Posts Tagged ‘Quotas’

The Jewish Vote, the Black Vote, and Blind Faith

by Alan Caruba on Thursday, August 9th, 2012

This is article 23 of 42 in the topic Jews/Jewish

Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, made a blip of news recently when she said she believed Jewish Republicans were “being exploited”, quickly adding “And they’re smart people.”

If American Jews are so smart, why they have allowed the Democratic Party to take their vote for granted since the days of FDR? According to, since 1988 only 25 percent of the Jewish vote has gone to Republicans.

In June a poll by the Berman Jewish Policy Archive at New York University announced that 68% of the one thousand Jews polled would support Obama. The number fell by 10% from the Jewish vote for Obama in 2008. If it turns out that those polled all lived in New York, the results are no surprise. They are the most politically liberal to be found anywhere north of Miami or west of Los Angeles.

Why people obsess over who the Jews will vote for comes from the doubtful mythology that surrounds Jews as being smarter or controlling the media and Wall Street. They are, in addition, frequently major figures in politics, business, and the culture. Blindly voting for every Democratic candidate is arguably not smart no matter what success one has achieved.

Nobody “controls” either the media or Wall Street–two enterprises that come close to the definition of chaos—though it is true that the media is nauseatingly liberal and Wall Street denizens of any or no faith tend to throw money at anyone who holds public office by way of buying protection.

I can remember a time when being Jewish was not an advantage. In the years leading up to World War Two if you were Jewish there were a lot of places that did not extend membership, universities with quotas, and a variety of practices that mirrored the exclusion that Blacks experienced, though not as blatantly. It was more of a benign bigotry.

If Jews blindly vote Democratic, then how smart are Blacks that do the same? It’s not about religion or race; it’s about a mind-set that is undeterred by facts. How can Blacks either not know or forget that it was Democrats that blocked civil rights legislation until the assassination of JFK?

As Tevi Troy wrote in an April edition of Tablet magazine, “Jews seem to be everywhere in politics these days—as candidates, strategists, officials, fundraisers, commentators, and more” noting that this “high level of Jewish involvement in national politics would have been unfathomable in the 19th century.

People wonder why some Jews gravitated toward the media. It is rooted in the ancient need of Jews to know what was happening where they lived because not knowing could get you killed. The Jewish involvement in banking has its roots in the early Christian prohibition against charging interest—deemed usury—for loaned money. When some Jews grew wealthy, the prohibition went away.

The focus of concern for Jews in the modern era has its roots in the World War Two horror of the Nazi Holocaust, but it picked up momentum with the establishment—actually the re-establishment of Israel as a Jewish state in 1948. It had been the Jewish homeland since 1310 BC until they were exiled by Rome in 70 AD.

Click to continue reading “The Jewish Vote, the Black Vote, and Blind Faith”
Go straight to Post

Uncivil Rights

by Daniel Greenfield on Sunday, February 26th, 2012

This is article 19 of 47 in the topic Equal Rights/Civil Rights

The civil rights movement is a success story, so much so that any and every movement has found that it can borrow the narrative and tactics of it to ram through whatever measures it likes. And so we come to the year 2012 where civil rights means men in dresses having the right to use the ladies room and the right of terrorist groups to be free from police scrutiny– among many other equally insane “rights”.

Much as the Civil Rights movement went from trying to reverse legal inequality embedded in law to trying to enforce an equality of outcome in every sphere from the commercial to the educational to the social by depriving others of their rights, succeeding movements have borrowed the narrative of inequality and the tactics of achieving equal outcomes, even when such outcomes are physically impossible.

We are for example obligated to believe that surgical intervention can transform women into men and that the only differences between the two can be eliminated with a few incisions and a few hormones. Applying the civil rights model moves the question from the realms of science and philosophy to the moral absolutism of resisting oppression. And that is the left’s home field.

The left is constantly on the prowl for the oppressed, even if the new oppressed are men who want to use the ladies room. And the oppressed can never be denied anything they want, instead there is an affirmative obligation on the entitled people who are not confused about which bathroom they want to use, to prove that they are granting every possible privilege and courtesy to the bewildered and confused.

Guilty until proven innocent is the new approach. It is not enough to not actively discriminate, we must prove that we are not discriminating by meeting our diversity quotas. We are forced to become the Stakhanovites of political correctness, exceeding our diversity quotas as a model to the nation.  That means everyplace must look exactly like “America”, a phrase that is best interpreted as meaning that every workplace must look like the ones on television. And every ladies room must have at least one man in a dress.

Very little of this has to do with the kind of rights that were fought for from Appomattox to Selma. Instead individual freedom and equality before the law has been twisted to justify a state of legal inequality and the deprivation of individual freedoms. Rather than a color-blind society, we have achieved a color conscious society in which everyone knows their place on the great ladder of diversity.

Slavery has not gone away, we are just confronted with it on a day to day basis. Our slaves live in China or in Africa. They serve the same purposes that slaves did before the Civil War, they make things cheaply so that they can be sold cheaply. The only difference is that we rarely pass them on the street or see advertisements for slave auctions.

There is still slavery even in the United States. Mexican and Chinese laborers whose families are held hostage back home, and prosperous Muslim families who bring along their tradition of the house slave, often teenage girls who are treated little better than dogs.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Legacy Lost

by Larry Wilke on Tuesday, January 18th, 2011

This is article 19 of 166 in the topic Racism

Occasionally with the passage of time, a message becomes augmented for reasons that are diametrically opposed to the initial concept, especially when that message is being conveyed by someone other than the originator.. Thus we have what has been “changed” within the life’s work of Dr. King and those who have profited personally from this convoluted conversion.

Those who have allegedly picked up the flambeau have without credible resistance from within or without, altered the direction of the “message” by 180 degrees. What was once the concept of “color blindness” and “equality” has been transformed into “color consciousness” and “racial separation” for but one reason alone. The new “pioneers” learned that there was a larger PROFIT to be made with considerably less work by intentionally keeping the races apart than by trying to bring them together..

Into the limelight from beneath the rocks came Jack$on and $harpton who decided to anoint themselves as the spokespersons for the “cause”. The first thing that they discovered was the “cause” needed to be tweaked so that their bank accounts could be enhanced to a greater degree and with a greater expediency. Thus came the need to ignore the foundations of the “I Have a Dream” speech that was given in August of 1963. What follows are a few of the quotations from that speech that needed to be “refocused” by these new “leaders”..

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’”.. Strangely, the idea of “equality” has been massaged to now mean that “quotas” were the original intent of those words by this next generation of “leaders”. Equality of opportunity has become the equality of outcome. These “leaders” knew that the equality of outcome was impossible to achieve which made their value as the arbiters of this unachievable standard all the more necessary..

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character..” Again the 180-degree inversion places the “color of their skin” as the primary focus which enhances the ease with which the separation of the races could not only be achieved but also maintained by these “leaders”. Their actual goal is the permanent separation of the races.

“I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood”.. Now “brotherhood” means the continuity of but one race alone for when “brotherhood” is the alleged goal of another race, the implication is therefore of an exclusionary and discriminatory nature. Mind you, one race can demand separate dormitories, separate holidays, separate and exclusionary organizations and this is all under the banner of “brotherhood”. The only reason that $harpton or Jack$on “sit down at the table of brotherhood” is so that those on the other side of the table will have to pick up the check..

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Rationing Revealed at the Heart of Obamacare

by John Lott on Thursday, December 30th, 2010

This is article 134 of 699 in the topic Healthcare

If you like police officers having quotas for speeding tickets, you will love the Obama administration’s new health care regulations. Doctors are going to be paid for giving “end-of-life counseling,” one version of what was labeled as “death panels” during the health care debate this last spring. Combining this with Obamacare giving doctors a financial incentive for withholding medical care as well as financial penalties if they give out too much care, it is easy to see where things are going and what types of doctors will prosper.

Public opposition forced Democrats in both the House and Senate to drop such counseling from the original health care bill. Even with the massive Democrat majorities in both houses, the bill passed by only the slimmest of margins, and there was no way they were going to pass it if that provision had remained in the legislation. But the new regulation goes well beyond the original “end-of-life counseling” proposed in Congress. The original law proposed counseling take place every five years, but the new Obama administration regulations will make counseling part of people’s yearly physical examinations and will cover how to prevent aggressive life-sustaining treatments when people become ill.

The Obama administration knows quite well this new regulation is unpopular. That is why they chose to reveal the new regulation after the elections, and virtually no one pays attention to the news on Christmas day. So much for President Obama’s campaign promises of transparency. Democrats seem to think that all these changes will be forgotten by the time the 2012 elections roll around.

Democrats haven’t wanted to publicly defend end-of-life counseling. As evidence just look at an e-mail sent out by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who wrote the original end-of-life provision in the House health care bill. This e-mail was sent in early November to a select group who had worked with him on the health care legislation: “We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded. Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.” Obviously, the Obama administration wished no public debate about this new regulation and has managed to avoid any discussion of it until Christmas day, just a few days before the regulation goes into effect on Jan. 1.

After he was elected president, the Obama administration briefly admitted how it was going to reduce health care costs, but they quickly switched gears. Back in April 2009 on “Meet the Press,” Larry Summers, Obama’s chief economic adviser, explained why universal health care wasn’t going to increase the deficit because people are just getting too much unnecessary care. Summers claimed: “whether it’s tonsillectomies or hysterectomies . . .

Click to continue reading “Rationing Revealed at the Heart of Obamacare”
Go straight to Post

Obama’s Financial ‘Reform’ Doesn’t Fix Anything

by John Lott on Thursday, July 15th, 2010

The 2,319 page financial regulation bill that just passed Congress is filled with vague, complicated language.

Some language will weaken our financial system and make it less efficient.

Other language appears to mandate racial and gender employment quotas in dozens of Federal agencies.

In the name of making sure that there is not another financial crisis, the bill does nothing to address what caused the mortgage problems created by government regulations that forced banks to make risky loans that they didn’t want to make.

It does nothing to rein in the $400 billion in losses created by government entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

What Democrats don’t understand is how everyone from farmers to small and large companies use derivatives to decrease their risks. When a farmer plants his crops in the spring he has to worry about what the price of his crops will be when they are harvested in the fall. If prices plummet before the harvest occurs, farmers face real financial peril. So farmers sell a portion of those crops even before they plant them. They know what price they will get and they greatly reduce their risk. That is what a derivative is.

The same thing happens when Southwest Airlines agrees to the price that it will pay for jet fuel months in advance.

Among the new rules is that these derivative transactions must be standardized and traded on exchanges.

Democrats claim that this will make deals more transparent. But what business is it of the government whether the farmer or Southwest Airlines makes that deal with another company or over an exchange?

If farmers and companies really benefit from using these exchanges, why does the government have to force them to make agreements that way?

What should be obvious is that the costs of trading derivatives will increase. The contracts traded over these exchanges will also not be as flexible as they are now.

Making derivatives more costly is simply another way of saying that the cost of farmers and companies buying insurance will rise. When some farmers stop buying this higher cost insurance will anyone seriously argue that really reduces their financial risks?

Regulations that restrict bank size ignore one critical question: why are the banks the size that they are now?

The most likely reason is that the most efficient banks grew, the ones that could offer customers the best services at the lowest costs attracted more customers.

Larger banks presumably could also offer services that smaller banks couldn’t.

So how does forcing banks to have higher costs and be less efficient make them less risky? Won’t that make them more likely to go out of business?

Proponents of regulating derivatives point to the losses from AIG or Goldman Sachs supposedly ripping off its customers.

Click to continue reading “Obama’s Financial ‘Reform’ Doesn’t Fix Anything”
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin