The Culture Of The Smug White Liberal

While I think Ms. Johnson-Huston is blinded to her community’s culpability for their current situation, I must give her credit for waking up to the futile nature of continuing to blindly support a party and ideology that has given blacks nothing but empty promises for the last 50+ years.  She still seems to be under the illusion that the high rates of crime, murder, drug use, single-parent homes, unemployment, and incarceration within the black community are somehow SOMEONE ELSE’S fault.  Actually, the vast majority of their problems stem from the abandonment of personal responsibility.  Who you vote for is a personal choice.  Doing drugs is a personal choice.  Having sex is a personal choice if you’re a human being.  Committing crime is a personal choice.  Disrespecting your parents is a personal choice.  Disobeying an order from the police is a personal choice.  Burning down businesses that provide both goods and jobs is, you guessed it, a personal choice.

While it is heartening to see black liberals waking up to the fact that democrats have been playing them for chumps, it is also disheartening to see that many still can’t see that their personal choices are what have gotten them where they are today.

Emphasis/bolding added below is by me.

+

---

---

08/17/2016 03:16 pm ET | Updated Aug 28, 2016

Nikki Johnson-Huston, Esq. Award-Winning Tax Attorney, Entrepreneur, Donafy App Co-Founder, Motivational Speaker and Advocate for the Poor

I have spent my life as a Democrat which probably isn’t that surprising considering that I am African-American. One of the things that always attracted me to the party were the ideals of equality, fighting for the little guy and our openness to differing opinions, but lately I have seen my party take a turn that makes me uncomfortable. Somewhere along the way we stopped fighting for the little guy and became the party of the smug, educated elites who look down on those with less education and deem them unable or unworthy of being able to make personal decisions for their own lives.

Over the last few years we have made incredible strides in diversity and inclusion, from the election twice of the nation’s first African-American President to the legalization of gay marriage, all things that I have loudly and happily cheered for and felt were a long time in coming. As an African-American professional from humble beginnings, I know firsthand the importance of giving everyone an equal opportunity to access the American Dream. I don’t take lightly the opportunities I have been given or the fact that many people, black and white, fought for and sometimes died for me to have these rights. I also have serious concerns about the lack of progress that I have seen for many African-Americans and I blame some of that lack of progress on ineffective liberal policies that are based upon wanting to help those in need, but in many instances end up causing more harm than good.

Inquiry Opened on Dismissal of New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation Case

The New Black Panthers are just another battalion in the Obama army of thugs.  Depending on who you listen to, and how they massage the stats, Obama won the election by somewhere between 4 and 7 percent of the vote.  In what the left is calling a “landslide,” he won by just 0.2% more than G.W. Bush did in 2004.  With a margin that small, and with all of the voter fraud that has been reported (but not investigated) in several of the swing states/districts, there is legitimate speculation that much of the margin of victory was ill gotten and that were it a straight up vote Obama would not have won at all.  With ACORN registering the same voters (liberal ones) 10 to 20 times each (confirmed cases), and the Black Panther thugs threatening people outside the polling places, it wouldn’t take much to swing that small of a margin of victory in a race as tight as the 2008 presidential election.  Co-thug Eric Holder’s dismissal of the Black Panther case (at the direction of Obama) when a conviction was at hand screams of impropriety.  Holder’s silence when asked for explanations is deafening.

As long as Comrade Chairman Maobama is in charge, and his puppets are running the “justice” department, there will likely never be an accounting for Obama’s illegal activities, and the crimes at the hands of his supporters.  Community organizer?  No, just plain old socialist thug.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/09/inquiry-opened-about-new-black-panther-case//print/

Obama Land Grab

This case in Westchester county, New York has huge implications.  The courts with the aid of the Obama administration have decided that there are not enough poor people or minorities living in wealthy neighborhoods.  So now they force Westchester county to build “affordable housing” in “zip codes” that historically are not inhabited by lower income families or minorities.  Here are some bulleted thoughts on the implications of this decision.

• The right to “fair” housing doesn’t mean you can live anywhere that you want to.  It means you can live anywhere you can AFFORD.  There is a huge difference.
• Where is the land for this mandated “affordable housing” going to come from?  It will be taken from those who own it and paid for it.
• Who will pay for this “affordable housing?”  The land owners and taxpayers will be forced to pay through the nose.
• What will happen to the property values of the current residents of Westchester county (or anywhere else the government confiscates land and redistributes it and the wealth associated with it)?  The values will plummet as people move in who did not earn what they are being given, and won’t take care of it.  The neighborhoods will decay, and those who can afford to move will leave, taking their tax money with them.

This is at the very least unconstitutional.  This is the communist Chinese and Soviet system of land ownership.  This is one of the things our founding fathers were trying to prevent.

I’ve said before that Obama and the liberal democrats were driving this country toward a violent revolution.  If this spreads to the rest of the country, this will be the match in the tinder box.  Most of the country will not stand for having their land and possessions confiscated.

__________________________________

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346862154177606.html

AUGUST 14, 2009, 6:32 P.M. ET

Color-Coding the Suburbs

The social engineers come to Scarsdale.

The bad news is that Westchester County, the sprawling suburb just north of New York City, has been pressured to settle a federal lawsuit brought by liberal activists over “affordable” housing. The worse news is that the Obama Administration wants the settlement to be a template for the rest of the nation.

The three-year-old lawsuit alleged that Westchester had accepted federal housing funds but failed to provide enough affordable housing and reduce segregation in some of its wealthier communities, such as Scarsdale and Chappaqua, home to Bill and Hillary Clinton. In February a U.S. District Court judge in Manhattan ruled that Westchester’s integration efforts were insufficient, and rather than risk losing out on more federal money, county officials struck a deal with the Department of Housing and Urban Development this week. Within seven years, the county will construct or acquire 750 homes or apartments, 630 of which must be located in communities that are less than 3% black and 7% Hispanic.

“We’re clearly messaging other jurisdictions across the country that there has been a significant change in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and we’re going to ask them to pursue similar goals as well,” said HUD Deputy Secretary Ron Sims. Westchester County, he added, “can serve as a model for building strong, inclusive sustainable communities in suburban areas across the entire United States.”

Westchester officials admit no wrongdoing, which isn’t surprising given that prior to the lawsuit HUD not only had never denied the county funds but had praised its housing practices. The bigger concern, however, is the Obama Administration’s intention to promote housing polices that have a history of dividing communities and creating racial tension. Integrated neighborhoods are an admirable goal, but how you get there matters.

In the 1960s, Chicago’s Gautreaux Program moved several thousand inner-city residents to the suburbs over the objections of whites and black community leaders alike, which stoked racial unrest and resulted in unprecedented “white flight.” In the 1970s, the Philadelphia suburb of Mount Laurel, New Jersey, was ordered to build subsidized housing. Local opposition was so strong that municipalities ultimately were permitted to pay into a fund and have much of the housing built in places like Newark and Camden instead.

Blacks have long populated Westchester towns such as White Plains, New Rochelle and Mount Vernon, and the Administration is assuming that low percentages of racial and ethnic minorities in places like Scarsdale are a result of discrimination. Yet there’s no pattern of fair housing complaints or other evidence showing that black families with incomes similar to whites in more upscale neighborhoods were barred from those jurisdictions. History also demonstrates that racial and ethnic minorities have incurred far less resistance when they move into neighborhoods where they can afford to live.

The black and Latino suburban population is increasing steadily as the household incomes of those groups rise. But social engineers who want to force the issue risk creating more problems than they solve. Most people believe in integrated neighborhoods provided they’re a consequence of genuine choice, not the government deciding where it wants people to live.

Related Articles:

WSJ: Wealthy Suburbs Accept Low-Income Homes

New York Times: Westchester Adds Housing to Desegregation Pact

________________________________________

‘CHANGE’ With Brass Knuckles

“Bow to me, or else.”  So sayeth the Obamassiah.  Do not break my TEN COMMANDMENTS, or I will unleash Rahm Emmanuel upon you that he may smite you upon the head with a dead fish.

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Fseven%2F07292009%2Fpostopinion%2Fopedcolumnists%2Fchange_with_brass_knuckles_181814.htm

By MICHELLE MALKIN

July 29, 2009 –SIX months into the Obama ad ministration, it should now be clear: Hope and Change came to the White House wrapped in brass knuckles.

Ask the Congressional Budget Office. Last week, President Obama spilled the beans on the “Today Show” that he had met with CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf — just as the number crunchers were casting ruinous doubt on White House cost-saving claims.

Yes, question the timing. The CBO is supposed to be a neutral scorekeeper — not a water boy for the White House.

But when the meeting failed to stop the CBO from issuing more analysis undercutting the health-care savings claims, Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag played the heavy. In a public letter, he warned the CBO that it risked feeding the perception that it was “exaggerating costs and underestimating savings.”

Message: Leave the number-fudging to the boss. Capiche?

Obama issued an even more explicit order to unleash the hounds on Blue Dog Democrats during his health-care press conference. “Keep up the heat” translated into Organizing for America/Democratic National Committee attack ads on moderate Democrats who have revolted against ObamaCare’s high costs and expansive government powers over medical decisions.

Looks like there won’t be a health-care beer summit anytime soon.

The CBO and the Blue Dogs got off easy compared to inspectors general targeted by Team Obama goons. Former AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin was slimed as mentally incompetent (“confused” and “disoriented”) after blowing the whistle on several cases of community-service tax fraud, including the case of Obama crony Kevin Johnson.

Walpin filed suit last week to get his job back — and to defend the integrity and independence of inspectors general system-wide. But he faces hardball tactics from both the West Wing and the East Wing, where first lady Michelle Obama has been intimately involved in personnel decisions at AmeriCorps, according to youth-service program insiders.

Obama Treasury officials forced banks to take TARP bailout money they didn’t want and obstructed banks that wanted to pay back TARP money from doing so. The administration strong-armed Chrysler creditors and Chrysler dealers using politicized tactics that united both House Democrats and Republicans, who passed an amendment last week reversing Obama on the closure of 2,800 Chrysler and GM dealerships.

At the Justice Department, Obama lawyers are now blocking a House inquiry into the suspicious decision to dismiss default judgments against radical New Black Panther Party activists who intimidated voters and poll workers on Election Day in Philadelphia. The DOJ is preventing Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) from meeting with the trial team in the case. Wolf has been pressing for answers on what communications Attorney General Eric Holder and his deputies conducted with third-party interest groups and other political appointees about the case. So far: radio silence.

In the mafia culture, bully boys depend on a code of silence and allegiance — omerta — not only among their brethren, but also from the victims. The victims of Obama thugocracy are no longer cooperating. Perhaps it won’t be long until some of the enforcers start to sing, too. malkinblog@gmail.com

U.S. Government History for $100, Alex.

Yes, we are indeed a representative republic. Our government is not a democracy (simply described as “mob rule”). Our founding fathers were pretty smart fellows who had actually done their homework. Our constitution and government were not whimsical creations pulled from a certain brown, stinky orifice. Changing it to suit the destructive desires of one faction (i.e. socialists/Marxists or anyone else seeking to preserve power) is foolishness.

The Design of the Constitution

by Dr. Archie Jones

Although some compromises were necessary to complete the framing of our Constitution—and to ensure that we had a constitution at all—our Constitution was not a mere bundle of pragmatic compromises. Our Constitution was designed: it was the product of a carefully crafted deliberative process in which history’s lessons concerning the effects of different forms of civil government for liberty and justice were carefully weighed and the proposed means of giving us the best form of republican government that the people of the various states would accept were both considered and reconsidered.

The very rules of the Constitutional Convention formulated by the Framers before they began their work that hot summer in Philadelphia were designed to minimize passion and to maximize reasoned deliberation about the best achievable sort of civil government for the American states and their people. Grandstanding was excluded by restricting attendance only to the states’ delegates and by forbidding all dissemination of the proceedings until the Great Convention’s work had been completed. Wise decisions were fostered by permitting the delegates to reconsider any matter—regardless of whether they had voted on it before and the outcome of previous votes.

What the Framers sought to achieve, as Hamilton tells us in Federalist No. 1 and then again in Federalist No. 85, the concluding essay of the greatest commentary on our Constitution, was “the additional security,” beyond that which their states’ governments afforded, “to republican government, to liberty, and to property.”

It was a given that the form of civil government established by the Constitution would a popular government (one based on the will of the people): Americans would accept no other. Americans were a Christian, Bible-centered people who knew that God had given His people a republican government before they sinned and demanded a king (I Samuel 8), and that God’s law protects property.

But it was just as essential that that popular government be a republic—not a democracy. The Framers knew the dangers of unchecked majority rule. They knew that majorities tend to have a short-run and often a superficial view of men and things; that their views are changeable; that they too often follow popular favorites; and that they can be manipulated to their own detriment by those favorites or by a crafty minority. They knew too much about the nature and historical consequences of democracies for justice and liberty to desire a form of government based on unmitigated majority will. Only one of the 55 Framers (James Wilson of Pennsylvania) argued from democratic premises. All our other Framers argued on the basis of republican principles. They knew, as James Madison said in Federalist No. 10, that a pure democracy (in which the people themselves meet, debate, and make the laws)

“…can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security and the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

Factions are groups of people—minority or majority—united and motivated by a common interest, desire, or passion to work against others’ rights or the common good. Factions destroy popular governments and liberty. Pure democracy gives majority factions unlimited authority which majorities use to do injustice to minorities, violating their persons and property. “[R]educing mankind to a perfect equality in their political Banner: America’s Christian History FREE PREVIEWrights,” as democracy does, does not make everyone equal “in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions,” so it does not prevent men from thinking differently, acting differently, acquiring different amounts and kinds of property, forming factions based on their different possessions and opinions, and doing injustices to each other.

Making everyone politically equal does not remove the inequalities which God’s creates into men. It does not prevent men from making unequal uses of the talents, resources, and opportunities which God’s divine providence gives them. It does not remove sin from men’s hearts. Nor does it create the best form of civil government. Instead it places property, justice, liberty, popular government itself, and even the long-run good of the majority in jeopardy. That is why virtually all of the Framers wanted to give themselves and their posterity—us—a republic, not a democracy.

In seeking to give us a republic, not a democracy, in order to protect against the injustices done by majorities to minorities’ persons and property, the 55 Framers—at least 51, and probably as many as 53 of whom, as M.E. Bradford discovered, were Christians—were in effect putting the principles of at least most of the “Second Table” of God’s law into our Constitution. For in giving us a republic, not a democracy, they were giving us a form of government which better protects minorities against the kinds of things which majorities in democracies have done to minorities in the distressing political history of man: murder (6th Commandment), theft (8th Commandment), false witness (9th Commandment), and covetousness (10th Commandment).

By doing this they were also working to protect majorities against the evils that result from the sins of democratic governments: civil wars between the minority and the majority, and despotic one-man or minority governments to which people turn when they grow disgusted with the instability and injustices of majority rule.

But to have a republic, not a democracy, would not be enough to protect property, justice, and liberty. For the Framers knew the history of republics too. The representative principle of republican government—the people selecting representatives to meet and deliberate about the government’s laws and policies—only makes it possible “to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.” The history of republican governments, they knew, makes it clear that there is no guarantee that a republican form of government will guarantee the selection of wise, patriotic, justice-loving representatives who will make and administer just laws.

In order to create a greater probability of having such representatives and enjoying just laws which protect property and liberty two things are necessary. First, it is necessary to have a virtuous people who are so because of the influence of “religion”: Christianity. This was the often unstated premise of both opponents and advocates of the proposed Constitution. Second, it is necessary to have a well-designed republican government. That was the task to which the Framers set themselves in the Constitutional Convention. That was the issue of the debates over ratification of the Constitution and in writings like The Federalist concerning ratification of the Constitution.

And that is the issue which Americans must confront when we consider proposed or de facto changes in the structure and powers of our constitutional system.