► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Leftists’

CBS News: Too many illegal aliens in Arizona prisons

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 102 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Crime, Democratic Party, Progressives at July 25th, 2010 - 3:00 pm

I was reading a piece Drudge linked to when I saw a link to this article that was so full of lib-speak nonsensical bullshit about the supposed unfairness of the number of illegal aliens in Arizona prisons.

It made me wonder if the clowns who run CBS News (and the rest of the state-controlled media, for that matter) realize why they’re hemorrhaging millions of viewers every year and becoming more irrelevant with each passing day.

Well, here’s a big part of the reason why:

CBS News has this piece about too many illegal aliens filling up Arizona prisons, on their website. Look at how the two libturd reporters, Laura Strickler and Jack Weingart, wrote the first paragraph:

New data from the Arizona Department of Corrections shows that undocumented immigrants are increasingly over-represented in the state’s prison population.

“Over-represented”? WTF!?!?

These two liberal morons make it sound as if prisons should have affirmative action programs to “level the playing field” for admission like so many colleges do. Maybe then our second “affirmative action” educated President can also be our first convicted felon President!

Hey libs, ever see the old 70’s TV series Baretta? Remember the theme song by Sammy Davis Jr.:


Best theme song in TV history! But I digress. Yep, “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”. Let that sink into your numbskulls, libs.

Then, just when you think these two libturds can’t write anything more stupid, they wrote the following nugget of wisdom in the second paragraph:

In June 2010, undocumented immigrants represented 14.8 percent of Arizona state prisoners, but accounted for only 7 percent of the state’s overall population according to the Department of Homeland Security.

I hate to be redundant, but again, WTF!?!?

What difference does it make what the racial make-up or citizenship status is of those incarcerated, and what the hell does that have to do with who should or should not be in jail or prison, you ignorant twits?

Here’s a breakdown of some of the crimes they committed that sent them to prison:

The new data also revealed for the first time a breakdown of crimes for which undocumented immigrants were incarcerated.

For example of all the prisoners serving time in Arizona state prisons for kidnapping, 40 percent were undocumented. Of those in prison on drug charges, 24 percent were undocumented. And 13 percent of those serving time for murder were undocumented immigrants, according to the new data from the Arizona Department of Corrections.

The number of undocumented immigrants in Arizona state prisons has also grown in recent years. In December, 2004 there were 4,098 undocumented immigrants in the Arizona state prison population making up 12.6 percent according to state data. By June 2010 the number had increased to 14.8 percent for a total of 5,983 incarcerated undocumented immigrants.

Yep, those all seem like legitimate reasons to lock up the scumbags, if you axe me. And of course, these bleeding heart lib scumbags fail to mention that just the fact that these illegal aliens are in our country is a crime, which makes them, get ready: Criminals!

But wait! It gets even better! Well, actually worse, when the libs interview another member of what Victor Davis Hanson called the “cultural elite”, a college professor to explain it all to the unwashed masses (you and I).

I wonder if it ever occurred to these two libturd dolts that we don’t need a pointy-headed liberal pseudo-intellectual who thinks he’s smarter than everybody else to explain to us why these scumbags are in prison.

We already know why they’re in prison: THEY BROKE THE DAMN LAW! Why the hell is that so difficult for these libturds to figure out?

Anyway, read this bullshit from professor James Alan Fox from Northeastern University. The condescension is so thick you have to cut it with a knife-

“You take any population that tends to be poor and you will have a higher rate of individuals in prison,” he said. “One, there is a correlation between social class and criminality and two there’s a correlation between social class and the likelihood you’ll be sent to prison for the same crime as compared to people in a higher social class.”

Fox says this is due in part to inadequate legal representation for low-income people. And he adds: “There’s a title of an old book the rich get richer; the poor get prison.”

Again, WTF?!?!

So I guess this “genius” is implying that it’s not the criminal’s fault they’re in jail, since according to the propeller head, the criminal is actually a victim also!

I’m sure the person who was murdered, robbed, or raped by these animals will feel better because the perpetrator is also a victim! You see, it’s society’s fault, not the criminal’s!

Yep, that’s it! Blame the man!

So what does being poor have to do with the propensity to break the law? The answer is NOTHING! Millions upon millions of poor people live their lives everyday as law-abiding citizens.

The problem isn’t poverty, it’s parenting, or the lack of parenting. And that can be blamed squarely on liberal democrats, who decided, to all of our detriment, especially those they were trying to “help”, that a father wasn’t necessary to raise their kids, just a check from the government.

