Only a Liberal…

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

Michelle Obama has been living in the White House for just over 100 days. With less than 4 months of data to analyze, Oprah Winfrey is absolutely positive that Michelle Obama is the greatest first lady ever.
“Seeing as how Michelle is the greatest First Lady we’ve ever known, not to take anything away from the other First Ladies, but I think its so fantastic that she’s tonight’s guest and leads the pack of influentials,” Winfrey told the Daily News.

This is like watching an NFL rookie break a single game passing record and declaring him to be the greatest quarterback of all time. It is impossible to evaluate how good of a first lady Michelle Obama is. The only way Oprah could draw such a conclusion is to be able to strongly distinguish Michelle from other first ladies. The only characteristic that could be used for this analysis is race.

Oprah Winfrey is an unapologetic, narrow-minded RACIST. If you know someone who watches her show, direct them to my post. Racism from whites is a crime, but racism from blacks is celebrated. Its disgusting.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

If you wake up one morning and have the urge to fire poor minorities, I have the solution for you. Raise the minimum wage. The majority of those that are paid the minimum wage are poor minorities. For you knee-jerkers that are appalled by my statements, let me assure you I do not support firing poor minorities, which I why I don’t support a minimum wage of ANY kind.

The minimum wage makes it illegal to sell labor that is worth less than the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is $5, and you want to do some kind of work for $4, you are not allowed to. So those whose labor produces less value than the minimum wage will eventually be fired or won’t find work in the first place. This is math, not politics. You can argue until you’re blue in the face why it is absolutely necessary to have a minimum wage. There is no argument that disputes my fundamental claim.

Liberals see it as compassionate to raise the minimum wage. Their logic is, if I raise the minimum wage, all poor people will make more money. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works. All minimum-wage increases do is drastically increase the chances of poor people getting fired from their already low-paying jobs.

No one can disagree with the following: if you freeze all other variables, increasing the minimum wage decreases employment. Again, this is pure math. If you increase the cost of labor, you will decrease the demand for labor. If you raise the minimum price of a candy bar to $5, people will buy less candy bars. It is the same principle.

In 1938, Roosevelt signed the first minimum wage into law. Why 1938? According to Mackinac.org, the American textile industry had begun moving from New England to the South. Cost of living was lower, so Southerners could produce the same product for less income. Massachusetts politicians would have nothing of this, so they began demanding wages be hiked so that “Massachusetts [would] have equal competition with other sections of the country.” Southern politicians correctly characterized this as a tariff against Southern goods.

So perhaps you agree with the minimum wage consequence part, but still don’t believe minimum wages disproportionately affect minorities. From 1948-1955, black teenage males had an unemployment rate of 11.3%. White teenage males were at 11.6% (which is higher in case you’re not paying attention). In the two years following the 1956 increase, nonwhite teenage employment went from 14% to 24%. By 1960, unemployment among black teenage males was up to 22.7%, while whites were at 14.6% (NCPA). Racism can’t be to blame, since no one can argue that employers were more racist in 1960 than 1955. In 1996, when the economy was booming for everyone else, black male teenage employment went from 37% to 41% after another minimum wage increase. “Data from President Clinton’s own labor department show that at least 20,000 jobs were eliminated by the 1996 hike. The Employment Policies Institute calculates that the real job loss was closer to 128,000.”

Now that you know, let me present this passage to you. “The [1963] Equal Pay Act was an important step in leveling the often uneven work field in which women competed with men for the same jobs but had to settle for making less money.” (encyclopedia.com) Let’s pretend that once upon a time, wide-spread sexism did exist in this country (crazy, right?). So as a result, less women were able to educate themselves and gain as much experience as men. The logical result is that at that time, women were, on average, less skilled at certain jobs then men. I’m not saying they were less “capable.” They were not allowed to gain the experience and knowledge that men were allowed to. It would be unreasonable to expect that. So what would occur if you required employers to pay women the same amount to do the same job as a man, assuming the women in question, on average, was less skilled at it in the 1960s than a man? You would essentially fire or prevent employment for tons of women.

So these beliefs or fantastic wishes that liberals have to help minorities, to help young people, to help women, all do the EXACT OPPOSITE. The best thing you can do for these formerly oppressed groups is afford them every opportunity to work and gain experience even if it temporarily makes you uncomfortable. Raising the minimum wage only hurts the poor and the weak.

EVEN IF YOU ASSUME that every single person that makes the minimum wage stays employed when there is an increase, there is another consequence. The cost of labor is included in the cost of goods and services. If you increase the cost of labor, and the employer doesn’t fire anyone, then the cost of the goods that the labor produces will go up. So a minimum wage increase is also a goods and services cost increase. The price of fresh produce goes up. So even in the sunny, happy-go-lucky, naive liberal scenario where raising the minimum wage supposedly doesn’t make poor people unemployed, it most certainly makes it harder to buy groceries. That sure-as-shit hurts poor people more than rich people.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whose Obama-appointed Secretary is Janet Napolitano, released a report titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Environment Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” This report has pissed a lot of people off, and rightly so, due to the fact that it identifies people as right-wing, potentially dangerous extremists if they support state and local authority over federal or oppose abortion or immigration. That’s right… if you oppose abortion, you’re a right-wing extremist that the Department of Homeland Security needs to keep its eye on. Here is the exact wording…

“…those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.  It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

The basic gist is that because the economy is in the crapper, and because a half-black man has been elected President, perhaps, maybe right-wingers could possibly at some point become angry enough to become terrorists. Mind you, DHS has “no specific information” to think this, just a… hunch. We’ll call it “liberal intuition.”

“The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.”

So non-violent right-wing groups are recruiting more people, and Napolitano sees this as dangerous. This is a right afforded to all American citizens in the first Amendment (right to Assembly).This is the same Janet Napolitano, who refuses to use the word terrorism when addressing Congress. Napolitano’s explanation of that?

“In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.” (americaswatchtower.com)

No Janet, it is not “nuance”… it is nonsense. She is putting terrorist attacks in the same category as tornados, floods, and oil spills.

So to clarify how insanse this is, Janet Napolitano says calling a terrorist a terrorist is just the “politics of fear” so we should avoid it at all costs, but identifying pro-lifers as potentially violent is necessary for national security. We don’t want to scare Americans by referring to 9/11 as a “terrorist” attack, but we must warn Americans of the potential threat of federalists.

A CNN story actually highlighted the report on right-wing extremism and put a picture of skinheads with Nazi flags in the article. The “contributor” for the vicious article is Jeanne Meserve, whom you can email here. This is illustrative of the celebrated ignorance of the left. They consider Nazis to be “right-wing.” I did a search for the argument that Hitler was a “right-winger.” Here’s one argument…

“Hitler’s other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.” (huppi.com)

1. Racism over racial tolerance - Author assumes with zero evidence that right-wing = racist. Simply wanting all right-wingers to be racist does not make it so. On this, Hitler was NEUTRAL.
2. Eugenics over freedom of reproduction - The left supports abortion, which is certainly closer to eugenics than being pro-life. In fact the founder of Planned Parenthood, which assists women in abortion and birth control, believed in Eugenics. (read here) LEFT
3. Merit over equality - Conservatives do believe merit should be rewarded, where many liberals believe everyone should receive an equal outcome. RIGHT
4. Competition over Cooperation - The two are not mutually exclusive. Right-wing capitalists who strongly believe in competition constantly cooperate with other. NEUTRAL
5. Power politics and militarism over pacifism - I suppose the left is more pacifist than the right. RIGHT
6. Dictatorship over democracy - This is ludicrous nonsense. Right-wingers don’t support dictatorship. In fact the only Americans I ever see supporting dictators are left-wing liberals. Who likes Castro? Left-wingers. Who likes Hugo Chavez? Left-wingers, namely Sean Penn. To be fair though, many left-wingers support democracy, so we’ll call this a draw. NEUTRAL
7. Capitalism over Marxism - Yup, right-wing. On this, I agree with Adolf. Stopped clock is right twice a day. RIGHT
8. Realism over idealism - Yup, right-wingers lean more towards what DOES happen than what COULD happen. RIGHT
9. Nationalism over internationalism - Yup. RIGHT
10. Exclusiveness over inclusiveness - This doesn’t even make sense. What do right-wingers exclude people from? The Congressional black caucus is dominantly left-wing, and it is the most exclusive group I can think of. LEFT
11. Common sense over theory and science - Yet again, these are not mutually exclusive, and this is based upon zero evidence. NEUTRAL
12. Pragmatism over principal - Excuse me? Is he implying that right-wingers ignore principals? Religious people choose pragmatism over principals? NEUTRAL
13. Atheist - The author wants us to believe that being atheist makes someone a right-winger. Being religious makes someone a right-winger. Can you say flawed logic? LEFT

I would point out that Hitler was a huge environmentalist, but I digress. So the author points out 13 characteristics that “obviously” prove that Hitler was a right-winger. I found through a fairly simple analysis that 5 of the items were arguably right-wing, 3 of the items were arguably left-wing, and the other 5 were neutral. I guess that means he leans to the right, but lets analyze the 5 things he was right-wing on.

Merit over equality
Militarism over pacifism
Capitalism over Marxism
Realism over idealism
Nationalism over internationalism

The most successful countries in the world, not only by wealth, but also low level of poverty, are capitalist. So the fact that Hitler believed in Capitalism is about as relevant as the fact that he believed in breathing oxygen. Many left wingers also believe in capitalism, so I believe this becomes more neutral. This also cover the “Merit over equality” part, so I have established Hitler as neither right- or left-wing. I won’t analyze the others at the time.
Now if you’re liberal friend at work points out that the DHS also released a report on left-wing extremists, they are being disingenous. As Fox News reports, that report is titled “Left-wing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyberattacks Over the Coming Decade. It concentrates largely on the technical savvy of left-wing extremists and not bloodshed.”

Janet Napolitano has issued a government report identifying individuals who have certain beliefs as potential threats to the United States. It is the epitome of un-American totalitarianism, and is probably illegal. If that ain’t profiling, I don’t know what is. She should be fired immediately, if not prosecuted for civil rights violations.

Nothing disgusts me more than hypocritical racism. Minority groups constantly defend their racism as not actually racism. The moderator at a forum (called “Unveiling White Privilege“) held at the University of Colorado balked at the idea that Jesse Jackson is a racist. An attendee of the forum writes…
“[Jackson] holds prejudices against other blacks, as well as whites and other ethnic groups.” I gave the example of when Jackson called Conservative black activist Ward Connerly “Strange Fruit” the same term used by whites in the Old South to describe blacks who had been lynched.
Moderator: “He can’t be racist because he holds no power.”

Aside from the fact that racism has nothing to do with power, on what planet do you have to live to think Jesse Jackson has no power? If you can name a white person alive today that has more power to engage in racist activity, I’d love to hear that name. Race mongers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are by far the most powerful racists in the country. There are no whites or white groups that can powerfully engage in racism. They would figuratively or literally be killed. Black racists are held up on pedestals.
So after all these decades of the war for civil rights, the tables have turned. The institutional racism towards blacks that I hear so much about, but hasn’t existed since before I was born, has now been replaced with institutional racism towards whites. Affirmative action, another bullshit phrase whose literal meaning has nothing to do with its actual meaning, has made racism ok by claiming that blacks have no power. Meanwhile the only racists in the country who are highly regarded and given seats of power are black or latino. You can’t get elected dog catcher if you are white and racist, but if you are black and racist, get in line. Congress is full of them.

Now to address the NAACP “Image” awards. As much as I like Fox and its programming, this disgustingly racist awards show should be taken off the air. It is appalling to create a show so condescending to blacks as to remove whites from the nomination process to ensure blacks win awards. Blacks do not need help winning awards. In the last 8 years, 4 out of 16 awards(25%) for best actor or actress Oscars have gone to blacks, and blacks only make up 12% of the country. Statistically, they’re doing twice as well as they should, if you assume all races are created equally in regards to acting.

Ask yourself which white group has more power than the NAACP. I recognize that the knee-jerk liberal response to that is “the Republican Party, hardy har”, which takes the comical genius of a 9 year old, and the ignorance of a lawn chair. Perhaps you can come up with another example that isn’t false. I thought not.

You really think the NAACP is there to acknowledge blacks? See if they mention African-American Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele during the broadcast tonight. Don’t hold your breath.

The unpleasant truth is perhaps the biggest enemy of the liberal. I should say, the kool-aid drinking liberal, whether Republican or Democrat or whatever. Ann Coulter does go out of her way to say things that will offend, but you will be hard-pressed to disprove any of it, as the cast of The View found out. If you avoid the facts, then you are avoiding the debate. There are a few points to cover, but the main issue is when she talks about race.

She points out that both Barack Obama and Halle Barry chose to brag about their black heritage while ignoring or downplaying their white heritage. This is a valid, factual observation that should be addressed, yet the hostesses have no interest. They never really get their statements out, but it sounds like they’re basically gonna say since you are not Barack or Halle, you have no right to comment on how they racially identify themselves. NONSENSE! The fact that Obama wrote a biography where the title mentions the father that had nothing to do with raising him is extremely relevant and telling. Ann details a strong pattern, deviated by few if any other than Tiger Woods, of partially black celebrities only talking about how black they are. It is pseudo-self-victimization to paint one’s self as the underdog because of partial-DNA. You wanna talk about your black heritage: fine, but you should occasionally mention your white heritage as well. These celebrities don’t, other than Obama who is occasionally forced to, and then even talks in the third person (grandmother is a “typical white person”). Hey Barack… you’re white! So are you Halle. I’m sorry it’s less interesting to you, but it’s a fact.

How dare a white woman critique the racial comments of a black woman! This kind of knee-jerk nonsense has to stop. Coulter even points out that when you take single-motherhood out of the equation, crime rates of blacks and whites are equal. WHAT AN AMAZING STATISTIC!!! You’d think she’d be praised for finding and pointing out something like this. Even though our society has progressed way beyond a racism to be concerned with, people still “know” that blacks go to jail more than whites. The numbers she cites seem to show that it isn’t because of a race, but because of single-parenthood. Ann is attacking a subgroup of single-mothers, but because it may include good people, the hostesses only focus on the attack, not the root problem.

Ann: “Its selfish for a single mother to have a baby without a father.”

Just because there are a significant number of single mothers who produce healthy productive citizens does not mean that it isn’t selfish to force a child to grow up without a father. Children do better in a two-parent home for obvious logistical reasons. Two people can do a job better than one can. Ann is only talking about those single mothers who choose on their own to be single, not those that are forced to because of abusive or addict fathers, etc. Just those that do it cuz they “wanna.” That is selfish. That is putting your wants ahead of the needs of the baby. You are entitled to be selfish in a free society, but don’t tell us it isn’t selfish. “What about single women who want to have children?” Note the word WANT. What about what the child wants? Let me re-iterate, I’m not saying, and neither is Ann, that single-motherhood should be banned. This is a free country, and people are free to not give away their money and free to selfishly have kids in a single-parent home.

The basic point of the “View” hostesses, including Hasselbeck, is that Ann Coulter is a meanie. I think Ann would agree 100%. She doesn’t concern herself with being sensitive. She is only about discussing unpleasant truths, and doesn’t seem to find any opponents who want to engage her on substance. We need more people who stop worrying about whose feelings get hurt when serious issues should be discussed.

22-year-old Oscar Grant was shot at a BART train station in Oakland 2am on New Years Day. I think a taser fired at the closest standing antagonist in the crowd or Grant would have been a better choice for calming the crowd than shooting a guy laying on the ground, but I would say based on the 3rd video that Hotair.com has up, the crowd, not Oscar Grant, the crowd is lucky only one person got shot. Watch the 3rd video at that link first, then the others

Let me be clear. White guy shoots black person is not always a race issue. If it is, Officer Mehserle deserves to burn. What this officer did is horrendous, but the notion that he purposely executed an unarmed man in front of 100 witnesses is ludicrous. The main theory appears to be he mistook his firearm for his taser. This kind of keystone cop nonsense is appalling and should be prosecuted in a court of law. But don’t turn this into some race war. A handful of cops were surrounded by an intoxicated, loudmouth mob, and the good guys made a mistake. The fact he made a mistake doesn’t mean he should go free, but don’t blow this out of proportion.

Gunshot occurs at 2:57 in the video. As you can see multiple crowd members keep approaching the cops menacingly after multiple requests to stay back. I’d say at least 30-40 people are yelling incessantly at the cops, making this an extremely dangerous situation. There appear to be multiple crowd members pointing cell phones from multiple vantage points, so now cops have to keep making sure none of the arms pointed at them have guns. Pay attention around 2:15, when people start approaching the cops, including the guy in the red hat. At 2:51 and 2:55 there are a few popping noises, and you see a guy with red shoes, I assume to match the red hat, laying on the floor with a cop on top of him. He is not the guy that got shot, but evidently he ignored the cops when he kept approaching them. Then the shot at 2:57, which that 3rd video doesn’t capture.

Turns out Grant may be a felon, but I don’t know if the officer knew that when he shot Grant. I have heard people say it was a weapon felony, but again I don’t know if the officer knew that. BUT IF HE DID, that changes everything you think you know about this crime.
All I ask is wait for the facts to come out. These race monger a-holes running around Oakland talking about slavery is disgusting. This shooting has NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING to do with slavery. Officer Johannes Mehserle deserves his day in court. The businesses of Oakland don’t deserve these riots anymore than Oscar Grant deserved to die. White guy shoots black person is not always a race issue. If it is, Officer Mehserle deserves to burn.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

Even in the internet age, the Associated Press has a 36+ day delay on news.

The Associated Press has discovered that Barack Obama has somewhat questionable associations with bad people.

WHAT?!?!?! SAY IT AINT SO!!!

small - medium - large (different sizes for forwarding to friends)

How is it that the Associated Press just found out about Barack Obama’s “questionable” associations? Surely I wasn’t hallucinating when Sean Hannity was screaming about them for months. Or the other hundreds of bloggers and pundits and anchors who occasionally recognized one association after another, but never linked any of them together as perhaps relevant connections when considering whom to elect President of the United States.

This Barry Bunch has only recently added a new family member, corrupt Governor Rod Blagojevich, but the other have been there all along. Tony Rezko helped Obama buy his current home in Chicago and helped him fundraise before being convicted. Bill Ayers helped Obama get his political career started and hired him, after his terrorist organization bombed the Pentagon. Jeremiah Wright married Barack and his wife and baptized his children, before, during, and after yelling racist, anti-American nonsense at the church Obama chose. Then there’s Michael Pfleger, Rashid Khalidi, Emil Jones, and perhaps the worst of all, the “semi-admitted”* pedophile, childhood mentor of Obama, Frank Marshall Davis (click here to learn about Davis in a report I wrote on Obama connections).

Each of these associations alone could be explained, but not all of them combined. America has no idea what they did on November 4.

* It was pointed out to me that Davis’s writing were “semi-autobiographical” as opposed to autobiographical. So the technical term will be “semi-admitted pedophile” or perhaps “semi-pedophile.”

It took a racial slur against a black liberal for people to get angry. Check out the hypocrisy and absurdity on parade… al-Qaeda came out with a video a week ago referring to President-elect Obama as a house negro. al-Qaeda has finally crossed the line, in the screwed up minds of liberals. One columnist actually wrote an article explaining why Obama is not a house negro. The UK telegraph has an article titled “Al-Qaeda leader racially abuses Barack Obama.”

So why do liberals in the media and elsewhere get more worked up about a terrorist calling Barack Obama a name than they do about the terror they inflict with violence? The basic breakdown is they see America as separate from Barack Obama. In their minds, America deserves to be attacked, but Barack Obama doesn’t. They actually see the President-elect as above the status of the country he was elected to lead.

This is childish, emotional insanity.

Here’s an example to illustrate the hypocrisy of both a liberal and a black American…
Al Sharpton (Nov 2008): “to use such a derogatory, racist term against the president; I think it is an insult and something that is absolutely denigrating and racist”

Al Sharpton (Feb 2007): “I don’t know that [Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell] are viewed as “house negroes” in the term.  I believe that they are in the house and rest of us are in the field. (laughter)  So it would not be an inaccurate description”

The best analysis I found on this insanity was by Rush Limbaugh:

RUSH:  “Now, folks, is it me?  Am I so out of touch here that this sounds absurd?  Who are we talking about here?  Al-Qaeda has murdered 3,000 Americans inside of 45 minutes to an hour-and-a-half; they have beheaded American journalists; they have committed all kinds of atrocities all over the world.  And now the American left is finally upset at Al-Qaeda (and Al Sharpton particularly) ’cause how dare they say something racist!  They can kill whoever they want, whenever they want, and we’ll do our best to understand it. But when they start using racist language, why, that’s the last straw!”

Racism is a product of ignorance. No one has ever been worried that people would go back to thinking the world was flat, yet some in the African-American community would have you believe America could go back to segregation and 3/5 votes at a moment’s notice. Under the watchful eye of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, a generation of color-blind Americans was born, and they either don’t know it or don’t care to acknowledge it.

As a result, every post-Obama-election show has the token black correspondent on their program in shock and awe that a black man was elected President. Another ivy-leaguer with a political background and an ability to speak got elected president, yet all these black correspondents can’t believe their eyes and can’t contain their joy. Am I the only person in the country that finds this immensely condescending? CNN, Fox, MSNBC… they all breathlessly await the happy words of their black correspondent. It’s demeaning, and its pathetic to see this inferiority complex.

Now, if you think I’m out of touch, or too young to understand, perhaps you should ask yourself, “Wasn’t that the point?” This obsession with black identity and black power has hindered the black community from achieving the goal they so strongly claim to pursue: integration. Too many black leaders keep telling their community that they can’t achieve anything because of evil white people. That may have been true 40 years ago, but it isn’t any longer. Politics aside, Barack Obama is an intelligent, well-educated, charismatic man with a diverse upbringing and several years of political experience. It is silly to assume a person with those characteristics in the year 2008 would be prevented from becoming President simply because the pigment of his skin is slightly darker than his predecessor. It is ludicrous.

Racism in America is dead. Yes, there are still racists out there, and they won’t hire blacks, or whatever race that particular racist doesn’t like. There’s also chauvinists who won’t hire feminists, and feminists who won’t hire chauvinists, and there always will be. Our society could reduce murders by increasing the number of police substantially, but we don’t because it would cost too much. We could reduce the number of rapes by installing cameras everywhere, but that would infringe on people’s privacy, among other things. In other words, there is an acceptable amount of murder and an acceptable amount of rape, whether you think its politically correct to say so. Likewise, there is an acceptable amount of racism. Racism as some widespread systemic problem that can be totally cured is a fairy tale, and it is overkill. We have bigger concerns in this country.

I recognize there was once a time for government intervention on very serious, unacceptable racism, but that time has passed. A generation of Americans watched the Cosby Show and Oprah, watched Superbowls and World Series with players of all colors, saw Tiger Woods become the best, and most popular, golfer in the world. Black Americans have been achieving incredible things alongside white people for decades, but the race racketeers want you to believe racism is alive and well, and it is holding down the black man and black woman to this day. It’s a bunch of bull. Other than some blatantly racist forms of hip hop, how could anyone with a TV grow up with a overall, negative view of African-Americans? It’s not possible.

More immigrants come to America than any other country in the world. They are obviously aware of what I’m trying to convey. They know America won’t treat them differently because of where they came from. Not only immigrants, but several prominent blacks agree, such as Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Jesse Lee Peterson, Michael Steele, etc. Sowell said in his column linked above, “Romantic self-indulgence and self-deception are things that some people can afford when they reach the point where they can afford identity angst. But millions of other people will remain mired in poverty if they believe such notions.” All minorities need to move onto other more important things than worrying about racism.

The inferiority complex and fear of regression to the racist America of the past caused the media to overreact to the controversies of Don Imus, Michael “Kramer” Richards, and Duane “Dog” Chapman. Imus’s comments weren’t even racist when you actually analyze them intellectually. Neither were Dog Chapman’s. They were racIAL. Who knows about Richard’s real beliefs, but the fact is, even if one of these guys was a racist, why don’t we just ignore him? None of these people can revert America back into what it was before the civil rights movement. It’s preposterous to have such illogical fears.

Americans need to look at this election not as some milestone that needed to be reached, but as evidence that we had already reached our goal. The war on racism has been over for years. It still exists in small amounts, and will always exist in small amounts. When it occasionally rears its ugly head, we will deal with it on a case-by-case basis, but a constant alertness to it is unnecessary and unproductive.

Well, sort of. I dont consider this indicative of the GOP by any stretch. I despise anyone who sells out their principles for the sake of race. I don’t care which race it is. Anyone who won’t vote for Barack Obama because he’s part black is an ignorant moron, and likewise anyone who will vote for him because he’s part black is an ignorant moron. It appears that Colin Powell, age 71, would like to see a half-black president before he dies, and he’s willing to put lipstick on socialism to help it get done.
“Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those that pay it in roads and airports and hospitals and schools…”

Except Obama wants rich people to pay twice as much for the same roads as poor people. The rich people are not getting their money back. That’s like charging poor people $4 for a coffee, but charging rich people $20 for a coffee. “They’re getting their money back! Look we gave them a coffee!”

“and taxes are necessary for the common good.”

We have to be very specific with this one. Taxes are necessary for the rule of law, national defense, and providing a reliable currency. Most things outlined in the constitution fall under those three things. Having the rule of law is part of why the United States is so great. We take it for granted, while other nations have to deal with religious influences. Taxes make our virtually omnipotent military possible, and again, we take our security for granted. A lot of countries would like being #1 in the world by taking us out, but they wouldn’t dare due to the threat of our power.

The point is capitalism is really what is necessary for the common good. It does not work without tax revenue to provide the rule of law and national defense, but the common good cannot be achieved without capitalism. Capitalism and the free market are color-blind, class-blind, age-blind. They are also unforgiving and brutal, which is why socialists don’t like it. The problem is socialism is unforgiving and brutal in its own ways, as shown by many nations in the past and present.
“There’s nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more or who should be paying less and for us to say that that makes you a socialist I think is an unfortunate characterization. That isn’t accurate.”

Colin, saying that one American should pay more taxes than another is socialist. The fact you don’t like the word socialist does not change its meaning. All socialists “advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly.” (Wikipedia)

Calling it socialist is 100% accurate. This analysis does not illustrate that Colin Powell is a closet-socialist, or he wishes the country was socialist. It illustrates that he doesn’t care about the appalling scourge of socialism, as long as a half-black man becomes President while he’s still alive. I have no doubt that if John McCain were black, he would endorse John McCain. Its not a matter of ideology. General Powell doesn’t have the patience or patriotism to let time pass and allow for a qualified, black candidate to earn the office. I’m sure it will happen very soon, but perhaps not for another several election cycles.