Showing posts with label Liberal Agenda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Agenda. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Sunday, December 14, 2014
#RuinAn80sSitcom The Facts of the Left pic.twitter.com/ug127xurkk
— CFJ ---►∅◄--- #OiP (@_CFJ_) December 14, 2014
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is worried.
In a recent speech at Boise State, O'Connor said: "Less than one-third of eighth-graders can identify the historical purpose of the Declaration of Independence, and it's right there in the name. ... The more I read and the more I listen, the more apparent it is that our society suffers from an alarming degree of public ignorance."
This is good news for the left.
The ill-informed are more susceptible to emotional arguments. They are more likely to see life as a zero-sum game. They are more likely to believe that the prosperous become so only at someone else's expense.
Take my Twitterverse "discourse" on the proposal to increase the minimum wage:
Elder: Obama said a higher minimum wage is vital to "a rising, thriving middle class." Switzerland has no national minimum wage. Its unemployment is 3 percent.... U.S. had no minimum wage 'til 1938. How did it become so powerful?
Twitter respondent: America wasn't close to the super power it is until after World War 2 -- in 1939. And you're supposed to be a journalist?
Elder: The U.S. became a "superpower" because of minimum wage? Adjusted for inflation the first minimum wage would be $4. And I'm not a journalist -- I'm a commentator.
Twitter respondent: You asked how we're a super power. We don't recover from the Great Depression without military production in World War II and paying workers.
Elder: I repeat, prior to the 1938 introduction of minimum wage -- which today would be $4 -- how do you account for America's growth?
Twitter respondent: I guess you didn't go to high school like the rest of us to know there was no "growth" in the '30s due to the unemployment rate.
Elder: So far, I've politely asked questions. Before the '30s, we had a decade known as the "Roaring '20s" -- no minimum wage. Explain.
Titter respondent: We were "roaring" with a slave class. I don't accept that as good policy.
Once people resort to terms like "slave class" in a discussion on minimum wage, it's time to call the waiter and get the check.
Check out the "discourse" following my tweets on Aaron Alexis, the black man responsible for the Navy Yard killing spree. Did Alexis, as with killers Major Nidal Hassan of the Fort Hood massacre and former Los Angeles Police Department cop Christopher Dorner, receive (SET ITAL) less (END ITAL) scrutiny from authorities out of fear of being called anti-Islamic or racist?
Twitter respondent: There is no dearth of pathetic Negroes like (at)larryelder willing to spout unsupported race-based guesses!
Elder: In your world is calling someone a "pathetic Negro" a brand of argumentation?
Twitter respondent (compilation): Pathetic Negro, a definition: To pander to racists using unsupported, fact-less race-baiting, eg. Your statement "in my world" is another Negro dog whistle to his masters, proving my point. "In my world" facts matter and your baseless suppositions of what others thought do not. Further, Negroes like you are always on hand with "observations" that "legitimize" Fox News views. Unless you're lying about your background, I'm not from the ghetto, gangs or criminal, what "world" do you mean?
Elder: I mean in the world of people who don't know how to craft an argument and instead resort to taunts and name-calling. That world.... Interesting that even the term "your world" disturbs you. Yet calling people with whom you disagree silly names is not disturbing.
Twitter respondent: I typically don't waste time with Negro amateur journalists promoting (at)FoxNews race-baiting narrative. You have my opinion.
Elder: Are you so ill-informed that you don't know the difference between a "journalist" and a commentator? As for my "race-baiting" narrative, here's exactly what I wrote and said. (I gave him a link to my last column on the Navy Yard killer).
Twitter respondent: "Pathetic Negro" is not a taunt, it's a term that describes Negros who fit their behavior to racist audience expectations.
Elder: Use whatever term you want for "pathetic Negro," it is not argumentation. I attempted to engage you, but you'd rather name-call.
Twitter respondent: Let's be clear. I do not "disagree" with you, Your "report" was base conjecture used as basis for race baiting "conclusion."... Your term, "your world," does not "disturb me" in the least. Like I said, I identified it for what it is, a Negro dog whistle.... You are neither and whatever you think you are, you are a pathetic Negro used by @FoxNews for "cover."
