Sunday, January 13, 2013

POWELL: GOP 'LOOKS DOWN ON MINORITIES'

What. An. Idiot.  I can't believe I used to admire this man.
Here’s what he said:
I think the Republican Party right now is having an identity problem. And I’m still a Republican. I’m a Republican who grew up along with George Bush XLI. I grew up with Ronald Reagan, Cap Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, that Republican Party, the Republican Party of Dick Lugar and John Tower. But in recent years, there’s been a significant shift to the right and we have seen what that shift has produced, two losing presidential campaigns.
So far, this is a typical leftist talking point. The Republican Party has not moved to the right. In fact, it has moved in rather extreme ways to the left, given its spending record and establishment opposition to the Tea Party. Ronald Reagan was significantly more conservative than George W. Bush. But this was prelude to Powell’s real agenda: labeling Republicans closet bigots.
I think what the Republican Party needs to do now is take a very hard look at itself and understand that the country has changed. The country is changing demographically. And if the Republican Party does not change along with that demographic, they’re going to be in trouble. And so, when we see that in one more generation, the minorities of America, African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans will be the majority of the country, you can’t go around saying we don’t want to have a solid immigration policy. We’re going to dismiss the 47 percent. We are going to make it hard for these minorities to vote as they did in the last election. What did that produce? The court struck most of that down and most importantly, it caused people to turn out and stand in line because these Republicans were trying to keep us from voting. There’s also a dark-- a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the Party. What I do mean by that? I mean by that is they still sort of look down on minorities. How can I evidence that? When I see a former governor say that the president is shuckin’ and jivin’, that’s a racial era slave term. When I see another former governor after the president’s first debate where he didn’t do very well, says that the president was lazy. He didn’t say he was slow, he was tired, he didn’t do well, he said he was lazy. Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans but to those of us who are African-Americans, the second word is shiftless and then there’s a third word that goes along with it. Birther, the whole Birther Movement. Why do senior Republican leaders tolerate this kind of discussion within the Party? I think the Party has to take a look at itself. It has to take a look at its responsibilities for health care. It has to take a look at immigration. It has to take a look at those less fortunate than us. The Party has gathered unto itself a reputation that it is the party of the rich. It is the party of lower taxes. But there are a lot of people who are lower down the food chain, the economic chain, who are also paying lots of taxes relative to their income and they need help. We need more education work being done in this country. We need a solid immigration policy. We have to look at climate change. There are a lot of things that the American people are expecting and the Republican Party, as they get ready for the next election, really has to focus on some of these issues and not ignore them. Everybody wants to talk about who’s going to be the candidate. You better think first about what’s the party they’re actually going to represent. If it’s just going to represent the far right-wing of the political spectrum, I think the Party is in difficulty. I’m a moderate but I’m still a Republican, that’s how I was raised. And until I voted for Mister Obama twice, I had voted for seven straight Republican presidents.
This is the language from a man who has lost his compass.  He really has no where to turn.  Let's look at what he says.  I just can't believe this.  My eleven year old daughter is more coherent than he is.

"And so, when we see that in one more generation, the minorities of America, African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans will be the majority of the country, you can’t go around saying we don’t want to have a solid immigration policy."

First of all, who the hell says THAT? I believe every red blooded American WANTS a solid immigration policy. In fact, LEGAL IMMIGRANTS what a solid immigration policy.  How do I know?  Look at the numbers!

A majority of Hispanic voters (52.4% to 38.2%) support ". . . legislation stating that any person living in this country illegally cannot become a United States citizen unless they reapply for citizenship legally from their country of origin."

A plurality of Hispanic voters (49.6% to 41%) support ". . . increasing the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents on the border between the U.S. and Mexico."

A plurality of Hispanic voters (49.9% to 41.2%) support new laws to make sure that employers can only hire workers who are in the U.S. legally."

A large majority of Hispanic voters (81.9% to 14%) support immigration reform " . . . to create a temporary worker program for illegal immigrants that would legalize their status . . . "

42% of Hispanics consider U.S. immigration “too open.” (Wall Street Journal, March 2000)

75% of California Latinos think that illegal immigration from Mexico to California has been a “big problem” or “somewhat of a problem.” (Public Policy Institute of California, Jan. 1999)

Two-thirds of likely Latino voters in California support the governor's veto of a bill that would have allowed illegal aliens to get driver's licenses. (Los Angeles Times, Oct. 2002)

89% of Hispanics strongly support an immediate moratorium on immigration. (Hispanic USA Research Group, June 1993) [JG - this really surprised me!]

75% of Mexican-Americans, 79% of Puerto Ricans, and 65% of Cuban-Americans agree that there are too many immigrants in this country. (Latino National Political Survey, Dec. 1992)

61% of Hispanics favor increasing money spent on patrolling the border. (The Tarrance Group, August 1983)
There is nothing.  NOTHING in this poll that 95% of Republicans don't agree with!

So, let's look at what else CP has to say.  But..my God!  I can't help but say it again:  What an idiot!

"We are going to make it hard for these minorities to vote as they did in the last election. What did that produce? The court struck most of that down and most importantly, it caused people to turn out and stand in line because these Republicans were trying to keep us from voting."  

All I can say is:  Speak to the graph:

So...is Powell saying that all the Hispanics and Blacks and Asians are crammed into the 28% ?  I think not!

But, let's continue..

"There’s also a dark-- a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the Party. What I do mean by that? I mean by that is they still sort of look down on minorities. How can I evidence that? When I see a former governor say that the president is shuckin’ and jivin’, that’s a racial era slave term."

We go to Wikipedia and we read the following: 
The use of the phrase in modern American politics has generated controversy at times. In 2008, then New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo said of then Democratic Party candidate Barack Obama (who was running against Hillary Clinton, the candidate Cuomo supported): "You can't shuck and jive at a press conference." Cuomo received criticism from some for his use of the phrase, with Roland Martin of CNN stating that "“Shucking and jiving” have long been words used as a negative assessment of African Americans, along the lines of a “foot shufflin’ Negro.”"  Similarly, on October 25, 2012, former Republican Party Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin generated controversy when she stated "President Obama's shuck and jive shtick with these Benghazi lies must end".
So Cuomo and the ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY gets a pass but the ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY gets slammed!  Could it be...could it possibly be that the term has transcended its racist past and CP should just CHILL OUT and not think that people are saying it to be racist?

"When I see another former governor after the president’s first debate where he didn’t do very well, says that the president was lazy. He didn’t say he was slow, he was tired, he didn’t do well, he said he was lazy. "

CP, I have lived in the south practically my whole life.  I grew up in South Carolina, went to college there, too.  Never in my whole life have I ever heard the word "lazy" in reference to blacks.  NEVER.

I'm skipping the portion about the Birther Movement. I just don't know a lot about it and its place in the Republican Party.  I never heard Romney endorse it and as far as I know he stayed away from it completely.  What I do know is that the Clinton campaign started the whole thing when she was running against O'Bama. So, CP, if you want to label someone a Birther, just look at the Dems!

Next!
"The Party has gathered unto itself a reputation that it is the party of the rich. It is the party of lower taxes. But there are a lot of people who are lower down the food chain, the economic chain, who are also paying lots of taxes relative to their income and they need help. We need more education work being done in this country. We need a solid immigration policy. We have to look at climate change."

When I read such nonsense as this...I just shake my head. I see a man...who just. doesn't. get it.  I see a man who is so lost intellectually it's amazing.

Combustion of anything organic results in the formation of CO2.  Whether it be gasoline, coal or natural gas. Wood is a source of CO2.  So when you read that forest fires release as much CO2 as cars or compete with other forms of man-made combustion, you see that our control of the situation is not set in stone:
After last week's devastating wildfires in southern California, the NCAR study's author, Christine Wiedinmyer, analyzed the emissions with the model. She estimated that the fires emitted 7.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from Oct. 19 through Oct. 26, the equivalent of about 25 percent of the average monthly emissions from all fossil fuel burning in the entire state of California. "Enormous fires like this pump a large amount of carbon dioxide quickly into the atmosphere," Wiedinmyer says. "This can complicate efforts to understand our carbon budget and ultimately fight global warming."
Then we look at the contribution of man-made CO2 we see this:

Manmade CO2 accounts for less than 3% of all CO2.  What in heavens name could the affect be of eradicating all of it?

Well, we don't have to wonder with the miracle of the internet.  There are several articles that say that we would lower the world wide average temperature by 1 degree C (1.8 deg F).  But is this feasible?  I don't even think CP would be for this.  It would mean pretty much just wiping people off of the face of the earth.

So if we followed the old Kyoto treaty what would be the impact?  Again, we don't have to wonder.  The world wide temperature average would go down by a paltry 0.19 deg C.  In other words, the effect is nothing but background noise.  But what would be the affect on work economies?
The Kyoto agreement--if fully complied with--would likely reduce the gross domestic product of the United States by 2.3 percent per year
CP, this is why Republicans are against implementing a carbon tax and don't believe human impact on global warming warrants out attention.  For one thing:  IT HURTS THE POOR!

Yes, CP, it hurts those that need the most help.  Why the HELL would we be for something that hurts the poor and CREATES MORE POOR.

Look what carbon offsets have done! Poor people are run off of their property to...what?


According to the company’s proposal to join a United Nations clean-air program, the settlers living in this area left in a “peaceful” and “voluntary” manner. People here remember it quite differently.

“I heard people being beaten, so I ran outside,” said Emmanuel Cyicyima, 33. “The houses were being burnt down.”

Other villagers described gun-toting soldiers and an 8-year-old child burning to death when his home was set ablaze by security officers.

… But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming. The case twists around an emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which contains mechanisms for outsourcing environmental protection to developing nations.

Then there is this news article:


The reported killing of 23 Honduran farmers in a dispute with the owners of UN-accredited palm oil plantations has called into question the integrity of the EU's emission trading scheme (ETS), as carbon credits from the plantations remain on sale.
Let's face it.  Carbon offsets are meant to keep third world countries in the third world.

And finally:
"I’m a moderate..."

CP, you may be a moderate...but that is in name only.  You are a moderate in name but don't even understand the issues.  You don't even know where the citizens stand on issues such as immigration.  You cry RACISM at Republicans and completely ignore identical statements by Democrats.  At the very least, you can't even see that maybe some terms like "shuck 'n jive" have transcended race and that maybe there was NEVER any intention to be racist by either Cuomo or Palin.

You apparently have no inkling of the effect of carbon offsets and what they do to the poor and how implementing some sort of carbon reduction scheme will only create more poor; that it is the Left that is advocating smothering economic growth with extreme legislation, throwing more people out of work.

I think that's all I can come up with for now.  I have just had it with people who say they know things and they are just. plain. dumb.

No comments:

Post a Comment