The New Liberal Racism

americanthinker

By E.W. Jackson Sr. 

Last week we witnessed repeated efforts by Democrats to polarize the country along racial lines. Eric Holder, speaking at Al Sharpton's conference, implied that he and the President are being treated harshly because they are black. Then Nancy Pelosi claimed that Republicans are refusing to support an immigration bill because they don't like Hispanics. She actually said, "I've heard them [Republicans] say to the Irish, if this were just you, it would be easy." The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair, Rep. Steve Israel, was asked on CNN whether his Republican colleagues are racist. He answered, "Not all of them, no…But to a significant extent the Republican base does have elements that are animated by racism, and that's unfortunate."

This is more than election year politics. It is worse than a crass attempt to manipulate black voters with fear of Republicans. It is the insidious new racism of liberal elites who masquerade as champions of racial justice. The old racism is obvious and unacceptable. However, the new liberal racism is camouflaged as a cure when it is in fact a far more deadly strain of the disease. It is time to expose and denounce it.

The Republican base that Steve Israel says is animated by racism, nominated me -- an American of African descent and a great grandson of slaves -- for Lt. Governor of Virginia. They embraced me warmly, treated me respectfully and supported me enthusiastically. The liberal media on the other hand set out to destroy me. My white Democrat opponent was even caught on camera refusing to shake my hand. The new racism is very different in style from the old, but the same in substance. The old racists liked blacks who knew their place and stayed in it. The new racists behave exactly the same, but define our “place” as the Democrat liberal camp.

When I won the Republican nomination for Lt. Governor of Virginia, the Washington Post and the Richmond Times Dispatch dedicated themselves to discrediting me. As a child, I lived in a foster home which had no indoor bathroom. Liberal reporters said that since they could not prove there was no indoor bathroom, I must have lied. I served as a Chaplain for the Boston Red Sox, but they said I must have made up that story because nearly twenty-five years later the Red Sox had no record of it. The press was not interested in Benghazi or the IRS scandal, but they combed through the minutiae of my life looking for something to diminish my achievements.

Today’s liberal elites are the new virulent racists. When you agree with them, they honor you as an African-American. When you contradict their orthodoxy, they abuse you like a dog. Even liberal Juan Williams felt their wrath when he went off message.

Yet, neither Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, nor the liberal elites who prop them up represent the true values of the black community. Most black folks oppose abortion, support traditional marriage and favor school choice. Black leaders ignore these facts and dance to the tune of their liberal benefactors. My convictions come from my proud black father who took me out of foster care, raised me as a single Dad and never took a dime of government assistance.  They come from my church upbringing which taught me to trust God, not government. Black conservatives want to break the cycle of poverty in the black community, not use it to perpetuate the grievance industry. Who are the real sell-outs? Who are the real racists?"

After seventy percent of black voters supported California’s Proposition 8, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, they were called homophobes, bigots and ingrates. The black community’s support of Proposition 8 was characterized as a “betrayal” of those who claimed a right to their loyalty -- the liberal establishment.

One hundred and fifty years after slavery, a new generation now claims ownership of the thoughts and behavior of Americans of African descent. These ersatz masters believe they deserve absolute fealty. Slave owners usually think themselves beneficent, but those who thirst for freedom have a different perspective.

We have largely rid ourselves of the old racism. It is time to rid ourselves of the new form. The burden is on the liberal elites in the Democrat Party and the media to end the paternalism and condescension with which they treat the black community, and renounce the hateful attempts to destroy black conservatives. They need to stop pointing the finger of racism at others and take a hard look at themselves. They are not the racial conscience of the country, but the cause of racial regression.

I have been calling for unity across racial and cultural lines for decades, reminding audiences of the last line of our Pledge of Allegiance - "one nation under God invisible with liberty and justice for all." It is time for Democrat elites to stop dividing us and start bringing us together in fulfillment of that pledge.

----------------------

*E.W. Jackson is the former Republican Nominee for Lt. Governor of Virginia. He is a Marine Corps Veteran, graduate of Harvard Law School, President of STAND, Bishop of The Called Church and Senior Fellow of the Family Research Council.

Islamic Terrorism: Why Is It So Hard For Liberals to Just Say It?

Pajamasmedia

Conservatives, Liberals and Government - Study

BrighterLife.ca

Fundamental to our understanding of democratic politics across the developed world is that conservative parties stand for relatively low levels of government spending, while those on the left of the political spectrum are prone to higher spending. A new study, released yesterday by the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI), blows a hole through that conventional wisdom.

“When you look at the behaviours of various parties over long periods of time in different governments, the pattern is that there is no pattern,” said MEI’s president and chief executive officer, Michel Kelly-Gagnon in an interview with me yesterday. “The parties that are supposed to be more in favour of big government end up spending less than we might expect. And the parties that are supposed to be fiscally conservative sometimes end up being spendthrifts.”

MEI’s study examined government spending in Canada, Quebec and the U.S., dating back to the Pierre Trudeau, Robert Bourassa and Richard Nixon administrations respectively. “In all three cases,” reads the report, “it is actually left-wing governments that most reduced the relative size of government.”

MEI reports government size as the ratio of public spending to gross domestic product.

Under Liberal Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, that ratio fell by 32.5%. The current government, under the leadership of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, drove the ratio up after the financial crisis. It has since reduced the size of government to roughly where it was when the Conservatives took office in 2006.

In the U.S., Republican President George Bush grew the ratio more than any other, by 39%. Democratic President Bill Clinton shrank it by 14.3%.

Is this simply a matter of parties running for office from the left or right, as the cliché goes, and then governing from the centre? Partly, said Kelly-Gagnon. “Parties, when they form governments, regardless of their declared ideology, have to be responsive to the economic environment.”

Context matters, Kelly-Gagnon told me. Clinton’s numbers look great because he enjoyed strong gross domestic product growth during his presidency. Harper had a financial crisis to deal with, and he therefore had to implement a level of stimulus spending that ran contrary to his party’s small government plans.

The report draws two conclusions. First, our perceptions about left- and right-wing political ideology don’t reflect the realities of the last four decades. The data tell a far more nuanced story. Second, we’re far better positioned to debate the role (and size) of government in a non-partisan fashion than we might have expected. The fact that actual decision-making hasn’t been as tied down by ideology as we may have thought means we can be more pragmatic about, for example, the austerity-stimulus debate that continues to rage around the developed world.

It’s worth a try, anyway.

Time to fire Premier Kathleen Wynne’s fools | Editorial Toronto Sun

Editorial | Toronto Sun

Voters need to have an “adult conversation” with Premier Kathleen Wynne and her sorry collection of “revenue fools” known as Ontario’s Liberal government.

In other words, it’s time to throw these bums out of office, with a swift kick delivered to their money-squandering keisters.

With Monday’s finding by Auditor General Jim McCarter the real cost of the Liberals’ political decision to cancel the Mississauga gas plant two weeks before the 2011 election was $275 million, not the $190 million the Liberals claimed, enough is enough.

They lied coming into power in 2003, when then premier Dalton McGuinty brought in one of the largest tax grabs in Ontario history, after promising not to do so during the campaign.

And they’re still lying today, given McCarter’s finding the cost of closing the Mississauga plant is 44.7% higher than the $190 million the Liberals claimed.

According to McCarter, the $190 million cost of moving the plant to Sarnia only accounts for how much extra Ontarians will pay as taxpayers.

But it doesn’t include the fact Ontarians will have an additional $85 million tacked on to their electricity bills because of the Liberal “seat saver” program.

“The circumstances surrounding the cancellation decision weakened the Ontario Power Authority’s (OPA) negotiating position,” McCarter concluded.

“We found that the OPA was under significant pressure to get the construction of the plant stopped as quickly as possible, and this likely resulted in the final cancellation costs being higher than they would otherwise have been.”

McCarter will report this summer on the cost of the Liberals’ 2010 decision to cancel another unpopular gas plant in Oakville and move it to Napanee.

The Liberals claim it’s $40 million, but an independent energy expert has testified before a legislative committee the real price could be up to $638 million, 16 times higher than what the Liberals are saying.

In any event, it’s past time for NDP Leader Andrea Horwath to stop condemning the Liberals out of one side of her mouth, while supporting their politically corrupt minority government out of the other.

She should join forces with Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak and bring down the Liberals now.

They don’t deserve to be in office another day.

Justin Trudeau: Where to now?

Blair Gable, Maclean's

Macleans.ca
By John Geddes

If you were listening for hints of policy in Justin Trudeau’s acceptance speech in Ottawa as he won the Liberal leadership today, then you must not have been paying attention to his campaign.

Still, there was content of a sort. Three strategic aims, all well worth keeping in mind, stood out in Trudeau’s generally low-key text. He framed Liberalism as the sunny alternative to gloomy Conservatism; asked Quebecers to think of themselves as  builders of Canada; and scolded Liberals for letting their intramural squabbles undermine their electability.

1. Here was a key moment as he tried to draw that advantageous Liberal-vs.-Conservative contrast (throwing in the NDP for good measure):

“Canadians want to be led, not ruled. They are tired of the negative, divisive politics of Mr. Harper’s Conservatives, and unimpressed that the NDP under Mr. Mulcair have decided that if you can’t beat them you might as well join them. Well, we are fed up with leaders who pit Canadians against Canadians, West against East, rich against poor, Quebec against the rest of the country, urban against rural.”

That’s obviously broad-strokes partisan positioning. But Trudeau’s personal brand strength might be his inspirational quality, which he’s clearly trying to convert here into a message of unification.

The latest Nanos poll has 30 per cent of Canadians picking him as the most inspiring federal leader, ahead of Harper’s 17.8 per cent and Mulcair’s 11.6 per cent. But he trails them both badly on the question of which leader has the best experience (Harper, 41 per cent; Mulcair 17.6 per cent; Trudeau, 8.6 per cent), so it might be harder for him to be heard as credible when talk turns to more precise matters of policy.

2. He took a turn in his speech, in French, to address Quebecers directly. During the leadership race, he sparred with also-ran contender Martin Cauchon on their home province. Cauchon argues for openness to some future constitutional rapprochement, which Trudeau resoundingly rejects. He alludes here to not opening up that issue:

“Let’s leave it up to others to continue the old quarrels and the old debates that lead to discontent. Let’s leave it up to others to partake in unfettered rhetoric and petty politics… Quebecers, let’s be builders again. Let’s build Canada together again.”

Then, without saying the words “separatist” or “sovereigntist,” he seemed to suggest their reluctance to embrace federalism is just a matter of seeing Canada’s scale as unwieldy:

“There will always be skeptics. There will always be people who say our country is too big, too full of differences, to be properly governed and for everyone to be properly represented. Well, I think they’re wrong.”

It’s hard to guess how the specific elements of Trudeau’s plea for Quebecers might be heard. But there’s no doubt the province is intrigued by the Montréal MP with the legendary last name. A Leger Marketing poll conducted late last month found that with Trudeau as leader, Liberal support in Quebec would stand at 32 per cent, ahead of the NDP and Bloc Quebecois tied at 25 per cent, and the Tories far back at 12 per cent.

The Liberals have just eight seats in the Quebec now, compared to the NDP’s 57 and the Conservatives’ five. So no matter how much Trudeau’s rhetorical line of attack concentrates on Harper, his party’s true adversary for a potentially large swath of seats in Quebec is clearly Mulcair’s NDP.

3. Starting April 15 in the House of Commons, when he must square off against Harper (and rise after Mulcair) in Question Period, Trudeau will be seen largely in terms of how he fares in comparison to the other party leaders. But arguably as big a task will be making sure he doesn’t allow the sorts of internal divisions to emerge that have the potential to plague any opposition leader.

Perhaps his sternest moment today was addressing Liberal who remember such rifts in the recent past:

“Canadians turned away from us because we turned away from them—because Liberals became more focused on fighting with each other than fighting for Canadians.”

Oddly, though, the Liberals were most noticeably divided during their last long run of success, when the clear existence of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin camps didn’t prevent the party from ruling and running successfully with Chrétien as PM and Martin as finance minister.

During the failed tries of Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff, the party was less obviously divided. Their successive election losses came less as a result of Liberal in-fighting than because the party was united behind unpopular leaders running on confusing platforms.

For his part, Trudeau has shown in the past few months that he has plenty of potential to be popular. But on whether he has even the beginnings of a notion of the sort of platform that might propel a solid campaign in 2015, there was little indication during his leadership run and nothing more in his acceptance speech today. He’s likely got a couple of years to fill in the blanks.

O'Reilly: The unintended consequences of a liberal America

Legend Thomas Sowell On The Occupy Cry Babies

Bob Rae Liberals look for money from public to save them from Big Bad Tories

CFP/ Judi McLeod 

Little did the Obama Team’s Director of Communications Jason Rosenbaum know when he passed along Number 7041885, falsely naming Canada Free Press (CFP) as a ‘Friend’ and ‘Supporter’  to Canadian Liberals,  that it would shine the light on the direct link that exists between the Obama Democrats and the Canadian Liberals.

Liberal MP Justin Trudeau included CFP on a nation-wide call for donations in an email yesterday.  Trudeau (yes, the son of late Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the same one that eliminated property rights in the repatriated Canadian Constitution)  lists CFP as ‘Friend’ and ‘Supporter—just like Rosenbaum.

Number 7041885 is getting tired of hits for money we would never send the Lib/Left.

When it comes to both fundraising technique and computer software, the Obama Dems and Canadian Liberals are playing ‘toesies’ in the same plumped up feather bed.

The Obama Team pesters ‘supporters’ for “just $5” from lists shared by representatives and senators to save them from yet another fundraising deadline.  The Canadian Liberals pare it down to $4.

And get this for blatant Canadian Liberal hypocrisy: “With just 12 hours left on the clock and $53,613 needed to reach our $200,000 goal—it’s time to decide if you will stand up to the Republican-style attacks that are cheapening Canada’s politics.” (See below).

That’s the opening of the email Justin Trudeau sent Monday.

“2,667 Liberals—more than half first-time donors—have already made their choice, and they’re hoping you, too, will stand with them against these poisonous politics.”

It’s “cheapening Canadian politics” and “poisonous politics” alright when the Liberals expect the Canadian public to pay for attack ads for Liberals just to get even with Conservatives.

When the going gets tough, the Liberals run to the public at large to pay for the challenging business of being in politics.  At the departure of failed Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, successor Bob Rae went on line asking the public to pay for the Liberal website.  That was back in early January.  Now the Liberals want public funds to pay for television ads responding to the Conservative ones reminding people that Liberal Leader Bob Rae and the Socialist Premier who left a legacy of high deficits in Ontario are one and the same.

Even after a lifetime in politics, Rae, who once turned over control of Ontario Hydro to UN Poster Boy Maurice Strong, who in turn wanted Ontario to invest in Costa Rican rain forests, does not seem to know that he should pay his own way.

“The federal Liberals are vowing to “fight fire with fire” in response to a new Conservative ad attacking interim Liberal leader Bob Rae that will hit television screens this week.” (thestar.com, March 19, 2012). “The ad, posted to YouTube on Monday, criticizes Rae’s record when he was premier of Ontario from 1990 to 1995—a period marked by high deficits and one of the worst recessionary periods in the province’s history.” 

“If he couldn’t run a province, why does he think he can run Canada?” says the announcer in the ad, which also claims that Rae turned Ontario into the “welfare capital of Canada”.

“Liberal spokesperson Daniel Lauzon said in an email that his party will be asking Canadians to contribute financially to its response to the Tory ad—a notable departure from previous policy that saw former party leaders Michael Ignatieff and Stéphane Dion largely ignore such attacks.”

If the idea that sees the Liberals running to Canadian taxpayers to cover their “fight fire with fire” battle against the Tories is ludicrous, their being caught red-handed in using Obama Team fundraising tactics and software is high comedy.   More >>

Desde Cuba: Liberales protestan en calles de La Habana

LIBERALES SALEN A LAS CALLES EN PROTESTA POR LA VIOLENCIA DEL RÉGIMEN CASTRISTA

2009-11-27.

Roberto de Jesús Guerra Pérez, Centro de Información Hablemos Press

(www.miscelaneasdecuba.net).- La Habana. 24 de noviembre. Activistas del Partido Liberal de la República de Cuba, caminaron desde su sede hasta un parque de la localidad de Punta Brava en la Lisa, portando “carteles en protesta NO a la violencia represiva, desatada por el régimen castrista”.

Los activistas se enrolaron en una marcha cívica abogando por el NO a la violencia, NO al odio, NO más presos políticos, Sí por el amor, por la paz, Súmate, dijo en una conversación telefónica la semana pasada Silvio Benítez Márquez, Presidente de dicho partido.

Según el liberal “la actividad comenzó en la sede del partido y se extendió hasta la esfinge del titán de bronce como se le conoce al general Antonio Maceo, ubicada en el centro del parque de Punta Brava donde terminó entonándose las notas del himno nacional”.

La población que nos observaba, eran alrededor de 200, se quedó impávida antes esta acción civilista. Yo creo que lo importante fue trasmitirles el mensaje con respecto a lo acontecido anteriormente sobre la brutal golpiza que oficiales de la Seguridad del Estado le dieron a Yoani Sánchez, la bloguera, aseguró.

El pueblo nos aplaudió cuando se pronunciaron palabras “miren la violencia de altas escalas, la intolerancia de este régimen que abusa del hombre violando sus derechos elementales”.

Benítez Márquez dijo que “la actividad de verdad tocó las puertas de los vecinos. Cuando iniciamos la marcha se pararon en firme en los portales de sus casas a ver aquella epopeya y al final nos aplaudieron”.

“La policía política jamás nos ha permitido dejarnos llegar al parque de Punta Brava, es algo insólito y menos portando carteles”.

El Partido Liberal de la República de Cuba, organización opositora al régimen, se fundó el 18 de marzo del 2009 con el propósito de prepararse en una propuesta para participar en las elecciones oficiales del 2010.

La sede de los liberales está en la Avenida 249, número 4614 entre 46 y 48, poblado Punta Brava, municipio La Liza, Ciudad de La Habana. Benítez puede ser localizado en su teléfono móvil 05 254 13 00.