Elder: This is what passes for discourse? I make an argument. You attack the commentator. And you don't even realize it.
Democrats win because their narrative works on an emotional level -- us against them. Bad, selfish people -- known as Republicans -- want to stop the good and the decent -- known as Democrats -- from their right to health care, right to a job,right to a job with a "livable wage" and the right to not only enjoy one's own lifestyle but to brand critics as racists, sexists or homophobes.
Former Justice O'Connor is worried. We all should be.
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
Saturday, August 30, 2014
'Liberal Lions' Stewart & Colbert Slammed For Hypocritical Lack Of Diversity In Guests
 |
| Jon Stewart / Stephen Colbert |
We've all heard the never-ending cry from liberal Democrats that conservative Republicans dodge diversity by favoring white males as hosts and guests on their television programs to the detriment of people in such groups as women and blacks.
However, in an article on the Reuters news service, writer Chloe Angyal charges that such “liberal lions” as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert of the Comedy Central cable channel are obviously hypocritical regarding this topic since “their guest rosters more closely resemble a GOP national convention than they do the liberal vision of a diverse and equitable America.”
After describing the past few months as “one of the most news-heavy summers in decades,” Angyal stated that “Ukraine, Gaza and now Ferguson have gripped the attention of those who cover and consume the news.”
She added that “millions of Americans, especially younger ones, will have their understanding of these international and domestic crises filtered through the lens of political satire, thanks to the efforts of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and relative newcomer John Oliver. “
The reporter stated that “Stewart and Colbert are darlings of the left, icons of contemporary American liberalism.” However, “the majority of their guests are just as white and male as they are.”
“Colbert’s track record, in particular, is simply pitiful,” Angyal noted. “This is both surprising and dismaying, given his status as one of the most visible liberal comedians performing political satire today, and the place he holds in the hearts of so many left-leaning American viewers.
“All 10 hosts of late-night television programs are white, though that's going to change at the end of the year,” she noted. “That's when Colbert takes over The Late Show on CBS and The Colbert Report is replaced with The Minority Report, which will be hosted by The Daily Show's longtime senior black correspondent, Larry Wilmore.”
Meanwhile, Angyal stated:
Read the full story: www.newsbusters.org
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
Monday, July 21, 2014
Weekend Must-Read: Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist
How far left was I? So far left my beloved uncle was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party in a Communist country. When I returned to his Slovak village to buy him a mass card, the priest refused to sell me one. So far left that a self-identified terrorist proposed marriage to me. So far left I was a two-time Peace Corps volunteer and I have a degree from UC Berkeley. So far left that my Teamster mother used to tell anyone who would listen that she voted for Gus Hall, Communist Party chairman, for president. I wore a button saying "Eat the Rich." To me it wasn't a metaphor.
I voted Republican in the last presidential election.
Below are the top ten reasons I am no longer a leftist. This is not a rigorous comparison of theories. This list is idiosyncratic, impressionistic, and intuitive. It's an accounting of the milestones on my herky-jerky journey.
10) Huffiness.
In the late 1990s I was reading Anatomy of the Spirit, a then recent bestseller by Caroline Myss.
Myss described having lunch with a woman named Mary. A man approached Mary and asked her if she were free to do a favor for him on June 8th. No, Mary replied, I absolutely cannot do anything on June 8th because June 8th is my incest survivors' meeting and we never let each other down! They have suffered so much already! I would never betray incest survivors!
Myss was flabbergasted. Mary could have simply said "Yes" or "No."
Reading this anecdote, I felt that I was confronting the signature essence of my social life among leftists. We rushed to cast everyone in one of three roles: victim, victimizer, or champion of the oppressed. We lived our lives in a constant state of outraged indignation. I did not want to live that way anymore. I wanted to cultivate a disposition of gratitude. I wanted to see others, not as victims or victimizers, but as potential friends, as loved creations of God. I wanted to understand the point of view of people with whom I disagreed without immediately demonizing them as enemy oppressors.
