among Asians/Pacific Islanders (18.1) in 2009.
  • Increasing among gay men: Due to an increase in unsafe sex, male rectal gonorrhea incidence increased from 1994 through 1997, from 21 to 38 per 100,000 adult men (Figure_1). This increase in incidence was observed in all racial/ethnic and age groups but was highest among men aged 25-34 years (from 41 to 83 cases per 100,000 men aged 25-34 years, pless than 0.01).

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Whites Haven't Suffered Enough to be Victims of Racism

Merriam-Webster defines “racism” as:

  1. A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
  2. Racial prejudice or discrimination.

My lawyer-writer friend, Glenn, sent me this article with his very apt comment:

I have stopped responding to charges of “racism” because I don’t know what the word means. I’m reminded of this excerpt from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”

~Eowyn

Why is this man still in office?



HOLDER: Whites Can’t Be Victims of Racial Injustice Because They Haven’t Suffered Enough
By Johnathon Burns – Big Journalism – March 2, 2011
Or, The Continuing Media Narrative of ‘Acceptable’ Racism.
Dr. King once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Apparently, US Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t get the memo.
As reported and applauded by Politico, Holder announced Tuesday that he was fed up with listening to whining whites who claim the justice department deliberately blocks investigations of black on white racism. Predictably, the Establishment media sides with Holder.
“Think about that,” Holder said. “When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia, which was inappropriate .. .to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people,” said Holder, who is black.
Holder noted that his late sister-in-law, Vivian Malone Jones, helped integrate the University of Alabama. “To compare that kind of courage, that kind of action, to say some Black Panther incident is of greater concern to us, historically, I think just flies in the face of history,” Holder said with evident exasperation.”
So the obvious takeaway from this is that some racism is worse than others. Some racist injustice is worthy of prosecution, other racism is not. Apparently, whites simply haven’t suffered enough. They don’t deserve legal protection. So, any injustices committed against white people should be swept under the rug. It’s not worth Eric Holder’s time.
One might be shocked by the statements. One might even wonder why the media chooses not to attack Holder for his patently racist statements. After all, were a white man to suggest this, his career would be over in a hail of media machine-gun fire. Reporters would fall over themselves to attack him, and his family would be ruthlessly attacked in the community. His kids would have to stay home from school (assuming their teachers weren’t on strike, anyway), and he’d get hate mail and death threats for decades.
But the Establishment Media’s lack of moral indignation isn’t surprising. In America, it’s blasphemous to even suggest that whites could be victims of racial injustice.
Whites are the permanent “oppressors” in the mainstream media narrative, while all other races are the permanent “victims.” In fact, “white” and “oppressor” are essentially synonymous — meaning: whites are the bad guys. All whites have been lumped together and typecast in a bad reality TV show. Because whites as a group do not have clean hands, therefore, they are denied the right of seeking justice.
If that isn’t stereotyping, I don’t know what is.
The larger issue, of course, is that “whites as racists” constitutes the fundamental lens through which Holder views issues in America. During the healthcare debate, Holder likened opposition of Obamacare to opposition to civil rights. Not civil rights in the sense that, “all Americans share civil rights,” mind you, but “Civil Rights” as in the struggle for black legal equality in America during the 40’s-60’s. Translation: those who oppose Obamacare are racists. Such language is naked race-baiting and scapegoating. But Holder doesn’t care. Whites are the bad guy bogeymen, trotted out when it gets tough to pass legislation. And his recent comments reveal his paradigm: white Americans are generally racist and any time they oppose any Obama policy or “injustice” at the hands of a racist group, they’re either being racists or they’re simply not entitled to equal protection because they haven’t suffered as much as other groups.
Nobody is seeking to belittle the suffering of other people, here, but America seeks equality. This means equal protection under the law, not equality in historical racial suffering.
Holder’s statements are completely sadistic, and they betray his motives. He has a score to settle, and by his figure whites have a lot more suffering to endure before they have a right to expect justice from the “Justice Department.” Satisfying vendettas is for Mob Bosses, not the US Attorney General’s Office.
The Establishment media’s silence regarding his racist statements demonstrates agreement and approval. Such hypocrisy. Such shame. Such racism.

