Leading US black economist speaks out on behalf of blacks

May 25, 2013

Professor Walter E. Williams of George Mason University arguably is the leading black economist in the United States. He is a man who has made an admirable career out of speaking truth to power. Because truth sometimes requires saying harsh things about the politics of race, Walter Williams tends to shake up the liberal establishment. He does not respond to political questions from the liberal elite in the manner that blacks are supposed to respond to their questions. For many such, Williams is an enigma, or worse, an Uncle Tom.

But be sure of one thing. Walter Williams cares more for the well-being of black Americans than any of this self-seeking liberal elite, be they black or be they non-black. Here are a few recent comments from Walter Williams that should serve as a wake-up call across America:

“Experiencing a violent crime rate of 2.137 per 100,000 of the population, Detroit is the nation’s most dangerous city. Rounding out Forbes magazine’s 2012 list of the 10 most dangerous cities are St. Louis; Oakland, California; Memphis, Tennessee; Birmingham, Alabama; Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Stockton, California, Cleveland, Ohio; and Buffalo, New York. The most common characteristics of these predominantly black cities is that for decades, all of them have been run by Democratic and presumably liberal administrations…What’s more is that in most of these cities, blacks have been mayors, chiefs ofd police, school superintendents and principals and have dominated city councils.”

“What I am saying is that if one is strategizing on how to improve the lives of the poorest black people, he wants to leave off his to-do list election of Democrats and black politicians. Also to be left off the to-do list is a civil rights agenda. Racial discrimination has little to do with major problems concerning black people.”

“Today 72 per cent of black babies are born out of wedlock. Being born and finding out that your mother is 17 years old and that your grandmother is 35 and that you don’t know who or where your father is is not a good start to life. In fact, it’s a near guarantee for school dropout, poverty and crime, but such a start in life has nothing to do with racial discrimination.”

“Law-abiding poor black people suffer the nation’s highest rates of criminal victimization from assaults and homicide. More than 50 per cent of homicide victims are black. Would anyone claim that this victimization is caused by racist groups preying on the black community?”

“Black education is a disaster, but who runs the violent, disruptive big-city schools, where education is all but impossible? For the most part, it’s not white people. Go to a city such as Detroit and you’ll find that blacks have been superintendents, principals and most of the teachers for years. Most black high-school students in Detroit and other cities can’t read, write and compute as well as sixth-, seventh- and eigth-grade white students, but is it because of racism?”

“Black people could benefit from an honest examination of the bill of goods they’ve been sold. Such an examination would not come from black politicians, civil rights leaders or the black and white liberal elite. Those people have benefited politically and financially from keeping black Americans in a constant state of grievance based on alleged racial discrimination. The long-term solution for the problems that many black Americans face begins only with an absolute rejection of the self-serving agenda of hustlers and poverty pimps”

Now you will understand why left-wing news anchors such as Sam Donaldson, Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw flushed into embarrassed silence when Walter Williams responded to their television questions. You may also understand why President Barack Obama does not speak such truths to the American people. After all, Barack Obama is the very power to which he would be speaking such truth. And that just ain’t going to happen, given the sources of his campaign funding and career success.

Hat Tip: Walter Williams, ‘Honest Examination of Race’, May 23, 2013

Lois Lerner, IRS division head, pleads the Fifth Amendment

May 23, 2013

President Obama’s key IRS lackey, Lois Lerner, heads the IRS division accused of targeting conservative groups and individuals in the run-up to the 2012 presidential elections. Yesterday she was required to attend a hearing of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee. She did so reluctantly, looking and outfitted like any senior bureaucrat in Stalin’s USSR. Her demeanor and stance left little doubt about which party she votes for in any national election.

‘I have not done anything wrong’, Ms. Lerner told the committee, in an opening statement. Nevertheless, she declined to answer questions under oath, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.She stated that she would not testify because lawmakers had accused her of making false statements to Congress about IRS targeting of conservative groups. This statement alone – which arguably constituted a waiver of her Fifth Amendment right – may constitute grounds for recalling Ms. Lerner and requiring her to testify before the Committee at a later date.

Although pleading the Fifth is not itself conclusive evidence of misbehavior, it is widely regarded as such. It is commonplace in criminal trials involving Mafia dons and other low-lives who mingle criminal with non-criminal behavior. Increasingly, the Imperial Presidency is morphing into the Cosa Nostra as it engages in threatening behavior right on the edges of the law. Middle range enforcers such as Lois Lerner are usually the first to fall before the FBI reaches upwards to those right at the top of the pyramid.

Like Cosa Nostra, the White House has developed a convenient strategy for evading ultimate responsibility for such behavior:

“President Obama’s former senior adviser, David Axelrod, told MSNBC recently that his guy was off the hook on the IRS scandal because ‘part of being President is there is so much beneath you that you can’t know because the government is so vast.” ‘The Unaccountable Executive’, The Wall Street Journal, May 23,2013

President Nixon once used the same defense. However, once all the president’s men collapsed like dominoes, as the investigstion advanced, Tricky Dick finally decided to take the fall and boarded Air Force One for one last time, heading out to San Clemente while relying on phlebitis and President Ford to protecty him from further probes.

President Obama may find himself in the same predicament, as his second term stumbles on, unless he chooses to admit wrong-doing and stops playing around on the outer edges of the law.

Tunisia: another Arab Spring turns into a Winter of Discontent

May 22, 2013

Since the 2011 revolution, Tunisia has been consumed by a struggle between liberals and the moderate majority Nahda Islamist party as the country moves to finalize a new constitution and prepare for elections. But, as in other Arab states in transition, dealing with the more radical Islamists, the puritanical Salafis, poses the biggest challenge to any form of democracy.

Tunisia’s secularists view a strict, austere Islam as alien to the country’s relatively open and moderate culture, as well as devastating towards the wealth-creating tourist industry. But the Salafis deploy much-needed social welfare programs to attract young Tunisians for whom Nahda is insufficiently Islamist and insufficiently successful in terms of job-creation.

Tunisia has become a fertile environment for radical fundamentalism. Weapons from the poorly-handled revolution in Libya have found their way to Tunisia and jihadi fighters have holed up in a region on the border with Algeria. Moreover, the civil war in Syria has attracted recruits from north Africa, including many Tunisians. Hardened jihadists eventually return to their homeland and turn their guns onto their own governments. Tunisia could easily become yet another welcoming watering hole for al-qaeda terrorists.

All this was entirely predictable when the Arab Spring began. Foolish Western governments that ignored trusted allies and fostered revolutions that brought them down, will suffer long-term for such short-sighted betrayals.

Hat Tip: ‘War within Islam’, Financial Times, May 22, 2013

Obama ignores nuclear threat from North Korea

May 21, 2013

Since 2006, North Korea has conducted at least three apparently successful nuclear tests. It has also orbited a satellite. Together, these events fulfill the basic technological requirements for an intercontinental ballistic missile that can deliver a nuclear warhead against mainland United States.

Miniaturizing a warhead to fit on a missile is not an overwhelming technical obstacle. North Korea requires only one ICBM capable of delivering a single nuclear warhead in order to pose an existential threat to the United States.The Electromagnetic Pulse Commission, the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, together with several other U.S. studies have established that detonating a nuclear weapon high above any part of the U.S. mainland would generate a catastrophic electro-magnetic pulse.

Sucn an EMP attack would collapse the electric grid and other infrastructure that depends upon it. 300 million Americans would be placed in immediate and serious life-threatening jeopardy. An EMP attack would plunge the U.S. electricity-powered civilization into a black-out potentially lasting for several years. The U.S. currently has no missile defense assets devoted to stopping a missile coming from the south. All such assets currently are positioned to intercept a missile strike in the middle or late part of its trajectory coming from the north polar region. The Obama administration indeed has cancelled the only two U.S. boost-phase or space-based defensive systems.

Wake up President Obama while sufficiwnt electricity remains for you to smell the coffee.A surgical strike to prevent North Korean development of an ICBM has never been more urgent.

Hat Tip: R.James Woolsey and Peter Vincent fry, ‘How North Korea Could Cripple the U.S.’, The Wall Street Journal, May 21, 2013

Post-Nixon, Obama lets loose IRS rattlesnakes

May 19, 2013

Any one who works for the IRS is predisposed to hate his neighbors, to relish invading individual privacy, and to pleasure himself through harassing threats and audit interrogations. Why else would he join the agency? ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you?’ No way!

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Given the modern Imperial Presidency, it takes a truly great man to withstand the temptation. Barack Obama is weak and dysfunctional as a consequence of a disturbed childhood, essentially orphaned by two utterly selfish and dysfunctional parents.

But Barack Obama is not entirely clueless. He remembers the fate of Richard Nixon, and does not relish the prospect of an aborted second term. All those golf treats with Tiger Woods and all those basketball treats with Michael Jordan! So this president is more tricky than Tricky Dick when he sets loose his IRS rattlesnakes on his political opponents.

