With nothing left to say Dems cry, "Racism!"

This is an interesting article on Democrats use of race over the years. Today's Democrat Party is not necessarily the party of of its forefathers in a lot of ways, same goes for Republicans. But, one thing is true for certain Dems today are just as quick to label someone an agitator as they were in Wallace's day. While the line this article draws through history makes it worth a read, there is a 900 pound gorilla in the room when it comes to the future of the same racial agitation and claims of bigotry. That future is one that will no doubt see attempts by Democrats to push, wheel and deal for amnesty for illegal aliens.

HARTWELL: Democrats reek of George Wallace Tea-bagger epithet just the latest example of liberals' hate hypocrisy

Charges of intolerance are leveled routinely at those who question the administration's policies. To listen to the accusers, one would think the entire history of racial discrimination and discord in this nation were properly laid at the feet of Republicans. History teaches otherwise.

I grew up in the Deep South, a John F. Kennedy Democrat. My parents taught me that, as Martin Luther King would say later, people should be equal before the law, judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Of course, that was not the prevailing view at the time, when racial discrimination led to separate schools, theater seating and water fountains.

The shameful politics of racial division were practiced skillfully by the demagogues of the day. They were all Democrats. If you're of a certain age, you'll remember, among others: Georgia's Lester Maddox, of ax-handle fame; George Wallace of Alabama, who stood in the schoolhouse door; Harry Byrd of "massive resistance" Virginia; and the everlasting Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, who, along with Sen. Al Gore Sr. of Tennessee and other Democrats, filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 57 days.

It was the Democratic Party that conceived, implemented and perpetuated the pernicious system of racial discrim- ination and preference that arose early in the last century and finally crumbled in the 1960s. They did this in order to sustain their own power. It worked for them, but not for the people. The Jim Crow system not only was morally reprehensible and responsible for much injustice over many years, but also clearly retarded economic growth. This hurt whites and blacks alike for decades.

As of 1963, the Republican Party had a long record of support for civil rights legislation - not so the Democrats. Republican support for the major civil rights legislation enacted during the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson was stronger than that of the Democrats.

More than three times as many Democratic senators (21) as Republicans (6) voted against the Civil Rights Act in 1964; in the House, the "no" votes came from 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans. In both chambers, greater percentages of Republicans than Democrats supported both bills, by significant margins. For example, 82 percent of Senate Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as opposed to 69 percent of Democrats; for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 97 percent of Republican senators voted yes, versus 74 percent of the Democrats.

There was a time when majorities in both parties (even if narrower among Democrats) endorsed the equal treatment of all Americans, without regard to race. Public opinion shifted heavily and quickly in the same direction, perhaps because the moral and rational case was compelling. As sociologist John Shelton Reed wrote, "During the three years 1963 to 1966, support for de jure segregation became a minority view among white Southerners. The percentage of white Southern parents who completely opposed public school desegregation, for example, dropped from 61 to 24." That was a dramatic shift in a short time. It was permanent, too, the death rattle of Jim Crow.

Sadly, however, the ascendancy of "colorblind" politics in the Democratic Party was fleeting. The Democrats were the masters of racial patronage; with hardly a hiccup, they took the game to another level. Where once they played on the fears and prejudices of whites, they found new "victim" constituencies to "protect" with pledges of government largesse and favoritism.

So, blacks and perhaps Hispanics, among others, became the new and increasingly dependent beneficiaries of racial preference. Other "peoples of color," such as Indians and Asians, perceived as intent on self-reliance, generally were not among the favored. Thus, the same old game resumed, with a cynical new arrangement of pieces on the playing board. Once again, the Democrats sought gain through divisive means, playing on fear and resentment.

Then as now, opponents were attacked personally. For a Wallace supporter, it was easier to brand someone as an "agitator," or worse, than to engage in a substantive discussion about the virtues and vices of racial segregation and discrimination. Better to smear the opposition, especially when your position on the merits is weak.

Today, many Americans are unhappy that Congress has enacted, in a dramatically partisan fashion, sweeping "health care" legislation that entails unprecedented federal interference in doctor-patient relationships, an array of new and higher taxes, and unsustainable increases in government spending. Similarly unwelcome are the union sweeteners, the student loan takeover and the "expert" panels that will restrict access to medications and treatments.

Perhaps most outrageous is the (underreported) fact that our "ruling elite" have exempted themselves from the regime being imposed on the rest of us. If it's such a good thing, why do you suppose they carved themselves out of it? In sum, there are a multitude of grounds on which Americans oppose Obamacare.

In response, the Democrats revert to Jim Crow tactics: Change the subject via personal attacks. They hurl accusations of "racism," and use the vulgar sexual innuendo "tea-bagger" to assail fellow Americans who oppose the administration's aggressive expansion of federal power.

In fact, in all of the issues raised by the dissenters, there is not a trace of race. Would people be equally concerned if Hillary Rodham Clinton were in office and moving forcefully to implement the same agenda as President Obama? I think so. Or, would people march in protest if a President Colin L. Powell or Condoleezza Rice were pursuing more moderate policies? I think not.

While everyone is watching closely the recent moves by the administration with respect to offshore drilling and thinking Cap and Trade deals, Senator Chuck Schumer with the help of wolf-in-Republicans-clothing Senator Lindsey Graham are looking toward Immigration "Reform". As presented, the Schumer-Graham framework emphasizes more border security, a guest worker program, the expansion of the controversial E-Verify employment eligibility system, the introduction of a biometric Social Security card, and a “tough but fair” path to legalization for undocumented residents. Of all the things the framework hopes to do, it is the path to legalization that holds the most benefit for Democrats.

So, expect the cries of racism to increase. No doubt followed by Al Sharpton making his normal rounds.

Don't miss Arts, Eats and Beats tonight.

Join the excitement! Make your way to the Fondren district Thursday, April 8th, between 5:00 and 9:00 in the evening to welcome spring to Fondren! North State Street will be closed off between Duling Avenue and Fondren Place for our street party! Our event sponsors, Bancorp South and My Scoop will have tents in the street with surprises and goodies for all! And, be sure to stop by the Foundation tent to buy your 2010 Arts Eats & Beats limited edition t-shirt for only $10! The featured beverage this year from Southern Beverage is Budwiser’s Select 55.


And, at the Main Stage, under the canopy at Kolb’s Grand Cleaners will be our featured musicians! A plethora of artists will be at Duling School Shops with their fine works for sale. Our signature restaurants will have special offerings for this year’s event also. So much to do , so much to see, and one night only!

FCC Net Neutrality Smackdown a Win for Free Market, Limited Government

In a huge win for the free market and limited government, a federal appeals court today put a halt to the Federal Communications Commission’s attempt to exert its authority over the Internet and its power play to regulate the companies who provide access to it.

The decision, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, centers around the FCC’s efforts to enact “net neutrality,” a policy that would prevent ISPs such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from managing the flow of traffic on the Internet by discriminating among content and applications that put a high load on their networks.

The Foundry

Expanding health coverage busted state budgets. Will it bust the federal budget too?

Peter Suderman

The Affordable Care Act—otherwise known as ObamaCare—isn't the first attempt to expand health insurance coverage in America. Before Washington passed its law, a number of states took smaller-scale cracks at the job—each of which proved far more expensive than planned. As the nation dives further into debt, the destabilizing fiscal effects of those programs don't bode well for how ObamaCare will shape the U.S. budget.

As spectacular failures go, it's hard to do worse than Tennessee. This early state attempt to dramatically increase health coverage, dubbed TennCare, started off promisingly. In 1994, the first year of its operation, the system added half a million new individuals to its rolls. Premiums were cheap—just $2.74 per month for people right above the poverty line—and liberal policy wonks loved it. The Urban Institute, for example, gave it good marks for "improving coverage of the uninsurable or high-risk individuals with very limited access to private coverage." At its peak, the program covered 1.4 million individuals—nearly a quarter of the state's population and more than any other state's Medicaid program—leaving just 6 percent of the state's population uninsured.

But those benefits came at a high price. By 2001, the system's costs were growing faster than the state budget. The drive to increase coverage had not been matched by the drive to control costs. Vivian Riefberg, a partner at consulting firm McKinsey & Company, described it as having "almost across the board, no limits on scope and duration of coverage." Spending on drug coverage, in particular, had gone out of control: The state topped the nation in prescription drug use, and the program put no cap on how many prescription drugs a patient could receive. The result was that, by 2004, TennCare's drug benefits cost the state more than its entire higher education program. Meanwhile, in 1998, the program was opened to individuals at twice the poverty level, even if they had access to employer-provided insurance.

In other words, the program's costs were uncontrolled and unsustainable. By 2004, the budget had jumped from $2.6 billion to $6.9 billion, and it accounted for a quarter of the state's appropriations. A McKinsey report projected that the program's costs could hit $12.8 billion by 2008, consuming 36 percent of state appropriations and 91 percent of new state tax revenues. On the question of the system's fiscal sustainability, the report concluded that, even if a number of planned reforms were implemented, the program would simply "not be financially viable."

Reason

Obama says we’ll learn to love it

By Hon. Ernest Istook

President Obama is blitzing the media again, saying America will grow to love his health care agenda. He’s banking on his charm offensive because, judging from recent polls, we don’t love that agenda at all.

His message resembles the show-stopping song belted out by Effie in “Dreamgirls.” Obama is channeling those defiant and clinging lyrics, “I’m staying and you . . . you’re gonna love me!”

The defiant approach didn’t work for Effie in the movie, but Jennifer Hudson won an Oscar for her incredible performance. Obama may likewise win awards for effort, but a great performance doesn’t fix the problems with his agenda anymore than it fixed Effie’s woes.

To millions of Americans, Obama’s message reminds them more of George Orwell’s “1984,” where everyone must love Big Brother—or else.

The Daily Caller

New Department of Labor Regs to End Internships for Private Enterprise

This will also have a disproportionate impact against students who are not left-wing ideologues as most of those students intend on going into left-wing non-profit advocacy and the government anyway. It’s the independent and conservative students who just want to get the skills and connections to make an honest living in the free market who are going to get screwed.

RedState

“Barack Obama is opposed to an individual’s right to make the individual’s own decisions about what is in the individual’s own best interest.”I suggested once that Barack Obama is naive when it comes to the American free enterprise system, but let’s just scratch that. The man really is trying to dismantle it and remake it in his own image — that of a law school professor who champions “public interest” work over the business of America, which is to say business itself.

This has been happening across America in academia where professors are gladly dismantling programs that teach, for example, law students how to be corporate lawyers and work in business in favor of training up an army of public interest liberals who sue the state in the name of progress to stop progress.

Barack Obama, coming from that culture, wants the nation to do the same. The Wall Street Journal is reporting the Obama administration is banning internships within private businesses.

Ponder that — Barack Obama is destroying another aspect of the free enterprise system

Barack Obama is telling teenagers and college students, who are now suffering through a 26% unemployment rate, that they are not allowed to volunteer their time in the free market in exchange for acquiring valuable and relevant job skills that might, just might, get them off the unemployment line — and that ignores the ability to make valuable connections through networking in the workplace and build relationships for future careers and opportunities. The lost opportunity just of the loss of networking and relationship building is overwhelming and will put some college students who did not go to the right school or belong to the right fraternity or sorority or come from the right town at a serious, serious disadvantage.

Since the nation was formed and even before that, apprenticeships and then internships have been a key way for students to acquire valuable jobs skills. Companies would, frequently through college programs, agree to put a student to work teaching the student a trade. The company would get free labor and the student would, at no cost, get job skills.

Pelosi tells home crowd that American's are on a need to know basis when it comes to Health Care Reform

San Francisco television KCBS had this report on Speaker Pelosi speaking to her supporters on Tuesday during the Easter Recess. The report says she "received a standing ovation from the crowd at the Mark Hopkins Hotel, describing the passage of healthcare reform as the crowning achievement of her Congressional career."

It goes on to report that she compared HCR to "the enactment of social security, medicare and the civil rights act."

All these platitudes are to be expected. But, what is even more telling is her comments about how she wants to be your government nanny.

”It’s like the back of the refrigerator. You see all these wires and the rest,” said Pelosi. “All you need to know is, you open the door. The light goes on. You open this door, you go through a whole different path, in terms of access to quality, affordable healthcare for all Americans.”

Neo-neocon had this to say:

What an oily, condescending, manipulative, lying piece of work she is.

I don’t mean to be anti-female, but Pelosi’s suggestion strikes me as something only a woman could have come up with. I have that attitude myself to most mechanical and/or electrical gadgetry and appliances, including computers: don’t tell me how it works, just make it work.

But for a supposed servant of the people to use such a metaphor to refer to a bill that affects us all in such important ways is outrageously and offensively paternalistic (or should I say “maternalistic?”) and flies in the face of what the relationship between the citizens and Congress in this country is meant to be.

Moe Lane said:

So, you know, never you worry about the fact that the wires seem to be hooked up to a baby. Which is crying. And on fire.