One of America’s Most Racist, Propaganda Pieces of the Liberal Democrat Agenda is at odds with one of the most socialist, local governments in the Nation–the District of Columbia Government. The Washington Informer is protesting the DC Government over the awarding of the more than $30,000 unclaimed property advertising contract to the Washington Times in lieu of the much more attractive Washington Informer. Which is the more awing: That the Obama economy is so piss-poor that the media powerhouse, the Washington Informer, is left in a bitter scramble for $30,000 of revenue from a government entity or that the Washington Informer reports very little about the economy to its circulation and finds it easier to Blame Bush or the Republicans when it does so? So why was the Times chosen over the Informer. According to the largest District based African-American newspaper, its rejection was solely on the grounds that it is not a “newspaper of general circulation”. But wait, we are not a Asian establishment. We are Black. The Mayor is Black. The City Is Black. Doesn’t America owe the Informer? Why even Nick McCoy, a political and gay rights activist says that the Informer speaks for the “whole community”. How did the socialist government respond to the paper of the least, the last and the lost:
“The Washington Informer was found non-responsive based on the fact that the Washington Informer serves a specific ethnic group. It is our view that targeting a specific ethnic group does not meet the requirement of a newspaper of general circulation.”
The Informer contends that such a ruling may have violated District and federal civil rights laws. They are willing to fight it out in court where costs may treble the actual costs of contract. Why did the Times get the contract? According to the Informer’s attorney, it’s all racial.
“None can argue that anecdotally the likely subscribers to the Washington Times are conservative and Republican – the anecdotal opposite of the population of the District of Columbia, which is overwhelmingly Democratic and progressive,” he said.
“If The Washington Informer can be disqualified because it appeals to a specific ethnic group, a similar disqualification can be leveled against the Washington Times, which some might subjectively argue appeals only to a certain ideological group.
So until a Judge rules, the Informer must fill space with more progressive, Democrat propaganda that does not bring in revenue and the Times is the new black and operating in the black. Yes, Conservative Republicans, the pendulum is really beginning to swing your way!
It is with trepidation that I proceed in this commentary. I fear not of my own condition, expectation or state of being. However, I do fear that many that had placed their faith in nothing less than affirmative action and its righteousness will soon find it a device of little comfort. Booker T. Washington, in his 1895 Atlanta Exposition Address, cautioned, “The wisest among my race understand that the agitation of questions of social equality is the extremist folly, and that progress in the enjoyment of all the privileges that will come to us must be the result of severe and constant struggle rather than artificial forcing.” Abounding in many promises and languishing in few satisfying results outside of government, affirmative action often has more fictional victims than actual and thus, creates an atmosphere of accepted mediocrity rather than the pursuit of meritocratic excellence. Many races, deemed minority, have fallen into the tangled web of artificial devices that nobly extend the hope of evening the score for past atrocities. All done as if an additional 10 points on the civil service exam or executing a poli-economic plan that distributes another’s wealth to one that lacks capital, means of production or access to the labor market would salve or even the score for 400 years of brutish treatment to the many institutionalized in slavery.
Our forefathers advised us not to advance into a fertile future with as much as a bond of insufferable allegiance or chained to the security of folly and fable. Frederick Douglas, in a speech entitled “What The Black Man Wants” (April 1865) exclaimed, “Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, ‘What shall we do with the Negro?’ I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall.” Our Founding Fathers encouraged us to use the principles of conservatism, as best understood of the times, and our Faith in God to challenge the human race’s cultural deficiencies and excel in every pursuit by our limitless spiritual and natural endowment. Not to soar as eagles meant that we vacillated, becoming the product of the slavery system that we exited only through blood, sweat and tears. Albeit, the generous successes of Affirmative Action have placed Blacks in the cross hairs of any severe austerity plan, by choice or by force, implemented by Congress in 2013.
“Thanks for the history lesson, Paley! However, what does affirmative action have to do with the Obama economy. You right wing extremists so hate Obama and it’s all racial!” Give me a few mere lines more and my broad strokes will appear as clarion as a mezzo-soprano at the Kennedy Center. For the fourth consecutive year, the Obama Administration and Congress have presided over a government that has produced $1 trillion plus deficits. According to Eric Pianin, The Fiscal Times, “For fiscal year 2012 that will end on Sept. 30, the deficit is now projected to be $1.211 trillion, or $116 billion lower than the $1.327 trillion deficit projected in February, according to the Office of Management and Budget’s Fiscal Year 2013 Midsession Budget Review. That compares with deficits ranging from a high of $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2009, to $1.29 trillion in both fiscal 2010 and 2011.” With Europe in a recession, China’s buying power weakening as its currency losses value and very few signs of resuscitation of the American economy, there will be more calls upon the United States to consider austerity plans. In economics, austerity refers to a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending often via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided. Without an austerity plan, the United States, fast approaching a fiscal cliff, will suffer severe effects from these princely budget deficits. The costs of borrowing money to pay the federal bills will increase and take up a more sizable portion of the budget. Hence, pay your interest debt and cut where needed. To raise the monies to pay the bills, either tax revenue must increase or more bonds must be sold or both. Increase taxes during a jobless recovery and you could capsize the private economy and unemployment would explode. Sell more treasury bonds and the national debt increases. Obama “inherited” a national debt of $9 trillion from Bush. He will inherit a $16 trillion national debt from himself. For the chic Keynesian, government must take credit for any recovery so stimulus must be afforded. Artificially suppressing interest rates costs money. The Treasury must print it and the Federal Reserve must buy it. Eventually, Keynesian learn from the Hayek models that interest rates are like balloons. They can not be held down naturally for long. When rates rise, your buying power lessens and inflation takes off. In a nutshell, without an austerity in the next Congress, we are screwed as a Nation.
So what does affirmative action have to do with all that economic gobbledygook? President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925 on March 6, 1961. In so doing, required that government employers “not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin” and “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin”. On September 2, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed Executive Order 11246 affirming Federal Government’s commitment “to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency”. From that time onward, African-Americans began to encourage their kinfolk to “go to school and get a good government job”. You did not want to curse your kids and leave them out in that evil private industry world. The Federal government’s multicultural campaign for diversity resulted in a 17% Black of the Federal Civilian population. As of 2010, the overall US Black population was 12%. Brendan Greeley, in “The Deficit: A Stark Choice for 2012? Not Really”, writes, “Obama claims to care about the deficit. In his budget this year, he takes credit for offering a comprehensive spending-reduction deal to congressional Republicans in 2011. And yet according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the White House’s proposed 2013 budget increases debt as a proportion of gross domestic product until 2018, when it flattens out at around 76 percent.” An austerity plan will be executed in the next Congress. No doubt! No diggity! When it does, it will disproportionately impact the Black workforce. This impact will not be noticed greatly in rural regions. However, it will impact urban and suburban governments and cities. Thanks to 4 years of “danger zone” budgeting by continuing resolution, the next recession will more disproportionately impact Blacks than any other group because of our lower rates of participation in private industry and small business development.
Walter E. Williams, author of “The Racism of Diversity” (Townhall.com, July 22, 2009), wrote, “This is one of the unappreciated aspects of preferential treatment. It runs the risk of creating racist attitudes, and possibly feelings of racial superiority, among whites and others who were formerly racially neutral.” In the scale of economics, there is a Black female publisher in Washington, DC that believes she is entitled by race to receive the fruit of the taxpayers’ revenue. She has been exposed to the noble intentions of affirmative action. It was supposed to serve as reparations and make all things right amongst those that suffered or were victimized. Today, she is a victim. The White Republicans–there could not possibly be any Black, Latino, Asian, etc Republicans or Conservatives that read the Times–have stolen her 40 aces and a mule and she wants it back. Maybe if she encouraged her general readership to spend less time seeking the entitlements of public benefits and more time seeking to invest in private opportunities then, her general readership would grow to a size worthy of government intervention. Whether Republican or Democrat, it would be good to advise the limited readership that they need to batten down the hatches thanks to the President’s handling of the economy. There is rough weather ahead and Blacks will suffer the greatest losses.