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)

Advertisements

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.


The Democratic Party’s Chairman is a race-baiting idiot

June 6, 2011

That would be Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who, only recently appointed to her post, is already gaining a reputation for astoundingly dumb gaffes.

The latest one is a real doozy, however:

[I]f you go back to the year 2000, when we had an obvious disaster and – and saw that our voting process needed refinement, and we did that in the America Votes Act and made sure that we could iron out those kinks, now you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally – and very transparently – block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. And it’s nothing short of that blatant.

And Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is nothing short of a hyper-partisan nitwit (1).

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.

But thanks, Debbie, for letting us know just how frightened the Democratic Party is of having to run on its miserable economic and political record of the last two years. I understand, even, maybe, sympathize (2) with your dilemma, because, without race-baiting and scare-mongering… you’ve got nothing.

See ya in November, 2012, Deb!

(1) Not exactly the words I used when I first read this, but then, this is a family show.

(2) Nah.

via Stephen Green

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Does the White House endorse the view that Republicans are racists?

May 11, 2011

Have a look at this item from Conn Carroll. True, the shout “They’re racist” came from an audience member, but it was one of only a very few(1) the White House saw fit to include in the official transcript of Obama’s speech on immigration in El Paso(2), which does lend it a somewhat “official” quality.

So, question for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: Does the President of the United States agree that Republicans and border-security advocates are racists?

(1) The others being expressions of adulation for Obama, which we can assume have the WH seal of approval.

(2) Which happens to be in a state that’s burning to the ground, not that Obama has noticed.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Pravda would be proud

July 20, 2010

People on the Right have for years complained about a media establishment biased toward the Left, only to be roundly mocked as paranoid, even when some evidence shows they were right. (For example) During the 2008 campaign, it became increasingly apparent that the major media had given up objectivity and was openly pulling for the victory of then-Senator Obama. While concentrating all their powers on Sarah Palin’s tanning bed, they almost totally ignored Obama’s political background, relationships, and lack of experience.

But they weren’t just passively avoiding anything that might be critical of Obama or detrimental to his presidential bid. No, at the very least some members of a now-defunct private mailing list  for liberal and left-wing journalists and other opinion makers called “Journolist” were looking for ways to actively intimidate into silence not just conservative critics, but even more moderate liberal members of the MSM. How would they do this?

According to The Daily Caller, by smearing their opponents as racists:

It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.

The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

The members of Journolist weren’t about to see their champion hurled to the ground. But, rather than investigate and try to refute the allegations regarding Reverend Wright and Obama, they instead decided to attack their colleagues:

“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”

Ackerman went on:

“I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

“And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”

In other words, a naked call to play the Race Card in American politics in order to stifle debate and criticism. Racism is the most vile charge one can make in our society; to accuse someone of it is to smear them for a long time, if not forever. And the discussants on Journolist were about to unleash it on their professional colleagues.

It’s fair to note that the people mentioned in the DC article formulating this strategy are almost all opinion journalists, such as Katha Pollitt at the progressive The Nation. One would expect them to try to shape the debate and defend their ideological positions, just as their counterparts at The Weekly Standard or National Review would do.

But not by character assassination and implying they were racists. And not by attacking members of the “objective press” for simply asking tough, legitimate questions.

That crosses the line not just into advocacy journalism, but propaganda of the worst sort, the kind I’d expect to see from the “journalistic organs” of a totalitarian state. Jack Reed and Walter Duranty would be proud.

The Daily Caller promises more in the days to come, and it will be interesting to see how far this rot has spread from politically-oriented opinion journalists to mainstream reporters.

I suspect it’s gone quite far.

(via Big Journalism)

LINKS: More from John Nolte, who says the playing of the race card isn’t the most shocking thing; Andrew Breitbart, who thinks the reporters at Pravda were better people; Kurt Schlichter, who talks about the MSM memory hole; Ed Morrissey, who considers the implications of this for the Left’s attempts to paint the Tea Party as racists; and William Jacobson, who says “Yes, Liberal journalists did manipulate the 2008 election.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Twisted propaganda: Linda Sanchez and the AZ immigration law

June 15, 2010

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about California Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, who asserted quite seriously that White supremacists were behind the controversial Arizona immigration bill, SB 1070, with the implication that those who supported it were also White supremacists, or at least sympathetic to White supremacy. For that, I was accused of “twisted propaganda.”

At PJTV, former Leftist Joe Hicks looks at the origins of Sanchez’s brain-dead assertion, tracing it back to wild claims made by the race-hustlers at the Southern Poverty Law Center:

(Click the image to watch)

Hicks’ arguments illustrate the point I tried to make earlier: that by smearing moderate and conservative opponents as racists regardless of their arguments, race-baiting groups such as the SPLC, La Raza, and MEChA, or individual race-hustlers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, are attempting to stifle their concerns by making them afraid of being labeled as racists themselves while encouraging others to dismiss them as such.

The only point on which I’ll disagree with Joe is his possible implication that Sanchez was just a stupid tool mindlessly repeating smears she read elsewhere. She may not be the sharpest tack in the box, but she’s too experienced a politician not to know that her race-baiting words would be used to bully into silence foes of illegal immigration in her heavily Latino district.


The majority of Americans are White supremacists

June 3, 2010

Nearly 60 percent of the country, that is, if you believe California Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D-Race Card) who said, when asked about the recent Arizona immigration law:

“They’re not accidental or one person’s crazy idea,” she said of the law. “There’s a concerted effort behind promoting these kinds of laws on a state-by-state basis by people who have ties to white supremacy groups,” Sanchez said.

“It’s been documented. It’s not mainstream politics. (Legislators) are being approached by folks, who are front organizations for white supremacist hate groups. They propose the language of these bills and get people to carry these bills in the state legislatures,” she said.

Emphasis added.

I really think we need a corollary to Godwin’s Law covering cries of racism, rather than Nazis. Brain-dead comments like Sanchez’s just illustrate the intellectual bankruptcy of the pro-illegal immigration Left; they can’t win based on the facts, so they have to fling charges of racism at their opponents in the hope of intimidating them into silence. Only they (from the President on down) are playing it so often that the public is wising up to their game, and it isn’t working nearly as well as it used to.

And, to the shock of none, Sanchez has so far offered no proof of this Vast White-Supremacist Conspiracy.

What’s truly sad here, aside from Sanchez’s resort to race-baiting and her smear of people with legitimate concerns about illegal immigration, is that her district is apparently represented by a dishonest fool who (again, like the President and the Attorney General) probably hasn’t read the bill or, worse, has and doesn’t care. Either way, she’s doing her constituents no favors.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to pick up my white sheet and hood from the cleaners.

LINKS: More from Sister Toldjah.