Black Democrat Smear on Immigration Backfires

Karen Bass (pictured) is a black congresswoman who held a townhall in Los Angeles. She made sure to attack Steve King, and accuse those Republicans who refuse to back the farce of "Comprehensive immigration reform" of being secretly racist:

But it turns out her own constituents aren't happy:

About 300 people attended the meeting, and despite Los Angeles' deeply liberal bent, the crowd was sharply divided over what should be done with the millions of people who are living in this country illegally.
(....)
Several spoke out against a pathway to legalization, saying it would reward those who broke the law by entering the country illegally. Others pointed to the economy and unemployment and argued that the job prospects of Americans — particularly African Americans — would be harmed.

Keith Hardiner, 57, said he is the descendant of slaves.

"They were separated from their families, but we had to fight and struggle," said the Silver Lake resident. "And now I feel like we are being set back and the country is being kind of stolen from us."

In 1994, when Pete Wilson *tripled* the share of votes he and other Republicans usually get from African Americans becuse of their stance on the illegal alien issue, did anyone in the GOP Establishment pay attention? Or, like the Wall Street Journal, they so want their cheap maids and gardeners they have to do everything to smear border patriots?

How to REALLY win Hispanic votes

Allan Wall nails it:

OK, here's an interesting result from a California State Senate special election in a district that is 60% Hispanic, in which Republican Andy Vidak beat Hispanic Democrat Leticia Perez.

According to Breitbart, "Vidak, a working class candidate, resonated with working class Hispanics in the district who also saw how coastal California elites were not putting their bread-and-butter interests first." 

Breitbart also reported that: "Vidak ran broadly on "the bifurcation of California: the coastal liberal elites versus the Valley folks." On a more local level, Vidak's theme of "fish versus farmer" resonated with Democrats in a District where the unemployment rate is 15% and as high as 30% in some communities in the District." 

Rather than allowing hysteria about the Hispanic vote to provoke them to pander to the leftist Hispanic establishment, some astute Republicans might be able to use local issues to win elections. They could at least try to campaign against amnesty on the grounds that it hurts employment prospects among American citizens. It's worth a try.

THIS is how the GOP wins Hispanic votes.

Not by "Hispandering" amnesties that import a larger underclass that will vote Commiecrat, but by engaging those Mexican Americans who actually *run businesses*--as farmers, as restaurateurs, as contractors, as oil and gas drillers, as truckers, as "Jose' the Plumber". All of whom are being hurt--badly--by the Eco-Fiend Left in this state.

The "Green" Demunists in California have been shutting down agribusiness, "fracking" for oil and natural gas, road improvements, irrigation water and hydro power.

Wake up, GOP, and turn the "Brown Businesses" against the "Green" Eco-Fiends, who are really "Watermelons", "Green" outside, but Pinko Red inside.

How is allowing more illegal aliens in going to help the actual Mexican American and other Latin American CITIZENS who have always been here?

Update (08/02/13): Maybe not. Vidak is already pandering, too.

Ann Coulter: Unsung Black People

She has a column praising those who refuse to think tribally and continue to speak the truth.

We must never forget such people, and all too often we do.

 

LA Times admits to "Bash Mobs Sweeping Through Southern California"....

....but it still can't acknowledge just who the bash mobs are.

Black goons attack White and Asian victims, and the LA Times just leaves the racism of the mobs utterly unmentioned, even when all the video camera evidence makes it obvious.

Congratualtions, LA Times. You've been encouraging this for weeks. Every since the Zimmerman trial started. Feel happy now that you got what you wanted?

Gee, I wonder if any of the "bash mob" participants look like President Obama did 35 years ago?
35 years ago Obama could have been part of a bash mob. 35 years ago President Obama WAS part of an academic communist cabal excusing the bash mobs.

It would be nice if these bash mobs would find their way to prison fast, as everything is recorded on video and can be reviewed frame by frame. The flash mob footage will be scrutinized down to the pixel.

However, given our Liberal Demunist Commiecrats in office, it is more likely they will find their way to a slap on the wrist, perhaps. They will be coddled and excused because after all, someone once thought their appeared to look like a criminal, so all their actions are justified. Just ask Obama, he will cry a tear for them right on camera.

So if I am attacked by these bash mobs, and I shoot them in self defense, will I be tried for attempted murder or murder for standing my ground? Given the libs who run this state, probably.

These aren't "bash mobs", they are feral black mobs rioting under the protection the media who call them "youths".

And God help any white person who is CCW (are there ANY in L.A.?) who takes out one or more while defending himself. Zinnerman verdict reaction redux.

Theser bash mobs are the result of a single parent Sub-Culture raised on anti-white animosity and envy. Triggered by their racist hatred and a righteous indignation instilled and encouraged by a Leftist Hollywood and Public School Victimist Propaganda. Empowered by Liberals and their Entitlement Mentality. Often Ignored and Protected by the National News Media, Political Correctness and a corrupt DOJ. Forgiven by an endless list of Affirmative Excuses and Lowered Expectations. Glorified beyond recognition by a fawning media on TV, on the Movie screen, and Gansta Rap.

This is the chaotic new social dis-order, void of personal safety, common decency, and civilized behavior that the multi-cultists have forced upon us, and until America wakes up out of its blind obedience to Political Correctness and recognizes this behavior for what it is, and admit that it is a serious problem, violent crimes like these will only get worse....much worse.

Although, in fairness, the LA Times won't admit when Latino criminal gangs are targeting African American victims either.



 

George Zimmerman: Worth 1000 words

Remember MTV?

Daniel Flynn does. When it just played music, and didn't attempt to be the arbiter of anything, and certainly wasn't full of commie politics:

I want my MTV. I keep getting Snooki’s.

MTV celebrates the Fourth of July by declaring its independence from reality television. The initialism that formerly stood for Music Television returns for twelve hours to what it once did 24/7/365: music videos. Perhaps the move will inspire the network formerly known as The Learning Channel to ditch Long Island Medium and the History Channel to take a respite from Ice Road Truckers.

MTV, after all, is contagious. Cable’s reality obsession proves that.

The surreal announcement that MTV will play music videos comes in the wake of VJ: The Unplugged Adventures of MTV’s First Wave, a memoir by the four surviving original video jockeys. “To this day,” Martha Quinn writes, “I have dreams that I’ve been fired by MTV. In my dream, I’m going to a party. I can see that Mark [Goodman] and J.J. [Jackson] and Al [Hunter] are all having a really good time, but nobody will talk to me because I’m not allowed in that area anymore.” But viewers aren’t even allowed in that area anymore, save for a few hours during a backyard holiday when the television is off.

The group memoir recounts tales of Alan Hunter snorting lines with David Lee Roth to an audience of onlookers (“they were all just watching us do blow”); Nina Blackwood finding herself a subject of the #1 hit “Missing You” by former beau John Waite; Martha Quinn on an ill-fated date with Paul Stanley in which a bowling loss compels the Kiss frontman to inspect the lane for defects; Mark Goodman “hooking up in the bathroom” midflight with the winner of the network’s “Asia in Asia” contest (“the mile-high club is great in theory”); and a sweaty and jumpy J. J. Jackson getting through his morning broadcast via the same chemicals that fueled him the night before.

They partied like rock stars. They weren’t paid like them.

The stingy network initially awarded Quinn a paltry $26,000 annual salary. (Even in 1981, this was not much). She couldn’t afford cable so, as one of the fledgling medium’s most identifiable faces, she stole it. Alan Hunter, an actor with bit parts in David Bowie’s “Fashion” video and the movie Annie, earned $27,500. He elected to keep his bartending night job. J.J. Jackson and Mark Goodman, veterans of FM rock radio, earned more than double. But on a channel less music than television, the popularity of the younger, more camera-friendly VJs soon eclipsed their colleagues with more impressive rock Curriculum Vitaes.

In the beginning, MTV was a transplanted-to-television album-oriented rock station, albeit one that leaned heavily on New Wave imports. Outside of reggae and ska music influences like Musical Youth’s “Pass the Dutchie” and Eddy Grant’s “Electric Avenue,” few black performers won saturation airplay on the promotional juggernaut. So, the VJs found themselves on the defensive from recording executives charging racism. Country stations (and Country Music Television that came later) didn’t play new wave bands like The Waitresses. Why should MTV play Michael Jackson?

“We were ecstatic when ‘Billie Jean’ got added — art trumped format,” Quinn remembers. “What we didn’t see at the time was how it was the foot in the door to expanding the format. And then it became a constant exercise in expanding it a little more: How about a game show? How about a reality show?” The start of MTV’s end didn’t come with Remote Control or Real World but with “Billie Jean.”

When Quinn refused to ask Robert Palmer a trashy question at 1986’s Video Music Awards, she sealed her fate. “I went on unemployment, because I couldn’t pay my rent. That was my lowest point: Less than a year after that Robert Palmer interview, I was standing on line at the unemployment office in Van Nuys, California, praying that nobody would recognize me.” The reality of her post-MTV life dawned on her at a stoplight where, from her Honda Accord, she spotted acting school classmate Heather Locklear in her Porsche Turbo Carrera. “She was going home with her husband, Motley Crue’s drummer — I was heading back to Sherman Oaks, where I had a roommate because I didn’t have the money to pay the rent myself.”

Regrets? They have a few. Goodman spends much of VJ apologizing to his then wife Carol Miller for his serial adultery and admits that hard living has led to cirrhosis. “We’re the reason you have no attention span,” Goodman confesses. “And you can really pin reality TV on us too. You’re welcome.” Nina Blackwood laments that she exuded a sexpot image when she was in fact a prude. “I have very few regrets in life, but posing for Playboy is probably my biggest,” Blackwood recalls of a pre-MTV shoot that came back to haunt. Mom Martha Quinn now cringes at some of the videos she played then: “I have to admit, now I see where Tipper Gore and the PMRC [Parents Music Resource Center] were coming from.”

A Sunset Blvd. quality colors the retrospective. One can imagine Quinn and company surfing the web for old clips the way I do. If they searched back far enough, they would discover a Sunset Blvd. vibe present at the creation. What else is“Video Killed the Radio Star” but an aural reinterpretation of a dilapidated Gloria Swanson watching her old movies?

“In the beginning, everyone told us MTV wouldn’t last,” Quinn recalls. “As it turns out, they were right — our MTV doesn’t exist anymore.” For twelve hours on the Fourth of July, MTV lives again— if but as a ghost of its former self. But it’s never the same the second time around.

We can’t rewind. We’ve gone too far.

US Stay Out of Syria

The optimal solution is to support the Syrian rebels just enough to keep them fighting. Let Assad's goons kill the Al Quaeda goons and vice versa. It's good for the US that Syria is suffering a Civil War - it keeps them pinned down with domestic unrest, but we don't benefit by anyone winning that war. Minimal intervention, just enough to keep the rival factions of savages evenly match and killing each other, like Iran - Iraq 1980-1988, is optimal.

 

On the "Gay Marriage" court battles

I honestly don't see how redefining a word which has held the same meaning since the beginning of recorded history is a 'civil right', bogus semantic examples to claim otherwise notwithstanding.

Nor do I see why redefining the word is necessary in light of the other legal vehicles available to same sex couples. There are civil unions, domestic partnerships, or they could even come up with a new word that sounds cooler and doesn't create controversy by hijacking an institution that is considered ancient and sacred by many in our society. 

If anyone is showing "bigotry" here, it is those with the dogma that same-sex relationships deserve the *exact* same status as a marriage, whatever status they may merit, and I do understand that they deserve a legal status and legal protection, which the state of  California has already well established with its domestic partnership laws.

Marriage has been the primary building block of human society for thousands of years, and is closely tied to human reproduction. Same sex relationships, however loving they may be, are fundamentally different in that respect, and parents who simply want their children to grow up and produce grandchildren don't view same sex relationships as the equivalent of marriage, nor, frankly, does mother nature. 

Parents who don't want the "gay rights" crowd circumventing what they teach their children about sexuality at home don't view it as equivalent, nor do parents who raise their children in a religious manner. 

If the goal is to achieve legal status for same-sex couples, this could have already been done if we weren't just fighting over ownership of a word. 

If the goal is to rub the gay lifestyle in the faces of people who don't agree with it, and in the faces of the religious community from which the concept of "marriage" flows, then this fight will probably continue for quite some time.
 

And let's just get something out of the way right now. I support the traditional definition of marriage, but it has nothing to do with hatred for anyone, contrary to leftist Commiecrat propaganda. This is a free country, and people should be able to live however they choose, up to the point that it infringes on others. 

 

I only oppose the agenda of the gay rights political lobby when they begin to trample on the rights of others, such as by forcing people to publicly agree with lifestyles they privately disagree with, circumventing what parents teach their children about sexuality at home with "gay" curriculum in public schools, or hijacking an ancient, sacred institution such as marriage in an effort to force society at large to their viewpoint.

 

But even if you DO think homosexual relationships deserve the *exact* same legal status as a marriage, then such matters are to be hashed out in the legislatures, not imposed by tyrants in black robes.

The Constitution is utterly silent on this matter. There is NO reference to sexual orientation whatsoever in the Constitution. Not even so much as "I'm a little bi-curious..."

However, the Tenth Amendment tells us that the powers not delegated to the United States federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That means this needs to be hashed out in the legislatures, not subject to Roe-style hijacking. But such is the smug arrogance by the Commiecrat Left: 

Notice that the “inevitability” argument for gay marriage is coming from Beltway elites who want judges to decide the issue. Why are they waiting at the back doors of court houses so anxiously if public support for it is so strong? Why do they try and shut down debate so quickly by branding their opponents the moral equivalent of racists if their case is so manifestly clear? 

The bullying belies their confident pronouncements. Were the people on their side, they wouldn’t need to doctor “social science”to justify their propaganda. They wouldn’t need to use judicial activists to undo democratic results. They wouldn’t need to ignore the written Constitution in favor of a “living” one. 

At Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing, Justice Samuel Alito, trying to calm the elite herd down, noted that cell phones have been around longer than gay marriage laws. Justice Scalia asked Ted Olson, the lawyer who seeks to overturn Proposition 8, when gay marriage crept into the Constitution as a right: “We don’t prescribe law for the future. We decide what the law is. I’m curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?” 

Olson couldn’t give a date, to which Scalia replied: “Well, how am I supposed to know how to decide a case, then, if you can’t give me a date when the Constitution changes?”
This exchange highlights what a sham these cases are, and explains why gay-marriage activists don’t want a prolonged debate but a Roe-style judicial coup.

 

 

No, Elizabeth Warren, we can't go back in time....

Following up on the minimum wage fraud being pushed by the Left, we have Senators like Elizabeth Warren, who epitomizes the Demunist mentality at its most Commiecratic, making claims like this:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) made a case for increasing the minimum wage last week during a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing, in which she cited a study that suggested the federal minimum wage would have stood at nearly $22 an hour today if it had kept up with increased rates in worker productivity.

 

"If we started in 1960 and we said that as productivity goes up, that is as workers are producing more, then the minimum wage is going to go up the same. And if that were the case then the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour," she said, speaking to Dr. Arindrajit Dube, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor who has studied the economic impacts of minimum wage. "So my question is Mr. Dube, with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, what happened to the other $14.75? It sure didn't go to the worker."

It is amusing to see dingbats like Elizabeth "Affirmative Action Paleface" Warren make these sort of claims. This is a common canard with the economically illiterate Left, that high wages and high corporate taxes can work just fine: "Back in the 1950's, we had 90% top earner tax rates, and everything worked well!"

It is amusing to see pipedreamers on the Left, who chide people on the right for “wanting to go back to the 1950′s” (culturally), instead want to go back to the 1950′s economically, when THAT world clearly no longer exists.

Let’s see now, in the 1950′s, the Cold War was a raging, there were no investment opportunities in Maoist China or Soviet Russia, the “emerging markets” were post-colonial battlefields, and Europe and Japan were rebuilding from the rubble. High corporate tax rates in the USA were feasible because there wasn’t anywhere else for them to go…..

As for wages, in a globalized economy, American workers can't pull down the wages today that they could in the 1950's, especially with the sort of immigration policies that Elizabeth Warren and her ilk are condoning.

Today, capital can move with the click of a mouse, so it really isn’t a surprise that Warren Buffett’s investments are taxed at a lower marginal rate than his secretary’s wages.
Moreover, what was the *real* tax rate in those glory days?

Many things were deductible back then that are no longer today, from “Meals And Entertainment” expenses at 100%, to Credit Card Interest, to Medical Expenses, which were not subject to an Adjusted Gross Income “floor” of 7.5%, which this Obama Administration has hiked up to 10%.

So the top marginal rate of 90 percent never actually happened to anyone.

And by the 1960's, after Kennedy's tax cut, no one ever paid 70% of their income in taxes either. When those rates were in effect they were offset by a wide variety of tax deductions that don’t exist now. For instance, we make a big deal out of the home mortgage interest deduction, but back then all interest was deductible — mortgage, auto loan, credit card! Detroit was making money hand over fist manufacturing shoddy cars with expensive union labor because a new car was a valuable tax shelter for the upper class, and even the middle class.

When you take out a loan, the initial payments are nearly 100% interest. So if you had a lot of money and wanted to pay less taxes, you would simply buy a new car every year and trade in the old one. Then your car payments became essentially fully tax deductible. The tax code was swimming with other tax deductions and there was a big industry in exercising them.

In other words, no one paid at a 70% tax rate. The 70% tax rate was what you paid on the small amount of money that you were unable to shelter.

Implementing the 1960s tax rates without the corresponding tax shelters would be a disaster for the economy. The high marginal tax rates had a side effect of encouraging economic activity that avoided the tax rates. Without the tax shelters, the high tax rates would hoover money out of the economy.

Real estate was also then a much bigger tax dodge than it is now. Depreciation – paper losses — could be deducted at a double declining balance rate (rather than today's more modest MACRS formula) from ordinary income until none was left. It was this reality that originally gave rise to the Alternative Minimum Tax in 1969, once intended only for a few thousand wealthy individuals, which now a pain in so many middle class backsides. Highly leveraged deals often produced tax losses to investments in ratios like ten to one.

"Mad Men" is just a TV show. To the extent that world ever existed, it *no longer exists*.

Anyone who tries to tell you the tax rates of the ’50s- ’70′s can be directly compared to today’s rates either doesn’t really know what s/he is talking about or is trying to mislead you.
 

More on the "Minimum Wage" con game--Kipling warned us.....

Come to think of it, mandating higher wages is also a clever “ghost” tax hike on the part of the Left.

Some taxes, like the property tax, are obvious, because they hit with a noticeable impact. Ditto for hiked sales taxes percentages and spiked user and registration fees.

But a gradual spiraling cost mandate, imposed on private industry? Not so noticeable.

So the minimum wage mandate is a “ghost” tax increase.

The average working stiff will believe government when it blames “big business” (which in reality is ALL commerce) when Commerce responds to the government created price spiral by raising prices in order to keep investment returns and purchasing power up to snuff.

Wages rise, then prices rise to cover wages, and higher wages are demanded yet again to keep up with increased prices, and we all play a game of “leapfrog” that no one can win because there is no finish line.

And the inflation/stagflation will just come back with a vengeance, as the price of the higher wage gets passed on to the consumer. And suddenly the “living wage” isn’t liveable anymore….the dupes who cheer this on can’t see more than one step ahead.

To paraphrase that Rudyard Kipling poem, "The Gods Of The Copybook Headings":
“And so the leftist progressives, promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter, to pay for collective Paul,
And though we had more and more money, Less and Less that our money would buy,
And the free market economists shook their heads and said “if you don’t work you die.”

Abolish the Minimum Wage!

That's right, abolish it entirely. No, wages won't drop that much, if at all, since people still need to be paid enough to not quit.

Why? Because I am a heartless guy? No, because the whole thing is an ecomomic swindle.

Mandating the minimum wage be raised, in the absence of bringing down the other costs of doing business, is nothing but an inflation trap for the suckers. If the producers just raise the prices of goods and services to make up for the additional payments they have to make, then what are the minimum wage workers left with? As the saying / song goes, we are left "running to stand still"....

So you think you can mandate more wages be paid out? And you think that those costs don’t get passed on to you as the end consumer?

Since this typically affects fast food workers, think about what has happened to the cost of said fast food, in just a few short years.

Remember the Carl’s Jr. “Six Dollar Burger” promo–a high end sit-down restaurant burger at a fast food half price? It isn’t half the formerly $6 price anymore, is it? Now it is about $6.

Soon the extra value fast food meals, which a few years ago were $5-$6 and are now about $8-$9, will be $12-$14.

And then those who demand “a living wage” will say they need even more.

“Running to stand still”, as the U2 song goes. They demand more wage money, but they never do anything to lower the cost of the inputs other than labor, in fact, they jack those up too, with various “green” mandates.

Stagflation, here we come.

That is from the worker's perspective. Now, for the small business owner's perspective:

"When your a small business owner & your paying out the ass for health insurance, your Judy trying to survive.
Sure, you can have a million dollar account but if your profit margin is 3% then what's the point of even staying around & employing people.

It's not just the "worker" that is the back bone of our country, it's also the people who have vision & drive to stick their necks out & get loans & contracts with the hope of building something."

The entrepreneurs are most impacted by these rules, and we wonder why they decide to seek their fortunes elsewhere. This is then called "Exporting jobs". Which begs the question of who really did the exporting. Who really drove the cost of labor, and other costs of doing business, way way up.

Orange County mass shooting, but this one the media won't cover

Why not? Because it involves a muslim jihadist savage, that's why not. This mass shooting is not useful to push the Commiecrat agenda of disarming the American people.