In Defense of Stephanie Grace (Or Business As Usual in the Modern University) - UPDATED

Pictured: Stephanie Grace

UPDATE: Yelena Shagall has been revealed as the leak source. She appears to be a conservative or Beltway libertarian. For much more information on her, please see the end of the post.

When I first read about the Stephanie Grace controversy a few days ago, I didn't bother to write about it because there didn't seem to be any point. White people get attacked for being "racist" all the time. The only difference was that this person was a young female student rather than an older white man with a PhD. I figured that someone in the HBDer/paleocon/alt right blogosphere more eloquent than myself would write everything there is to say about it. Surprisingly, no one has, so combined with the fact that the liberal attack on Grace has taken on an enormous intensity, I figured I would give the story a shot.

Upon Googling "stephanie grace harvard," I was greeted with headlines screaming about how this young college student had sent a racist e-mail. This sounds serious. Did she advocate lynching? Did she recruit people to join the Ku Klux Klan or the National Socialist Movement? Did she refer to blacks as "cockroaches" and advocate killing them all? Did she advocate the forced repatriation of blacks back to Africa?

Well, no. It turns out she broke the Commandment of Liberalism: Thou shalt not dishonor a Negro. Six months ago this Harvard law student had engaged in a conversation about race at a private dinner party. Following the party she sent an e-mail to participants clarifying her views in which she stated "I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent."

Eventually, she got into a fight with a person she had sent it to, a certain Yelena Shagall, who then leaked it to the Black Affirmative Action Recipients Association Law Students Association. From there it got spread accross the Internet, apparently first to Above the Law.

Let me reiterate. A student attending a PRIVATE dinner is being crucified over a single PRIVATE e-mail she sent SIX MONTHS AGO in which she described the POSSIBILITY of racial differences in intelligence. Yet, liberal blogs responded to the e-mail with a fury matched only by that of a crowd of blacks who have just learned that KFC has just run out of chicken in the middle of the lunch rush.

The first blog I read about this story on was Feministe, where Jill Filipovic (a female attorney who writes about how evil the rich are on her blog, while at the same time posts literally thousands of pictures on her Flickr account of her travels all over the world, meaning she is either very upper-middle class or rich herself) noted that the racism was "self-evident" and proceeded to write about how law schools are basically racist themselves and they should focus more on "social justice" and "racism." Apparently, in her view universities don't waste enough hours and gigadollars to propogandize multiculturalism. It's obvious Jill has never taken a sociology, history, or English class at a modern American university.

She updated her post and laughably attempted to tackle the subject of race and intelligence. This gem is an example of her thoughts on the topic: "Intelligence, too, is impossible to separate from environment and socialization, again making it impossible for anyone to say with absolute certainty that there is absolutely no biological or genetic difference at all ever between racial and ethnic groups." Well, the fact is, even when blacks grow up away from the ghetto, they still have low IQs relative to whites of their social class. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study and plenty of other studies have demonstrated this.

The next paragraph down, she claims "I take people who argue that maybe there are race-based genetic differences that determine intelligence about as seriously as I take people who argue that maybe God did create the earth in 7 days with all humans and animals in the exact same form as we find them today." HBDers will of course see the irony in that statement. Liberals claim to support evolution, but they really do not. They believe that it ended the moment the first human crossed the Sinai. They are the ones who are like creationists, not the people who believe evolution continues to this day.

Various other liberal websites picked up on the story. Gawker reported in its typical method of gossipy, contentless-writing. The harpies of Jezebel published their own smear piece. Note that neither of them bothered to refute her statement regarding the possibility of black intellectual inferiority. Maybe they did some research in order to disprove her views and they discovered that research on race and intelligence has proven her to be correct, so instead, they just smeared her as a racist. The reaction from these two websites is understandable. Jezebel and Gawker have always struck me as the type of websites frequented by people residing on the left half of the bell curve who only care about gossip and headlines rather than substance.

Eventually, the Harvard Law School Dean, Martha Minow, learned of it and naturally condemned it and gave the typical liberal discourse on diversity and equality, once again without actually bothering to refute anything Grace wrote. It seems to me that the dean of a major university should have better ways to spend her time than by making statements regarding private e-mails of students, but enforcing liberalism is far more important than education in modern American universities.

A couple mainstream conservative blogs covered this story, too. Ann Althouse, a law professor and antagonist of Feministe and Feministing, didn't even bother to defend her views. Instead she attacked Minow for her hypocrisy regarding the diversity of ideas, being too cowardly to actually discuss the possibility that blacks are less intelligent than whites.

Unfortunately, like James Watson and most other people who bring up the idea of HBD in public, she ended up revealing herself to be a coward by grovelling before political correctness. According to the Boston Globe, she sent the Black Law Students Association an apology containing the following: “I am deeply sorry for the pain caused by my e-mail. I never intended to cause any harm, and I am heartbroken and devastated by the harm that has ensued. I would give anything to take it back.’’ Then Grace distanced herself from her previous comments by writing "I emphatically do not believe that African-Americans are genetically inferior in any way. I understand why my words expressing even a doubt in that regard were and are offensive."

Despite her pathetic, sniveling apology, liberals want her to loose her clerkship with a United States Circuit Court Judge. Liberals always demand apologies from the politically incorrect, but they never end there. As the sagas of Trent Lott, Don Imus, Larry Summers, and James Watson attest, whenever liberals receive an apology from someone who offends Negroes, they then seek to destroy that person. In her original e-mail's conclusion, she asked its recipients to not "pull a Larry Summers on [her]," so it is obvious she knows how the liberal smear machine works. Instead of giving them what they wanted, she should have stood her ground and defended her views. She wouldn't have been any worse off. Maybe she even would have provoked one of those "dialogues about race" liberals are always clamoring for.

Since she won't defend her own views, I will. The fact is, Stephanie Grace was right.

It is "self-evident," as Jill of Feministe would say, that blacks are intellectually inferior to virtually every other race (save Australoids). Virtually every measurement of intelligence, from the various IQ tests, to SATs, to simple high school graduation rates has demonstrated that there is an intellectual gap between whites (and Asians) and blacks. Since the 1960s, billions of dollars have been spent to close this "achievement gap," with very little change in black performance compared to that of whites. The chasm is still gaping.

Even disregarding all of the statistics from decades of testing, historical and contemporary events demonstrate that is undeniable that any country or region inhabited primarily by blacks is a cesspool of violence, crime, poverty, corruption, and virtually every other ailment of humanity. Even when blacks inherit a prosperous land, they ruin it. Zimbabwe, the Breadbasket of Africa when it was called Rhodesia, abandoned its currency last year due to hyperinflation. South Africa developed nuclear weapons under Afrikaner rule, but now they have trouble merely keeping the power on. Detroit was a prosperous city in the 1950s, but forty years after white flight the wilderness is reclaiming much of it. If blacks were, as liberals claim, intellectually equal to whites, then they should have had no problem maintaining these white civilizations. Instead, they trashed them.

Compare Europe's black colonies with its Asian ones. Hong Kong, Singapore, and Macau were European-ruled for a long time. The modern cities were essentially built by the Europeans. Yet, when they were decolonized, instead of running them into the ground, the Asians who took over maintained them as modern cities. Coincidentally, East Asians have a higher average IQ than blacks (and whites, for that matter).

Additionally, its worth noting that Grace doesn't fully endorse the idea of racial differences in intelligence. She just thinks that it is possible. I wonder how liberals and blacks would respond if a true believer in human biodiversity such as Richard Lynn or Jared Taylor were to speak at Harvard Law?

This whole story is utterly ridiculous. The fact that this received national attention demonstrates yet again how pathetic and delicate liberals and blacks are. A student at a private university sent one private e-mail six months ago. Big. Fucking. Deal. These liberal crybabies need to grow the fuck up and stop turning every slight against blacks into a national controversy.

I think the reason why they did so in this case has to do with the fact that it was young woman at Harvard who wrote this. Note that Feministe, Gawker, and Jezebel were basically the ones who covered the story first. All three are havens for educated, liberal feminists. And the only thing educated, liberal feminists hate more than white men are conservative women.

Regardless of the reason for the controversy, the lunacy of the modern university has been revealed once again, just as it was in 2005 with Larry Summers and again in 2009 with Henry Gates. Had Grace defended herself, we might have had a minor improvement in its situation. Instead, she struck the colors, as most whites do against blacks, granting liberals and blacks yet another victory in their war against White America.

The full text of her e-mail follows:

.. . .. I just hate leaving things where I feel I misstated my position.

I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don't think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn't mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.

I also don't think that there are no cultural differences or that cultural differences are not likely the most important sources of disparate test scores (statistically, the measurable ones like income do account for some raw differences). I would just like some scientific data to disprove the genetic position, and it is often hard given difficult to quantify cultural aspects. One example (courtesy of Randall Kennedy) is that some people, based on crime statistics, might think African Americans are genetically more likely to be violent, since income and other statistics cannot close the racial gap. In the slavery era, however, the stereotype was of a docile, childlike, African American, and they were, in fact, responsible for very little violence (which was why the handful of rebellions seriously shook white people up). Obviously group wide rates of violence could not fluctuate so dramatically in ten generations if the cause was genetic, and so although there are no quantifiable data currently available to "explain" away the racial discrepancy in violent crimes, it must be some nongenetic cultural shift. Of course, there are pro-genetic counterarguments, but if we assume we can control for all variables in the given time periods, the form of the argument is compelling.

In conclusion, I think it is bad science to disagree with a conclusion in your heart, and then try (unsuccessfully, so far at least) to find data that will confirm what you want to be true. Everyone wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100 African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or at least the really important ones like intelligence. I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case.

Please don't pull a Larry Summers on me.''

UPDATE:

I managed to find the name of the leaker via a comment on a posting of OneSTDV and confirmed it with other sources. Her name is Yelena Shagall. She is a Belarusian-born Jew from Skokie, IL.

Her Facebook page indicates she is a graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago (class of 2006), where she majored in political science and mathematics (winning an award in that department), and is a Harvard graduate student in the class of 2010 currently living in Cambridge, MA. Her Facebook profile pic (above) is the typical slutty picture that a lot of college girls seem to put up on Facebook, replete with pseudo-gang signs.

She is a right-leaning individual having ties to numerous conservative organizations. She has ties to various Beltway libertarian groups, too. At UIC she dabbled in Objectivism, was involved with the College Republicans (she was UIC's CR vice president in 2003), and attended Cato University in summer 2004. She had a column in the Chicago Flame through which she expressed viewpoints that were a mixture of snarky collegiate neoconservatism and economic libertarianism (the combination of viewpoints that get libertarians seen as just Republicans who like to party), including the typical female conservative criticism of feminism (where they bash feminism while reaping all of its benefits to women). She wrote at least two articles regarding race, though neither of them express support for HBD. Her libertarian views are pretty much a joke, though, as she supported the war in Iraq and when Bush won in 2004, remarked that "it's going to be OK."

At Harvard Law, she was an officer of its Federalist Society in 2008. More interesting is the fact that she worked with the Institute for Justice, a Beltway "libertarian" law firm, as a "summer clerk or intern" in 2008. She is the woman in the green suit jacket in the picture below. (As an aside, why is it that young women are incapable of dressing professionally? The men in the picture are wearing full suits, but the women are wearing short sleeved shirts and one has a skirt with bare legs. They look pretty unprofessional contrasted with the men.)



She appears to be a Zionist, having led a counter-protest at UIC against a pro-Palestinian protest.

Her e-mail address is Yelena.Shagall@gmail.com

Yelena, welcome to the Internet.

Christianity is a Greater Threat to America Than Islam

The response to Arizona's immigration law by various allegedly conservative Christian sects, such as the Catholic Church and Evangelicals, has shown that modern Christianity is just another one of the forces bent on destroying America. Catholic, Evangelical, and other Christian leaders are united in opposition to this law, which essentially means they supporting America's descent into a Third World cesspool.

Neoconservatives might argue that Islam is a threat because of Islamic terrorism. But the fact is, Islamic terrorism takes place in countries that are fighting against Muslims. The subway bombings in Russia, Spain, and the UK took place because those countries are (or were) engaged in war against Muslims. As for the September 11 attacks, the reason why they occurred is because America entered into the entangling alliances that George Washington warned us of. Islam has a history of forceful expansion, but so what? America is thousands of miles from the Muslim world with oceans in between. Islamic expansion is the Europeans' problem. If Islam is a threat to them, then they should deal with it how they did back when "European" was not synonymous with "sissy," or at the very least not let millions of Muslims immigrate to their countries.

Christianity, on the other hand, is destroying America from the inside. Liberal Christians promote Marxism. Catholicism demands open borders. Evangelical Christians spend their time clamoring for more "aid" for Africa and Haiti.

Catholicism is probably the worst. I regret writing that post last month defending it from liberal criticism. The Catholic Church is at the forefront of the movement to alter the demographic face of America. Predictably, the bishops are complaining about the Arizona anti-illegal immigrant law. The Catholic Church loves Mexican illegal immigrants. It's okay as long as millions of Third World immigrants come here, just as long as they are Catholic. Back in the late Roman Empire, the bishops at least had spines. A lot of people don't know this, but most of the barbarians who invaded the Roman Empire were Christians. Yet, the bishops did not call on the Romans to welcome the invaders simply because they were also Christians. Instead, in many cases, the bishops led the defense of their cities and towns when the Roman legions abandoned them. Back then, the Catholics recognized that just because a group of people shares a religion with you doesn't mean you should let them move into your country.

It's not only the Catholic Church - even Evangelicals are joining in. Evangelical Christianity is a joke. Liberals incessantly bash Evangelicals due to their perceived conservatism, but aside from opposition to gay marriage and abortion, Evangelical Christians are entirely supportive of the liberal agenda. They support environmentalism, feminism (sure, they don't like abortion, but they never blame the women who have abortions), and "diversity." Evangelicals seem to have an obsession with Africa and basically follow the liberal belief that if we just give blacks more money, they will behave. The idea of Evangelical moral superiority is a joke, too. The same people who clamor about how horrible gay marriage is have daughters who go to college and become sluts and sons who pathetically try to mimic black ghetto culture.

Regardless of the reason, Christianity, both the liberal and "conservative" varieties, is killing America. I'd even go as far as to say that the United States would be better if it were predominantly Muslim, rather than filled with the spineless hypocrites who make up the bulk of modern Christianity. At least Muslims are uncompromising in their beliefs and their women don't go out in public dressed like prostitutes. True, Islam does have a tenancy to cause political violence. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, as Thomas Jefferson noted. Most Muslim cities are probably safer than the black Christian inner-cities of the United States, anyways.

Christianity will be America's downfall, due to the fact that the vast majority Christian denominations are either feminized liberal sects or "compassionate conservatives" who do their best to out-liberal the liberals. These short-sighted fools will do more damage to America than a bunch of Muslims halfway across the world ever will.

Protesting Against America: The Response to the Arizona Immigration Law

It is common for liberals to accuse Tea Party members of being seditious, treasonous, or anti-American. While it is true that there are protesters out there who hate America, they are not Tea Partiers, but rather they are the people protesting the Arizona immigration law.

America is what it is because of the fact that it was founded by Europeans and was overwhelmingly European until the 1960s. Once America becomes majority nonwhite, it will cease to be America. Oh sure, it might be called the "United States of America," but it will be America in name only. Kind of like how despite the fact that Mehmed titled himself the Roman Emperor after taking Constantinople, he had little in common with, say, Julius Caesar. "Hispanic" immigration is the major cause of the demographic shift (I put Hispanic in quotes because most so-called Hispanics are about as Spanish as Barack Obama - mestizo would be a more accurate word).

Most white people, including non-paleo conservatives, are too cowardly to speak of this openly, either because they don't want to be called a racist or because they don't want to loose their job or friends if they speak candidly on race. So instead, they talk about "illegal immigration" and all of the harms it causes, while still singing praises of diversity and support for legal immigration, despite the fact that legal immigrants bring the same problems as illegals. However, action against illegal immigrants is still good, though it won't be enough.

Arizonans took the first step in taking back our country by making illegal immigrants requiring police to verify the status of anyone they suspect to be an illegal immigrant. Predictably, the establishment was outrage. Liberals are hysterical because conservatives have finally sucked it up and passed a law that will do something.

Liberals and anti-Americans of all stripes have rushed to condemn this law as "racist" because of the fact that most illegal immigrants (especially in Arizona) are mestizos means that if police see suspicious looking mestizos who can't speak English, the police might do their job and question them, leading to them getting arrested. The fact is, crime statistics are racist. Mestizos, like blacks, simply commit more crime than whites and Asians, so they will have more negative interactions with the police, meaning more opportunity for them to be arrested under this law. If the police target mestizos over this bill, sure it might be racist, but it makes sense. When there is a spate of gang violence in the inner cities, police departments don't step up patrols in the white suburbs to be "fair," they target their resources into the areas affected, the black ghettoes. Police enforcement of this law will just follow the same logic.

Barry Soetoro labeled the law "misguided." No, Barry, people who voted for you were misguided. Arizona is simply doing the job that your federal government refuses to do.

My favorite response is the threat by liberals and mestizos to boycott the state unless the law is repealed. If liberals boycott Arizona, the state will be better off. Also, if mestizos boycott Arizona, does that mean all of the Mexicans in Arizona will go back to Mexico? If they do, that will pretty much make the law moot.

However, it's a sure bet sure the Soetoro Justice Department or the ACLU will find a liberal Jewish kritarch to strike down the law because it violates one of the penumbras of one of the Amendments to the Constitution.

Despite that, and the fact that Jan Brewer lauded diversity and condemned racial profiling when she signed the law, I am optimistic. This law shows that there are whites in this country who understand the true problems of America and are looking to solve them. Arizona's law is the first step in taking our country back the anti-white America-haters who control it. That is why liberals are so determined to stop it.

(It occurs to me that white liberals should be deported to Mexico. There is plenty of rich, luscious diversity in that country for them to enjoy. I'm sure they would love it more thanthe horrible racist, sexist, and homophobic America)

"Middle-class" Welfare Queens

Over at Alternet, they posted an article about a "middle-class" single mother named Nan Mooney complaining about the fact that if her state cuts daycare subsidies, her artificial middle-class existence will cease to exist. Of course, since she's on a form of welfare (her subsidized daycare) she is not middle-class, but is just a lower-class person pretending to be middle-class thanks to the government (kind of like black affirmative action workers) or grew up middle-class but made low-class decisions and is being bailed out by the government.

This article exemplifies all that is wrong with America - from the welfare dependency, to the fatherless children and the sense of entitlement people like Mooney have.

One Thursday morning last month I took a break from my job as a journalist and freelance writer and, after dropping off my 2-year-old at his subsidized daycare, drove myself and my 10-week-old daughter across town to a cupcake shop. Our mission? To decorate Cupcake-grams that momsrising.org, a national non-profit that targets family and children's issues, planned to deliver to every last member of the Washington State legislature along with a note about the critical importance of early childhood care and learning.

I didn't do this just for the fun or the frosting. I did it because my livelihood was at stake.

Washington State had threatened deep budget cuts in a number of areas, including slicing $30 million from the Working Connections Childcare program that helped to fund my childcare. I'm a single parent. I work hard to support my family of three but I don't make anywhere near enough to pay the $2,000-plus a month I'd need to put two kids in full-time daycare. Working Connections gives me the freedom to work and therefore feed, clothe and house my children. If it goes, I'm screwed.

Note that there is no mention of a father or husband. Indeed, she fails to mention him at all in the article. Perhaps she should have thought about the difficulties of raising three children before she decided to become a career woman with three kids. True, the father (probably fathers) of her children might not pay much in child support, could be incapacitated or dead, and might have abandoned her and her children. However, if that was the case, she probably would have mentioned it to gain the sympathy of her reader. She would have appeared as a hardworking woman who fell on tough times rather than being a dumb slut who bit off more than she could chew.

Single career women with kids don't need a husband, remember? They are strong and independent women. Well, not quite independent, since they essentially use Big Government as a surrogate husband.

If she loses the subsidies, she says she will be screwed. Good. If more single mothers like her end up poor, maybe women will realize that both choosing to be a single mother and trying to live a middle class existence is impossible without some form of external support.

Though the cupcake protest may be an original spin on things, our merry band of frosters was far from alone. In Buffalo (childcare subsidies eliminated for four in 10 children), in Chicago (proposed $150 million cuts in human services, among them childcare), in Brooklyn (15 daycare centers slated to close in July) and in California (proposed cut of 18,000 childcare spaces), protesters are hitting the phone lines and the streets because they recognize something the legislators and the mainstream media seem to have missed: Child care really matters.

Due to the recession, tax revenues are down. Legislators can either 1) raise taxes or 2) cut spending. Even the Democrats aren't stupid enough to significantly raise taxes during a recession and take more money from the very people who provide others with jobs. That leaves spending cuts, which no government agency is immune to right now. Even police departments are receiving funding cuts.

For the majority of today's families, child care is an expensive but all too necessary fact of life. In 1975, nearly half of families with children consisted of a male breadwinner and a female homemaker. Today, only one in five families still embody that traditional set-up. In fact mothers are now primary breadwinners--making as much or more than their spouse or filling the role of single working parent --in nearly four in 10 families. And as more mothers flood the workplace, families have to shoulder the often dizzying costs of finding someone else to watch their kids. Getting help with childcare isn't an added perk like a parking space in the company garage. It's a lynchpin, one that can affect healthy child development, job security and the frayed economic realities of today's low-income families.

In other words, liberals destroyed traditional America and are shocked at their results. Congratulations, you destroyed the family wage and made it impossible to support a middle-class family on one income, turned women into sluts, and turned men from being beta providers to being gaming pseudo-alphas and basement dwellers. Everything has a consequence. Liberalism is essentially an ideology that seeks to ignore consequences.

Also, she used the word "lynchpin" on Alternet. I'm surprised the editors allowed it, because it contains the word "lynch," which they probably think is a racist word (like "looter").

People need to appreciate that funding quality child are isn't just a work support issue, it's also a child development issue," says Danielle Ewen, the director of childcare and early learning at the Center for Law and Social Policy. "If we don't invest in early childhood care and learning, kids will arrive at school unprepared to learn. It will affect the number of children with special needs. It will affect graduation rates. It goes to the heart of what our public education system is all about."

For years, kids started elementary school at six or seven years old and they did well. America became the most powerful nation in the world without having kids start school when they were two or three. It sounds like Ewen is just another one of those liberal "experts" who wants to destroy childhood. Thirteen years of liberal indoctrination must not be enough.

For many of us, childcare subsidies play a critical role in the economic infrastructure, bridging the gap to provide a service as essential as food or housing. About 30 percent of all low-income families using child care centers, and 16 percent using an in-home care giver receive subsidies, about 14 percent of those who are federally eligible. Not only do such subsidies ensure that parents can work, they also place those children in healthy environments focused on development and learning. If subsidies disappear, many low-income families are forced into an impossible situation in which their income is less than the cost of paying someone to watch their child.

Once again, liberals fail to realize that actions have consequences. If these "low-income families" (liberal code words for "single black women and their brood of bastards with different fathers") can't support their spawn, then they should not engage in sex. Pretty much everyone other than pre-contact Australian aborigines and young children understands the relationship between sex and women having babies. It really is not a difficult concept.

It's a lifesaver," says Francine Almash, a Brooklyn resident and single parent who relies on subsidies to pay for daycare for her three children. Almash, who works as a freelance editor and splits her time between telecommuting and going in to the office, pays $5 a week to send her kids to a city-funded daycare center near her home. "Without the subsidies I'd have to pay a minimum of about $2,100 a month, even to put my kids in a city-funded daycare. There's no way I could possibly afford that. It's almost my entire income."

No liberal article demanding the government to spend money on something would be complete without a sob story.

Francine Almash is raising three kids in New York City while making around $25,000. She could at least move to a city with a lower cost of living. But that would involve "personal responsibility," a concept that is an anathema to liberals. What a dumb bitch.

When asked what she would do if her subsidy were cut, there's a long silence.

I don't know," Almash finally says. "I really don't know. Maybe I could try to keep one kid home? I'd probably just have to quit working and go on public assistance."

Perhaps Almash should have thought about this before she decided to raise three children as a single mother in New York City - not exactly a cheap place to live - while working as an editor. It's interesting to note that the author of this piece is also a single mother journalist. I wonder why so many single mothers are writers? If they are supporting a family on one income, they should probably

For families like Almash's, the loss of childcare subsidies would be devastating. The subsequent scramble for any kind of care, let alone a licensed quality provider, would force them to play fast and loose with their children's well-being.

In other words, they will have to deal with the consequences off their actions. This is what adults do.

"There are issues of child development and child safety at stake," says Heather Boushey, a senior economist with the Center for American Progress. "Without subsidies, more kids will wind up in unstable care situations that the parents are managing day to day. They may be shuffled around to friends or relatives or even be left home alone to take care of themselves."

There's another solution: single, career women shouldn't have bastard children. And if they do decide to have children, get married first so someone can watch the kid. As for kids having to be home alone, I understand the concern about younger kids, but once kids are of a certain age (say 9 or 10) is it really that big of a deal to have them walk home from school and stay home alone for an hour and a half until their mom comes come?

For many, the juggling required to grapple with suboptimal childcare can lead to taking days off work, arriving late and leaving early. As a result, parents risk losing those same jobs subsidies are meant to help facilitate. In addition, cuts in childcare dollars mean that childcare workers, many of whom are women and many of whom are single parents, now face having their hours cut or their jobs eliminated.

"In part, we see childcare subsidies as a job program," Boushey says. "Without reliable childcare, many low-income parents are forced into a position where they are less consistent on the job because they are dealing with childcare-related issues. They risk losing jobs and losing promotions. And in a tight job market like we have now, driving people out of the workplace is the last thing we want to be doing."

A more effective job program would be to slash the welfare/warfare state, abolish the income and capital gains tax, and allow wealthy people and small businessmen to create jobs. Also, expelling all illegal immigrants and many legal immigrants would help, too. That would be a far more effective job program than providing single women with an incentive to pop out bastards. It would also be a lot better for society than subsidizing the increase in the number of criminals and teen pregnancies that result from single motherhood.

What also seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle is how much such cuts could potentially cost individual states and the country as a whole. If I lost my daycare subsidy I would have to turn to food stamps, Medicaid, temporary assistance for needy families, Section 8, and every other social service out there to support my zero-income family. I would wind up the kind of financial burden no one's looking to take on these days. In addition, every child who doesn't get what they need in terms of early childhood care and learning risks costing the system more down the line in the form of behavioral problems or poor school performance.

If she would end up on welfare if she lost her daycare subsidy, she really isn't living a middle-class existence as she claims. She is living one artificially created with taxpayer dollars.

Also, due to the fact that her children are being raised by a single mother, they already are likely to have behavioral problems and poor school performance.

"Childcare faces a serious threat right now," says Ewen. "The short-term implications of the recession are very bad. We could see states making tremendous cuts, particularly once the stimulus money expires. The hard truth is that we can't make any reforms without resources. We know what we need to do -- develop a system in which the highest quality care is available to the widest range of families. Now it's a question of finding the means to do it."

The Obama administration seems committed to early childhood care and learning, pledging an additional $1.6 billion toward the Child Care and Development Block Grant in fiscal year 2011 (a pledge that still has to make it through Congress). Advocates hit a major stumbling block when the Early Learning Challenge Grant --$8 billion stretched across eight years targeted for education and learning for children from birth to age 5 --wasn't included in the final health care bill passed by the Senate. Now it's up to Congress to allocate more money to the states and also to states to put their own resources on the table.

Naturally, Obama and the Democrats will step in and further subsidize the destruction of the family with stolen money.

We can only hope they see the bigger issues at stake. Investing in childcare means investing in the future of our children and our education system, in job growth and creation.

She becomes very Orwellian in this sentence and the following ones.

By "investing" in childcare, she really means "take money from hardworking people via taxes and give it to single women." That is not investing, it is taking money from the people who invest.

It isn't a handout.

...

If this isn't a handout, then what is?

It's a crucial step toward helping individuals to help themselves.

No, it leads to the exact opposite. When someone gets $2000 a month from the government, as Mooney appears to, this does not cause them to take care of themselves. If they took care of themselves, that money would go way and they would have to pay $2000 a month out of their own pocket, so there is no incentive to help themselves. People realize they do not need to take care of themselves because the government will do it better than they can. This is one of the problems with welfare and why it is so destructive.

If Mooney wanted to take care of herself, she should have either not gotten pregnant or got married to the father of her children. Or she could have exercised this "choice" that feminists are always clamoring about.

Nan Mooney is the author of "(Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents" (Beacon, 2008). Read more about the book and her work at Nan Mooney.com.

Perhaps if Mooney is poor enough that her middle-class existence is endangered, she should find a more lucrative job than writing progressive political books for a non-profit organization (Beacon Press is run by a Unitarian group). And the reason why we are "not keeping up with our parents" is because liberals like her destroyed the society that our parents lived in, though I'm sure in her book she blames it on Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

I hate single mothers. I really do. I don't hate widows or mothers whose husbands/boyfriends turn out to be deadbeats, criminals, or otherwise worthless, but I hate single women who decide to have children knowing there will be no father in their children's lives and then expect everyone else (via government taxation) to pay for their decisions. Not only do I hate ghetto black welfare queens running around with their brood of five misbehaving nigglets, but I also hate "middle-class" white career women like this who have fatherless children and whine about the price of daycare (and the fact that school hours don't work well with office hours, that their employer won't give them time off to see their kids' school plays, etc.).

Nan Mooney is an embodiment of everything wrong with America.

"Looter" is a Racist Word

In yesterday's New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote a column headlined "Looters in Loafers." Joshua Holland (who appears to be the result of a dyke having a sex change operation) calls this "hopelessly naive" and implies that looters is a racist word because only black people are called "looters." To support his claim, he resurrects the set of pictures taken in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in which the caption says that a black kid "looted" food, but the caption for another picture claims that two white people "found" food. Of course, he doesn't mention the plainly visible fact that the pictures were taken by two different photographers working for two different companies.

Everything is racist to liberals. It is impossible for white people to do, say, or write anything that liberals will not find some way to turn into racism.

Why Was the Plaza Safe This Weekend?

Last Sunday I wrote about the black wilding on Kansas City's Country Club Plaza last Saturday. While the MSM, police, and politicians were too cowardly to mention the fact that the "distrubances" were caused by large numbers of black "youths," they did understand that if the wildings occurred again, the Plaza would be doomed. The police were out in large numbers (including mounted officers and a sort of mobile command center) and would ticket parents whose children violated the curfew, Mayor Mark Funkhouser and the KCPD chief spent the evening on the Plaza with their families, and a group of 60 black men led by Alvin Brooks (the man who Funkhouser defeated to be elected mayor) wandered the Plaza to ensure that if large numbers of "youths" showed up, they would not cause any problems. Naturally, the Plaza was safe last night.

This incident is an example of why I am critical of libertarians who complain about "the police state." The fact is, if you want to maintain law and order in an area populated by NAMs, particularly blacks, you must have a police state.

The Kansas City Star notes "Hordes of dressy prom-goers ruled the entertainment area instead of the groups of unruly youths who swarmed the streets the previous Saturday night." Of course, they leave out the essential difference between the "prom goers" and the "unruly youths" - the fact that most of these prom-goers were white suburbanites, while these unruly youths were entirely black. The cowardice of the MSM is disgusting.

The plaza was safe this weekend because the "youths" who strolled it were white, not black, and because the police and community activists patrolled the Plaza to prevent blacks from wilding again. I'm sure Kansas City's liberal media will attempt to come up with plenty of alternative explanations, though. It should be fun to laugh at them.

"They're Just a Bunch of Old White Men"

In the last few days, with the Tax Day Tea Party protests in the news, I've often heard variations of that statement used to describe the Tea Partiers. Leaving aside the fact that families, young people, and middle-aged people attended the protests and the fact that women are about as equally represented as men, this statement shows just how much liberals hate whites, America, and basically western civilization. It implies that soon, these old white men will be gone and a new era of DIVERSITY can reign.

Whites created America and have sustained it. When whites are a minority, America will turn into a Brasil del Norte, with all of the problems inherent to a country populated and run by blacks and mestizos. These "old white men" are the reason why America is America.