Western Washington University: “Help us be less White!”

April 16, 2014

clueless1

Here’s a thought experiment for you: Imagine a university that, through sheer chance, wound up with a mostly Black or Asian student body. Concerned faculty meet, their brows furrowed gravely. What can be done to fix this problem?

And then, a solution! Solicit advice from students and alumni on how the university can make itself  “more White.”

And now imagine the national furor that would erupt.

That’s what should happen to Western Washington University in Bellingham, which is worried that it is too White:

Western Washington University sent a questionnaire to students asking them for advice on how the administration could succeed at making sure that in future years, “we are not as white as we are today.”

The question notes that WWU’s racial make up does not perfectly reflect the nation at large, and asks students to consider strategies that other universities have used to focus on skin color as the paramount indicator of a student-applicant’s worth.

The president of WWU has stated that his explicit goal is to reduce the white population on campus, according to Campus Reform.

“I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, that we as a faculty and staff and student body, as an administration, if we 10 years from now are as white as we are today, we will have failed as a university,” said Bruce Shepard, president of WWU, in a 2012 address.

Maybe I’m just a parochial, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, supremacist White guy from a middle-class, suburban background, and so I’m too reactionary and by definition racist to comprehend the enlightened attitudes of our academic betters. Evidently I’m too stupid to see that nothing is more important than skin color. And I’m just crazy enough to still take seriously something once said by another noted reactionary:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

WWU President Bruce Shepard probably would like to tell Dr. King he had it backwards: he should have wanted his children judged not for the content of their character, for then they could have earned admittance to Western Washington University based solely on the color of their skin.

This is progressive racialist nonsense laid bare. Instead of looking for real diversity, such as an intellectual diversity ranging from Right to Left and a cultural diversity not inextricably tied to skin tone, the academic Left divides society into group identities, to which everyone is assigned regardless of individual belief (1). You can bet WWU’s struggle to be less White is informed by Critical Race Theory and is meant to battle the Leftist scapegoats, structural racism and White privilege.

The only factors that should ever be considered in admissions decisions are academic performance and, if you want to give aid, economic need. One of the few things California has done right in recent years is to ban “affirmative action” in college admissions, though that battle is never truly over.

If I were a student a WWU, I’d transfer. I wouldn’t want to be associated with such a race-obsessed institution. If I were a donor, I’d cancel my donation. And if I were a citizen of Washington, I’d demand to know why the state legislature is funding an institution that not only discriminates based on race, in contradiction to everything this nation is supposed to stand for, but asks for advice on how to do it better!

This is just bunk. (3)

Footnote:
(1) An example I came across years ago: a man of Black African ancestry, born in Francophone Africa but raised in France, identifies wholly with France — French culture, French history, the French language. His heart stirs when he sings La Marsellaise (2) or sees La Tricolore. Now, is he “French,” or (in American racial-cultural terms) “Black?” The gentleman himself would tell you he is French, and proudly so. The racialist, on the other hand, sees only the melanin in his skin. The rest just makes him a self-hating victim of “cultural imperialism.”
(2) Whatever else I might say about France, they do have the best national anthem on the planet.
(3) I’m sure you know what word I really meant. But, this is a family show.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


“Progressive Racism: The Hidden Motive Driving Modern Politics”

March 11, 2014

That’s the the bomb-throwing title of a take-no-prisoners article at PJ Media by “Zombie,” an anonymous San Francisco-area blogger who often skewers the Left in his/her neck of the woods. In the article, Zombie examines several common progressive policies. For each, he or she (1) first presents the position neutrally, in a flat statement. Then Zombie gives the progressive public reason for the policy, the conservative misunderstanding of it, and finally the real, racist motive at its heart.

Zombie writes:

What conservatives don’t (yet) know is that under the surface, most progressive positions are motivated by racist attitudes and assumptions felt by white progressives, usually against African-Americans. Progressive positions often seem inexplicable to outsiders because the proposals emanating from them usually manifest as colossal social engineering experiments, which the progressives have only devised as a distraction from the shameful racist motivations at the core.

This essay will likely be eye-opening for conservatives, and infuriating for progressives, who often don’t know their own history and never contemplated the origins of their own belief system. But it’s time to finally bring the uncomfortable truth out in the open.

He/she then gives eight examples. Below is one; I urge you to read the rest:

THE WELFARE STATE (2)

Progressive position:
“Maximize benefits and ease qualifications for all entitlement and social welfare programs; ultimately institute a “guaranteed income” for all U.S. residents.”

False public rationale offered by progressives to justify their position:
“No one should starve or go homeless in a wealthy nation such as ours; we should always give a helping hand to those in need.”

Conservatives’ inaccurate theory of progressives’ real intent:
The ever-escalating magnitude of unnecessary government handouts is just a backdoor route to socialism by confiscating more and more wealth from the productive class and “redistributing” it to the unproductive.

The actual racist origins of the progressive stance:
The true goal of progressive-style cradle-to-grave welfare is to enslave blacks in a culture of dependency and thereby keep them mollified and also a dependable Democratic voting bloc.

The toxic addictive effect of an ongoing welfare system has been debated for centuries; as far back as the 1700s in England it was pointed out that giving free food to the lower classes both removed their motivation to work and also increased their numbers; abusing these sociological trends for cynical political advantage dates back even further, when Roman emperors handed out free bread to curry favor with the masses. In modern America, African-Americans disproportionally comprise the lower class, so progressives have devised a racist strategy of lifelong government dependency to not only permanently keep blacks at the bottom of the economic scale but also corrode their sense of self-sufficiency so that they always return to the Democratic Party just as the addict always returns to the pusher.

According to Ronald Kessler’s book Inside the White House, President Johnson explained the rationale behind his “Great Society” welfare programs thus: “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” As there is no audio recording of this quote (which was reported second-hand), progressives have spent years trying to cast doubt on its existence, because it confirms the worst assumptions behind the justification for welfare. However, there are other audio recordings from the same era of Johnson obsessing over maximizing black votes and referring to them as “niggers” — for example, listen to this tape of Johnson complaining that he can’t prove black voters are being suppressed because “More niggers vote than white folks.” While this doesn’t conclusively prove he also said the disputed “200 years” quote, it does prove that he spoke in those terms, referred to blacks insultingly, and schemed about ways to maximize the black vote for the Democratic Party — all of which lend credence to the disputed quote’s likely veracity.

What can’t be disputed is that since the institutionalization of welfare, Johnson’s cynical racist vision has come true: generation after generation of inner-city African-Americans have indeed become completely dependent upon welfare, and consequently reliably vote Democratic because the Democrats vow to keep the handouts flowing.

While the motivations for progressivism are more complex than simply “racism” –including for many a genuine, if misguided, desire to help people because society is too difficult for the average person to manage on their own–there’s no doubting that a perception of non-White inferiority underlies a lot of progressive politics, including the cynical use of public money to turn Blacks into dependent voters. Something they’re now trying to do to all through Obamacare and the push to expand dependency on food stamps.

Be sure to read the whole thing. It’s controversial and inflammatory, no doubt, but perhaps also illuminating.

And, besides, it’s fun to throw the Left’s own tactics in their face for once.

Footnotes:
(1) I really wish English had a third-person, gender neutral personal pronoun. “He/She” is so clunky.
(2) For a good short booklet on this topic, check out Kevin Williamson’s “The Dependency Agenda.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The anti-Southern bigotry of @NPR

March 6, 2014
Chattanooga VW workers, per MSNBC

A handful of Southern Democrats, per NPR

Jonah Goldberg listened to an NPR story about the defeat in the Senate of radical Leftist lawyer Debo Adegbile to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Per NPR, a “handful of Southern Democrats” (1) voted with the Republicans to defeat Adegbile. Here’s the roster:

  • Chris Coons (Del.)
  • Bob Casey (Pa.)
  • Mark Pryor (Ark.)
  • Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.)
  • Joe Manchin (W.V.)
  • Joe Donnelly (Ind.)
  • John Walsh (Mont.)
  • Harry Reid (NV)

Apparently I’m not as knowledgeable about US History as I thought; I completely missed Pennsylvania and Indiana joining the Confederacy, and I didn’t realize the South butted up against Canada.

NPR: “National Public Reactionaries.”

Footnote:
(1) Hint to the Morning Edition producers —  Jim Crow ended a long time ago.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Tennessee VW workers rejected the UAW because of… racism!

February 23, 2014
Chattanooga VW workers, per MSNBC

Chattanooga VW workers, per MSNBC

But, of course.

According to MSNBC pundit Timothy Noah, workers at the Chattanooga Volkswagen assembly plant rejected membership in the United Auto Workers union because they were a bunch of mouthing-breathing, knuckle-dragging, Southern racists:

“The South has always been hostile territory for union organizing. Y’know, as Harold said, the culture war in the South trumps the class war. You already have in a number of Southern states right to work laws, which means that even if they had unionized the plants, those who benefited from the presence of that union wouldn’t have had to pay union dues if they didn’t feel like it. So you’re in an overwhelmingly hostile climate.

And the opposition I gather, through, portrayed this as a kind of northern invasion, a re-fighting of the Civil War. Apparently there are not a lot of, uh, black employees in this particular plant. And so, that kind of, uh, uh, uh, waving of the Confederate flag was an effective strategy.”

Yep, those Johnny Rebs in Tennessee just took a pull on the whiskey jug, channeled the spirit Jeff Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest, and voted down the union, because they wanted to re-fight the Chattanooga campaign. It couldn’t have been because they made a rational economic decision as free people that the union didn’t provide enough benefits to warrant the dues they’d have to pay. Nah. It just had to be because there were so few Blacks there in the workforce that they weren’t afraid to show their real, neo-Confederate faces.

Who’s the bigot again, Timmy?

RELATED: Naturally, the UAW wants the NLRB to overturn the election results and call a new vote. Typical: If you can’t win, vote and vote again until the rubes vote the way they’re told. What do they think this is, the EU?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Latest scapegoats for Obamacare debacle: ‘Southern white radicals’

January 4, 2014

Obviously. When any leftist project fails or even encounters opposition, the cause must always be racism. Always. For. Ever. (They’ve played that card so much, I’m sure it’s dog-eared by now…)


The “corruption and irrelevance” of the civil rights establishment

July 22, 2013

There’s a great article by Shelby Steele in the Wall St. Journal on the decline and decay of the American civil rights movement, a fall made almost inevitable by its very success.  And, on the so-called leaders of today’s movement, Steele nails the real reasons they went after George Zimmerman: to pretend they’re still relevant and to keep their power over society.

The civil-rights leadership rallied to Trayvon’s cause (and not to the cause of those hundreds of black kids slain in America’s inner cities this very year) to keep alive a certain cultural “truth” that is the sole source of the leadership’s dwindling power. Put bluntly, this leadership rather easily tolerates black kids killing other black kids. But it cannot abide a white person (and Mr. Zimmerman, with his Hispanic background, was pushed into a white identity by the media over his objections) getting away with killing a black person without undermining the leadership’s very reason for being.

The purpose of today’s civil-rights establishment is not to seek justice, but to seek power for blacks in American life based on the presumption that they are still, in a thousand subtle ways, victimized by white racism. This idea of victimization is an example of what I call a “poetic truth.” Like poetic license, it bends the actual truth in order to put forward a larger and more essential truth—one that, of course, serves one’s cause. Poetic truths succeed by casting themselves as perfectly obvious: “America is a racist nation”; “the immigration debate is driven by racism”; “Zimmerman racially stereotyped Trayvon.” And we say, “Yes, of course,” lest we seem to be racist. Poetic truths work by moral intimidation, not reason.

If these “leaders” truly cared about the condition of Blacks in America more than they do about their next appearance in front of the cameras, they’d start doing something about the devastation of the Black family, in which, as Steele points out, 73% of all Black children are born without fathers married to their mothers.

But they don’t. They’re wedded to an outdated vision of America and the power exploiting that vision gives them.

PS: Steel expounds on this theme of the decay of the civil rights movement and the exploitation of victimization in his “White Guilt,” which I highly recommend.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Marco Rubio tells Colin Powell to stop being a tool

January 14, 2013
Marco Rubio

Victim of Republican intolerance?

Well, not in so many words, but that was the gist of the Florida senator’s remarks during an interview this morning, when asked about former-Secretary of State Powell’s assertions of hidden racism in the Republican party:

I disagree with General Powell’s assessment of the Republican Party today,” Rubio said.

“The Republican Party is the party that [has] placed two Hispanics in the U.S. Senate,” Rubio told Tantros, “and we have an African-American senator in the United States Senate.”

Republican intolerance is so bad that, not only do we include two Hispanics (Rubio, Cruz) and one Black (Scott), but also two governors of Indian descent (Haley, Jindal) and two of Latin origin (Martinez, Sandoval). Much as I loathe ethnic bean-counting (1), if the Democrats are going to trot out their useful idiots to smear Republicans and conservatives with the race card, then it’s fair to ask where are the Democrats’ high-level minority leaders?

They might find the answer “embarrassing as Hell:”

Inclusive?

Inclusive?

And let’s not forget Colin Powell, himself, who was made Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State under Republican administrations, and has at times almost been begged to be that party’s candidate for president.

Yeah, that’s “intolerant,” all right. Everyone knows that appointment to the senior-most position in the president’s cabinet, fourth in line from the Oval Office,  is just another demeaning form of tokenism.

What a shnook.

RELATED: “Dark vein of intolerance,” Mr. Secretary? Perhaps you need a little lesson about the Democrats’ dirty history.

PS: Funny how Powell was trotted out to play the race card right after the storm broke over the photo above. Almost as if the administration needed a distraction…

UPDATE: I want everyone reading this to look at these two pictures and tell me which administration seems more genuinely “diverse and inclusive.”

Footnote:
(1) As a conservative, I care about a person’s principles and the content of their character, not irrelevancies such as skin color, ethnicity, or gender. I’ll leave that insulting game to Democrats and their willing dupes.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


January 13, 2013

Phineas Fahrquar:

And to think I once (back in the 90s) greatly admired Powell was seriously willing to vote for him for president. Such a sad thing, to see what a hack and a tool he’s become for the Democrats and the race-grievance industry.

Originally posted on Twitchy:

Sigh. This is really getting old. Talk about the boy who cried dog whistle! The old “code words” rears its head again: Get ready for more entries in the Handbook of Racial Code Words. “Aloof” isn’t the end of it, evidently.

We reported earlier that Colin Powell blasted “birthers” on “Meet the Press” this morning, because, you know, that’s the most pressing issue of our time. Andrea Mitchell doubled down and implied that the “birther movement” was GOP policy. Powell continued the inanity.

Heh. And he let it…

View original 979 more words


Who’s telling the “Big Lie?” The Democrats, that’s who

September 4, 2012

You may have heard on the news yesterday that John Burton, Chairman of the California Democratic Party, former President Pro Tem of the State Senate, and general potty-mouthed jackass got himself in a bit of trouble for saying Republican VP candidate Paul Ryan engaged in the “Big Lie” (1) and compared him to Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s top propagandist. For his sin, John was sent home from the Democratic convention suddenly remembered he had a dental appointment.

Okay, anyone who follows California politics knows what Burton is like and just shook their head and moved on. But then the Democratic Party had to put this Big Lie on their web site:

For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights…

And also:

Democrats have a long and proud history of defending Civil Rights and expanding opportunity for all Americans.

As Jeffrey Lord put it at The American Spectator:

The DNC website in both its history and issues sections is literally wiped clean of any reference that this is the party that spent platform after platform after platform building a culture of racism.

Let’s expand on this, shall we? The Democratic Party has a long and dirty history when it comes to race. As I wrote before, in response to Democratic Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz’s mudslinging about Republicans:

Let me give you a little history lesson about your own party, Deb:

  • Q. Which party defended slavery? A. The Democratic Party.
  • Q. Which party opposed slavery? A. The Republican Party.
  • Q. Between 1875 and 1964, which party passed every major civil rights bill until the 1964 act? A. The Republicans.
  • Q. Which party created and defended Jim Crow for over 90 years? A. The Democrats.
  • Q. Which party fought every anti-lynching law introduced between the Civil War and 1964? A. The Democrats.
  • Q. Which party introduced segregation into the federal government? A. The Democrats, under Wilson.

And let’s not forget that the KKK was founded during Reconstruction as the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, their mission being to deny civil rights to Blacks and Republicans in the South. Nor should we forget that New Deal-era legislation, passed by overwhelmingly Democratic congresses and signed by a revered Democratic president, were a disaster for Blacks, including allowing labor unions to discriminate against Blacks. The 1964 Civil Rights Act passed only because a proportionally larger number of Senate Republicans voted for it than Democrats.

Oh, and need I mention that the Trail of Tears was a Democrat civil rights “achievement?” That was less than 200 years ago. And how about Japanese internment? Why, that’s still within living memory.

This is the Big Lie, as defined by one of its experts:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” (2)

And the claim that the party has a long and proud history of defending and expanding civil rights is a Big Lie, one they tell over and over again to avoid their shameful past and fool minority voters into believing their interests must lie with the Democrats, because “they always cared.”

Let me be clear (to quote our president): I am not saying modern-day Democrats bear any responsibility for their party’s vile past. Many of them are ignorant of it. Many would be appalled by it, if the truth hadn’t be glossed over by liberal historians. But, if they’re going to wear the mantle of “Democrat” and proudly claim a history of support for civil rights since 1964, then they have to own and acknowledge everything that went before.

And every time they lie and try to pretend that past doesn’t exist, honest, educated people have to call them on it.

Anything less is to acquiesce in the Big Lie.

Via Bryan Preston, who has more examples.

Footnotes:
1) Something I’ve accused the Democrats of engaging in before.
2) Hey, if Burton can do it… Except I would never say, in effect, “Democrats are Nazis.” But when they use the same totalitarian tactics, it’s fair to criticize them for it.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Nancy Pelosi opens mouth, reaffirms she is a partisan hack idiot

August 13, 2012

Let me tell you another fairy tale…

The House Oversight Committee, headed by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA (There are some of us left)), has filed a civil suit against Attorney General  Eric Holder to force release of subpoenaed documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal that the DoJ is refusing to turn over, claiming executive privilege.

Now, you may think what we’re seeing is a constitutional clash between equal branches of the government, each trying to assert its independence from the other. Or maybe you think this is a valiant effort to get at the truth that’s being blocked by a near-criminal Attorney General and his “Chicago Way” president. (1)

Don’t be silly, silly. It’s all about suppressing minority voters.

No, really. Nancy said so:

Democratic lawmakers blasted the filing of a federal lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi charging that the effort is an attempt to suppress voter rights.

“This partisan lawsuit wastes taxpayer dollars and resources, and is a distraction from the urgent business before Congress: acting to create jobs and grow our economy,” she said in a statement. “It is also designed to distract the Justice Department from its critical job of challenging state laws designed to restrict the rights of Americans to vote.”

So, there you go.  Yet another example of “Democrats think you’re so stupid and gullible, they can say anything and you’ll believe it.” Because everything is racism.

Really, there has to be someone left among Democrats who’s embarrassed by this moron.

I hope?

RELATED: Earlier posts on Operation Fast and Furious.

Footnote:
(1) Guess which one I believe.

via Steve in TN


A desperate President spoils the DREAM — Updated — Obama has a public hissy

June 15, 2012

His “reboot” speech on the economy yesterday having turned out to be a miserable flop, President Obama will unveil today Plan B: pander shamelessly to an important ethnic group:

The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin giving work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of a growing Latino electorate that has opposed administration deportation policies.

And from the the New York Post:

Under the administration plan, illegal immigrants will be immune from deportation if they were brought to the United States before they turned 16 and are younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, have no criminal history, graduated from a US high school or earned a GED, or served in the military. They also can apply for a work permit that will be good for two years with no limits on how many times it can be renewed. The officials who described the plan spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it in advance of the official announcement.

The policy will not lead toward citizenship but will remove the threat of deportation and grant the ability to work legally, leaving eligible immigrants able to remain in the United States for extended periods. It tracks closely to a proposal offered by Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida as an alternative to the DREAM Act.

To borrow a famous phrase, let me be clear: regardless of what euphemism the administration chooses, this is nothing more or less than an amnesty.

It’s also a cheap, cynical political move by a cheap, cynical Chicago pol who sees his reelection chances shrinking. (When a Democratic president has to worry about Michigan…) It’s the Alinskyite community organizer in action: take a controversial issue and propose a “solution” that sets group against group, guaranteeing polarization on the issue. It’s purpose is two-fold: both groups become intransigent, preventing a compromise that would weaken your influence, and “your” group welds to your side, because they’ll think you’re with them against the other guy.

When, really, all you care about is keeping their support for your own goals. In this case, that means votes in November.

If that were the end of it, this would be nothing more than the pathetic, desperate gesture of an increasingly pathetic, desperate president. But this coming announcement does real harm:

Standing on its own, the measures are not a bad compromise on one area of the immigration problem: children brought here as minors by their parents. Call me a RINO, but I’ve never seen how justice or American national interest is served by punishing children for the decisions of their parents.

BUT…

By bypassing the legislative process and cutting out the elected representatives of the people, Obama is killing any chance for a compromise based on consensus, such as that proposed by Senator Rubio. (1) This is the same type of mistake (2) as that made by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, when it used judicial fiat to quash the political process. Obama’s selfish use of executive authority has thrown a gigantic monkey wrench  into the democratic process of compromise and consensus that was starting to get underway in Congress, effectively jamming it.

Obama also has shown, once again, his contempt for the constitutional order. While the president is granted broad (often too broad) regulatory authority by Congress, this kind of major change to the law clearly is the purview of the legislature. While presidents can and should refuse to enforce laws they believe unconstitutional, constitutionality is not what’s being argued here — Obama simply wants to change the law for his own benefit. And he’ll do it on his own, thank you.

That’s called “usurpation.” Maybe even “tyranny.”

It’s also, let’s face it, another “Look! Squirrel!” moment, designed to set us all yelling at each other while we forget about Obama’s pathetic record on the economy. Well played, Barack. This one might actually work.

This decision leaves open a question: What about the parents of these now-immune children? Are they granted immunity? Are they still subject to deportation? (Yeah, let’s see how that plays on the nightly news. (3) )

And it’s not without risks, as Bryan Preston points out:

The unemployment rate among young Americans stands well above the national average of 8.2%. Unemployment among black Americans stands officially at about 16%. The president’s policy plays one constituency that he sorely needs, Hispanic voters, against another that supported him in 2008 but has soured on him since, younger voters, and may hurt black voters looking for work as well.

On top of that, how will the unions react , given they’re already annoyed with Obama over Keystone and his failure to stand with them in Wisconsin? SEIU will probably be fine, but UAW and AFL-CIO? The latter two aren’t so keen on competition from immigrant labor. And let’s extend it a bit to areas hard-hit in the current economy: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina… Do we really think out-of-work or under-employed workers in those areas will be thrilled with this news? That now they’ll have more competitors for jobs?

Me, neither.

Obama may buy some votes with this trick, but I wonder if, in November, he’ll discover the price was too high.

Footnotes:
(1) And, gee, he just happens to steal the thunder from an up-and-coming conservative Hispanic senator. What a coincidence.
(2) Actually, in Obama’s case it wasn’t a mistake at all. It was the intent. The community organizer wants polarization.
(3) Gee, this couldn’t be something Obama wants, could it? Nah…

UPDATE: A statement from Senator Rubio:

“There is broad support for the idea that we should figure out a way to help kids who are undocumented through no fault of their own, but there is also broad consensus that it should be done in a way that does not encourage illegal immigration in the future. This is a difficult balance to strike, one that this new policy, imposed by executive order, will make harder to achieve in the long run.

“Today’s announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem. And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one.”

UPDATE II: Well, well, well. It seems that our president is, with this order, doing exactly what he said he couldn’t do just last year:

Faced by a young person who disproved his claim about his Administration’s treatment of these young people, the President now seemed to concede that students and young people eligible for the DREAM Act are being deported and says that it’s not his responsibility to change that: “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law.  I don’t have a choice about that.  That’s part of my job,” he said. When Ramos asked a follow-up question about granting formal administrative relief to undocumented youth, Obama was even more forceful: “There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

Are we surprised? No. Everything, including the rule of law,  is subordinate to his reelection needs.

UPDATE III: President Thin-Skin does not like being questioned:

“This is not amnesty, this is not immunity, this is not a path to citizenship, it is not a permanent fix,” the president said before a person, reportedly Neil Munro of The Daily Caller, interjected with a question.

“Excuse me, sir; it’s not time for questions, sir,” said Obama, who didn’t take any questions at the announcement. “I’m not asking for an argument.”

“These kids deserve to plan their lives in more than two-year increments,” the president continued, adding that Congress still needed to take DREAM Act action because the order is just a “stop-gap measure.”

“It makes no sense to expel talented young persons who are, for all intents and purposes, Americans.”

As Obama walked away from the podium, a voice called out, “What about American workers who are unemployed while you import foreigners?”

Touchy, ain’t he?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


CBC staff: opposition to Obama is racist!

June 11, 2012

That’s from Angela Rye, Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus. She continues:

“I think that a lot of what the president has experienced is because he’s black. You know, whether it’s questioning his intellect or whether or not he’s Ivy League. It’s always either he’s not educated enough or he’s too educated; or he’s too black or he’s not black enough; he’s too Christian or not Christian enough. There are all these things where he has to walk this very fine line to even be successful.”

She said that “a lot” of conservative opposition is racially-charged, citing the use of the word “cool” in an attack ad launched by Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS superPAC.

“There’s an ad, talking about [how] the president is too cool, [asking] is he too cool? And there’s this music that reminds me of, you know, some of the blaxploitation films from the 70s playing in the background, him with his sunglasses,” Rye said. “And to me it was just very racially-charged. They weren’t asking if Bush was too cool, but, yet, people say that that’s the number one person they’d love to have a beer with. So, if that’s not cool I dont know what is.

She added that “even ‘cool,’ the term ‘cool,’ could in some ways be deemed racial [in this instance].”

When you can’t control the narrative on the merits, call someone a racist. Who’s using the dog-whistles here, Angela?

Here’s the ad in question:

Sorry. I watched a lot of Blaxploitation films back in the day and I don’t particularly hear the strains of “Shaft” or “Super Fly” — or even “Foxy Brown.” This is simple satire, subjecting the president  to what we inflict on every candidate in every election.  I suspect what Ms. Rye objects to is that Obama is no longer getting the kid-gloves treatment he enjoyed from the McCain campaign. And it’s a fair blow, hitting him on his evident love of appearing (I know it’s racist to say this, but, still…) “cool.”

The real racialist here is the one who sees race behind every tree and bush.

via Mark Hemingway

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a race-baiting idiot… and a liar

March 22, 2012

Would you believe...?

But then, she’s a Democratic member of Congress and Chair of the Democratic National Committee, so it isn’t really surprising. What is somewhat surprising (1), though, is that she would lie about her race-baiting in a way that’s easily falsifiable.

You see, a while back, Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) said that the Republicans, because they favor requiring ID to vote, wanted to take the nation back to the days of Jim Crow.  Then, just a day or so ago, she claimed to a crew from MRCTV that she had never said any such thing. (2)

Really. She said that.

So, not only is she either ignorant of or simply ignoring the Democrat Party’s dirty record on race; whether done deliberately or born of stupidity, she then tells a lie that is easily proven a lie. She not only spits in the faces of anyone concerned about the integrity of our elections, she denies ever doing it while wondering where the saliva you’re wiping off came from.

I feel mildly sorry for Democrats, because we had to suffer through Michael Steele, and I know what those face-palm moments feel like.  But only very mildly, because their “leaders” have done a lot of harm to the country, and that sympathy is tempered -almost quashed out of existence- by a strong desire that they keep this tool in charge through November. She’ll be a great help — to our side. As a gaffe-machine, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is  Joe Biden without the hair plugs; she’ll make the jobs of Republican communication shops very easy. And, as Allen West pointed out, she is a mean-spirited, vile harridan without any sense of honor or shame, making her continued public humiliation a patriotic duty. (3)

In fact, she’s perfect for the Democrats. Monumentally dumb and an open harpy. I wish her a long tenure in her job.

RELATED: More Democratic stupidity (but I repeat myself) from Jimmy. Allahpundit is amused. And snarky analysis from Moe Lane, who always throws the snark in for free.

Footnotes:
(1) Until one remembers how many members of Congress, on a bipartisan basis, forget about the deadly combination of handheld recorders and the Internet.
(2) My reaction on hearing the news last night.
(3) Perhaps mean-spirited and vile of me, too, but, hey, I’m just one of those people who want to bring back Jim Crow and cross burnings, you know?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


White Democrat Congressman questions Allen West’s Black “authenticity”

February 3, 2012

Honestly, Jim Moran (D-Jackass) is such an embarrassment to his office, I’m surprised he isn’t from my state. As it is, he’s Virginia’s shame.

From Breitbart TV, via my blog-buddy, ST:

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) went on MSNBC’s “dog whistle” expert Martin Bashir’s show and unleashed an assault on freshman Rep. Allen West (R-FL) that focused exclusively on the unrelated subject of Congressman West’s African American heritage. Not only does he refer to the black congressman in terms of the African animal, the hyena, he ties the animal to its depiction in the “Lion King”. Both the movie and the play portrayed the hyenas as “jive-talking” (NPR) “gangstas” (Newsweek). If that wasn’t enough – yet unnoticed by Bashir who tried to falsely connect Andrew Breitbart to racism in an interview last year – Moran doubled and tripled down on his racist tirade – even challenging the black congressman’s black authenticity.

Will the Caucasian representative be held to the same standard of racial insensitivity by MSNBC’s team of racial hysterics led by Rev. Al Sharpton, Toure and a whole host of other progressive liberals who seek to stifle dissent by reflexively discovering racism in all political disagreement coming from the right?

If this were a White Republican congresscritter questioning the “authenticity” of, say, Democrats Jim Clyburn or Maxine Waters, you can bet your sweet bippy that there would be outraged calls for apologies, resignation, censure by the House, expulsion, and even the transportation of Tea Party Republicans to concentration camps.

Okay, I was joking with that last one. Kind of.

I’m sure we’ll see ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN jumping all over this. Right after they’re done investigating Sarah Palin’s tanning bed.

As for me, I don’t want to see an apology (it would be fake, anyway) or any of those other things. I just want the voters of Virginia’s 8th district to do the right thing and crush this bug in the next election.

Seriously, Alexandria — is Jim Moran really what you want representing you to the nation?

RELATED: More Jim Moran goodness — “Let the President rule by decree!


A video guide to those evil Republicans

December 16, 2011

In this latest installment of Firewall, Bill Whittle shows how it is that Republicans, whose party favors limited government and free markets, and was founded in opposition to slavery, can yet be the party of greed, fascism, and racism.

The answer is simple: because the Democrats say so.

Bill’s longer answer, however, is much more entertaining:

To go into more depth about the issues Bill raises, let me recommend two great books:

On the Democrats’ real history regarding race, there’s Bruce Bartlett’s meticulously documented “Wrong on Race: the Democratic Party’s buried past.”

On Fascism being a form of Socialism and both coming from the leftist, statist end of the political spectrum, Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change” is essential reading.

Meanwhile, I have to get back to being evil.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Rep. Barbara Lee: race-baiter or just an idiot? You make the call.

December 11, 2011

A few days ago, on the floor of the House, Representative Lee (D-CA) declared that requiring voters to present identification in order to vote was a… wait for it…  racist plot!!!

A Democratic lawmaker said Wednesday on the House floor that Republican legislators around the country are purposefully trying to deny blacks the right to vote by pushing for voter identification laws.

“It’s no coincidence that a disproportionate number of these affected voters come from communities of color as well as the poor, the elderly and students,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a former chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

“Having been born and raised in Texas, this certainly looks like a poll tax to me, which those of us remember as a way to prevent African Americans from voting. These voter ID laws have a partisan agenda: seeking to disenfranchise and deny specific populations of voters before they have the opportunity to elect their representatives in government.”

She also said the laws are meant to change election outcomes by “turning the clock back to the days of Jim Crow.”

Pardon me, I need to beat my head against a wall for a moment. 

There. I feel better.

If you think you’ve heard this song before, you’re right. Just a few days ago, a Democratic Party support organization masquerading as a civil rights advocacy group, the NAACP, announced plans to ask the United Nations to intervene against the racist evils of voter ID laws.

And, let’s not forget, the Chairwoman of the Democratic Party, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, accused Republicans of wanting to take America back to the days of Jim Crow. It seems Congresswoman Lee needs the same history lesson about her own party I gave Wasserman-Schultz:

  • Q. Which party defended slavery? A. The Democratic Party.
  • Q. Which party opposed slavery? A. The Republican Party.
  • Q. Between 1875 and 1964, which party passed every major civil rights bill until the 1964 act? A. The Republicans.
  • Q. Which party created and defended Jim Crow for over 90 years? A. The Democrats.
  • Q. Which party fought every anti-lynching law introduced between the Civil War and 1964? A. The Democrats.
  • Q. Which party introduced segregation into the federal government? A. The Democrats, under Wilson.

Of course, truth doesn’t matter to the Lees and the NAACPs and the Wasserman-Schultzes of the world. In fact the truth is their enemy. If they ran on the truth, that election fraud is a real problem, they would have to admit that their party is the one that benefits from it. And if they ran in the next election on the truth of the Democrats’ record while in office… Well, it would make the Great Shellacking of 2010 look like a day at the beach by comparison.

Hence they’re left with nothing but the Big Lie, told often and loud and with total sincerity. As an expert (1) in the tactic once said:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

But, back to Representative Lee and the question I put to you in the subject, the answer is “c) both.” She knows what she’s doing, playing the race card in an attempt to intimidate Republicans and scare Blacks and other minorities into voting Democrat, and, let’s be blunt, keep the door open for vote fraud. It’s part of a concerted Democratic strategy (2), which we’ll see played again and again between now and November, 2012.

But she’s also an idiot, because she apparently thinks stirring up ethnic animosities somehow helps the nation or even her constituents. Far from it. Every time they tell this Big Lie, they harm their country, their party, their constituents, and themselves.

And we need to confront them with the truth, every time they do it.

via Pirate’s Cove and Rhymes With Right.

RELATED: It probably won’t surprise you to know that Representative Lee is, at least through 2009, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Here’s a little background on her.

Footnotes:
(1) Yeah, I went there. I’m not accusing Lee of being a Nazi, of course, but she seems awfully willing to use the totalitarians’ tactics.
(2) The other Big Lie, of course, is the class warfare card, which Obama made a cornerstone of his campaign in his openly Socialist speech last week in Osawatomie. That’s the only strategy the Democrats have left: scream and call names and hope no one notices their intellectual bankruptcy.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


NAACP begs United Nations to block US voter ID laws

December 6, 2011

Because efforts to ensure electoral integrity are, per the UK’s Guardian newspaper,  all a racist plot:

The largest civil rights group in America, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), is petitioning the UN over what it sees as a concerted efforted to disenfranchise black and Latino voters ahead of next year’s presidential election.

The organisation will this week present evidence to the UN high commissioner on human rights of what it contends is a conscious attempt to “block the vote” on the part of state legislatures across the US. Next March the NAACP will send a delegation of legal experts to Geneva to enlist the support of the UN human rights council.

The NAACP contends that the America in the throes of a consciously conceived and orchestrated move to strip black and other ethnic minority groups of the right to vote. William Barber, a member of the association’s national board, said it was the “most vicious, co-ordinated and sinister attack to narrow participation in our democracy since the early 20th century”.

In its report, Defending Democracy: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America, the NAACP explores the voter supression measures taking place particularly in southern and western states.

Fourteen states have passed a total of 25 measures that will unfairly restrict the right to vote, among black and Hispanic voters in particular.

Note that highlighted sentence, by the way. That’s apparently not a quote from the NAACP’s report, but the words of “journalist” Ed Pilkington parroting the party line of the anti-voter ID Left as if it were established fact. Not that UK papers make any pretense of objectivity, anyway (in that regard, they’re more honest than US papers), but it would be nice if Pilkington and his colleagues would at least try not to be little more than hired flacks.

Back to the NAACP, it might surprise you to learn I have a small amount of sympathy here. Very small, but it’s there nonetheless. A lot of tricks were pulled under Jim Crow, such as literacy tests and other swindles, to cheat Blacks of their right to vote. So I can sympathize with a reflexive suspicion on the part of the average Black or Hispanic voter.

But the leadership of the NAACP surely knows better. We present ID for all sorts of things, from buying groceries with a check to picking up items being held for us. If we can do that when writing a check at Wal-mart, why not when doing something far more important, such as voting? And if the law is applied equally to all, where’s the discrimination?

(And don’t tell me poor minorities can’t afford state identification cards. In California, it’s $26 — or $7 under certain circumstances. If someone can’t afford that, they have more pressing problems than needing to vote.)

We have a serious and growing problem with vote-fraud in the US (1), with the spread of “reforms” such as same-day registration and voting, the increased use of mail-in ballots, and the resistance to requiring identification all contributing to the problem. Both John Fund and Christian Adams have written books about this that should leave American’s concerned about the honesty of our elections very worried. ACORN, an organization closely aligned with the Democratic Party and President Obama, was recently convicted of voter-registration fraud.

(I’ll mention what Fund points out: registration and vote fraud are largely Leftist and Democratic schemes, as they seek to enlarge the pool of voters who lean their way. Republicans in the past have more often resorted to intimidation tactics to restrict that same pool.)

Presenting valid identification is a simple way to cut down on fraud. The leaders of the NAACP, the Democratic Party, and the various anti-identification groups all know this, so there’s only one real reason they oppose voter ID laws: they want to make fraud possible.

As for the United Nations Human Rights Commission… Don’t make me laugh. Moe Lane points out the UN’s lack of legal and moral authority. If that’s not enough, consider this: among the members of the UNHRC are those paragons of free elections, China, Cuba, Libya, Russia (2), and Saudi Arabia — the last of which did not even allow women to vote until this year.

Somehow, I doubt we need them to tell us how to run fair elections. In fact, over our history we’ve done a damned fine job correcting the problems that did exist.

And we especially don’t need the NAACP, the Democratic Party, and the voter-fraud advocacy industry sullying the legitimate defense of legitimate civil rights with cheap plays of the race card.

RELATED: Ed Morrissey and Bruce McQuain. Also Jeff Dunetz at Yid With Lid.

via Election Law Center

Footnotes:
(1) For example, the Washington State governor’s race in 2005.
(2) Hey, Russia just had parliamentary elections! How’d those go? Yeah, we need their help.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee: conservative bloggers should “shut up” and “buy American” should be “buy African-American”

September 27, 2011

I’m glad to see she’s against playing racial politics:

While speaking with Tavis Smiley of PBS, Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee said conservative bloggers should “shut up” and “stop playing racial politics.”

This from a member of the caucus that does little else but play the race card.

Seconds later, Jackson Lee went on to say that buy American should be “buy African American.”

She also said that if Obama’s jobs bill is passed, that contractors who “do not look like” her need to make sure that if they get federal money, their workforce “better be reflective of those suffering double-digit unemployment.”

“I don’t consider it discrimination, I don’t consider it affirmative action,” she added.

No, it’s just a bit of ethnic strong-arming. “Nice business you have there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.”

Roger L. Simon is right: the Congressional Black Caucus should be disbanded. Far from fighting racism, they exploit it for personal gain and in the process harm the very constituency they claim to serve. (Although in Jackson-Lee’s case, I doubt she’s smart enough to know what she’s doing.)

By the way, Sheila, this conservative blogger does not plan to shut up. But you can take your racial grievance pandering and shove it.

via Clarice Feldman

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The Democratic Party: the party of class and race war?

August 31, 2011

I want you to look at two videos, both from Naked Emperor News (1), that illustrate the intellectual bankruptcy and political desperation of what passes for leadership in the modern Democratic Party. Not the average, working- and middle-class rank and file member who’s been a lifetime registered Democrat out of habit, but the career leftist pols who’ve risen to the top thanks to a pernicious combination of seniority and safe districts.

First we have Nancy Pelosi (whose San Francisco idol was avowed Stalinist Harry Bridges) offering an unusual motive on the part of those who oppose economic redistribution and advocate lower taxes: they’re the filthy rich who want immortality!

(via Pirate’s Cove)

Okay, okay. So, she’s talking about “immortality” through getting buildings named after them. It’s still bunkum. Not only are the most vociferous advocates of federal restraint and tax reform not among the filthy rich (2), but, in my experience, most of the money that buys names on buildings comes from rich liberal donors. And what about all the wealthy liberals just screaming for higher taxes, such as Warren Buffet or Stephen King? Are they conspiring for immortality at the expense of the poor and downtrodden, too, Nancy? Do all wealthy people look alike to you?

Oh, and while we’re at it, how goes your own search for life eternal? I mean, you are worth $35 million, after all…

Even more bizarre, however, is her attack on those opposed to raising the minimum wage: it’s all a conspiracy meant to make people dependent on private credit companies and lenders!! Seriously, Nancy? Are you actually arguing that, if we only kept making the minimum wage higher, people wouldn’t need to use credit cards or take out a loan to buy a car? Just how high a “minimum wage” do you envision, O Former Speaker, and what level of taxation do you think would be needed to support it?

Just how much of your $35 million are you willing to give up to save the counter-person at McDonald’s from the evils of the private credit market?

Ignore the fact that a rising minimum wage destroys jobs, this is utterly hypocritical class warfare and pathetic demagoguery that demonizes people who are successful or who are simply concerned about the self-destructive fiscal path this country is on.

But wait! It gets worse!

Earlier this summer, we heard Democratic National Committee Chairwoman (3) Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) claim that Republicans wanted to take America back to the era of Jim Crow. Debbie had to walk that back under fire, but the Congressional Black Caucus has decided that the Tea Party is the new Klan and to play the race card for all it’s worth. Just listen:

Ed Morrissey concentrates on Congressman Andre Carson’s (D-IN) claim that Republicans and Tea-Partiers would be happy to see Blacks lynched. That’s outrageous enough as it is — Carson shouldn’t just apologize and resign, he should be expelled from the House. But listen to the rest: claim after claim that Americans advocating limited government and fiscal sanity are motivated by racism (4), are the enemy, and, as the execrable Maxine Waters puts it, can go “straight to Hell.” This is class warfare blended with good, old-fashioned racism — only the racism is coming from the CBC.

(Be sure to click through to Ed’s post for a second video, this time with Congressman Allen West responding to Rep. Carson and making it quite clear that he’s reconsidering his membership in the CBC. I’m also sorry to see featured in the video my former Assemblywoman and former Speaker of the CA State Assembly, Rep. Karen Bass. She should be ashamed.)

Anyway, there you have it. With a dismal record in office and with the increasing rejection of progressive ideology by a majority of the nation, all the Democratic Party “leadership” has left to offer is class envy, ethnic vitriol, and social division.

Now there’s Hope and Change.

UPDATE: Heh. The Washington Examiner contacted Congressman Carson’s DC office to ask if he would identify which members of Congress want to see him lynched. So far, no response.

Footnotes:
(1) How does NEN get these videos? They must have a spy network to rival the CIA…
(2) Last I checked, the Tea Party counted very few millionaires and billionaires in its ranks.
(3) Yeah, I’m un-PC. I shall report to my nearest reeducation center right after lunch.
(4) I’d like to see them pull this crap on Allen West, Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez, Nikki Haley, and other minority conservatives who’ve risen to political prominence. Or does that call for the related “Uncle Tom card?”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Bill Clinton is a despicable race-baiter

July 6, 2011

There’s no other way to describe this:

Bill Clinton likens GOP effort to Jim Crow laws

Former President Bill Clinton Wednesday compared GOP efforts to limit same-day voter registration and block some convicted felons from voting to Jim Crow laws and poll taxes.

In a speech to liberal youth activists Wednesday, the former president called out proposals in battleground states like Florida and Ohio that could limit the voter rolls.

“I can’t help thinking since we just celebrated the Fourth of July and we’re supposed to be a country dedicated to liberty that one of the most pervasive political movements going on outside Washington today is the disciplined, passionate, determined effort of Republican governors and legislators to keep most of you from voting next time,” Clinton said at Campus Progress’s annual conference in Washington.

“There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today,” Clinton added.

Clinton mentioned Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s move in March to overturn past state precedent — including under former GOP governors — that allows convicted felons to vote once they’ve served they’ve finished probation periods.

“Why should we disenfranchise people forever once they’ve paid their price?” Clinton said. “Because most of them in Florida were African Americans and Hispanics who tended to vote for Democrats. That’s why.”

(via my blog-buddy Sister Toldjah, who’s likely to have some choice words for the former president very soon.)

This is disgusting and a damnable lie against those who want to ensure the integrity of the voting system. John Fund has amply documented the myriad problems with motor-voter and same-day registration, while states have always had the authority to restrict the franchise of convicted felons.

But it isn’t unusual for Democrats to make this kind of scurrilous accusation. Almost exactly one month ago, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, accused Republicans of wanting to revive Jim Crow. As I wrote at the time:

Let me give you a little history lesson about your own party, Deb:

  • Q. Which party defended slavery? A. The Democratic Party.
  • Q. Which party opposed slavery? A. The Republican Party.
  • Q. Between 1875 and 1964, which party passed every major civil rights bill until the 1964 act? A. The Republicans.
  • Q. Which party created and defended Jim Crow for over 90 years? A. The Democrats.
  • Q. Which party fought every anti-lynching law introduced between the Civil War and 1964? A. The Democrats.
  • Q. Which party introduced segregation into the federal government? A. The Democrats, under Wilson.

You get the picture, Representative Wasserman-Schultz? Not only is your assertion a bald-faced lie, not only is it a contemptible slander against Republicans in general and in particular against anyone concerned about the integrity of our elections, not only is it a loathsome form of race-baiting intended to play Blacks for suckers, but it is also something that should never, ever be uttered by any Democrat, given your party’s dirty history on race.

This is obviously a coordinated Democratic strategy to fight any effort to shore up the integrity of the voting system. They have to resort to waving the bloody shirt of racism because they have no honest argument for opposing something as reasonable as presenting a photo ID when voting, because to be honest would be to admit they want to make fraudulent voting as easy as possible so they can cheat their way to victory.

Just when I’d about forgotten what an amoral weasel Bill Clinton was as president, he does something like this.

Thanks for the reminder, Bubba.

UPDATE: Sure enough, ST comes out swinging.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,180 other followers