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

New Trend: Flash Mob Robbery

Flash mob” is a term coined in 2003 to denote a group of people, organized via social networking, who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual and sometimes seemingly pointless act for a brief time, then disperse, often for the purposes of entertainment and/or satire.
An utterly charming flash mob was this one in Belgium’s Antwerp train station – a sheer delight:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQLCZOG202k]
The flash mob phenomenon has now degenerated into flash mob robbery of convenience and gas station stores across America. Here’s surveillance camera footage of one such robbery in 2009 in Stockton, California:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1KqSiRKS7Q]
As reported by the Daily Mail, in St. Paul last Saturday, Feb. 19, 2011, up to 50 young people swarmed a Holiday store stealing juice, candy, soda, and every other type of junk food they could grab. The incident was caught on security cameras, which showed the robbers – most of them apparently teenagers – racing through the store and grabbing armfuls of whatever was in reach. The outnumbered clerks could only stand by helplessly and watch as the mob fled, scattering in all directions.

It’s not the first time that mob tactics have been used in a robbery in the area. Four months earlier, a BP petrol station was attacked in much the same way. Then, some 20 young people stormed the store, grabbing goods as they went. One assaulted the clerk on the way out, punching him several times in the face. That time, police used surveillance video to charge several teenagers with offences ranging from first-degree aggravated robbery to rioting and theft.
St Paul police spokesman Andy Skoogman said the so-called ‘mob robberies’ were still ‘far from a trend’. But he did admit they were ‘concerning’. ‘From our two cases, it’s a quick hit,’ he said. ‘They run in quickly, grab things, and run out.’ He urged store clerks and witnesses not to intervene if their shop should be attacked in the same way. ‘We want store employees to be witnesses to shoplifting, not victims of assault,’ he said.
To see the CCTV video of the St. Paul mob robbering, go to the Daily Mail article HERE.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

TV Reporters Attacked by Mob in California

It’s open season on news reporters.
U.S. media people, most notably CBS reporter Lara Logan, were attacked by Egyptian mobs in Cairo. Now the violence is here.
A news crew from Sacramento, California’s Fox station KTXL was attacked and beaten on Sunday. The crew included a male reporter and a female videographer. Both were repeatedly struck, with the woman being pulled to the ground by her hair and kicked in the face. They were trying to cover reaction to a recent murder.
Go HERE to see two videos taken by TV stations. Here’s a video I found on YouTube apparently taken by a bystander:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfYoJnlVxMM]
Fox 40 and the reporter explain:

“This is one of the hazards of the business but we didn’t expect what we encountered here today,” said reporter John Lobertini.
Early this morning, a man who friends identify as 27-year-old Chester Jackson was shot and killed in a parking lot outside an IHOP in the 2900 block of Advantage Way. Sacramento Police say it started as a fight inside the restaurant.
Friends and family gathered at the scene Sunday and set up a memorial with candles and balloons.
When FOX40 reporter John Lobertini and photojournalist Rebecca Little approached around 4 p.m.  to see if anyone wanted to talk about what happened, they were attacked.
Several people pulled Little to the ground by her hair and kicked her in the face. “When I fell on the ground I was protecting myself, and then she kicked me and I was still kinda paralyzed, and I hear my reporter John say, ‘get up, get up,’” said Little.
Lobertini was also attacked. “I was punched on the side of my face,” said Lobertini, “but it was a situation where I was trying to fight off 6 or 7 or 8 people, I can’t even count them.”

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

White Americans Abandon Democratic Party

In the 2010 midterm elections, a trend that’s been happening for some time now accelerated.
There is a growing gap between how whites and non-whites vote, and among white voters, between the working class and the college-educated, between men and women, between the older and the young, and between the heartland and the coasts.
In each contrasting pair, the latter group (college-educated, women, young, coasts) is mainly Democratic, pro-Obama and pro-big government, whereas the former group (working class, men, older, heartland) is abandoning the Democratic Party, increasingly skeptical of government as the solution, and turning conservative.
It is now clear that the Democratic Party of old is no more. The party’s new base is a coalition forged of non-whites, and white women, college-educated, young, and coastal. Conservatives won on November 2 because typically there’s a low voter-turnout among non-whites and young people in mid-term elections. The bad news is that America’s demographic trend is on the side of the Democratic Party’s new coalition, due to legal and illegal immigration, as well as the leftwing propaganda that is fed to college students. 
This is sobering news, with troubling implications for race, class, and gender relations. America’s politics will get even nastier.
~Eowyn

Here are excerpts from Ronald Brownstein‘s White Flight,” National Journal, January 7, 2011:

By any standard, white voters’ rejection of Democrats in November’s elections was daunting and even historic.
Fully 60% of whites nationwide backed Republican candidates for the House of Representatives; only 37% supported Democrats, according to the National Election Poll exit poll conducted by Edison Research. Not even in Republicans’ 1994 congressional landslide did they win that high a percentage of the white vote.
Moreover, those results may understate the extent of the white flight from the Democratic Party, according to a National Journal analysis of previously unpublished exit-poll data provided by Edison Research.
The new data show that white voters not only strongly preferred Republican House and Senate candidates but also registered deep disappointment with President Obama’s performance, hostility toward the cornerstones of the current Democratic agenda, and widespread skepticism about the expansive role for Washington embedded in the party’s priorities. On each of those questions, minority voters expressed almost exactly the opposite view from whites.
…These results, however, could carry profound implications for 2012. They suggest that economic recovery alone may not solve the president’s problems with many of the white voters who stampeded toward the Republican Party last year. “It comes down to that those voters are very skeptical of the expansion of government,” says Colorado Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams, a veteran strategist. “The voters who went with Obama in 2008 did not know what they were going to get with that vote. Now that they’ve seen the health care bill, the stimulus bill, the bailout, the cap-and-trade proposal—issue after issue, they don’t like what they see.”
That resistance could, in turn, increase the pressure on Obama to accelerate the generation-long transformation of the Democratic electoral coalition that he pushed forward in 2008. With so much of the white electorate, especially working-class whites, dubious about the president’s direction, to win a second term he will likely need to increase turnout and improve his showing among the groups that keyed his 2008 victory—minorities, young people, and white-collar white voters, especially women….
THE NEW COLOR LINE
After Election Day, several media outlets released exit-poll data breaking down the contrasting level of support among white and minority voters for Republican and Democratic congressional candidates. But they did not publish results that separated by race the responses to questions that measured attitudes about Obama’s performance, the state of the economy, the national agenda, and the way voters described their own ideology. It was those additional race-specific results that National Journal recently purchased from Edison Research, the organization that conducts the exit surveys…. From every angle, the exit-poll results reveal a new color line: a consistent chasm between the attitudes of whites and minorities. The gap begins with preferences in the election.
After two years of a punishing recession, minority support for House Democrats sagged in this election to the lowest level recorded by exit polls in the past two decades, according to calculations that Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, provided to National Journal. The Hispanic vote for Democrats in House races slipped to 60%, compared with about two-thirds for Obama in 2008 (although some Hispanic analysts say that other data indicate a better showing for Democrats last year). But even so, a solid 73% of all nonwhite voters—African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and others—backed Democratic House candidates in the midterm election, according to the new analysis.
Meanwhile, Republicans, with their 60% showing, notched the party’s best congressional result among white voters in the history of modern polling. Media exit polls conducted by Edison Research and its predecessors have been tracking congressional elections for about three decades. In no previous exit poll had Republicans reached 60% of the white vote in House races….
November’s gap between the voting preferences of whites and minorities was at the wider end of the range over the past two decades but it wasn’t the absolute widest. More striking was the disparity between the two groups’ views on other questions with implications for the 2012 election.
First among those was Obama’s performance. Exactly 75% of minority voters said they approved; only 22% said they disapproved. Among white voters, just 35% approved of the president’s performance, while 65% disapproved; a head-turning 49% of whites said they strongly disapproved. (Those whites voted Republican last fall by a ratio of 18-to-1.)
The racial gulf was similar when voters were asked whether they believed that Obama’s policies would help the nation in the long run. By 70% to 22%, minorities said yes; by 61% to 34%, whites said no…. The vast majority of minority voters said they wanted lawmakers to expand the health care law (54%) or maintain it in its current form (16%), while only 24% said they wanted Congress to repeal it. Among white voters, the sentiments were almost inverted: 56% said that lawmakers should repeal the law, while much smaller groups wanted them to expand it (23%) or leave it alone (just 16%).
The gap was also wide in attitudes about two fundamental tenets. Minorities were almost exactly twice as likely as whites to say that life would be better for the next generation than for their own; whites were considerably more likely to say that it would be more difficult. And on a question measuring bedrock beliefs about the role of government, the two racial groups again registered almost mirror-image preferences. 60% of minorities said that government should be doing more to solve problems; 63% of whites said that government is doing too many things that would be better left to businesses and individuals….
SLIVERS OF SUPPORT
Measured both geographically and demographically, these new exit-poll results show that Democrats maintained openings in only slivers of the white electorate. In House elections, the bottom fell out for Democrats in both the South (where they won just 24% of whites) and the Midwest (37%). The party remained relatively more competitive along the coasts, capturing 46% of white voters in the East and 43% in the West….
Democrats have been losing support among blue-collar white voters since the 1960s, but in this election, they hit one of their lowest points ever. In House campaigns, the exit poll found, noncollege whites preferred Republicans by nearly 2-to-1 with virtually no gender gap: White working-class women—the so-called waitress moms—gave Republicans almost exactly as many of their votes as blue-collar men did.
These blue-collar whites expressed profound resistance to Obama and his agenda. Just 30% of them said they approved of the president’s job performance (compared with 69% who disapproved). Two-thirds of them said that government is doing too many things. An approximately equal number said that Obama’s agenda will hurt the country over the long term. Only about one-fifth of these voters said that the stimulus had helped the economy, and 57% wanted to repeal the health care law—even though they are uninsured at much higher rates than whites with more advanced education.
In Senate races, the story was no better for Democrats: They won majorities of white voters who don’t have a college education in just three states and garnered at least 45% in only two more. Even Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Michael Bennet of Colorado, each of whom ran well among upscale whites, won only about one-third of working-class white voters. In Wisconsin, those blue-collar whites doomed Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold: He carried most minority voters and a thin 51 percent of college-educated whites, but he was crushed among working-class whites, who gave him only 40% of their votes.
Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University, says that blue-collar disaffection from Democratic candidates reflects not only immediate economic distress but also a longer-term process of alienation from the party. “The noncollege whites … see themselves as a declining minority within the national Democratic Party, where they have very little control or influence on the policies,” he says. “The party is controlled by the coastal elites and nonwhites, and that is a very different kind of Democratic Party” than a generation ago.
Compared with 2008, Democrats lost ground among college-educated whites as well, but they maintained more support in this group than among blue-collar whites. Democratic Senate candidates won at least half of the votes of college-educated whites in 10 races and at least 45% in two others. Almost all of those states are along the East or West coasts or in the Upper Midwest, the regions that have been the foundation of the Democrats’ Electoral College map since Bill Clinton’s time. In heartland states such as Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and even Illinois, Democratic support cratered among college-educated whites.
White-collar men and women also parted ways much more significantly than their blue-collar counterparts did. College-educated white men backed Republican House candidates and registered negative views of Obama’s job performance as overwhelmingly as blue-collar whites did. College-educated white women, though not immune to these trends, displayed more resistance. Although traditionally the most liberal portion of the white electorate, even these women cooled toward Democrats last year. In contrast to the majority support they provided Obama in 2008, they voted 55% to 43% for Republicans in 2010 House races. In the exit poll, most of them agreed that government was trying to do too much, and a slim majority of them said they wanted Congress to repeal the health care law.
In key Senate races, however, especially in culturally more liberal states, these women backed Democrats in substantial numbers. Both Bennet and Boxer, for instance, carried about three-fifths of this bloc, which proved essential to their victories. Obama’s popularity among these college-educated women deteriorated, but in the exit polling, 45% of them still said they approved of his performance, far higher than the rate among most other whites.
Even in the tide of discontent that propelled almost all voters toward Republican candidates, relatively more of well-educated white women remained loyal to Democrats. The same was true among all young white voters. Fewer of them backed Democratic congressional candidates than voted for Obama in 2008, but whites under 30 gave Democrats a much higher share of their vote than did older whites. Those two groups—young people and college-educated women—are the splintering foundations on which Obama will likely have to build any hope of a recovery in the white electorate for 2012.
THE NEW COALITION
These emphatic 2010 results represented another shovel of earth on the grave of the New Deal electoral coalition, centered on working-class whites, that long anchored Democratic politics. But the decline of that coalition began long before Obama or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. No Democratic presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter in 1976 has captured as much as 45% of white voters, according to exit polls. And not since 1992 have whites given half or more of their votes to Democratic congressional candidates. The erosion has been especially pronounced among the white working class: No Democratic presidential nominee since 2000 has won more than 40% of its votes.
Despite that decline, Democrats have survived, and at times thrived, by building a new coalition. They have won the overall popular vote in four of the past five presidential elections, and they recaptured Congress in 2006 with a coalition that now revolves primarily around young people, minorities, and college-educated whites, especially women. That so-called coalition of the ascendant offers Democrats long-term advantages because all of those groups are growing as a share of the population.
Minorities, most important, more than doubled their share of the vote from 12% in 1992 to 26% in 2008. In his victory that year, Obama won only 43% of the white vote (and merely 40% among noncollege whites). Yet he captured a larger share of the overall popular vote than any Democratic nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 by winning 80% of that growing pool of nonwhite voters, along with majorities among whites under 30 and college-educated white women.
But if 2008 demonstrated the possibilities of that new alignment, the 2010 election demonstrated its limits. It has proven to be a boom-and-bust coalition because turnout in midterm elections usually declines modestly among minorities and sharply among young people; both groups fell off even more than usual in 2010, producing an older and whiter electorate that compounded the GOP’s advantage. “We have gotten to the point where we have two different electorates: presidential and nonpresidential,” says veteran Democratic consultant Bill Carrick of California.
Equally significant, although racial diversity is spreading and education levels are rising, these trends are not evenly distributed across the country. As a result, the Democrats’ coalition of the ascendant is much more potent in coastal states than in most interior states still dominated by white voters, many of them older and working-class. In 137 House districts, at least 80% of the population is white; after November, Republicans control a crushing three-fourths of those seats. And, as Feingold discovered, there are not enough minority and well-educated white voters to win Senate races in many interior states if Democrats cannot remain competitive among blue-collar whites….
Partly because the minority share of the vote will almost certainly rise again in 2012, Obama probably won’t need to match his 2008 percentage of the white vote to win a second term. But all of these considerations suggest that he and the party’s congressional candidates must nonetheless improve on their historically low 2010 showing to avoid further losses in 2012. “At the levels of [white discontent] you are talking about, no amount of surge voting [from minorities and young people] is going to overcome that,” says Mike Podhorzer, deputy political director of the AFL-CIO.
So one critical question is how much of the white disaffection from Democrats evident in 2010 is rooted in irrevocable ideological alienation and how much will dissolve if the economy improves. According to veteran conservative strategist Jeff Bell, all signs suggest that Obama has permanently antagonized much of the white electorate (nearly half of which this year identified itself as conservative in the exit poll). “The significance of the tea party is that it is not a situational vote,” says Bell, the policy director at the American Principles Project, a right-leaning advocacy group. “They are going to be militant even if, or when, the economy improves.… It’s significant if you have more voters who are willing to vote with the conservative coalition regardless of what’s going on with the economy.”
…To the extent the economy rebounds, that would also boost Obama with some of the white voters who embraced the GOP in 2010. But short of a roaring financial recovery, many analysts in both parties believe that Obama will find it difficult to fully reconnect with most of the white voters who have drifted away from him. “I think a large majority of those voters are gone for good; I don’t know what he can do to change their impression of his view of government,” Wadhams, the Colorado GOP chairman, says. But Wadhams quickly adds that Obama might be able to persuade some of those voters to support him anyway in 2012 if Republicans select a nominee they find unacceptable, particularly on social issues….
Please follow and like us:
error0