Crush Liberalism

Liberal "study": American dream a myth

The American dream…a myth? This will no doubt come as a shock to the thousands of people whose success stories are featured in many places: on TV, on the Internet, in magazines, etc. I guess the guy who founded my employer’s company just benefited from a rich family…despite the fact that they were POOR! Chances are, most of us know someone who was either poor or lower-middle class and wound up with some fortunes.

Oh, yeah…the “study“:

America may still think of itself as the land of opportunity, but the chances of living a rags-to-riches life are a lot lower than elsewhere in the world, according to a new study published on Wednesday.

The likelihood that a child born into a poor family will make it into the top five percent is just one percent, according to “Understanding Mobility in America,” a study by economist Tom Hertz from American University.

By contrast, a child born rich had a 22 percent chance of being rich as an adult, he said. (Could this be because the rich parents pass on their wisdom and their EARNED wealth to their kids? Hell, 22% seems awful low, if you ask me! – Ed.)

“In other words, the chances of getting rich are about 20 times higher if you are born rich than if you are born in a low-income family,” he told an audience at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think-tank sponsoring the work.
…
“Consider a rich and poor family in the United States and a similar pair of families in Denmark, and ask how much of the difference in the parents’ incomes would be transmitted, on average, to their grandchildren,” Hertz said.

“In the United States this would be 22 percent; in Denmark it would be two percent,” he said. (This is a GOOD thing? Denmark confiscates the EARNED wealth of its citizens, and that should be a model for US? Like hell! – Ed.)

University professor indoctrinated at UMass…liberal think-tank sponsoring said prof’s study…the left’s obsession with killing capitalism. Feel free to dismiss the study like I just did.

That’s the beauty of being a liberal academic enshrined in the campus cocoon: reality just isn’t relevant. Perhaps the good professor can go to Cuba or some other socialist hellhole “utopia” and live the rags-to-rags life.

April 26, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Clintonistas who sacrificed national security target Rep. Weldon

How dare Weldon tell us about Able Danger! From Newsmax:

High-ranking members of Bill Clinton’s national security team have joined together to defeat Pennsylvania Republican Curt Weldon’s House re-election bid this November – in what looks like retaliation for Weldon’s efforts in exposing the Clinton administration’s Able Danger scandal.

In June 2005, Weldon went public with news that Clinton administration lawyers prevented the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Able Danger group from blowing the whistle on two al-Qaida terrorists who would later pilot the planes that destroyed the World Trade Center.

Though the media downplayed Weldon’s bombshell, a number of high ranking Clinton officials apparently haven’t forgotten – and they’re pouring money into the campaign of Weldon’s opponent, Joe Sestak.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has given $500 to Sestak.

Disgraced former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger has given Weldon’s opponent $1,000.

Disgraced ex-Clinton CIA director John Deutch gave $500.

Former Clinton Navy secretary John Dalton ponied up $500 to defeat Weldon.

Former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta – $300.

Berger’s predecessor as national security adviser, Anthony Lake – $500.

Even Hillary Clinton has gotten into the act, contributing $2,500 to defeat Curt Weldon.

Fortunately for Weldon’s opponent, Berger did manage to make the donation without “sloppily” leaving the money in his pants!

April 26, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Greenpeace vs. Kennedrunk?

As usual, the left has one set of rules for us and another for themselves. Observe:

The infamous environmental group Greenpeace is targeting Sen. Ted Kennedy for opposing a wind farm in the Nantucket Sound because it would interfere with the view from his Hyannis Port mansion.

Greenpeace is launching a nationwide TV ad campaign against Kennedy, with spots that portray the Massachusetts Democrat as Godzilla.

The Cape Cod Times reports:

“In the 30-second spot, a cartoon Kennedy looms over the water like a Japanese movie monster, pounding wind turbines as they sprout from the water, and barks, ‘I might see them from my mansion on the Cape.’“

Kennedy’s nephew, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a leading environmentalist who urges Americans to cut back on energy consumption and who blamed Bush environmental policies for Hurricane Katrina.

But he, too, opposes the wind farm in Nantucket Sound – going so far as to argue that it would cause pollution.

While America’s most pampered blue-bloodline (memo to moonbats: that would be the Kennedys and not the Bushes) preaches to us about the need for clean alternative energy sources, they are personally fighting such efforts because their pristine view from their Cape mansion might be blighted at the sight of enviro-friendly energy sources.

Then again, considering the gas-guzzling limos, planes, and yachts that the “pro-environment” Kennedys own, one should not be surprised by their two-faced position here.

April 26, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

"Illegal alien" is racist?

The regular visitors here are well aware of the fact that I don’t play this P.C. bullsh#t. I call things like I see them, and if that makes me politically incorrect, then I’ll wear my P.I. badge with honor.

Today’s excursion into the sick world of political correctness comes from a Latino ambulance chaser who thinks using the term “illegal alien” to describe foreigners (hence the “alien” part) who have broken the law (hence the “illegal” part) is racist. Observe:

Appearing on KLIF Radio’s Gregg Knapp show, attorney Domingo Garcia said that using the terms illegal alien or illegal immigrant is a “racial slur”. Garcia said that those who use it, in reference to Hispanics, are racist.

Knapp advised Garcia that using the term “illegal aliens” or “illegal immigrants” is an accurate term applied to [their] legal vs. illegal status in the country and a true depiction of the fact that they are illegal. Garcia said: “Using words like illegal alien is like calling people derogatory names…like calling people ni&&er!”

I took the liberty in removing the double-g from the last word.

Garcia is using two leftist tactics here. One is to remove the meaning of words that accurately (though unflatteringly) describe or define something that normal people find objectionable. The other is to lazily and deviously avoid any kind of intellectual honesty by tossing out unfounded charges of racism in the hopes that the person holding the correct point of view will begin focusing on disproving the allegation of racism instead of focusing on the original topic or point. Sadly, the latter technique is still frequently effective…though not here!

So, with all due respect to amigo Garcia, they are “illegal aliens” regardless of whatever country from whence they came. Period. Habla inglés, hombre?

April 26, 2006 Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized | Leave a Comment