I recently attended a training session for professors on a college campus. The presenter was a new hire in a tenure-track position. He opened his talk by telling us that he had received an invitation to share a festive meal with the president of the university. I found this to be an enviable occurrence and I did not understand why he appeared dramatically aggrieved. The invitation had been addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. X." Professor X was a bachelor. He felt slighted. Perhaps the person who had addressed his envelope had disrespected him because he is a member of a minority group.
Rolling his eyes, Prof. X went on to say that he was wary of accepting a position on this lowly commuter campus, with its working-class student body. The disconnect between leftists' announced value of championing the poor and the leftist practice of expressing snobbery for them stung me. Already vulnerable students would be taught by a professor who regarded association with them as a burden, a failure, and a stigma.
Barack Obama is president. Kim and Kanye and Brad and Angelina are members of multiracial households. One might think that professors finally have cause to teach their students to be proud of America for overcoming racism. Not so fast, Professor X warned. His talk was on microaggression, defined as slights that prove that America is still racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist, that is, discriminatory against handicapped people.
Professor X projected a series of photographs onto a large screen. In one, commuters in business suits, carrying briefcases, mounted a flight of stairs. This photo was an act of microaggression. After all, Professor X reminded us, handicapped people can't climb stairs.
I appreciate Professor X's desire to champion the downtrodden, but identifying a photograph of commuters on stairs as an act of microaggression and evidence that America is still an oppressive hegemon struck me as someone going out of his way to live his life in a state of high dudgeon. On the other hand, Prof. X could have chosen to speak of his own working-class students with more respect.
Yes, there is a time and a place when it is absolutely necessary for a person to cultivate awareness of his own pain, or of others' pain. Doctors instruct patients to do this -- "Locate the pain exactly; calculate where the pain falls on a scale of one to ten; assess whether the pain is sharp, dull, fleeting, or constant." But doctors do this for a reason. They want the patient to heal, and to move beyond the pain. In the left, I found a desire to be in pain constantly, so as always to have something to protest, from one's history of incest to the inability of handicapped people to mount flights of stairs.
Read all ten reasons: www.americanthinker.com
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
Sunday, July 13, 2014
 |
| Hillary Rodham Clinton via www.businessinsider.com |
A few years back, I wrote a book on the faith of Hillary Clinton. To this day, it jolts liberals and conservatives alike that I, Mr. Reagan Conservative, would have written God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life, especially on the heels of books on the faiths of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Conservatives were incredulous, annoyed that I took Hillary’s faith seriously.
And yet, I always grabbed conservatives’ attention by highlighting some surprises regarding Mrs. Clinton’s faith. Chief among them, I noted that she was against gay marriage and a vigorous defender of religious freedom. In 2005, Senator Clinton co-sponsored (with Rick Santorum, no less) the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. Her husband backed the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed 97-3 by the Senate) and the 1997 Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace.
Appropriately, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its majority decision in favor of Hobby Lobby (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties), ruled that Obama’s HHS mandate, as applied to “closely held corporations,” was a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
In at least two noteworthy areas—religious freedom and traditional-Biblical-natural marriage—Hillary Clinton could make a claim to being more of a centrist than her detractors were willing to concede.
Well, those onetime claims are completely gone. Last year, Hillary Clinton embraced gay marriage, moving to the left of even her socially liberal denomination, the United Methodist Church. And now, Mrs. Clinton has blasted the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling in a shocking way that signals her shift to the extreme left.
Speaking in Aspen, Colorado, Clinton said of the Hobby Lobby case: “It’s the first time that our court has said that … employers can impose their religious beliefs on their employees, and, of course, denying women the right to contraceptives as part of a health care plan is exactly that.” Clinton added ominously: “I find it deeply disturbing that we are going in that direction.”
Read the full story: www.westernjournalism.com
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
Thursday, June 12, 2014
By Kevin Glass, Jun. 12, 2014, Townhall.com
A fascinating new poll out today from the Pew Research Center reports on how they've tracked Americans' beliefs on political issues over time. It's wide-ranging and deep and a fascinating look at what Americans believe. One of the most important parts is how the two coalitions - Republicans and Democrats - have changed over the last twenty years. And it takes a sledgehammer to myths that liberals have been telling themselves.
Myth #1: Polarization is asymmetric
Asymmetric polarization, as espoused by analysts like the Brookings Institute's Thomas Mann, goes something like this: Democrats have created a big tent governming majority that tolerates lots of different views and, as a result, has a kind of "moderate center" that has remained relatively consistent; while Republicans have exiled the centrists in their party as grassroots voters have taken over and made their party more extreme all on their own.
That's flatly not true.
The typical measurement of asymmetric polarization comes from a Congressional metric called DW-NOMINATE, which at its heart measures how often elected representatives in Congress vote with each other. The flaw here is that it doesn't take into account the relative leftness or rightness of a proposal being voted on. If there were a vote in Congress to repeal the 2nd Amendment, for example, with all Republicans voting against and Democrats split evenly between for and against, would be a data point contributing to Republicans becoming more "extreme" and Democrats being relatively centrist. DW-NOMINATE has certain utility in evaluating legislative coalitions, but as an actual measure of how left-wing or right-wing any coalition is, it's severely lacking.
Pew's survey finds a lot of interesting trends in the Republican Party, but one thing is certain: Democrats have gotten much more liberal over the last twenty years. Pew actually measures how people feel about a lot of different issues, not just how their votes cluster. Democrats moved noticably leftward in the late 90s. What is true is that Democrats stagnated throughout the Bush years in how Pew measures how liberal they are - they remained relatively consistent. But in the Obama era, Democrats have veered sharply leftward, as shown in these two images; watch how far the median Democrat jumps from 2010 to 2014:
A fascinating new poll out today from the Pew Research Center reports on how they've tracked Americans' beliefs on political issues over time. It's wide-ranging and deep and a fascinating look at what Americans believe. One of the most important parts is how the two coalitions - Republicans and Democrats - have changed over the last twenty years. And it takes a sledgehammer to myths that liberals have been telling themselves.
Myth #1: Polarization is asymmetric
Asymmetric polarization, as espoused by analysts like the Brookings Institute's Thomas Mann, goes something like this: Democrats have created a big tent governming majority that tolerates lots of different views and, as a result, has a kind of "moderate center" that has remained relatively consistent; while Republicans have exiled the centrists in their party as grassroots voters have taken over and made their party more extreme all on their own.
That's flatly not true.
The typical measurement of asymmetric polarization comes from a Congressional metric called DW-NOMINATE, which at its heart measures how often elected representatives in Congress vote with each other. The flaw here is that it doesn't take into account the relative leftness or rightness of a proposal being voted on. If there were a vote in Congress to repeal the 2nd Amendment, for example, with all Republicans voting against and Democrats split evenly between for and against, would be a data point contributing to Republicans becoming more "extreme" and Democrats being relatively centrist. DW-NOMINATE has certain utility in evaluating legislative coalitions, but as an actual measure of how left-wing or right-wing any coalition is, it's severely lacking.
Pew's survey finds a lot of interesting trends in the Republican Party, but one thing is certain: Democrats have gotten much more liberal over the last twenty years. Pew actually measures how people feel about a lot of different issues, not just how their votes cluster. Democrats moved noticably leftward in the late 90s. What is true is that Democrats stagnated throughout the Bush years in how Pew measures how liberal they are - they remained relatively consistent. But in the Obama era, Democrats have veered sharply leftward, as shown in these two images; watch how far the median Democrat jumps from 2010 to 2014:
Read the full story: www.townhall.com
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
Sunday, May 25, 2014
A report on religiosity in America, prepared by The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), reveals that religion is fading as an element in our public character. Moreover, when it comes to admitting the truth about personal religiosity, the PRRI’s work shows Liberals prefer comfortable lies to demanding truths.
Sadly but not surprisingly, the study’s numbers weren’t encouraging. PRRI’s study told an interesting tale of how liberals lie about their relationship to religion and religiosity.
During PRRI’s telephone interviews 43% claimed to attend religious ceremonies, with 27% saying religion “is the most important thing in their lives.” However, when the anonymous responses from online surveys were tallied, the numbers dropped dramatically to 30% religious service attendance–and 20% saying religion was the most important thing in their life.
The difference between the two sets of numbers is attributed to people wanting to be seen in the best light when actually talking to another person, even a totally anonymous stranger. This is a normal quirk of human behavior for most people. But it is especially prevalent among liberals.
Read more at www.westernjournalism.com
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
 |
| Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. |
The latest attempt by liberals to help black people is underway in our K-12 urban public schools.
These do-gooders are now defining down socially acceptable behavior for black students in school. Bad behavior is being excused and attempts to hold black kids accountable by enforcing codes of conduct are called racist.
Having a sense of discipline has always been considered a virtue, a redeeming quality, but now its roots are claimed to lie in racism.
White liberal elites have chimed in about school codes of conduct.
The Capital Times newspaper of Madison, Wis., recently chronicled bad behavior by black students in its public schools. In the story, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said that racial discrimination in school discipline codes “is a real problem today.”
The white superintendent of the Madison public schools believes that “we need to address head-on our racial bias and the assumptions we make of students who are in the classroom.”
Really? Where I come from, bad behavior has always been unacceptable and is codified not by race but by societal norms to keep chaos from reigning.
These watered-down student codes of conduct sweeping across urban public school systems will not help black parents, kids or communities. Like every other display of liberal empathy, they will have a reverse effect, and it will not be positive.
All anti-social behavior and social pathology is normalized, and to disagree is racial stereotyping.
What these race provocateurs do not want to admit is the reason we are seeing more disruptive behavior in schools is because of poor and ineffective parenting, manifested by liberal policies.
There is a government program today for everything in the black community that used to be the responsibility of the individual, such as parenting. Because of this system, many parents have abdicated what is their most important responsibility and turned it over to the government.
Uncle Sam is now raising their kids.
We take kids out of the home with early childhood education programs, and the government feeds them breakfast, lunch and dinner, and provides after-school programs.
Who needs parents in the black community anymore?
It is a sad reality that more and more parents have turned over their duty to raise their kids to federal and state government programs.
As a result, large numbers of black kids arrive ill-prepared for a social setting such as a school. They simply do not enter a classroom in a state of readiness to learn.
These kids suffer from a lot of emotional baggage spawned by ineffective parenting, which is worsened by white bleeding-heart liberals who use these troubled kids for their liberal agenda. Social liberalism is a sadistic ideology.
White liberal social policies have become the new racism in America.
According to liberal orthodoxy, no one is accountable anymore — except for conservatives, of course. Conservatives get blamed for all the failed liberal initiatives that were designed to help black folks.
Notice how Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin received the dreaded R-word clubbing by the left when he pointed out in his 50-year review report how the failed anti-poverty initiatives started by liberals to help blacks have instead made their lives worse.
Every attempt liberals have made to help black people, with their reliance on government-centered public-policy ideas, has worsened their lot in life.
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
How much does liberal bias
in the media affect how we vote? Greatly. Call media bias a game-changer.
Liberal bias also explains
why the left wants “campaign finance limits.” Their leftwing message -- pro-Obamacare;
pro-raising taxes on the rich; anti-choice in public education; pro-Roe v Wade;
pro same-sex marriage; pro-“gun control”; pro-“immigration reform;” etc. -- gets
delivered via biased newscast free of charge. Of the top 100 sources for news, almost
all are leftwing. They include ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and nearly all the editorial
pages of big-city newspapers.
Campaign finance limits will
not “level the playing field” when the refs are pulling for the other side. The
good news is that most Republicans -- except for John McCain -- know they’re being
duped by calls for “finance reform.”
Bias is not merely the way
reporters vote compared to non-reporters.
It’s about topic selection,
the way things are worded and how issues get ignored that, under a GOP White House,
would have become media obsessions. Thus, “Bridgegate” becomes a national issue.
Meanwhile Benghazi, the IRS scandal and NSA overreach -- scandals that would rank
high under a GOP president -- become afterthoughts.
Because Peter Jennings (ABC),
Tom Brokaw (NBC) and Dan Rather (CBS) held their anchor jobs so long, they provide
us plenty of examples of liberal bias and double standards.
Check out how the Big Three
anchors covered President Bill Clinton’s first day in office versus how they covered
George W. Bush’s first day. In Clinton’s case, he reversed a Reagan policy that
tied federal aid for international groups to the recipient’s agreement not to use
money to fund or promote abortions. In Bush’s case, he reversed Clinton’s reversal.
To the Big 3, however, it’s
clear how they felt.
Clinton, all three “reported,”
was simply doing the right thing. Bush, on the other hand, was groveling to the
dark, sinister anti-abortion forces that course through the GOP:
Peter Jennings, ABC News,
1993: "President Clinton kept a promise (emphasis added) today on the 20th
anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Mr. Clinton signed
presidential memoranda rolling back many of the restrictions imposed by his predecessors."
Peter Jennings, ABC News,
2001: "One of the president's first actions was designed to appeal to anti-abortion
conservatives (emphasis added). The president signed an order reinstating a Reagan-era
policy . . . "
Tom Brokaw, NBC News, 1993:
"Today, President Clinton kept a campaign promise (emphasis added), and it
came on the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion."
Tom Brokaw, NBC News, 2001:
"We'll begin with the new president's very active day, which started on a controversial
note (emphasis added)."
Dan Rather, CBS News, 1993:
"Today, with the stroke of a pen, President Clinton delivered on his campaign
promise (emphasis added) to cancel several anti-abortion regulations of the Reagan-Bush
years."
Dan Rather, CBS News, 2001:
"This was President Bush's first day at the office, and he did something to
quickly please the right flank (emphasis added) in his party: He reinstituted an
anti-abortion policy . . . "
UCLA economics and political
science professor Tim Groseclose wrote “Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American
Mind.” It’s not just a BMW (bitch,
moan and whine) book about media bias. Groseclose tries to quantify how the advantage bias gives to Democrats.
Groseclose finds that in
presidential elections “Washington D.C. correspondents vote 93-7 for the Democrat,
while the rest of America votes about 50-50.” Does this kind of lopsided voting
preference affect the ability of a reporter to be, pardon the expression, fair and
balanced?
Groseclose writes: “[The]
average voter received approximately 8.2 percent of his news from Fox, and 79.9
percent from establishment media (defined as all outlets except Fox, the internet
and talk radio). Thus, the ‘reach’ of establishment media is approximately ten times
that of Fox News.”
Finally, Groseclose says
that media bias gives 8 to 10 points to the Democrat right out of the gate in a
typical election. But for media bias, the average state would vote like Texas. If
not for bias, Groseclose argues “John McCain would have defeated Obama 56-42, instead
of losing 53-46.”
Obviously bias is not a death
sentence. Republicans control most of the governorships and most to the state legislatures.
And despite bias, Republicans do win presidential contests. It it’s a heavy lift
to overcome an out-of-the-gate, 8-to-10 point disadvantage given the other side
by our objective, nonpartisan news corp.
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
Sunday, April 6, 2014
By Tim Graham, Apr. 5, 2014, Newsbusters.org
Read the full story: www.newsbusters.org
ABC "Nightline" co-host Dan Harris appeared on the Steve Malzberg show Friday on Newsmax TV to promote his new book promoting meditation called "10 Percent Happier." After the two communicators discussed having panic attacks while they were broadcasting, Malzberg concluded the interview by asking about liberal media bias.
Harris repeatedly said he was "open" to the idea, but insisted it was subconscious, and that "very, very powerful" people at ABC are conservatives. [See video below.]
Read the full story: www.newsbusters.org
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
Thursday, March 27, 2014
|
| Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. |
The latest attempt by liberals to help black people is underway in our K-12 urban public schools.
These do-gooders are now defining down socially acceptable behavior for black students in school. Bad behavior is being excused and attempts to hold black kids accountable by enforcing codes of conduct are called racist.
Having a sense of discipline has always been considered a virtue, a redeeming quality, but now its roots are claimed to lie in racism.
White liberal elites have chimed in about school codes of conduct.
The Capital Times newspaper of Madison, Wis., recently chronicled bad behavior by black students in its public schools. In the story, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said that racial discrimination in school discipline codes “is a real problem today.”
The white superintendent of the Madison public schools believes that “we need to address head-on our racial bias and the assumptions we make of students who are in the classroom.”
Really? Where I come from, bad behavior has always been unacceptable and is codified not by race but by societal norms to keep chaos from reigning.
These watered-down student codes of conduct sweeping across urban public school systems will not help black parents, kids or communities. Like every other display of liberal empathy, they will have a reverse effect, and it will not be positive.
All anti-social behavior and social pathology is normalized, and to disagree is racial stereotyping.
What these race provocateurs do not want to admit is the reason we are seeing more disruptive behavior in schools is because of poor and ineffective parenting, manifested by liberal policies.
There is a government program today for everything in the black community that used to be the responsibility of the individual, such as parenting. Because of this system, many parents have abdicated what is their most important responsibility and turned it over to the government.
Uncle Sam is now raising their kids.
We take kids out of the home with early childhood education programs, and the government feeds them breakfast, lunch and dinner, and provides after-school programs.
Who needs parents in the black community anymore?
It is a sad reality that more and more parents have turned over their duty to raise their kids to federal and state government programs.
As a result, large numbers of black kids arrive ill-prepared for a social setting such as a school. They simply do not enter a classroom in a state of readiness to learn.
These kids suffer from a lot of emotional baggage spawned by ineffective parenting, which is worsened by white bleeding-heart liberals who use these troubled kids for their liberal agenda. Social liberalism is a sadistic ideology.
White liberal social policies have become the new racism in America.
According to liberal orthodoxy, no one is accountable anymore — except for conservatives, of course. Conservatives get blamed for all the failed liberal initiatives that were designed to help black folks.
Notice how Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin received the dreaded R-word clubbing by the left when he pointed out in his 50-year review report how the failed anti-poverty initiatives started by liberals to help blacks have instead made their lives worse.
Every attempt liberals have made to help black people, with their reliance on government-centered public-policy ideas, has worsened their lot in life.
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
Thursday, March 20, 2014
“Happy” Birthday, Che Guevara
By Humberto Fontova, Jun. 21, 2013, Townhall.com
June 14th marked Ernesto Che Guevara’s 85th
birthday. Yet amazingly, no celebrations were reported by the Obama campaign
precinct-captain who in 2008 decorated her Houston office with his famous visage.
And this precinct-captain was not
your usual bubble-headed Che Groupie who seemed to recall the awesome dude
opening for the Foo Fighters at Lollapalooza. No, this Che fan was middle-aged
woman born in Cuba where she lived during a period when Che Guevara was Cuba's
chief executioner and second in command. At the time, Cuba had the highest
political incarceration and execution rate on earth, far surpassing that of
their Soviet mentors and suitors. Chile’s much-reviled Pinochet regime never
even approached it.
Pictures subsequently surfaced of
Obama campaign worker Maria Isabel at several Obama campaign functions; arm in
arm with Barack, in a bear hug with Michelle Obama, and apparently, very
heavily involved in the Obama campaign. Some background on her hero:
Had Ernesto Guevara De La Serna y
Lynch not linked up with Raul and Fidel Castro in Mexico City that fateful
summer of 1955 everything points to Ernesto continuing his life of a traveling
hobo, mooching off women, staying in flophouses and scribbling unreadable
poetry.
Che was a Revolutionary Ringo
Starr. By pure chance, he fell in with the right bunch at just the right time
and rode their coattails to fame. His very name "Che" was imparted by
the Cubans who hob-knobbed with him in Mexico. Argentines use the term
"Che" much like Michael Moore fans use "dude." The Cubans
noticed Ernesto Guevara using it so they pasted it to him. And it stuck.
Today his famous photo by Alberto
Korda is reputed to be the most reproduced print in the world, emblazoned on
everything from infant wear to super model Gisele Bundchen’s derriere. Even the
Pope, on his visit to Cuba in 1998, spoke approvingly about Che's
"ideals." Che owes all this hype and flummery to the century's top
media-manipulator Fidel Castro, who also dispatched him deliberately to his
death. As those who know him have always said: "Fidel only praises the
dead."
Read the full story: www.townhall.com
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook
