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)

Advertisements

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)