Opposition to #Obamacare is racist, and why Democrats love the race card

May 25, 2014

Liberal tolerance racist

Oh, brother. If we needed any more convincing that it was well-past time for Senator Jay Rockfeller (D-WV) to retire and never be heard from again, this clip of him not just playing the race card, but slamming it on the table and dancing around it should do the trick:

(h/t David Freddoso)

Apparently the senator’s “analysis” was aimed at Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), who was at the hearing. Naturally, Johnson took offense:

“My opposition to health care has nothing to do with the race of President Obama,” Johnson said. “I objected to this because it’s an assault on our freedom. … I found it very offensive that you would basically imply that I’m a racist because I oppose this health care law.”

“You’re evidently satisfied with a lot of people not having health insurance,” Rockefeller responded.

“I am not. Quit making those assumptions. Quit saying I’m satisfied with that. I’m not. There’s another way of doing this,” Johnson said. “Please, don’t assume, don’t make implications of what I’m thinking and what I would really support. You have no idea.”

“I actually do,” Rockefeller said. “God help you.”

“No senator, God help you for implying I’m a racist,” Johnson replied.

Thankfully, Senator Rockefeller (D-RaceBaiter) will retire in January, hopefully to be replaced by Republican Shelley Moore Capito.

But the senator from West Virginia didn’t just slam his colleague from Wisconsin; he cavalierly insulted all of us who oppose the Affordable Care Act. While I can’t speak for others, let me recapitulate the reasons I oppose it:

Political Philosophy: By placing the State in charge of people’s healthcare, you fundamentally alter the relationship between citizen and State, turning free people into dependent wards of a Leviathan-like government and taking away their control over a crucial part of their own lives. To a conservative/classical liberal like me, this is a bad thing.

Constitutionalism: Congress has no authority —none!— to force a citizen to buy a private product under penalty of law. This is an abominable legislative usurpation and a trammeling of individual liberty. It tortures the Commerce Clause until it begs for mercy. It goes against the spirit and intent of our founding documents, and the Supreme Court, in the worst decision since Korematsu, was wrong to uphold the law.

Bad Law: I’ll be more charitable than Senator Rockefeller and stipulate that most voting for this law thought they were doing good and helping people. But that doesn’t justify defending a law that just isn’t working. It’s not even meeting its basic goals: healthcare premiums are still skyrocketing; millions have lost the insurance they liked; millions have lost access to the doctors they liked; and, even when you have insurance, you may not be able to find a physician who will take you. (Really. Watch that one.) When a law performs as poorly as this, is it any wonder people hate it? Are they all racists, Jay?

Somehow, looking over those reasons, I think it’s safe to say the President’s ancestry doesn’t matter to me and my opposition to his miserable law. In fact, I can quite honestly say I couldn’t give a rat’s rear end about President Obama’s race.

But I don’t expect you to get that, Senator.

PS: On a lighter note, I’m happy to say Andrew Klavan is back at last making satirical political videos. Longtime readers will recall my love for his “Klavan on the Culture” series. Now he’s returned, producing them for Truth Revolt. (He also still works with PJMedia and PJTV) In this video, he explains what we’ve all wondered: Just why do Democrats call us racist? Enjoy.

Welcome back, Andrew! smiley dance

(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)


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.


Pay your bills on time? Racist!!

December 2, 2010

Yes, if you pay your bills on time and thus have a good credit score and the banks reward you with a lower-interest mortgage, it’s not because you’ve been responsible and thus represent a lower credit risk. Nope, it’s because the banks (and probably you, by extension) are RAAAAACIST!!

Banks will be accused of employing discriminatory credit standards when making mortgages in a series of fair housing complaints that a national consumer coalition plans to file beginning next week.

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition plans to challenge the widespread practice of requiring borrowers asking for FHA-backed loans to have higher FICO scores than the minimum required by the FHA, according to a report from Ken Harney at New Times.

The FHA requires a minimum FICO score of 500. Borrowers with down-payments as low as 3.5 percent must have a score of at least 580. Borrowers with scores between 500 and 580 must put a minimum of 10 percent down.

Several banks require higher rates. At the start of 2009, many banks moved their minimum FICO score for an FHA backed loan up to 620. Wells Fargo and Bank of America recently raised their required score to 640. FICO scores run from 300 to 850, with higher scores supposedly indicating a lower risk of future defaults.

The NCRC says that the higher FICO requirements disproportionately discriminate against African-American and Latino borrowers, many of whom have credit scores above the 580 threshold set by FHA but below the higher minimums set by banks.

It argues that because the FHA insures the loans, there is “no legitimate business justification” for rejecting applicants on the basis of FICO scores that are acceptable to FHA.

Bear in mind that the groundwork for the current financial crisis was laid by groups suing banks under the Community Redevelopment Act (and through thuggish street tactics) to lower their credit standards to make risky sub-prime loans to minority borrowers. Then it was Socialist community organizations such as ACORN and their lawyer, one Barack Obama. Now it’s the NCRC. But the game is the same, forcing banks to make risky loans to people who probably can’t afford them. The banks back then were unable to resist, tarred by the brush of racism by community organizations below and pressured by race-pandering politicians from above.

And where did that get us?

The logical error here is that disparate results among ethnic groups must represent racism requiring legal redress, not simply differences in economic status due to income, personal financial responsibility, and the vagaries of life. Nope, it has to be due to systemic, institutional racism that requires the government to engage in social engineering in order to create more winners. In the end, all that will do is turn us all into losers as the same bad practices are revived in an already weakened financial system.

It’s said that the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. If that’s true, then this suit is just plain crazy.

Via Mark Hemingway.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Is the race card the only one in their deck?

August 11, 2010

Because the Democrats seem to play it any chance they get. The latest example comes from US Senate Majority Leader Harry “Pinky” Reid, who said publicly he couldn’t see any reason why a Hispanic would vote Republican:

Get it? “Without us you campesinos would have nada, so shut up, get back on the hacienda, and vote the way we tell you!”

Harry Reid is one mean-spirited, condescending, arrogant, and petty old man. And those are his good points.

LINKS: See more on Harry Reid’s ethnic pandering and the Left’s contempt for ethnic conservatives. Also Hot Air, which suggests Harry might want to ask Nevada Republican gubernatorial nominee Brian Sandoval just why a Hispanic might dare be a conservative.

(via Legal Insurrection)

UPDATE: Florida US Senate Republican candidate Marco Rubio* reponds:

*(Psst, Harry! Don’t be alarmed, but Rubio is Cuban-American. You know, “Hispanic.” Just FYI.)

(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)


Breitbart nukes the NAACP – updated

July 19, 2010

Really, after the way Andrew Breitbart and his allies exposed ACORN, you’d think other elements of the progressive political-media complex would be wary of drawing his ire; the man is a political alley-fighter who takes no prisoners. But, no, the NAACP just wouldn’t learn, so they waved a red race card in his face by slandering the Tea Party movements with the accusation last week that they harbor racists and the implication that they are, at heart, a racist movement.

Bad idea. Just before the NAACP vote, Breitbart fired a warning shot:

“Let me say something a tad newsworthy to the president of the NAACP. You can go to  hell. You are manufacturing this in a summer in which the economy is the number one issue effecting blacks and whites in this country. This country can ill-afford the schism of race to be exploited the way you are based on the false premise of the tea party being racist. I have tapes…tape of racism and it’s an NAACP dinner. You want to play with fire? I have evidence of racism and it’s coming from the NAACP. This is absolutely manufactured for political gain…

But the NAACP issued their resolution, anyway.

Now Breitbart has posted two of the videos at his Big Government site. You can follow the link to view them and read more background, but I want to quote one portion:

This is why the Democratic Party is scared. This is why the NAACP is scared. This is why black conservatives, previously marginalized as “Uncle Toms” by these progressive bullies, and shamefully, the NAACP, are coming out of the woodwork to join and, in many cases, lead the Tea Party movement.

The emerging Tea Party nation understands that the media has focused on the manufactured racial schism while intentionally ignoring the schism between free market thinkers and government expansionists, that the latter of which is brazen in its desire to transform America into a European-model welfare state with a healthy dose of socialism.

It’s unfortunate that the NAACP’s recent resolution and false accusations have forced us to show you video 1 when video 2 is the bigger problem. That’s not to say video 1 is not a problem, but this country can ill afford, in this time of economic peril, to waste our time poking and prodding at the racial hornet’s nest that was supposed to have been removed with this post-racial presidency. But now President Obama and the modern-day Democrat party reveal they are anything but post-racial.

And I suspect these aren’t the only videos he has.

It’s sad to see how a storied civil-rights organization with a genuinely admirable past has allowed itself to become nothing more than the race-card playing attack dog of a single political party, particularly as that party has such a dirty history regarding African-Americans.

It will be interesting to see if the NAACP or its allies try to slander Breitbart himself with accusations of racism. Let’s just say I don’t think he’s out of ammunition and I would not advise the NAACP to test him on this.

RELATED: Many African-American conservatives have posted to Big Government to denounce the NAACP and its Tea Party resolution. The latest is Lieutenant Colonel Allen West, a candidate for the Republican nomination to Congress in Florida’s 22nd district. He minces no words, calling the NAACP the “useful idiots of liberal racism.”

Ouch!  Feeling beat up

LINKS: My esteemed co-blogger was thinking along the same lines. (In fact, we both posted at her place on the same topic at the same time, so I withdrew my post there. In case you’re wondering where the cross-post went…)

UPDATE: I’ll say this, Breitbart gets results. Less than 24 hours after he broke the story, the Department of Agriculture official featured in the videos, Shirley Sherrod, has resigned. The NAACP has issued a statement condemning her bigotry. Color me cynical, but I suspect it was issued as defensive cover after being criticized over their Tea Party resolution, rather than from any sincere disavowal of Sherrod’s statements.

UPDATE II: Looks like the shoe is on the other foot, as a viewing of the full video shows Ms. Sherrod’s statement to be anything but racist. It’s no doubt a major black eye for Breitbart, who looks to have been snookered by an edited tape in his eagerness to smack the NAACP. I’m sure he’ll do the right thing and apologize to Ms. Sherrod, as I do for whatever small part I played with this post. (Now, will the Obama Administration give her her job back?) Meanwhile, I stand by my comments about the state of the NAACP, its Tea Party resolution, and its role acting as an attack dog for the Democratic Party. You can view the full video with further comments courtesy of my esteemed co-blogger.


The Hicks File: the race industry as the definition of “crazy”

June 20, 2010

Joe Hicks returns to one of his favorite topics,  those who play the race card for fun and profit and those who let them get away with it. Starting with the example of Democratic Senate nominee* Alvin Greene of South Carolina, Joe takes a look at racial hypersensitivity and says “knock it off:”

Click the image to watch.

*(And yes, I am snickering. I can’t help it.  Hee hee )


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.


Wait. Wasn’t this supposed to be the post-racial presidency?

April 27, 2010

Then why is President Obama appealing to voters by citing their ethnicity? Oh, and their age demographic and gender, too?

I guess Jim Geraghty should add this to his comprehensive list of Obama promises that have expiration dates.

Jennifer Rubin provides this analysis:

Several things are noteworthy. First, so much for the post-racial presidency. We are back to naked pleas for racial solidarity. This comes from a man who told us that there were no Blue States or Red States, and that we should stop carving up the electorate into ethnic and racial groups. It was moving and appropriate and now it’s inoperative.

Second, this also suggests that just about everyone else in the electorate is a lost cause — whites, men, independents, and older voters. The Obama coalition has fractured — a little later than Hillary Clinton predicted, but it has. It seems he is reduced to the core left, not a recipe for successful governance or re-election.

Click though to see why she thinks this means the Democrats may be in big trouble in November.

Of course, appealing to voters on the basis of what we now call “identity groups” is nothing new in our history and, as recently as 2004, John Kerry was nakedly pandering to Catholic voters on the basis of shared identity. But it’s something I’ve always found offensive and self-betraying in a nation founded on political principle (often honored in the breach, but, nonetheless).

And it’s doubly so coming from Barack Obama. He is President of the United States and Chief of State – of the entire State. For him to toss aside all the eloquent words (“Just words.”) he said about getting beyond those things that divide us and to make a blatant appeal for votes based on those same divisions is cynical beyond belief.

It’s also desperate.

(via Fausta)

LINKS: More from Sister Toldjah.


Is the race card the only card in their deck?

April 25, 2010

In the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Salena Zito looks at the increasing frequency with which the Left plays the race card -accusing opponents of racism, denying that they could have any legitimate grievance- and sees it losing its force as it becomes overplayed:

Racism isn’t what it used to be. Back in the day, it was horrible in-your-face humiliation hurled for reasons that included fear, insecurity, hate or an utter lack of decency.

Today, the word “racism” is used so flippantly in politics that its true heinous intent often is diluted.

Race has taken political center-stage once more with generalizations that all people who participate in tea party events are racists because they oppose President Barack Obama’s policies.

Racism also often is cited by Washington insiders as the reason for the downward trajectory of Obama’s public approval.

Yet racism has nothing to do with Obama’s falling numbers — or, for that matter, those of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who also is black.

Both men were given the benefit of the doubt when elected to their positions. Only now, after having an opportunity to witness their behavior and performance, have people decided they don’t approve of the jobs Obama and Steele are doing.

Racists never would have given either man an opportunity to begin with. Americans’ dissatisfaction with both men and their performance has more to do with these individuals than with their skin color.

The real story for both Obama and Steele is the same as that for many high-profile (and usually white) politicians. They began with high expectations and then their approval ratings fell over time, as people got to know them.

Zito then compares the rise, fall, and rise-again of Howard Dean and sees him receiving the same treatment, even though he’s White. She rightly points out that both Obama and Steele might also have benefited by a race card being played in their favor. And she notes the boomerang effect of playing it against average Americans, many of whom are becoming politically active in the Tea Party movement, who are feeling ever more condescended to and even insulted for opposing Obama on grounds of policy and performance.

The increasing use of the race card reveals two things: first, that it’s the Left that obsesses over race and the need to see everyone as part of groups, rather than as individuals concerned with principles. As Shelby Steele points out in White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era, racism on the Right was largely burned out when it became socially unacceptable to be racist during the civil rights era. The liberal Left, on the other hand, adopted a form of racial group-think to absolve itself of “White guilt,” atonement for which requires one to explain everything in terms of race and racism.

Second, and perhaps more immediate, the progressive-statists know instinctively that the American people largely reject their preferred policies. Barack Obama ran as a post-partisan, above-all-politics moderate, and the electorate, tired of years of snarling partisanship under Clinton and Bush, hired him to put all that to rest. Then he dropped the mask and, in conjunction with the progressives who dominate the Democratic Party in Congress, has governed as a hyper-partisan Leftist. I’m convinced that, had the public in 2008 known the truth about what Obama and his allies intended if they came to power, then the Democratic ticket wouldn’t have garnered 30% of the vote. (That Obama got away with this is largely the tale of a media that abdicated its responsibilities shamelessly in order to promote Obama, but that’s another story.)

Faced with the reality of a growing rejection, the Left more and more has dealt the race card to smear and intimidate citizens exercising their rights as citizens. But the plain fact is that the opposition that’s arisen is in response to policy and incompetence, and the opponents largely don’t give a damn about anyone’s skin color.

The race card may be the only card left in the progressive’s deck, but it’s hardly a trump anymore.


When all else fails, cry “RAAAAACISM!”

March 21, 2010

Yesterday there was a demonstration at the Capitol Building in DC against the possible passage of ObamaCare today. Turnout was pretty good for something called at the last minute, and the crowd was passionate. Reflecting the majority of likely voters, they were there to say, in no uncertain terms, that they do not want Congress to nationalize 17% of the American economy, make massive cuts to Medicare, drive doctors from the profession and destroy jobs, and have a real cost north of two trillion dollars.

So, how do the Democrats and their media allies respond? Intelligent debate? A discussion of the merits of the health care proposal in order to sell Americans on the idea?

Oh, don’t be silly. The correct response is “c) Bully your opponents by making false claims of racism.”

The incident The Huffington Post so breathlessly reports (and spread uncritically by Alan Fram of the AP) happened when members of the House walked past demonstrators into the Capitol. Supposedly, members of the Congressional Black Caucus were called “niggers” and Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) was called a “faggot.” And while the HuffPo piece can find a sign that clearly crossed the line (slide one in the slide-show at the bottom of the linked article), they can produce no proof of the name-calling in question. On the contrary, videos of the incident clearly show demonstrators booing the Representatives and chanting “Kill the bill,” but there’s nary an epithet to be heard. Tito’s queued up the footage, you make the call:

And, for another view:

Now, don’t you think that, with all the video cameras in the hands of professionals and amateurs that were at the event, someone would have captured those moments of bigoted hate? Until someone can provide proof, it seems more likely that this is just another attempt to intimidate, smear, and distract by those who know the facts are against them.

Saul Alinsky would approve.

LINKS: More at Big Government and Power Line.


But of course. Massachusetts is racist.

January 20, 2010

The only explanation for yesterday’s victory by Scott Brown in the Massachusetts senate race is RAAAAACISM!!! It must be. Keith Olbermann* and Howard Fineman issued this piece of brilliant analysis on Olbermann’s MSNBC show last night:

OLBERMANN: The Republicans and the Tea Partiers will tell you what happens tonight with Scott Brown tonight, whether he wins or comes close, is a repudiation of Obama policies, and surely one of Obama’s policies from the viewpoint of his opponents is that it’s okay to have this sea change in American history, to have an African-American President. Is this vote to any degree just a euphemism the way state’s rights was in the 60s?

FINEMAN: Wow, that is a good question.

No, Howard, that’s a lousy question. Because it’s not even a real question. It’s an accusation and a smear dressed up as a question in order to fool the listener into thinking there’s some serious intelligence behind it, much like a prosecutor asks a leading question in order to get the answer he wants. It’s an insult to the people of Massachusetts, who voted for our African-American president by a large majority just 14 months ago.  Do you and Keith really want us to think they suddenly woke up yesterday morning and slapped themselves on the head when they realized “Oh, my God! We put a Darky in the White House?” It’s also an insult to conservatives across the nation because it says we support federalism and limited government because we really, secretly, in our deepest, most bigoted heart of hearts want to wear hoods and sheets and burn crosses to keep the Blacks “in their place.”

Oh, and for the record, the sheet-and-hood guys were Democrats.

No wonder Olbermann’s ratings are in the tank and no one reads Newsweak Newsweek anymore.

By the way, driving a truck is also a sign of racism. It’s obvious. I’m surprised everyone doesn’t know this, including my Black neighbor who drives a Ford F-150!

It would take race-detectives Keith and Howie only a moment to deduce he’s a self-hating Uncle Tom.

And some people take these clowns seriously?

*(I first ran across Keith when he was a lousy sportscaster here in Southern California. It’s nice to see he hasn’t changed.)

RELATED: More racist links from The Anchoress.


Is Harry Reid a louse or just stupid?

December 8, 2009

I suppose both could be true, given the pettiness and ignorance needed to describe opponents of nationalized medicine as the equivalent of those who opposed civil rights or defended slavery:

Reid Compares Opponents of Health Care Reform to Supporters of Slavery

Reid argued that Republicans are using the same stalling tactics employed in the pre-Civil War era.

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.'”

He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.

“When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

That seemed to be a reference to Thurmond’s famous 1957 filibuster — the late senator switched parties several years later.

And if you need to see it to believe it, here’s the video:

Harry needs more than a few lessons in History. For  starters, when Thurmond filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act, he was a Democrat. The act itself was proposed by President Eisenhower, a Republican.

But, let’s not stop there. The Democrats have a long and dirty history with civil rights that’s largely been swept under the carpet. Prior to the Civil War, it was the Democrats who defended the institution of slavery and pushed for its expansion. They were so closely tied to slavery that they had effectively married the issue and become almost a Southern regional party. After the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan and other White supremacist groups that attacked Black and other Republican citizens and office-holders was founded by Democrats and, after Reconstruction ended, functioned as the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party to enforce an apartheid regime in the Jim Crow South.

And that’s not all. Democrats fought against all federal anti-lynching legislation for 90 years until 1964. It was a Democratic “progressive” President, Woodrow Wilson, who introduced segregation to the Federal government.  FDR’s New Deal labor policies sent Black unemployment skyrocketing. And it was a Democratic senator, the honorable Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Oh, and he had been a recruiter for the Klan, too.

This is nowhere near the whole story of the Democrats, slavery, and race relations. Bruce Bartlett’s Wrong on Race is a well-written, heavily documented summary. I recommend it for a good eye-opening.

Really, though, Reid’s odious dismissals of legitimate political opposition are only the latest in a long line of attempts by Democrat leaders in recent years to defeat their opponents through smears and waving the bloody shirt, not through the strength of their policy arguments. The late Senator Kennedy infamously slandered Judge Robert Bork from the floor of the Senate upon learning of Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Judge Clarence Thomas was accused of being a base sexual harasser during his SCOTUS confirmation hearings. Senators Kennedy and Durbin compared American troops to Nazis and followers of Saddam Hussein during the abu Ghraib scandal, way out of proportion to what really happened. And this last summer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi compared American citizens exercising their legitimate rights to protest ObamaCare to Nazis.

And now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says Republicans (and some fence-sitting Democrats?) who are representing their constituents -exercising legitimate opposition to nationalized health care and making use of all the parliamentary tools available to senators- are comparable to defenders of slavery and the oppression of women.

It just goes to show how bankrupt their arguments are. They can’t win on the merits of cost, economics, or politics – the facts are all against them, as are a majority of the American people. So, instead they hurl rhetorical bombs and hope that cows moderates and conservatives into submission.

How pathetic.

Regarding the question in the subject line, I still haven’t decided if it’s either-or or both, but it looks like Nevadans have realized they’re being represented by a schmuck: polls have the Majority Leader well behind both likely Republican opponents.

Good. Maybe they’ll finally rid the Senate of that smell.

LINKS: More from Legal Insurrection, Hot Air, and Big Government.

UPDATEReid doubles-down on his stupidity. (via Matt Lewis)


Quote of the day

October 20, 2009

The White House trying to dictate who’s a news organization. Democrats out to gut a business group. Obama media allies damning Americans as racist, unpatriotic and treasonous. Is this the America Obama promised when he campaigned to end the cynical and divisive politics of the past?

–Steve Huntley, Chicago Sun-Times


Playing the race card as penance?

September 19, 2009

Hans von Spakovsky wonders if Jimmy Carter’s disgusting accusation that most of those opposed to Obama’s policies are motivated by racism isn’t due to guilt over his own racist past:

As Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU’s Voting Project, relates in his book A Voting Rights Odyssey: Black Enfranchisement in Georgia, Carter’s [school] board tried to stop the construction of a new “Elementary Negro School” in 1956. Local white citizens had complained that the school would be “too close” to a white school. As a result, “the children, both colored and white, would have to travel the same streets and roads in order to reach their respective schools.” The prospect of black and white children commingling on the streets on their way to school was apparently so horrible to Carter that he requested that the state school board stop construction of the black school until a new site could be found. The state board turned down Carter’s request because of “the staggering cost.” Carter and the rest of the Sumter County School Board then reassured parents at a meeting on October 5, 1956, that the board “would do everything in its power to minimize simultaneous traffic between white and colored students in route to and from school.”

So, is America’s worst ex-president seeing racists everywhere out of guilt for his own defense of segregationism? Maybe. Regardless, it’s a disgusting insult to people legitimately concerned with the country’s direction and opposed to Obama’s policies. It cheapens the very real suffering of Blacks under slavery and Jim Crow by equating that with mere political opposition. And it’s a pea in the same rotten pod with his antisemitism.

Jimmy Carter truly is an embarrassment to his country and a disgrace to the office he once held.


Allergic to the race card

September 16, 2009

From William Jacobson:

The increasingly hysterical use of the the race card by liberal columnists, bloggers and politicians reflects the last gasps of people who, being unable to win an argument on the merits, seek to end the argument.

The “racism corollary” to Godwin’s Law?

Related: The Anchoress on The Toxic Card of Racism Trumps Hearts. America’s Worst ex-President says the opposition to Obama’s agenda is mostly due to race.


It can only be racism

September 11, 2009

For FOX News to cover the scandals at ACORN, there can be only one motive: RAAAAACISM!!

Yeesh. That race card must be dog-eared by now.  Rolling Eyes

UPDATE: The Baltimore videos.


Addicted to the race card

August 21, 2009

Joker card

There’s an old saying that “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” In other words, when he can’t have his way by means of persuasion, a politician desperate to win will appeal to loyalty to one’s country and make disagreement seem like betrayal or even treason, thus bullying opponents into submission.

In modern America, the equivalent for the Left has been to cry “racism” whenever someone disagrees with their policy objectives. Do you question the effectiveness of large government social programs? You must hate poor people, especially Blacks. Do you think the constitutional role of the judiciary is to interpret the law, not make policy? You must want to deny non-Whites their civil rights, you crypto-Klansman. Do you think the second amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms? Then you must be afraid of minorities, cracker.

Whatever else, it cannot be because you disagree honestly with the goals of our first African-American president – it’s just because he’s Black.

In an article for National Review, Jonah Goldberg (whose book, Liberal Fascism, is must-reading) looks at the irony in the willingness of President Obama and his supporters to play the race card and finds a stacked deck:

What if America transcended race, and Barack Obama wasn’t invited?

The question comes to mind as cries of racism grow ever louder among Obama’s supporters.
No one should be surprised. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, liberal Democrats have to accuse their opponents of racism. Indeed, somewhat to their credit, fighting racism — alas, even where it doesn’t exist — is one of the reasons they became liberal Democrats in the first place.

And that’s the great irony of the Obama presidency. It was Obama’s supporters who hinted, teased, promised, and prophesied that Obama would help America “transcend race.” But now, it is they who shrink from their own promised land.

After all, it was not Obama’s detractors who immediately fell into the comfortable groove of racial grievance and familiar “narratives” when Henry Louis Gates insisted that a police instructor in racial sensitivity had to be a racist. That was Obama and his choir of heralds.

From Day 1, Obama’s supporters have tirelessly cultivated the idea that anything inconvenient for the first black president just might be terribly, terribly racist.

Indeed, it can be argued that it is the conservative and libertarian opposition that’s “transcended race,” because they’re refusing to give deference to Obama on the basis of his ethnicity. Instead, they’re treating him just like any other president they might strongly oppose – with loud criticism and even mockery. Sure, there are almost certainly a few who dislike Obama because of his half-African ancestry, but the opposition attacks on him have been overwhelmingly for his far-Left domestic policies, weak foreign policy, amateurish political skills once in office, and a flip-flopping that borders on serial mendacity.

It’s the liberal Democrats and their allies in the broader Left who’ve been obsessed with race and unable to ascribe any honest motive to their opponents. And this addiction to playing the race card at the drop of a hat only hurts their program, because it galvanizes opponents who don’t like having their motives or intelligence insulted. And it shows the intellectual and political bankruptcy of their position that, even with overwhelming majorities in both chambers of Congress and control of the White House, they can’t convince a majority of Americans that their program is the right one.

So, it must be racism.

Oh, and Johnson’s observation about scoundrels and patriotism? They play that one, too.

FURTHER READING: Sister Toldjah has made almost a hobby out of tracking PBO’s use of the race card. And Bruce Bartlett has an excellent book that examines the dirty history of the Democratic Party and race: Wrong on Race.

UPDATE: It seems New York’s Governor Paterson can play the race card, too. (h/t JammieWearingFool) Also ST.