The right-wing media may be sleuthing for some hint that Obama picked up the phone and sicced his tax snakes on his enemies. But that is not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. All that he needed to do was exactly what he did, in full view, throughout his three-year campaign for the 2012 elections: publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious activities, publicly call out by name political opponents whom he wanted to be harassed,and publicly encourage his party to pressure for IRS investigations. Even in his 2010 State of the Union address, this paranoid president cast aspersions on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, claiming that it opened the floodgates to conservative special interests. Well guess which party expended most on the 2012 elections?

The president publicly derided ‘tea-baggers’. Vice President Joe Biden compared them to terrorists. In case the IRS missed the point, Obama publicly raised the threat of illegality: ‘All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates…And they don’t say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don’t know if it’s a foreign corporation.’

How much more prodding do you think was necessary to set loose the IRS snakes on the names that Obama listed? Does this paranoid man think that Americans are completely stupid? Does he truly believe that Americans- independent of his left-leaning ideology – will ever believe that he played no role whatsoever in this disgusting partisan episode?

I’m from the government, and I’m here to take you down’.

Hat Tip: Kimberley A. Strassel, ‘The IRS Scandal Started at the Top’, The Wall Street Journal, May 17, 2013

IRS targets Obama’s enemies in extraordinary scandal

May 18, 2013

“We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they’re seeing. The Justice Department’s assault on the associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration’s credibility deeply, possibly irretrievably damaged….Something big has shifted. The standing of the administration has changed. As always it comes down to trust. Do you trust the president’s answers when he’s pressed on an uncomfortable story? Do you trust his people to be sober and fair-minded as they go about their work? Do you trust the IRS and the Justice Department? You do not.” Peggy Noonan, ‘This Is No Ordinary Scandal’, The Wall Street Journal, May 18, 2013

President Obama, albeit sheepishly, acts as though these scandals are unconnected to the White House.Like the chief of police in Casablanca he is shocked, shocked, to discover in the newspapers what has happened! President Obama, however, is deeply connected to these scandals. He is not a bystander, like you and I. This happens to be his administration. The Justice Department and the IRS are his executive agencies. He runs and oversees them.

In this column, I focus on the IRS scandal, once again. For it is much the more serious of the two. There are two parts to the IRS scandal. The first is the obviously deliberate and targeted abuse harassment and attempted suppression of conservative groups. The second is the auditing of taxes of conservative political activists.

In order to suppress conservative groups the IRS demanded donor rolls, membership lists, data on all contributions, names of volunteers, the contents of all speeches made by members, Facebook posts, minutes of all meetings, and copies of all materials handed out at gatherings. When asked what its members were reading, one group responded: The U.S. Constitution! Now I can assure you from first hand experience that these questions are not routinely requested by the IRS. When The Locke Institute applied for 501 (c) 3 status in 1994, it took about a year to secure that status. But the questions were always fair and politically unbiased. And that was during the administration of President Bill Clinton, who was not above a dirty trick or two to harass his supposed enemies.

The second part of the scandal is the auditing of political activists who have publicly opposed the administration. Such politically-oriented audits constitute the use of government power to intrude on the privacy and shackle the political freedom of American citizens. The purpose is to overwhelm and intimidate – to kill the opposition, audit by audit by audit. Such behavior is to be expected of such low-lives as Vladimir Putin, Tsar of All the Russias. Perhaps now it must be expected by such low-lives as President Obama, Tsar of the United States of America.

Shame on you Barack Obama! You disgrace the high office that you are privileged to hold.

Late-term abortions and the Kermit Gosnell vervict

May 16, 2013

The United States is irremediably divided on the issue of abortion. About one quarter of the country wants a complete ban on all abortions. About one quarter wants no limits on abortion. And a half of the population wants a compromise.

The details of the Gosnell case, presented to a Philadelphia jury who sat for weeks listening to every grisly detail concerning how this abomination of a doctor set about murdering late-term babies by piercing and snipping them as they lay helplessly on the delivery table, born alive, are too horrific for many of us to stomach. The jury did the right thing. Kermit Gosnell was reluctantly spared the death penalty. Instead he will serve the remainder of his life in prison without any possibility of parole. He will not be pierced and snipped on death row.

So the law thankfully is now clear in the State of Pennsylvania. If a baby is outside the womb and is alive, and if a doctor performs a procedure on that baby that causes it to die, that is first-degree murder.

That said, in some states, if the baby is alive and inside the womb, late stage, when procedures similar to Gosnell’s are done, that is legal.The Gosnell verdict,nevertheless, has changed the abortion environment. Any doctor in the U.S. who performs abortions past 20 weeks is looking at that verdict and wishes that there was more clarity about what falls along the spectrum between a day at the office and first-degree murder.

The political debate about late-term abortions, inevitably, is about to recommence, following years of uncomfortable silence since Bill Clinton famously stated that ‘abortion should be safe, legal and rare.’

Hat Tip: Daniel Henninger, ‘America’s Second Civil War, The Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2013

The IRS is a criminal agency for corrupt presidents

May 15, 2013

The Internal Revenue Service, with a few lapses – Truman, Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior, and Bush Junior – has been a criminal agent for corrupt presidents beginning with the reign of FDR. Throughout the presidencies of FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton and Obama, the IRS has been manipulated malevolently by the Oval Office explicitly for political purposes.

A sequence of weak and corrupt agency beads has pursued audits and harassment against named individuals and organizations – left and right depending on the politics of the president – deemed to be dangerously critical of White House activities. A few examples will suffice to tell the story.

FDR used the IRS to harass newspaper publishers who were opposed to the New Deal. Those so attacked included William Randolph Hearst and Moses Annenberg. FDR also dropped the IRS hammer on Democratic Party political rivals, such as Huey Long and Father Coughlin as well as on such prominent Republicans as Andrew Mellon. In 1944, he reached out to spike an IRS audit of illegal campaign contributions made by a government contractor to Congressman Lyndon Johnson. Johnson’s political career would have justifiably ended in 1944, but for that illegal intervention.

JFK was a quick learner from FDR. Within days of capturing the presidency, King Arthur of Camelot launched the Ideological Organization Audit Project. This targeted right-leaning groups such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade and the Foundation for Economic Education. Steel executives who defied the administration were singled out for IRS audits.

Richard Nixon was determined to take Republican revenge. He created the Special Services Staff to mastermind what a memo called ‘all IRS activities involving ideological, militant, subversive, radical and similar type organizations. More than 10,000 individuals and groups were targeted because of their political activism or slant between 1969 and 1973.

There followed a lull in IRS political harassment until Bill Clinton assumed the presidency in 1993. In 1995, The Clinton White House and the Democratic National Committee produced a 331-page report entitled ‘Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce’ that attacked magazines, think tanks, and other entities and individuals who had criticized the president. More than twenty organizations identified in that document – including the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute – and almost a dozen high-profile individuals, including Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers, were audited.

So now that a truly third rate president occupies the White House, it is not at all surprising to find that low-grade harassment has been meted out by the IRS against organizations that have such epithets as ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ in their nomenclotures. No doubt the epithet ‘Christian’ or even ‘true American’ will have elicited White House rage from the current occupant.

What manner of men and women are attracted to senior positions in the IRS? Evidently, not individuals with any regard for the rule of law or the First Amendment to the Constitution. History suggests that many IRS appointees stem from the dregs of society, no doubt from the Mafia gangs that extract protection monies from hard-working businessmen in the big cities, and from the crooked police forces that protect the guilty and harass the innocent.

Hat Tip: James Bovard, ‘A Brief History of IRS Political Targeting’, The Wall Street Journal, May 15, 2013

Britain should exit the European Union

May 13, 2013

Fortunately for Britain, the European Union does not prohibit member countries from seceding. No Abraham Lincoln sits in Brussels, willing or able to wage a war of continental aggression, should Britain decide to leave an organization that imposes net economic costs upon it.

The economic case for exit is now dominating debate across the Pelagic Isle. The large single market of the EU has brought benefits to Europe’s many small economies,especially those with a relatively large industrial base. It is bringing transfer benefits to the profligate PIIGS who are exploiting the charity of German savers. The UK, however, is a large economy with a small industrial base. It is fully capable of correcting its own fiscal excesses, especially under Conservative Party governance. For the United Kingdom, the regulatory burden of the single market massively outweighs the benefits.

The key assumption that underpins this judgment is that Britain – in the absence of becoming a member of the European Economic Area – Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein – would still enjoy access to free trade with the European Union. This assumption is highly probable, since Germany and the Netherlands – the two best functioning EU economies – would welcome open access to the large British market. A negative trade shock imposed on the UK is in the economic interest of no EU economy, however perfidious, Albion may be regarded by some of its former allies and enemies.

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, one of the two treaties known together as the Lisbon Treaty, provides the option for an exit. Negotiations would be required between the British government and the various European institutions. Most likely, Britain would secure an exit placing it into a comparable situation with Switzerland i.e. a bilateral free trade deal. This would be a sweet deal for a country that desires to retain the City of London as Europe’s major financial center, and to evade the strangulation of the financial transactions tax and European-style banking regulations that the EU bureaucracy is panting to impose.

So, contrary to the advice given today by President Obama to Prime Minister David Cameron in the Oval Office, my advice is that Britain should exit now, without attempting to reform the EU from within. A country operating outside the euro-zone has precious little leverage to secure a deal that will weaken the social market philosophy that now dominates euro-land. Remember that Britons are still predominantly Anglo-Saxons, Prime Minster Cameron, and that their ties remain closer to North America and other former colonies than to Old Europe.

Hat Tip: Wolfgang Munchau, ‘Lawson is right – Britain does not need Europe’, Financial Times, May 13, 2013

Sir Alex Ferguson: the bagpipes honor a remarkable career

May 12, 2013

As an Englishman residing in the United States, I have retained an abiding love for the beautiful game – soccer – a game that has yet to reach its true status in the United States. Soccer is a game for extremely fit men (and women) who can stay on the field for a full 90 minutes of fast, highly-skilled movement. Soccer players do not retire to an oxygen tent after 5 minutes on the field as do so many American footballers. I doubt if anyone carrying in excess of 200 pounds has ever played for a premier soccer team. No 450 pound body-armor-protected fatties for the beautiful game. Soccer players do not require continuous radio contact so that the manager can tell them which is left and which is right, and where to move on every play. For the most part, they have sufficiently high IQs that they can think for themselves within a general strategy defined by the team manager.

Throughout my time in Virginia the team that I have supported is Manchester United, the Red Devils, a team that has dominated the English soccer scene for the past 26 years. Throughout that time period, Man U has been managed by Alex Ferguson, now Sir Alex Ferguson, who announced his imminent retirement last week at the age of 71 years, after 1,500 games in charge of what has become one of the world’s richest and most popular sports clubs. Few Britons have been more successful, in any sphere, in recent times.

His longevity as manager is a mark of this success. There are twenty clubs in the Barclay’s Premier League. Over the past year alone, 8 of these clubs have sacked their managers. Many others have faced speculation about their imminent demise. Only Sir Alex, a Glaswegian Scot from the blue-collar shipyards of that famous city, has been entirely secure, so secure indeed that he has been privileged to choose his own successor, and has been elevated to the Man U board of directors following his retirement. Sir Alex has earned job security and widespread respect because he is a winner. Under his leadership, the Red Devils have lifted 38 trophies – Premier League, F.A. Cup and European Championship – a record that no future manager is ever likely to match.

How has he achieved such success? Hard bloody work is one answer. Sir Alex is not some Spanish, Portuguese or Italian playboy management consultant, like Jose Mourinho. He is a rough-hewed, gritty, foul-mouthed Scot, prepared to apply the dreaded ‘hairdryer’ to under-performing stars during the half-time interval, even to kick a soccer boot at the head of one of his most famous stars, David Beckham, when the occasion so deserved. Sir Alex controls everything in his club, from brand-management, to talent-spotting, to the players’ tea. When Wayne Rooney experiences the ‘red mist of rage’ on the soccer pitch, he knows that he will be benched by his manager and that he will experience a much more dreadful red-rage from that fearsome Scot, once he returns to the dressing room.

Economy is another answer. Soccer management is about squeezing out more performance per salary pound than one’s highly competitive rivals. This Sir Alex has done, season after season, spending a lower proportion of the club’s revenues on wages than any other Premier League club. This achievement has attracted the attention of businessmen and political leaders, especially from those within his beloved Labour Party.In particular, Sir Alex and Tony Blair bonded deeply, each recognizing the leadership qualities of the other. Although Gordon Brown is a fellow-Scot, Sir Alex despised his shambolic leadership, though he was never tempted to cross party lines.

Sir Alex may be a committed Labour Party supporter, but that does not mean that he is anti-capitalist. Far from it. He embraced New Labour long before Tony Blair invented the name. English soccer would become the best, during his 26 year reign at Old Trafford, because it pays the most. The average weekly wage in the Premier League rose by 1,500 per cent between 1992 and 2010. Sir Alex accepted his fair share of the rewards. He named his mansion Fairfields, after the dockyard where his father once labored.

Most of all, Sir Alex’s success was based on an enthusiastic embrace of globalization. He inherited a squad that contained two Danes, four Irishmen, and 18 Britons. He leaves a squad with players from a dozen countries, including Serbia, Ecuador, and Japan. In this respect, the politician whom Sir Alex most resembles is not Tony Blair, but rather his Tory nemesis, Margaret Thatcher. Of course, Sir Alex claims to detest the Iron Lady, for her blue rather than his red color. Yet, in truth they are very similar. Both won global success through a combination of simple truths and relentless drive. Both revered aspiration and opportunity. Both made Britain great.

The man that I honor today is no Red Alex but rather he is the Iron Man.

Hat Tip: Bagehot, ‘The socialist international’, The Economist, May 11, 2013


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers