But, every now and again, Ann Coulter finds a way to offend every single reader while still including some valid logic and solid political points. She has the courage (or arrogance) to identify the blatant racism and demonizing from left-wing leaders who need their black voting bloc to remain in tact and victimized in order for them to stay in power. God forbid a black person evaluates the world for himself and decides to become a conservative. Or, dare I say, a Republican!

Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Michael Steele, Clifford Huxtable (and the guy who played him) and now Herman Cain are all being labeled turncoats, traitors, “whitey” and worse. Every day liberals wake up and call Republicans racist for opposing Obama. Even Morgan Freeman, whom I otherwise love, gets in on the absurdity that is now commonplace: anyone who doesn’t want Obama to succeed (in pursuing his failed policies which would hurt the country and waste money) must be a racist because they cannot stand seeing such a wise and wonderful black man in the White House. Why else would anyone dare oppose Saint Barack? But that story line doesn’t work so well if the Republicans nominate a Republican (…or a woman for Vice President, or have a black leader of the Republican National Committee).

Anyway, just read her words, she does a better job. And that doesn’t happen very often. Because, again, she’s crazy.

Why Our Blacks are Better than Their Blacks

by Ann Coulter

By spending the last three decades leveling accusations of “racism” every 10 seconds, liberals have made it virtually impossible for Americans to recognize real racism — for example, the racism constantly spewed at black conservatives.

In the last year alone, a short list of the things liberals have labeled “racist” include:

• Being a Republican;
• Joining the tea party;
• The word “the” (Donald Trump’s statement that he has a “great relationship with the blacks”);
• References to Barack Obama’s playing basketball (Trump again);
• Using Obama’s middle name;
• Scott Brown’s pickup truck;
• Opposing Obamacare;
• Opposing Obama’s stimulus bill;
• Opposing Obama’s jobs bill.

The surge in conservative support for Herman Cain confuses the Democrats’ story line, which is that Republicans hate Obama because he’s black.

Cain is twice as black as Obama. (Possible Obama campaign slogan: “Too Black!”)

This is why the liberal website Politico ran with a story on Cain that had everything — a powerful black man, a Republican presidential candidate, the hint of sexuality — except facts.

All we learned was: About a decade ago, as many as two anonymous women accused Cain of making unspecified “inappropriate” remarks and one “inappropriate” gesture in the workplace. (We had more than that on John Edwards’ mistress a year into the media’s refusal to report that story.)

If the details helped liberals, we’d have the details.

To have been accused of sexual harassment in the 1990s is like having been accused of molesting children at preschools in the 1980s or accused of being a witch in Massachusetts in the 1690s.

In the 1990s, one plaintiff won a $50 million jury verdict against Wal-Mart on the grounds that a “hostile environment” was created by her supervisor’s yelling at both male and female employees. In another case, a plaintiff won a $250,000 award for sexual harassment based on her complaint that a male colleague had reached for a pastry saying, “Nothing I like more in the morning than sticky buns,” while “wriggl(ing)” his eyebrows.

It got so crazy that a 6-year-old boy was suspended from class for a day for kissing a classmate on the cheek, and a Goya painting had to be removed from a Penn State classroom because a professor complained that it constituted sexual harassment.

With no standard other than the subjective offense taken by the accuser, absolutely anyone could be called a witch, i.e., a sexual harasser. So it’s striking that the only two conservative public figures accused of being witches both happened to be conservative blacks: Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain.

Liberals go straight to ugly racist stereotypes when attacking conservative blacks, calling them oversexualized, stupid and/or incompetent.

The late, lamented, white liberal reporter Mary McGrory called Justice Antonin Scalia “a brilliant and compelling extremist” — while dismissing Thomas as “Scalia’s puppet.”

More recently, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called Scalia “one smart guy.” In the next breath, he proclaimed Thomas “an embarrassment to the Supreme Court,” adding, “I think that his opinions are poorly written.”

When Bush made Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, terror swept through the Democratic Party. What if people began to notice and ask questions: “Who’s that black woman always standing with George Bush?” Never mind! He’s probably arresting her.

In addition to an explosion of racist cartoons portraying Rice as Aunt Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from “Gone With the Wind,” a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist clichés, allegedly respectable liberals promptly called her stupid and incompetent.

Joseph Cirincione, then with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Rice “doesn’t bring much experience or knowledge of the world to this position.” (Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose experience for the job consisted of being married to an impeached, disbarred former president.)

Democratic consultant Bob Beckel — who ran Walter Mondale’s 1984 campaign so competently that Mondale lost 49 states — said of Rice, “I don’t think she’s up to the job.”

When Michael Steele ran for senator in Maryland in 2006, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dug up a copy of his credit report — something done to no other Republican candidate. He was depicted in black face with huge red lips by liberal blogger Steve Gilliard. Oreo cookies were rolled down the aisle at Steele during a gubernatorial debate in 2002.

Trafficking in racist imagery is consequence-free for liberals because they have ruined charges of “racism” with their own overuse of the term. By now, any accusation of racism has the feel of a Big Foot sighting.

It’s a neat trick, rather as if the Nazis had called everything “genocide” right before launching the Holocaust, and then admonished resisters not to “play the genocide card.”

Liberals step on black conservatives early and often because they can’t have black children thinking, “Hmmm, the Republicans have some good ideas; maybe I’m a Republican.”

The basic setup is:

Step 1: Spend 30 years telling blacks that Republicans are racist and viciously attacking all black Republicans.

Step 2: Laugh maliciously at Republicans for not having more blacks in their party.

It is beyond insane that Herman Cain would have considered running for president if he had the tiniest skeleton in his closet. To be an out-of-the-closet black Republican, you had better be a combination rocket scientist/Baptist preacher. Which, as it happens, Cain is.

Meanwhile, MSNBC is cutting into its prime-time programming to announce updates in the fact-free hit on Cain. That’s not because anyone there thinks he’ll be the nominee. Everyone knows it’s going to be Mitt Romney.

But liberals are determined to make sure that, six months from now, everyone has forgotten Herman Cain so they can go back to claiming Republicans oppose Obama because they hate blacks.

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER

Cliff Satell attended Duke University and led the Duke College Republicans as Vice-Chair.

The post Ann Coulter Makes Rare Legitimate Point appeared first on Cliff Satell.

As MSNBC put it today:

Worries about the state of the economy in the U.S. and around the world slammed stocks on Thursday, driving the Dow Jones industrial average to close down more than 500 points. It was the Dow’s worst drop since October 2008.

As President Obama celebrates his 50th birthday party, millions of unemployed Americans are asking what happened to all those “shovel-ready” jobs he promised during the stimulus debate? And what about the 400,000 jobs that were promised if we passed the Health Care bill? And, of course, what about the now infamous chart the White House produced predicting that the unemployment rate would never climb higher than 8% with his massive stimulus?

What Jon Stewart and other armchair liberal economists ignore is that Conservatives don’t argue against government existence itself. Rather, Conservatives – yes, even those wacky Tea Partiers – are pointing out that the government doesn’t actually have any money. It never has and it never will. Every single cent the government spends comes from my pocket, your pocket and your neighbors pocket. So every dollar they spend is a dollar that you and I can’t spend on something we need (like gas, for those of us who enjoy driving to places).

Of course government has necessary functions like defense, police, paving roads and issuing basic regulations in order to create a level playing field and consistency in the marketplace. But don’t tell me that the government has ever been a more responsible investor in anything than you and me, the people who actually earned the money the government loves to take.

It has nothing to do with “rich” and “poor.” It has to do with competence, first and foremost. Well, it should still be pointed out that the top 5% of income earners (the so-called “rich”) pay over 60% of the tax burden. And, more than 40% of Americans pay no income tax at all. So when President Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around” or Paul Krugman assails the rich for supposedly not paying their “fair share”… I can only ask, what would their fair share be??

The fact is, Obama’s “recovery” has been anything but. Basically every single promise Obama and his economic team of wunderkinds has made regarding jobs and the economy has been utter BS.

And before I hear the “but he inherited such a mess!” arguments, let’s compare Obama’s “recovery” to Reagan’s, when the situation was FAR more dire than in 2009 when Obama took office. If you recall, President Carter left Reagan a nightmare of stagflation – super high inflation and even worse unemployment. So what happened because of Reagan’s policies?

After the end of the ’81–’82 recession unemployment fell sharply as growth expanded dramatically. Twenty-seven months after the official end of that recession, unemployment had fallen to 7.5 percent from a peak of 10.8 percent. At the same point after the recent recession, unemployment had fallen not 3.3 percentage points, but only 1.4 percentage points. The reason is not hard to find. In the seven quarters following the ’81–’82 recession, GDP growth averaged 7.1 percent (on an annual basis). In the current post-recession span it has averaged only 2.8 percent. We need 2.5 percent growth just to absorb increases in the work force. The first quarter of 2011 had only a 1.8 percent increase in GDP.

The tax burden decreased, freeing up business to keep their hard-earned money and do what they do best: employ people. The government doesn’t do a very good job of employing people since every job they “create” comes at the expense of private sector funds that could have been used to invest in more efficiency and innovation, leading to a net greater creation of private sector jobs. Reagan’s recovery is beating Obama’s by more than 15 million jobs at the same point in time after the respective recessions ended. That’s amazing.

Reagan inherited a much worse situation and improved it swiftly and significantly. Obama’s policies have done… not so much.

The Investor’s Business Daily laid out the case well:

Compare the two worst post-World War II recessions. Both the 1981-82 and the 2007-09 downturns were long (16 months and 18 months, respectively) and painful (unemployment peaked at 10.8% in 1981-82 and 10.1% in the last one).

What’s dramatically different, however, is how each president responded.

Obama massively increased spending, vastly expanded the regulatory state, and pushed through a government takeover of health care. What’s more, he constantly browbeats industry leaders, talks about the failings of the marketplace and endlessly advocates higher taxes on the most productive parts of the economy.

In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.

The result? While the Reagan recovery saw turbocharged growth and a tumbling unemployment rate, Obama’s has produced neither. Consider:

• GDP. In the seven quarters after the 1981-82 recession ended, the economy cranked out quarterly growth rates that averaged 7.1%. Under Obama, GDP growth has averaged a mere 2.8%. (See chart at right.)
• Unemployment. Under Reagan, the unemployment rate had fallen to 7.5% by this point in the recovery. Under Obama, it’s still stuck at 8.8%.
• Long-term unemployment. There were far fewer long-term unemployed by this point in the Reagan recovery; just 18% of the unemployed had been without a job 27 weeks or more. Under Obama, that figure is an astonishing 45%.
• Consumer confidence. By this point in the Reagan recovery, the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index had hit 100. Today, the index stands at just 65.4.
• Deficits. Under Reagan, the federal deficit was trimmed to 4.8% of GDP by 1984. Under Obama, the deficit is expected to climb to 10.9% of GDP this year.

Obama and his defenders like to say he inherited the worst downturn since the Great Depression and that things would have been worse still had he not acted. But the recession was almost over by the time he took office — and officially over just six months after that.

Bottom line, my nephew could more adeptly run the White House than President Obama. At least he wouldn’t promise everything under the sun and then sit back and blame everyone and their mother for his problems. Reagan led. Obama complains. Reagan was positive. Obama is a negative, annoying crybaby. Reagan fostered a new era of prosperity that led to him winning 49 states in 1984. Obama has fostered a new era of government dependence and irrational class warfare that has pissed everyone off (especially the disenfranchised folks who so applauded Obama’s meteoric rise) and achieved absolutely nothing.

Gotta love Democracy, eh.

The post Obama Recovery Sputters appeared first on Cliff Satell.