Racism: Alive And Thriving In Detroit, Michigan

We all know what would happen if a black union representative went before a white city council and got this kind of treatment. But, in Detroit, it is the other way around. Whites were told to “Go home” because they did “look like” everyone else.

This isn’t a joke. It really happened. From Nolan Finley at the Detroit News:

It was a tragic circus, a festival of ignorance that confirmed the No. 1 obstacle to Detroit’s progress is the bargain basement leaders that city voters elect. The black nationalism that is now the dominant ideology of the council was on proud display, both at the table and in the audience.

Speakers advocating for the deal were taunted by the crowd and cut short by Council President Monica Conyers, who presided over the hearing like an angry bulldog; whites were advised by the citizens to, “Go home.”

Opponents were allowed to rant and ramble on uninterrupted about “those people” who want to steal Detroit’s assets and profit from the city’s labors.

A pitiful Teamster official who practically crawled to the table on his knees expressing profuse respect for this disrespectful body was battered by both the crowd and the council.

When he dared suggest that an improved Cobo Center would create more good-paying jobs for union workers, Conyers reminded him, “Those workers look like you; they don’t look like me.”

Desperate, he invoked President Barack Obama’s message of unity and was angrily warned, “Don’t you say his name here.”

So much for the unifying character of Barack Obama. The racist Detroit City Council just swept that away with one sentence.

BTW, Monica Conyers is the wife of Congressional Representative John Conyers.

Racism and race-baiting are alive and well in Detroit, Michigan. Don’t that make Motown proud?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Elect A Crazy Council, Get Crazy Results
Nolan Finley
Detroit News
March 1, 2009


The Coming Budget Fight And Why We Need To Make Sure It Is A Big Fight

What will the ultimate results of Obama’s budget and tax hikes be? In general terms, bad news. But in terms of how much of the U.S. economy is going to be swallowed up by government, it looks even worse.

Patrick Buchanan, writing for Town Hall, gives us some particulars:

Where the U.S. government usually consumes 21 percent of gross domestic product, this Obama budget spends 28 percent in 2009 and runs a deficit of $1.75 trillion, or 12.7 percent of GDP. That is four times the largest deficit of George W. Bush and twice as large a share of the economy as any deficit run since World War II.

Add that 28 percent of GDP spent by the U.S. government to the 12 percent spent by states, counties and cities, and government will consume 40 percent of the economy in 2009.

40%. And most of that is going to be wasted on welfare programs and socialist wealth redsitribution schemes.


Since the budget was released, word has come that the U.S. economy did not shrink by 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter, but 6.2 percent. All the assumptions in Obama’s budget about growth in 2009 and 2010 need to be revised downward, and the deficits revised upward.

Look for the deficit for 2009 to cross $2 trillion.

Do you remember just two years ago when the Dems were screaming that Bush’s budget was causing a deficit and how the Dems were going to fix that for us? I guess when the Dems said “fix” it they meant they were going to send it soaring even higher than Bush ever tried to do.

And this:

Who abroad is going to lend us the trillions to finance our deficits without demanding higher interest rates on the U.S. bonds they are being asked to hold? And if we must revert to the printing press to create the money, what happens to the dollar?

Who is going to pay for all this?

The top 2 percent, the filthy rich who got all those Bush tax breaks, say Democrats. But the top 5 percent of income earners already pay 60 percent of U.S. income taxes, while the bottom 40 percent pays nothing.

And that bottom forty percent are going to get nice fat checks next April, that is, wealth will be redistributed to them despite the fact that they do not invest, they do not employ other people and their tax burdern was 0. In other words, Obama is making good on his promise so that he can complete the deal of buying off their votes. What is going to happen when the banks no longer honor those government checks, though?

And the reason we know that Obamanomics is going to be a disaster:

Markets are not infallible. But the stock market has long been a “lead indicator” of where the economy will be six months from now. What are the markets, the collective decisions of millions of investors, saying?

Having fallen every month since Obama’s election, with January and February the worst two months in history, they are telling us the stimulus package will not work, that Tim Geithner is clueless about how to save the banks, that the Obama budget portends disaster for the republic.

Which is why we need to put up a huge fight over the budget and the way this administration is dragging us towards socialism.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Pitchfork Time
Patrick J. Buchanan
March 3, 2009

A Look At Three Socialized Health Care Systems: Dr. Walter Williams Column

As the United States gears up to become the world’s newest socialized health care provider, it would be a good idea to look at historical precedent and see how well socialized health care has worked for other countries and what the results were.

Dr. Walter Williams, writing for Town Hall, has come up with some very crisp, clear, concise examples and summarizes them nicely.

First, Great Britain:

A recent study by David Green and Laura Casper, “Delay, Denial and Dilution,” written for the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, concludes that the NHS health care services are just about the worst in the developed world. The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care. Twelve percent of specialists surveyed admitted refusing kidney dialysis to patients suffering from kidney failure because of limits on cash. Waiting lists for medical treatment have become so long that there are now “waiting lists” for the waiting list.

And next, Canada:

Canada’s government system isn’t that different from Britain’s. For example, after a Canadian has been referred to a specialist, the waiting list for gynecological surgery is four to 12 weeks, cataract removal 12 to 18 weeks, tonsillectomy three to 36 weeks and neurosurgery five to 30 weeks. Toronto-area hospitals, concerned about lawsuits, ask patients to sign a legal release accepting that while delays in treatment may jeopardize their health, they nevertheless hold the hospital blameless. Canadians have an option Britainers don’t: close proximity of American hospitals. In fact, the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year for Canadians to receive medical treatment in our country.

And now, Sweden:

Sven R. Larson tells about some of Sweden’s problems in “Lesson from Sweden’s Universal Health System: Tales from the Health-care Crypt,” published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Spring 2008). Mr. D., a Gothenburg multiple sclerosis patient, was prescribed a new drug. His doctor’s request was denied because the drug was 33 percent more expensive than the older medicine. Mr. D. offered to pay for the medicine himself but was prevented from doing so. The bureaucrats said it would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine.

Malmo, with its 280,000 residents, is Sweden’s third-largest city. To see a physician, a patient must go to one of two local clinics before they can see a specialist. The clinics have security guards to keep patients from getting unruly as they wait hours to see a doctor. The guards also prevent new patients from entering the clinic when the waiting room is considered full. Uppsala, a city with 200,000 people, has only one specialist in mammography. Sweden’s National Cancer Foundation reports that in a few years most Swedish women will not have access to mammography.

Dr. Olle Stendahl, a professor of medicine at Linkoping University, pointed out a side effect of government-run medicine: its impact on innovation. He said, “In our budget-government health care there is no room for curious, young physicians and other professionals to challenge established views. New knowledge is not attractive but typically considered a problem (that brings) increased costs and disturbances in today’s slimmed-down health care.”

Is this the change you voted for? I certainly didn’t. But, with a socialist President and a socialist controlled Congress, it is going to be shoved down our throats whether we like it or not.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Sweden’s Government Health Care
Dr. Walter Williams
March 4, 2009