As the great Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote in his article from August, 2004, “The War on Poverty Revisited”:

Never had there been such a comprehensive program to tackle poverty at its roots, to offer more opportunities to those starting out in life, to rehabilitate those who had fallen by the wayside, and to make dependent people self-supporting. Its intentions were the best. But we know what road is paved with good intentions.

The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal vision of society — and of government programs as the solution to social problems. The disastrous consequences that followed have made the word “liberal” so much of a political liability that today even candidates with long left-wing track records have evaded or denied that designation.

And he also wrote this:

The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty.

In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959 — that is, before the magic 1960s decade when supposedly all progress began. The rise of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations was greater in the five years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years afterwards.

So, if just being poor were the cause of all this lawlessness, the USA should have been a war zone during the great depression. It wasn’t. As a matter of fact, not including bootlegging and the ensuing mafia wars, crime rates during the depression actually decreased:

The analysis suggests that relief spending during the 1930s lowered property crime in a statistically and economically significant way. A lower bound ordinary least squares estimate suggests that a 10 percent increase in per capita relief spending during the Great Depression lowered property crime rates by close to 1 percent. After controlling for potential endogeneity using an instrumental variables approach, the estimates suggest that a 10 percent increase in per capita relief spending lowered crime rates by roughly 5.6 to 10 percent at the margin.

Another Hidden Zinger in Obamacare

by 1389AD ( 43 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Healthcare, Progressives at July 25th, 2010 - 10:00 am

In Fundamentally Transforming the United States, Phyllis Schlafly explains how the Democrat party voter base is founded upon those who get (or hope to get) their livelihood from the federal government. It goes much further than Chicago-machine patronage politics writ large; the federal government is deliberately destroying the family structure so as to make people more dependent on the federal government and the Democrat party. Unmarried mothers are a key part of Obama’s voter base. Thus, it is in his interests to discourage men and women from getting and staying married.

How do the Democrats go about attacking the family structure? The attacks go much further than promoting gay marriage and abortion on demand, or free condoms and salacious “sex education” in the public schools. Detrimental as those things are, at least they are visible. It’s the progressives’ stealth jihad against the family that I’m talking about here.

Check out this hidden zinger in Obamacare:

Marriage Penalty in Health Care

A huge marriage penalty is hidden in Obama’s Health Control Law. This law is another federal program providing financial incentives to subsidize marriage avoidance and illegitimate offspring.

Even though all evidence shows that marriage is the best remedy for poverty, lack of health care, domestic violence, child abuse, and school dropouts, federal welfare programs continue to discriminate against marriage and instead give taxpayer handouts to those who reject marriage. This isn’t any accident; it is a central part of the Democrats’ political strategy that produced 70% of unmarried women voting for Obama for President in 2008.

Here is the approximate cost in the Health Control Law for an unmarried couple who each earn $25,000 a year (total: $50,000). When they both buy health insurance (which will be mandatory), the combined premiums they pay will be capped at $3,076 a year. But if the couple gets married and has the same combined income of $50,000, they will pay annual premiums up to a cap of $5,160 a year. That means they have to fork over a marriage penalty of $2,084.

The marriage penalty is the result of the fact that government subsidies for buying health insurance are pegged to the federal poverty guidelines. Couples that remain unmarried are rewarded with a separate health care subsidy for each income.

When the Wall Street Journal reporter quizzed the Democratic authors of the health care bill, they made it clear that this differential was deliberate. The staffer justified the discriminatory treatment because “you have to decide what your goals are.” Indeed, the Democrats have decided what their goals are. They know that 70% of unmarried women voted for Obama in 2008, and the Democrats plan to reward this group with health insurance subsidies.

The House staffer told the Wall Street Journal reporter that the Democrats can’t make the subsidies neutral towards marriage because that would give a traditional one-breadwinner married couple a more generous subsidy than a single parent at the same income level. Horrors! The Democrats certainly are not going to allow traditional marriage to be preferred over couples who just shack up!

Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously and accurately explained the disastrous results of welfare back in 1965. The welfare system created a matriarchy with millions of children lacking their father in the home. It’s no wonder illegitimate birthrates are soaring and unmarried mothers now give birth to 4 out of every 10 babies born in the United States.

Means-tested welfare programs already cost taxpayers close to $1 trillion a year (even more than national defense!), and Obamacare is projected to add another $2.5 trillion after all its provisions take effect. There’s no end in sight to the increasing costs of these entitlements. In one year, the Obama Administration will spend more taxpayers’ money on spreading the wealth to non-taxpayers than George W. Bush spent on the entire Iraq war.

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a liberal firm that consults for clients such as Bill Clinton and John Kerry, admitted: “Unmarried women represent one of the most reliable Democratic cohorts in the electorate . . . leading the charge for fundamental change in health care.”

It used to be that a husband was responsible for the financial support of his wife and children, but the feminists’ agenda calls for replacing husbands with Big Brother Government. The feminists call their movement “women’s liberation,” and Obamacare is one more way to help them achieve their goal.

Feminists keep tightening their control over the social policies of the Democratic Party, and Obamacare will be his third payoff to the feminists. The first bill Obama signed as President, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, enables women to sue employers years many years after any alleged workplace discrimination (when no one is still alive to defend against allegations), and the second payoff was getting Obama to give the majority of taxpayer-paid Stimulus jobs to women even though men have suffered the big majority of job losses.

Read it all.

The scavenger hunt is on

I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant nor a “policy wonk” (whatever that is supposed to be). Sorting through the huge pile of paperwork that makes up the Obamacare bill, or for that matter, the recent financial regulatory bill, and piecing together the hidden “zingers” that are poised to harm each sector of our economy and society, is beyond my capabilities. This is not a one-person job. I would like to urge everyone who is able to do so, to help complete this task by researching how those bills will affect their community and their sector of the economy, and submit that information to 2.0: The Blogmocracy.

The scavenger hunt is on, and the only prize is preserving your freedom.

A book review- “Whiny Little Bitch: The Excuse-Filled Presidency of Barack Obama”

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 137 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Communism, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2010, Misery Index, Progressives at June 25th, 2010 - 9:00 am

First of all, believe it or not, this is an actual book! But, if you’d like to order a copy ($14.95), please note that it will not be released until June 29th. I hope that a lot of other people will also want to read about the Whiny Little Bitch in the White House, and it becomes a New York Slimes #1 best-seller, but I digress.

It’s written by Mike Cullen, and it’s about the total incompetency of the America-hating POS that occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Av. NW, the man-child bungler-in-chief himself, and the other America-hating scumbags, that, like cockroaches, infest his pathetic, inept socialism-loving administration.

Here’s the introduction, and it’s excellent, because it is spot-on…

I had never seen anything like it. Only 44 men have held the office of President of the United States. This guy gets into office, and even one year later, he still can’t stop sniveling about the man who held the position before him. Can you picture Abraham Lincoln engaging in a year-long whine about James Buchanan? I inherited this slavery problem, you know. So don’t get your hopes to high.

Touché! Beautifully written, huh? I thought so, also!

But I know, you want more, huh? I’ve got more!!!

About Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Incompetano, Cullen writes:

She’s proof that there is at least one person in Washington who is less qualified for her job than Barack Obama is for his.

Bwahahahaha!!!

Then there’s a chapter called “The 7 Habits of a Highly Ineffective President”. BTW, habit #7 is priceless!

1. I Didn’t Explain it Right- There’s nothing wrong with the policy. You yokels are too stupid to understand it.

2. Let Me Be clear- Let me be clear is the rhetorical equivalent of an exploding dye pack in a bag of cash. It indelibly marks all words that follow as false. “Let me be clear” pegs my bullshit meter.

3. Conflation – Treating two different concepts as if they were one: In an attempt to marginalize the Tea Party movement, Obama described them as people who question whether he is a US citizen and believe he’s a socialist. Two totally unrelated things.

4. The False Choice- When Americans look to their government for responsible solutions, Barack Obama lives to offer us the false choice. We can either support his stale brand of socialism or we can do nothing.

5. The False Promise- Closing Gitmo. Broadcasting the health care debate on CSPAN.

6. Blaming Your Opponents- Even more bizarre were his repeated attempts to blame Republicans for his own failures. With an overwhelming Democrat majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, he still didn’t sign a single piece of major legislation in 2009.

7. Talking out of Your Ass- In situations that require a careful, measured (Let’s say presidential) response, Barack Obama comes across like the barroom drunk who thinks he’s an expert on everything. Facts are not important. Barry’s got something to say, and it’s a free country, dammit.

Examples: Skip Gates. Comments about Las Vegas.

This thread also ties in, rather nicely, to what former Florida governor Jeb Bush said Wednesday about Obama:

Jeb Bush tells President Obama: Stop blaming George W. Bush

Former Florida GOP Gov. Jeb Bush has grown tired of listening to Barack Obama blame his brother, telling Matt Bai, the “Political Times” columnist for The New York Times, that he finds the president’s behavior “childish.”

In an interview with Bai, Bush said that he has had enough of Obama frequently pointing back to his brother George W. Bush’s tenure to explain economic and budget problems, as well as failed oversight of the oil industry.

“It’s kind of like a kid coming to school saying, ‘The dog ate my homework,’” the former governor said of the president. “It’s childish. This is what children do until they mature. They don’t accept responsibility.”

“He apparently likes to act like he’s still campaigning, and he likes to blame George’s administration for everything,” Bush added.

Bush went on to criticize the president’s own stewardship of the economy, calling Obama “Hubert Humphrey on steroids.”

Read the whole piece here.

A tip o’ the hat to Denny!

Why Obama’s job approval here and worldwide is sinking to historic lows after only 1½ years

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 105 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2010, Misery Index, Progressives, Socialism, UK at June 20th, 2010 - 10:00 am

Of course, we, meaning those of us with functioning brains, which excludes liberals, leftists and other various losers and miscreants, knew that most of America and the world would eventually WTFU and come to realize what we’ve known all along- That the incompetent bungler-in-chief Barack Hussein Obama will end up being the worst President in the history of our country.

Think about that for a minute.

He’s even more incompetent than that anti-Semitic ignoramus Jimmy Carter. Voters are getting buyer’s remorse, and the morons that bought this America-hating POS’s hope and change bullshit are starting to finally “get it”.

Well, not only most Americans, but also in Britain (and around the world, for that matter). Most Americans and Brits are finally realizing that this buffoon is not qualified to manage their local 7-11, much less our country, and that he is screwing up the relationships we’ve worked for years to build with our friends around the world, while coddling our enemies.

The amazing thing is that the bungler-in-chief and his band of lib losers have managed to do this in less than 18 months. This is what happens when an inexperienced and incompetent snake oil salesman fools 53 million dolts into voting for him.

This arrogant, ignorant asshole actually had the audacity (and not of hope) to send a letter to the leaders of the G20 nations lecturing them and almost demanding that they keep spending money that they (and we) don’t have to try to stimulate the world’s economies, even though most countries already are basically bankrupting their future by this out of control spending. This result is what happens when brain-dead liberals like Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Frank, and Reid have unfettered control of the government.

Every policy or idea these idiot libs have enacted or propose to enact has already been tried and failed miserably numerous times, and these will fail also. The one thing that we know that will work at stimulating the world’s and our economies is cutting taxes and cutting spending. But mentioning tax cuts and spending cuts to these moronic libs is like offering kryptonite to Superman.

As usual, Nile Gardiner hits it out of the park it in his June 17th op-ed in the London Daily Telegraph-

Barack Obama: the most unpopular man in Britain?

What a difference 18 months and an oil spill makes. In January 2009 Barack Obama was hugely popular on this side of the Atlantic, and could have walked on water in the eyes of the British media, the political elites, and the general public. In June 2010 however he probably qualifies as the most despised US president since Nixon among the British people. In fact you can’t open a London paper at this time without reading yet another fiery broadside against a leader who famously boasted of restoring “America’s standing” in the world.

When even Obama’s most ardent political supporters in Britain, including Boris Johnson, are on the offensive against the White House, you know the president’s halo has dramatically slipped. It’s hard to believe that any politician could become more disliked in the UK than Gordon Brown, but Barack Obama is achieving that in spades. And as Janet Daley noted of the British press, the love affair with Barack is well and truly over.

[…]

We are witnessing one of the worst exercises in public diplomacy by a US government in recent memory, one that could cause significant long-term damage to the incredibly important economic and political partnership between Great Britain and the United States. And for those who say this is minor storm in a tea cup, I would point out that it is highly unusual for a British Prime Minister to have to stand up to an onslaught against British interests by an American president, as David Cameron has just done. In fact the prospect of a major confrontation between Downing Street and the White House grows stronger by the day.

But this is not the whole picture. President Obama’s handling of BP is part of a far bigger problem. This is an administration that has consistently insulted Britain, and has even sided with her foes in some cases, most notably in its wholehearted support for Argentina’s call for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falklands, a position that has been strongly backed by Venezuelan tyrant Hugo Chavez.

Read the whole article here

BTW, hat tip to Denny