Mayor De Blasio: Hypocrite Hooked On Hollywood Cash

Because the crime rate is zero, the potholes are all fixed and homelessness has been completely eradicated, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio now has time to focus on what really matters to Big Apple taxpayers: Racial quotas in Hollywood.

Social justice warrior de Blasio took to Twitter last week to lambaste the 2016 Academy Awards nominations, which did not include any black actors or actresses. “#OscarsSoWhite says it all,” de Blasio carped. “(Wife) @Chirlane and I are sick of only one kind of America being celebrated.” Radical race-hustling director Spike Lee is leading a boycott of the awards ceremony scheduled next month in Los Angeles. Actress Jada Pinkett Smith, whose actor/director husband Will Smith was snubbed for his performance in the NFL drama “Concussion,” took to Facebook this week to rally “people of color” not to watch or attend the gala event. Director Michael Moore hitched himself to the whiny wagon of 1 percenters. Pressure is mounting on host and comedian Chris Rock to bow out in solidarity.

A panicked Cheryl Boone Isaacs, the president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (who is black), is promising expedited “change” to mollify the grievance mob led by shakedown artist Al Sharpton. They’ll never admit it, but for the guardians of the Academy, “change” means inevitable quota-based admissions to their elite club, where new candidates must traditionally be sponsored by two current members and demonstrate “exceptional achievement in the field of theatrical motion pictures.”

The transformation is “not coming as fast as we would like,” Isaacs bleated as she vowed to take more aggressive steps to “diversify” as part of the Academy’s “A2020” plan.
Is this what “people of color” in the performing arts really want? Fealty based first and foremost on skin tone and not on talent and ability? Specially appointed members of the Academy chosen solely because of their race, gender or oppressed status who will be beholden to vote only for fellow tokens from their respective tribes?

What exactly will make the likes of Spike Lee and company happy if not de facto or de jure Oscars quotas and affirmative action points for minority entertainers? Do they think ghettoized new categories for “Best Black Actor” and “Best Black Actress” constitute progress and equality?

Do they honestly believe that casting doubt on the achievements of all non-white thespians who earn nominations as a result of this politically correct hectoring is good for the profession?
Now, let’s call de Blasio and his bean-counting wife out on the red carpet.

If this “diversity”-driven duo is truly “sick” of Hollywood’s white cis-hetero-patriarchal oppressors, are they ready to boycott the billions that the entertainment industry pours into New York City until their utopian ideals of manufactured racial parity are achieved?

In an open love letter to Tinseltown in 2014, de Blasio boasted that since 2004, “Hollywood’s financial imprint on our city has grown from $5 billion to $7.1 billion.” The self-proclaimed warrior against income inequality enthusiastically doubled down on government subsidy programs to the Hollywood elite, vowing to “maintain the policies and practices that spurred this expansion while strategically investing in new projects to grow and diversify the industry.”

“Investing,” of course, means using the power of government to redistribute the hard-earned tax dollars of lower- and middle-income workers to millionaire and billionaire studio owners in the TV and film industry. On top of the city’s subsidies, New York State offers myriad special tax breaks, credits, and rebates worth an estimated $420 million to lure Hollywood to the East Coast.

De Blasio’s bowing and scraping bordered on an R-rating. “In New York City, the TV and film industry has a true partner,” he gushed, “not to mention a mayor who will always be slightly in awe of the work you do.”

Hooked on Hollywood cash, de Blasio’s outrage about #OscarsSoWhite is so contrived it bounces like a fake check.

As usual, the left’s hashtag warriors are all show and no go.

Michelle Malkin is author of the new book “Who Built That: Awe-Inspiring Stories of American Tinkerpreneurs.” Her email address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

 

Powerball’s Biggest Winner: Government

Ka-ching! Wednesday’s Powerball jackpot soared to $1.5 billion as get-rich-quick mania seized America this week. But you don’t need to wait for the drawing to know who’ll score the royal payoff.
The biggest winner of the multistate numbers game is — drumroll, please — Uncle Sam.

Powerball is a government-sponsored gambling racket in 44 states, plus Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The feds automatically skim 25 percent off the top of a lump-sum cash award. Additional state withholding taxes vary depending on residency status. Mega-winners are taxed at the highest federal income tax bracket (nearly 40 percent); those who live in states with personal income taxes could pay up to an additional 9 percent. Local municipal taxes can add another 3-5 percent to the tax burden.

Government lotteries of all kinds raked in a whopping $70 billon in revenue last year, according to the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries. Cash-strapped states pitch the rackets as civic enterprises by purporting to earmark a portion of proceeds for public education, economic development and mass transit, senior citizens’ programs, professional sports stadiums and environmental protection.

As I’ve noted during previous, high-stakes lotto crazes, the state bureaucrats who run these schemes for numeracy-challenged consumers are free to ban outside competition — including private slot machines, phone betting, instant pull tabs and card rooms. The feds help out by limiting sweepstakes and Internet gambling, as well as exempting state lottery marketing materials from Federal Trade Commission regulations that guarantee truth in advertising.

That’s right. While cracking down on ads on everything from cereal to toothpaste to cars, Washington protects states that spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year falsely promising “a dollar and a dream,” “everyone is a winner” and “somebody’s gotta win — might as well be you.”
In New York last fall, the attorney general outlawed fantasy sports league as illegal games of chance that deceptively hooked in the gullible — while the state lottery promoted its motto, “Hey, You Never Know.”

I know double-standards sanctimony when I see it.

If public lottery pimps were private corporate entities, they’d be charged with predatory behavior. To entice their at-risk target audience of elderly citizens and low-wage workers, state officials saturate the airwaves around the first of each month. Why? As a candid advertising plan for the Ohio Super Lotto directed many years ago:
“Schedule heavier media weight during those times of the month where consumer disposable income peaks. … Government benefits, payroll and Social Security payments are released on the first Tuesday of each calendar month.”

Billboards in Chicago slums claim lottery purchases “could be your ticket out.” The Illinois lottery lures players to “joy someone with holiday scratch-offs.” In Maine, an analysis by Cornell University and the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting last fall found: “For every one percent increase in joblessness in a given zip code, lottery sales jump 10 percent, the original research shows. And people in Maine’s poorest regions spend as much as 200 times more person than those in wealthier areas.”

“By enticing people to spend their money on fantasies,” veteran gambling historian Robert Goodman points out, “governments are preying on people’s ability to dream and hope. Rather than providing real hope for economic improvement, public officials are promoting the illusion of economic improvement– becoming deeply involved in finding new ways of manipulating people’s desire for a more secure future. They are enticing people into taking part in what should properly be called the ‘pathology of hope.’”

The government gambling industry spins lotteries as good, innocent fun that benefits the children. Always “For The Children.” But countless studies show two things:
First, a significant portion of lottery sales are driven by financial desperation and delusion, not by entertainment. During the 2008 recession, 29 of 42 states with lotteries saw huge spikes in lottery sales — with sales records set in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, where purchases are greatest in the states’ poorest counties.

“When people view themselves as doing worse financially, then that motivates them to purchase lottery tickets,” Emily Haisley, a postdoctoral associate at the Yale School of Management who researched lottery behavior, told The New York Times. “People look to the lottery to get back to where they were financially.”

Second, multiple investigations of states that divert a portion of lottery revenues to public education have shown that on average, those states spend a smaller proportion of their budgets on education than states that do not have a lottery.

Remember: All government revenue is fungible. Lottery funds end up supplanting regular income, not supplementing it. As players lose interest, the states must cut the number of prizes, make longer odds, inflate the jackpots and market even more aggressively (and deceptively) to make more money.

Government-run lottery monopolies are a regressive tax and a stupidity tax.

Inject this truth in inner-city Powerball billboard advertising: The odds are never in your favor.

Michelle Malkin is author of the new book “Who Built That: Awe-Inspiring Stories of American Tinkerpreneurs.” Her email address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

Inside The Garden Of Political Town Hall Plants

On Thursday, CNN will host a town hall with President Obama as part of his “final-year push to make gun control part of his legacy.” In addition to sitting down with liberal anchor Anderson Cooper, the network says Obama will “take questions from the audience.”

Uh-oh. Get out your best pruning shears and trowels. In an age of micromanaged partisan stagecraft and left-wing media enablers, there is no such thing as a spontaneous question.
CNN has a long history of allowing political plants to flourish in its public forums.

At the cable station’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas in 2007, moderator Wolf Blitzer introduced several citizen questioners as “ordinary people, undecided voters.” But they later turned out to include a former Arkansas Democratic director of political affairs, the president of the Islamic Society of Nevada, and a far left anti-war activist who’d been quoted in newspapers lambasting Harry Reid for his failure to pull out of Iraq.

At a CNN/YouTube GOP debate two weeks later, the everyday, “undecided voters” whose questions were chosen included:

–A member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Americans For Hillary Clinton Steering Committee.

–A young woman named “Journey” who questioned the candidates on abortion and whom CNN failed to properly identify as an outspoken John Edwards supporter.

–A supposed “Log Cabin Republican” who had declared his support for Obama on an Obama ’08 campaign blog.

–A supposedly unaffiliated “concerned mother” who was actually a staffer and prominent Pittsburgh union activist for the United Steelworkers — which had endorsed Edwards for president.

–A supposed “undecided” voter who urged Ron Paul to run as an independent, but who had already publicly declared his support for former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s Democratic presidential bid.

–A staffer for Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; a former intern for Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., and a former intern for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Once a manipulative gardener, always a manipulative gardener. During the push for Obamacare, Democrat plants spread like kudzu across town hall propaganda events. At White House “citizen town halls” in 2009, Team Obama hand-picked not-so-random “random” questioners who included:

–An operative for the Washington, D.C.-based Health Care for America Now, the K Street Astroturf outfit with a $40 million budget to lobby for government-run health care that directed its activists to “drown out” opponents at town hall meetings.

–An “unemployed” cancer patient who was actually working for the DNC’s Organizing for America and the Virginia Organizing Project, which coordinated lobbying trips and health care forums with HCAN.

–A Democrat National Committee member and community blogger at Organizing for America.

–The 11-year-old daughter of a coordinator of Massachusetts Women for Obama who had donated thousands of dollars to the campaign, as had her law firm employer.
Using young people as horticultural conduits to shape narratives wasn’t an Obama invention, of course. Last week, Hillary Clinton’s town hall events featured two children reading scripted questions on gender pay equity and guns. The campaign balked at accusations that they would exploit kids and manufacture questions.

But this is the campaign of the former secretary of state whose staff bragged in emails released last fall that it had “planted” questions with CBS News’s “60 Minutes” in 2011.
And this is the woman whose 2008 presidential campaign staff admitted to providing prefab queries to a Grinnell College student in Iowa. Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff exposed how a senior Clinton staffer approached her with “a binder with pre-written questions.” She told CNN — attention, CNN! — that the “top one was planned specifically for a college student. … It said ‘college student’ in brackets and then the question.”

Gallo-Chasanoff conceded to asking the question, which read: “As a young person, I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?”
Upon reflection, Gallo-Chasanoff felt ashamed of her cooperation with Democratic Kabuki theater and condemned the charade as “dishonest.”

If only more self-respecting journalists felt the same way.

Michelle Malkin is author of the new book “Who Built That: Awe-Inspiring Stories of American Tinkerpreneurs.” Her email address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

Defining Political Child Abuse: A Tale Of Two Cruz Families

Remember 5-year-old Sophie Cruz?

Groomed for a year by an outfit called the “Full Rights for Immigrants Coalition,” Sophie is the ponytailed poster child for amnesty who was literally propped up in front of the pope during a September visit to Washington, D.C.

Latino activists brazenly bragged about training the first-grader before the visit and crafting a letter in her name pleading with the Catholic pontiff to help her rescue President Obama’s executive illegal immigrant amnesty program DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents), which was halted under federal court order on May.

In The Washington Post, a Harvard University professor praised the kiddie human shield tactics of the amnesty movement after Sophie’s stunt.

“Tactically really, it’s one of those moves that is just brilliant,” Roberto Gonzales, a Harvard University sociologist, told the Post reporter, Janell Ross. Ross marveled at the “power of personal narrative” and noted how the use of a child to deliver a political message had been “deployed to great effect.”

Sophie Cruz’s family now works with FWD.us, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s multi-million-dollar lobbying group, which just two weeks ago featured the girl in a high-profile ad campaign reading a fear-mongering script on “how her family would be ripped apart” if America got serious about deporting illegal border-crossers, visa overstayers, document fraudsters and criminal alien fugitives.

The Washington Post again provided positive coverage of little Sophie Cruz’s latest foray in politics. The article attacked Republicans who support strict immigration enforcement and included a massive photo of the cute child, supplied by her father, coloring a “pro-immigration” propaganda picture for amnesty.

Now, imagine. Imagine if a conservative political cartoonist had depicted Sophie as an organ grinder monkey on a leash held by her illegal immigrant parents and Mark Zuckerberg. Imagine if a conservative political cartoonist had defended the depiction of Sophie as a chained dancing monkey by commenting that her parents’ use of their daughter in political ads and media students made the child “fair game.” Imagine the front-page, white-hot, and nonstop outrage from Democrats, journalists and the White House that would ensue.

Somehow, The Washington Post’s coverage of 5-year-old Sophie Cruz’s manipulation and exploitation by corporate special interests and amnesty theater production managers escaped the attention of Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post editorial cartoonist Ann Telnaes.

Instead, Telnaes focused her supposed wrath over political child abuse last week on another Cruz family: GOP presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz.
Cruz’s sin? Including his 4-year-old and 7-year-old daughters, Catherine and Caroline, in a light-hearted Christmas video poking fun at his rivals and playing off his “Green Eggs and Ham” moment on the Senate floor in 2013.

In the bizarre world of The Washington Post, employing a 5-year-old to breach Secret Service security for an international headline-grabbing papal photo op and to shill for Facebook’s self-serving immigration expansionist agenda is “brilliant” and humanizing.

But taping a viral parody Web ad with your kids telling Seussian Hillary Clinton email server jokes is practically an international human rights crime.
Telnaes indulged her Cruz Derangement Syndrome not just by attacking Cruz, but by serving up a crude depiction of his young, half-Hispanic daughters as animated monkeys. She bitterly warned on Twitter that since “Ted Cruz has put his children in a political ad — don’t start screaming when editorial cartoonists draw them as well.”

Disingenuous jerkette.

Politicians in both parties put their children in political ads and policy debates all the time. Over the years, the Obamas’ daughters have made strategic campaign cameos for their parents during both of their dad’s presidential election drives, the Obamacare debate, and their mom’s East Wing anti-obesity initiative.

The Clintons did the same with their daughter. Now, at every available campaign Kodak moment, those geriatric masters of Democratic political stagecraft are currently welded to their baby granddaughter like toddlers tethered to a binkie dipped in Pixy Stix.

Imagine the storm of protest that would have rained down on any prominent conservative political cartoonist who caricatured Sasha, Malia, Chelsea or Charlotte as circus animals performing for their parents for maximum electoral gain.

Democrats surround themselves daily with human Snuggie blankets of other people’s babies, toddlers, tweens and teens to push gun control, endless expansions of government health care programs and entitlements, and abdication of our borders and immigration laws. But instead of decrying this blatant political child abuse, “progressives” attack the critics of these debate-stifling tactics for … hating on children!

When the media’s selective civility police argue that children should be “off-limits” in politics, what they really mean is that prop-a-palooza should only be allowed when the children promote politically correct causes and left-wing politicians.

The Washington Post deleted the cartoon that maliciously turned two innocent daughters of a Republican candidate into dancing monkeys — but not before revealing itself to be run and staffed by drooling moral infants in soiled, double-standards diapers.

Michelle Malkin is author of the new book “Who Built That: Awe-Inspiring Stories of American Tinkerpreneurs.” Her email address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM

Immigration And Our Founding Fathers’ Values

President Obama claims that restricting immigration in order to protect national security is “offensive and contrary to American values.” No-limits liberals have attacked common-sense proposals for heightened visa scrutiny, profiling or immigration slowdowns as “un-American.”

America’s Founding Fathers, I submit, would vehemently disagree.

Our founders, as I’ve reminded readers repeatedly over the years, asserted their concerns publicly and routinely about the effects of indiscriminate mass immigration. They made it clear that the purpose of allowing foreigners into our fledgling nation was not to recruit millions of new voters or to secure permanent ruling majorities for their political parties. It was to preserve, protect and enhance the republic they put their lives on the line to establish.

In a 1790 House debate on naturalization, James Madison opined: “It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable?”

No, not because “diversity” is our greatest value. No, not because Big Business needed cheap labor. And no, Madison asserted, “Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.”
Madison argued plainly that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.”

George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, similarly emphasized that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that “by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.”

Alexander Hamilton, relevant as ever today, wrote in 1802: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.”
Hamilton further warned that “The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”

He predicted, correctly, that “The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”

The survival of the American republic, Hamilton maintained, depends upon “the preservation of a national spirit and a national character.” He asserted, “To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”

On Thursday, a bipartisan majority of U.S. senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee adopted a stunningly radical amendment by Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., to undermine the national interest in favor of suicidal political correctness. The measure would prevent the federal government from ever taking religion into account in immigration and entrance decisions “as such action would be contrary to the fundamental principles on which this Nation was founded.”

This pathway to a global right to migrate runs contrary to our founders’ intentions as well as decades of established immigration law. As Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., pointed out in a scathing speech opposing the Leahy amendment: “It is well settled that applicants don’t have the constitutional right or civil right to demand entry to the United States. … As leaders, we are to seek the advancement of the Public Interest. While billions of immigrants may benefit by moving to this country, this nation state has only one responsibility. We must decide if such an admission complies with our law and serves our national interest.”

Put simply, unrestricted open borders are unwise, unsafe and un-American. A country that doesn’t value its own citizens and sovereignty first won’t endure as a country for long.

Michelle Malkin is author of the new book “Who Built That: Awe-Inspiring Stories of American Tinkerpreneurs.” Her email address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM