BARACK DOES JACK FOR BLACK ASK MAXINE WATERS

Barrack Obama won the 2008 presidential election largely on the strength of a record high black turnout, of which 95%  voted for him.  His advocates often said “It’s about time for a black president”, or “this is the realization of Martin Luther King’s dream”, and “this will help black people believe they can do anything”.  Many black pundits even said that Obama would be able to do something about the one million black males who are in prison.

Yet Obama showed no signs of being a transformative president, instead pursuing same anti-growth economic policy and the same blame America first foreign policy that has become the new progressive DNC platform.  And as we conservatives,  including many of us black conservatives, predicted this platform would  result in a step backward for low-income blacks.And when the Tea Party movement and town hall protesters rose up to challenge this agenda, the  mainstream media, as well as high-ranking office holders, denounced us as “racists”, “fascists”, and “the white power movement incarnate”.  One local black St. Louis station’s host declared “they can’t deal with having a black man in charge”.

The assumption is that Obama is doing things right, and that the only reason why there would be organized resistence to him is because white people are afraid of losing “their power”, and that Obama is automatically going to make things better for blacks.

Yet this time the organized resistance is coming from the Congressional Black Caucus.  Last week they walked out on a key vote on financial legislation, and the 40 members threaten to boycott TARP banking reform unless they were given more money for “minority financial interests”. 

“For those of us who walked out, it was absolutely essential that we have parts of that legislation directed toward helping people who have been left out of all of these bailouts,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., one of 10 black caucus members in the Financial Services Committee, said.

Since last September, we have continuously voted for bailout and reform for the very institutions that created this devastation, without properly protecting the African-American community or small business,” Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said on the day of the boycott. “That stops today.” (Of Course Waters has already steered $12 million into her and her husbands bank, OneUnited).

ISN’T THAT WHAT YOU ELECTED THIS CLOWN FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE!

What happened Maxine. What happened.

What happened Diana “the first president who looks like me ” Watson.  Looks like your Heinrich Himmler approach to genetic political profiling hasn’t worked out so well for your people.  It hasn’t work out well for any of us.

Hey Diane, maybe Rush Limbaugh understands what’s best for black people, and all Americans, better than you do.

Washington University Breakthrough in Corn’s Geneitc Code Demonstrates Why Salary Controls Should Be Opposed

The St. Louis Post Dispatch reports that scientists at the Washington University Genome Center have decoded the genetic structure corn.  Researchers hope that this will allow them to develop corn that is sturdier and more efficient to grow.  The Department of Agriculture and National Science Foundation provided the 29.5 million dollars for the project. 

The findings are available for any scientist to use.  Here is an example of government spending that will lead to private sector benefit.

And that’s the problem.  Over the past year many in Congress and the administration have taken a punitive stance against executives of the large federally assisted financial institutions.  They demanded  retro-actively taxing 90% of the income of executives who received bonuses, holding that those payments were accountable to the TARP funding.  

The administration has also directed a pay czar to designate limits on executive pay in these firms.   The justification is that these executives are being benefitted by government money, there the government has the right to decide how much they are paid.

Many people, including some conservatives, agree with the pay limits because they resent te ideal of CEO’s making millions of dollars when they are being supported by taxpayer money.

We absolutely agree with that premise, multi-billion dollar investment banks should not be financially rewarded for poor performance.   The TARP bailout should have never happened.

However, the Washington University discovery is also a publicly funded project that will benefit highly paid individuals.  Farmers, food companies, and 150 researchers will be conduced by the nearly $30 million of federal spending.

Should we start reducing the salaries of professors, scientists, and administrators at Washington University.  We applaud the great work of the scientists, but we also point out that our tax money went to an institution where many students disrespected Phyllis Schlaffly, a woman we greatly respect.

The point is that if you use the notion that the government has the right to cap people’s salaries because it give them money, that opens the door for them to use that to control everyone’s salary.

What about if they spend money to put extra lighting for a dangerous store front, or conduct special infrastructure repair that ads value to a particular private investment.  The government, especially this administration, can find a way to attribute almost every business gain at least partially to government spending. 

Very easy, when that government is spending  $3.5 trillion in a single year.  The limitations for executive pay is only the  beginning  for the progressive authoritarian move toward “fundamental changing this nation”.

NOT ON OUR WATCH.