Democrats’ hoodwinking of blacks

Democrats’ hoodwinking of blacks

History does not support most black's view of the political party that is their ally....

Ask any black person which political party has been black people’s political ally. With near unanimity, blacks would answer the Democratic Party. Asked which party has been hostile to blacks, they’d say the Republican Party with similar unanimity. For better answers, check out Prager University’s five-minute clip “The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party,” by Carol Swain, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University (http:// tinyurl.com/kq3gxuw).

Since its founding in the late 1820s, the Democratic Party has defended slavery, started the Civil War and opposed Reconstruction. The Democratic Party imposed segregation. Its members engaged in the lynching’s of blacks and opposed the civil rights acts of the 1950s and ’60s. During Reconstruction, hundreds of black men were elected to Southern state legislatures as Republicans, and 22 black Republicans served in the U.S. Congress by 1900.

The Democratic Party did not elect a black man to Congress until 1935.

President Woodrow Wilson was a Progressive Democrat and an avowed racist. He re-segregated the federal civil service. He screened the racist film “The Birth of a Nation,” originally titled “The Clansman,” at the White House; it was the very first movie ever played at the White House.

What was the party of Orval Faubus, the Arkansas governor who blocked the desegregation of Little Rock schools and defied the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision? What was the party of Theophilus Eugene Connor, known as Bull Connor, who, as city commissioner, set vicious dogs, fire hoses and billy clubs on black civil rights demonstrators in Birmingham?

Connor said: “You can never whip these birds if you don’t keep you and them separate. I found that out in Birmingham. You’ve got to keep your white and black separate.” If you answered Faubus and Connor were Democrats, go to the head of the class. By the way, it was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower who sent troops to ensure that black students could go to Little Rock’s Central High School.

What was the political party of Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who, during the 1960s civil rights movement, declared that he stood for “segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever” and blocked black students from entering the University of Alabama?

A few years later, the only serious congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats. Eighty percent of Republicans in the House of Representatives supported the bill. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Democratic senators, led by ex-Klansman Robert Byrd’s 14-hour filibuster, kept the bill tied up for 75 days, until Republicans mustered votes to break it.

Labor unions have always been allied with the Democratic Party and have a history of racism. Most of today’s black leaders give unquestioned support to labor unions and their policies that harm black workers, but yesteryear’s black leaders saw things differently. Frederick Douglass, in his 1874 essay “The Folly, Tyranny, and Wickedness of Labor Unions,” argued that unions were not friends of blacks.

W.E.B. Du Bois called unions “the greatest enemy of the black working man.” Booker T. Washington also opposed unions because of their adverse impact on blacks.

Today, Democrats use diplomacy to hoodwink blacks. They tell blacks to be against those – such as Education Secretary Betsy DeVos – who are for school vouchers that enable black parents to get their children out of rotten schools run by Democrats at the National Education Association. Democrats are using black congressmen to go after Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, who is a high-profile conservative, champion of law and order, and supporter of President Donald Trump’s. They view Clarke as a threat to Democratic Party interests.

Indeed, if Democrats lost just 25 percent of the black vote, they would be in deep political trouble.

By the way, none of what I’ve said should be taken as an argument that blacks should rush to become Republicans. I’d like to see the black community acting the way most Japanese and Chinese communities do – not getting into a tizzy over which political party is in power.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University and a syndicated columnist.

Where did all the starter homes go? New studies show more rules mean less building.

Where did all the starter homes go? New studies show more rules mean less building.

Conservatives are right! An increasing number of regulations accounts for housing construction that remains 35% below normal levels across the country

Paul Davidson @Pdavidsonusat USA TODAY

James and Carrie Finan have been house hunting in the Seattle area for four months in a seemingly futile race against time: They’re living in a room in James’ mother’s house and their first child is due in September.

They’ve seen about 40 starter houses that match their criteria — $350,000 or less, three bedrooms, about 1,200 square feet — and made four offers ranging from $32,000 to $82,000 above asking price. They’ve lost out each time.

“Every time we hear we’re not getting it, my heart kind of sinks,” says James, 29. “It’s been insane.”

A big reason the Finans are struggling is the regulatory morass faced by builders such as Mike Walsh. On a parcel in Sammamish, Wash., a Seattle suburb, he would like to build 36 relatively affordable houses. But since zoning changes in recent years permit just 25, he’ll have to sell each at $1.2 million to make the project profitable.

An increasingly byzantine maze of zoning, environmental, safety and other requirements partly accounts for housing construction that remains 35% below normal levels across the country, especially for affordable starter houses, builders and economists say. And that building deficit is the chief culprit behind a skimpy supply of both new and existing homes that has driven up prices about 40% the past five years, says Lawrence Yun, chief economist of the National Association of Realtors. Rising prices are good for homeowners but shut out many buyers, especially Millennials shopping for their first house.

But while experts have long suspected that regulations were a deterrent for builders, new studies show more starkly that areas with the most rules — particularly big metro regions on the East and West coasts — have the least housing construction. Some of the regulations aim to make homes safer or help neighborhoods deal with heavier rainfall and congestion. But one side-effect is that fewer homes are affordable in coastal areas with many rules.

A report by the National Association of Home Builders last year found that from 2011 to 2016, regulatory costs to build an average house had increased from about $65,000 to $85,000, or 30%, and continue to make up a quarter of the price of a home.

How to disagree and still be friends

How to disagree and still be friends

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

Millions of people love Apple computers and wouldn't be caught using a PC. By contrast, there are many millions of PC users who feel the same way about Apple computers. Many men like double-breasted suits, but I wouldn't be caught dead in one. Some people swear by Cadillac cars, but my favorite is Mercedes-Benz.

Despite these strongly held preferences, there's no conflict. We never see Apple computer lovers picketing firms that serve PC lovers. Mercedes-Benz lovers don't battle Cadillac lovers. In free markets, people with strong differences in preferences get along and often are good friends. The reason is simple. If you like double-breasted suits and I like single-breasted suits, we get what we want.

Contrast the harmony that emerges when there's market allocation with the discord when there's government allocation. For example, some parents want their children to say a morning prayer in school. Other parents are offended by that idea. Both parents have a right to their tastes, but these parental differences have given rise to conflict.

Why is there conflict? The answer is simple. Schools are run by government. Thus, there are going to be either prayers in school or no prayers in school. That means parents who want their children to say prayers in school will have to enter into conflict with parents who do not want prayers in school. The stakes are high. If one parent wins, it comes at the expense of another parent. The losing parents have their preferences ignored. Or they must send their children to a private school that has morning prayers and pay that school's tuition plus property taxes to support a public school for which they have little use.

The liberty-oriented solution to the school prayer issue is simple. We should acknowledge the fact that though there is public financing of primary and secondary education, it doesn't follow that there should be public production of education. Just as there is public financing of M1 Abrams main battle tanks and F/A-18 fighter jets, it in no way follows that there should be government production of those weapons. They are produced privately. There's no government tank and fighter jet factory.

Free market allocation is conflict reducing, whereas government allocation enhances the potential for conflict.

But I'm all too afraid that most Americans want to be able to impose their preferences on others. Their vision doesn't differ from one that says, 'I don't want my children to say morning prayers, and I'm going to force you to live by my preferences.' The issue of prayers in school is just a minor example of people's taste for tyranny.

Think of the conflict that would arise if the government decreed that factories will produce either double breasted or single-breasted suits or that there will be either Cadillacs or Mercedes-Benzes built or that there will be either Apple computers or PCs built. Can you imagine how otherwise- peaceable people would be forced into conflict with one another? Government allocation is mostly a zero-sum game, in which one person's win necessarily means another person's loss. The great ignored and overlooked feature of market allocation is that it is what game theorists call a positive-sum game. 

In positive sum games, you get what you want, say an Apple computer, and I get what I want -- a PC, in this case. My win does not come at your expense, and your win doesn't come at my expense. And just as importantly, we can be friends.

Sheer lunacy on campus

Sheer lunacy on campus

Parents, taxpayers and donors have little idea of the levels of lunacy, evil and lawlessness that have become features of many of today’s institutions of higher learning. Parents, taxpayers and donors who ignore or are too lazy to find out what goes on in the name of higher education are nearly as complicit as the professors and administrators who promote or sanction the lunacy, evil and lawlessness.

As for the term “institutions of higher learning,” we might start asking: Higher than what? Let’s look at a tiny sample of academic lunacy.

During a campus debate, Purdue University professor David Sanders argued that a logical extension of pro-lifers’ belief that fetuses are human beings is that pictures of “a butt-naked body of a child” are child pornography.

Clemson University’s chief diversity officer, Lee Gill, who’s paid $185,000 a year to promote inclusion, provided a lesson claiming that to expect certain people to be on time is racist.

To reduce angst among snowflakes in its student body, the University of California, Hastings College of the Law has added a “Chill Zone.” The Chill Zone, located in its library, has, just as most nursery schools have, mats for naps and beanbag chairs. The University of Michigan Law School helped its students whether their Trump derangement syndrome – a condition resulting from Donald Trump’s election – by enlisting the services of an “embedded psychologist” in a room full of bubbles and play dough.

Today’s academic climate might be described as a mixture of infantilism, kindergarten and totalitarianism. The radicals, draft dodgers and hippies of the 1960s who are now college administrators and professors are responsible for today’s academic climate.

The infantilism should not be tolerated, but more important for the future of our nation are the totalitarianism and the hate-America lessons being taught at many of the colleges.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, New York University provost Ulrich Baer argued: “The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community.”

That’s a vision that is increasingly being adopted on college campuses, and it’s leaking down to our primary and secondary levels of education.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University and a syndicated columnist.

Communism the Leftist Celebrate

Communism the Leftist Celebrate

May Day celebrations were held all across the fruited plain, with leftist radicals and unionists worshipping the ideals of communism. Communism is an ideology calling for government control over our lives. It was created by Karl Marx, who – along with his collaborator, Friedrich Engels – wrote a pamphlet called “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” In 1867, Marx wrote the first volume of “Das Kapital.” The second and third volumes were published posthumously, edited by Engels. Few people who call themselves Marxists have ever even bothered to read “Das Kapital.” If one did read it, he would see that people who call themselves Marxists have little in common with Marx.

For those who see Marx as their hero, there are a few historical tidbits they might find interesting. Nathaniel Weyl, himself a former communist, dug them up for his 1979 book, “Karl Marx: Racist.” For example, Marx didn’t think much of Mexicans. When the United States annexed California after the Mexican War, Marx sarcastically asked, “Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?” Engels shared Marx’s contempt for Mexicans, explaining: “In America we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will be placed under the tutelage of the United States.”

Marx had a racial vision that might be interesting to his modern-day black supporters. In a letter to Engels, in reference to his socialist political competitor Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx wrote: “It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses’ exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a n-----. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also n----- -like.” Engels shared Marx’s racial philosophy.

In 1887, Paul Lafargue, who was Marx’s son-in-law, was a candidate for a council seat in a Paris district that contained a zoo. Engels claimed that Lafargue had “one-eighth or onetwelfth n----- blood.” In a letter to Lafargue’s wife, Engels wrote, “Being in his quality as a n-----, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district.”

Marx was also an anti-Semite, as seen in his essay titled “On the Jewish Question,” which was published in 1844. Marx asked: “What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering.

What is his worldly God? Money. ... Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities. ... The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. ... The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.”

Despite the fact that in the 20th century alone communism was responsible for more than 100 million murders (http://tinyurl.com/zafgs5p), much of the support for communism and socialism is among intellectuals.

The reason they do not condemn the barbarism of communism is understandable. Professor Richard Pipes explains: “Intellectuals, by the very nature of their professions, grant enormous attention to words and ideas. And they are attracted by socialist ideas. They find that the ideas of communism are praiseworthy and attractive; that, to them, is more important than the practice of communism. Now, Nazi ideals, on the other hand, were pure barbarism; nothing could be said in favor of them.” That means leftists around the world will continue to celebrate the ideas of communism.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University and a syndicated columnist.

So, What to Think About the Tax Proposal?

 So, What to Think About the Tax Proposal?

Yesterday, the Trump administration released its much anticipated tax plan. During the unveiling, Steven Mnuchin called it “the biggest tax cut” in American history. What’s in it? And what will happen? Let’s dig in.

-This plan cuts the corporate tax rate to 15 percent from the current rate of 35 percent. Folks who own their own business would be taxed at the 15 percent corporate rate instead of the personal income tax rate.

-Individual tax rates would be reduced down to three brackets, 10 percent, 25 percent, and 35 percent, and the standard deduction would double to $12,700 for individuals and $25,400 for joint filers.

-Itemized deductions, except for mortgage interest and charitable donations, would be eliminated.

-A one-time repatriation tax would let companies bring back overseas cash at a lower rate.

-The estate tax and the alternative minimum tax are done away with.

-The plan does not include a border adjustment tax.

Contrary to suggestions earlier in the week, this plan does not include infrastructure spending designed to woo Democrats. There are no budget cuts associated with this either. According to Mnuchin, the plan will pay for itself through economic growth. He says he expects the GDP to grow at three percent annually. (The corporate rate cut could possibly pay for itself. It worked very well in both Canada and the UK.)

Importantly, the plan is a broad outline, not specific legislative text. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell responded yesterday to the plan saying that for Congress it “will serve as critical guideposts.”

Can something like this pass Congress? It’s far too early to say. There are a lot of tricks that could trip this up and at the same time, there’s lots of tricks to get this through. Where it needs 51 or 60 votes in the Senate depends on the final legislative language and how it's scored.

There are lots of predictions both ways on how this could break down and no doubt we’ll hear more about it in the coming weeks and months. But at the moment, it’s too early to make any predictions.

The Glorification of Science and the Reality of Scientific Responsibility

The Glorification of Science and the Reality of Scientific Responsibility

Science has and likely will continue to create consequences for humans on this earth. There is ample data in the historical record to prove such. What seems to have gotten lost in today’s world is the glorification of science without accepting the unintentional consequences of what science creates.

Some have argued that the answer to the question of “responsibility” is "no" —that it is not researcher's’ responsibility how science gets used in society.  But that is sophistry.  Scientists are responsible for both the impacts they intend and some of the impacts they do not intend, if they are readily foreseeable in specific detail; even if they consider the future or not. 

These are the standards to which we are all held as moral agents.  If I were to negligently throw a used match into a dry field (merely because I wanted to dispose of it), for example, I would be responsible for the resulting wildfire.  In contrast, Einstein was not responsible for the use of his E=mc2 equation to build an atomic bomb and its use in wartime, though the scientists at Los Alamos were. Or should he?