(Video) Don’t judge Blacks differently

April 27, 2015

From Prager University, this was made in the wake of the Ferguson riots, but has sharpened relevance after the latest disturbances in Baltimore. Of particular note is Ms. Valdary’s argument that those who hold Blacks to a lower standard are themselves engaging in bigotry(1), no matter how well-meaning they are. Also infuriating is her classmate’s insistence (and the instructor’s agreement) that facts —objective truth— don’t matter; only the narrative. Down that road lies fascism.

Footnote:
(1) She uses the word “racism,” but I prefer to avoid it, since “race” is a biologically meaningless concept that has its roots in 19th-century pseudoscience. In my opinion, it obfuscates more than it enlightens.


#Ferguson and the racists of the Congressional Black Caucus

November 25, 2014
Justice is individual, not social

Equal justice for all

Ran across something disgusting last night while reading about the riots that erupted in the wake of the grand jury decision not to indict a White police officer for killing a Black teen:

On Monday Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) called the grand jury’s decision not to indict officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown a “miscarriage of justice.”

In a statement released through the Congressional Black Caucus, which she chairs, Fudge said the decision not to indict Wilson “is a slap in the face to Americans nationwide who continue to hope and believe that justice will prevail.”

“This decision seems to underscore an unwritten rule that Black lives hold no value; that you may kill Black men in this country without consequences or repercussions,” Fudge said. “This is a frightening narrative for every parent and guardian of Black and brown children, and another setback for race relations in America.”

“My heart goes out to Michael Brown’s loved ones, and to the loved ones of all the Michael Browns we have buried in this country,” Fudge said.

The news of the grand jury’s decision came out between 6 and 7 PM PST. The time stamp on the PJMedia article behind the link is 11:23 PM PST, so 4-5 hours after the news broke, Rep. Fudge was rushing out her statement. There is no way she (or, more likely, her staff) had any chance to read the transcripts of the proceedings to consider the same evidence the jury took weeks to hear and mull over. And yet, that same night, she is sure that there had been a miscarriage of justice and this was due to some sort of “open season” rule on Blacks. (Read the rest of the piece to see how her soon-to-be successor is of the same mind.)

The congresswoman’s opinion seems to be a common one among the membership of the CBC, in fact. That same evening, my representative (hah!) tweeted this:

Why “disturbed?” The grand jury did its duty: consider the evidence and decide if there was probable cause that the suspect committed a crime. They found the evidence showed otherwise, and so they refused to return an indictment. Does Congresswoman Bass, who also could not have considered the evidence presented, know better than the grand jurors who spent weeks on the case? Is not Officer Wilson entitled to the same 5th Amendment protections as any other American — including a member of Congress, who has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the Untied States?

The Fifth Amendment states: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.”

The Constitution does not consider the grand jury to be a rubber stamp. It is a core protection. It stands as the buffer between the government prosecutor and the citizen-suspect; it safeguards Americans, who are presumed innocent, from being subjected to the anxiety, infamy and expense of a trial unless there is probable cause to believe they have committed a serious offense.

But Representatives Fudge and Bass, and perhaps many in the CBC, really don’t care a whit about constitutional protections in this case. Not when the officer is White and the victim is Black. Were the roles reversed, would they be so quick to issue statements claiming a “miscarriage of justice?”

Call me cynic, but I don’t think so.

Now, don’t get me wrong. There have been all too many incidents of police brutality towards Blacks; it continues to this day, though I think not to the extent the race-grievance hustlers would have us believe. And that sad experience can understandably make Blacks suspicious of authorities or of ever getting justice from the system. When abuse happens, corrective action needs to be taken, including criminal legal proceedings.

But, in the specific case of Mike Brown, Officer Wilson, and a terrible day in Ferguson, Missouri, the prosecutor took the unusual step of presenting all his evidence (1) to the grand jury. Not just enough to indict a ham sandwich, but everything. And then he asked the grand jury, as representatives of the community, to decide if there was probable cause to take Officer Wilson to trial. Bear in mind that a grand jury operates on a lower burden of proof, “probable cause,” than a trial jury, which needs proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” to convict.

The grand jury worked on this case for weeks and still refused to indict. Representative Fudge notwithstanding, justice did prevail, because indicting someone without probable cause to think he had committed a crime would be the height of injustice.

Yet Fudge (who speaks for the CBC) and Bass found it “deeply disturbing” and a “miscarriage of justice” that no indictment was issued.

You know what I find disturbing? That Members of Congress, who swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, could so easily forget or ignore their duties. That members of an ethnic group that’s been subjected to terrible bigotry and awful treatment for centuries would themselves rush to demand what would be little better than a show trial, based just on the skin colors of the policeman and the victim.

They could have set examples for everyone by calling for calm and supporting the rule of law and the colorblind rights of all, perhaps even by asking people to wait and read the evidence for themselves.

But, no. They had to impugn the integrity of the legal process and feed the grievance beast, in their own petty way enabling the agitators trying to generate riots in Ferguson and elsewhere.

All because the cop was White and the victim Black.

You know what that’s called.

Footnote:
(1) Really, read the linked article. It’s an important education into how prosecutors and grand juries work.

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh — “The grand jury process was fair.”


The racist origins of the minimum wage

May 20, 2014
Chattanooga VW workers, per MSNBC

Also supported a minimum wage

I came across an interesting blog post from a few weeks ago while trolling the news this morning for something interesting. Now, we all know about the racist history of the Democratic Party: the defense of slavery, even inciting a civil war to preserve it; the creation of terrorist organizations, such as the KKK, in order to keep Blacks from exercising their rights as free citizens; and the creation of Jim Crow, which created a legal framework for Blacks’ oppression that lasted into the 1960s.

But did you know the minimum wage, the distraction du jour for Democrats anxious to talk about anything other than Obamacare’s failures, itself had its roots in minority oppression? Here’s an excerpt from a short piece in Forbes by Carrie Sheffield:

The business-friendly National Center for Policy Analysis points out “the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act, requiring ‘prevailing’ wages on federally assisted construction projects, was supported by the idea that it would keep contractors from using ‘cheap colored labor’ to underbid contractors using white labor.”

African-American economist Thomas Sowell with Stanford University‘s Hoover Institution gives an uncomfortable historical primer behind minimum wage laws:

“In 1925, a minimum-wage law was passed in the Canadian province of British Columbia, with the intent and effect of pricing Japanese immigrants out of jobs in the lumbering industry.

A Harvard professor of that era referred approvingly to Australia’s minimum wage law as a means to “protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese” who were willing to work for less.

In South Africa during the era of apartheid, white labor unions urged that a minimum-wage law be applied to all races, to keep black workers from taking jobs away from white unionized workers by working for less than the union pay scale.”

It is a plain-as-day fact that raising the cost of labor will force a business to do one of four things:

  • Go out of business
  • Accept lower profits
  • Raise prices for the consumer
  • Or cut employee hours or reduce the number of jobs to compensate for higher costs.

The first two are very unlikely to happen, which leaves passing on the cost to the consumer or cutting back on labor. And if the owners decide to cut back on labor, guess whose hours get the ax first? That’s right, it’s most likely the lower or unskilled employee, because it makes less sense to pay them the higher wage when you have more skilled employees who give more value in return for their wages. Now, just who makes up a large percentage of that at-risk labor force? That’s right: young Blacks.

The next time you encounter some Lefty blathering about raising the minimum wage, ask them why they have it in for young people and Blacks.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


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

April 16, 2014

clueless1

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

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

And now imagine the national furor that would erupt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is just bunk. (3)

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

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


“Progressive Racism: The Hidden Motive Driving Modern Politics”

March 11, 2014

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

Zombie writes:

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

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

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

THE WELFARE STATE (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


A video guide to those evil Republicans

December 16, 2011

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

The answer is simple: because the Democrats say so.

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, I have to get back to being evil.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


To be Black and a Tea Partier…

April 17, 2011

Makes one doubleplusungood, apparently:

It seems these exemplars of Our Betters on the Left (all bow) didn’t get the memo about the new, more civil tone their leaders demanded of us all* in the wake of the Giffords shooting. I’m sure they’re sorry and won’t ever let it happen again.†

via Legal Insurrection

LINKS: My blog-buddy ST has further examples of New Tone Patriotism in action.

*Actually, no they didn’t. Those sanctimonious hypocrites such as Pelosi, Dean, and Matthews really only demanded conservatives shut up. Because that’s the only argument they have left.

†And if you believe that one…


Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) shows again she is a bigoted dimwit

April 14, 2011

And this time she has company, in the form of two liberal (I assume) radio hosts who join her in mocking people who identify with the Tea Party, and Southerners in general. I’ll let them speak for themselves:

Moe Lane absolutely destroys Sanchez on the factual errors she commits in this interview, such as where most of the new representatives come from, but I want to point out something else: Note the cavalier contempt for conservatives’ concern over the constitutionality of Congress’ actions*. Instead of her showing respect for others’ respect for the document they and she are sworn to defend, Sanchez (and her interlocutors) mock them — and their funny names and accents.

Stupid red necks. Why can’t all y’all be like Loretta and just go along to get along and stop fussin’ yourselves over a silly old piece of parchment?

On the other hand, Loretta fits in perfectly fine with her caucus, the leader of which thinks elections really shouldn’t matter.

This isn’t the first time Congresswoman Sanchez (D-Race Card) has shown herself to be more than willing to play on race and ethnicity to gain an edge: when Arizona passed SB 1070, its bill to enforce federal immigration law that the Fed refused to enforce, Sanchez equated supporters of the bill with White supremacists. (Be sure to see the comments for a full discussion.) And during the 2010 election campaign, Sanchez, a member of the enlightened Democratic Party, went on Spanish-language channel Univision to tell her Hispanic viewers that the Vietnamese community in the district were trying to “steal our seat.” Sadly, she won.

Abraham Lincoln once famously said:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

I’d suggest to the congresswoman that she take Mr. Lincoln’s words to heart, but she passed the point of no return long ago and the secret is out.

PS: Sanchez is a louse, too. She tried to get Representative Gabrielle Giffords kicked off a committee while Giffords was lying in a hospital fighting for her life after being shot in the head.

PPS: And let’s not forget she likely cheated her way into the House, too, on the strength of illegal votes in her 1996 election.

PPPS: Must be a family thing; her sister, Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D-No Free Speech), sponsored legislation to restrict free speech on the Internet.

*Absolutely accidental alliteration. I swear.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Beware the racist toddler, revisited

October 3, 2010

More than two years ago, I wrote about a mind-numbingly offensive UK government program to spot early signs of racism in infants and pre-school children:

Does your three-year old sometimes refuse to play with others? Does he occasionally turn his nose up at new foods? Could it be that, rather than simply being behavior normal to all toddlers, these are early-warning signs that your baby is a racist??

Well, two years and a quarter-million children later, we now know the vast size of this generation of tiny Klan members:

Three-year-olds being labelled bigots by teachers as 250,000 children accused of racism

Teachers are being forced to report children as young as three to the authorities for using alleged ‘racist’ language, it was claimed last night.

Munira Mirza, a senior advisor to London Mayor Boris Johnson, said schools were being made to spy on nursery age youngsters by the Race Relations Act 2000.

More than a quarter of a million children have been accused of racism since it became law, she said.

Writing in Prospect magazine, she said: ‘The more we seek to measure racism, the more it seems to grow.

‘Teachers are now required to report incidents of racist abuse among children as young as three to local authorities, resulting in a massive increase of cases and reinforcing the perception that we need an army of experts to manage race relations from cradle to grave.

‘Does this heightened awareness of racism help to stamp it out? Quite the opposite. It creates a climate of suspicion and anxiety.’

There’s an old saying: “If the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.” Convinced that racism is everywhere, these multicultural loons are tarring thousands of young children as little proto-fascists. Are they now to be watched throughout their school years? Counseled against the dark racist thoughts that lurk ever within them? Taught to suspect the culture and the parents who must have instilled these hateful prejudices in them? Why not just take them away from their parents and indoctrinate raise them in community creches?

Maybe, just maybe, if a three-year old doesn’t want to eat curry, it’s because he doesn’t like it, not because he hates Pakistanis.

Dear British educators: WTF??

(via theblogprof)

(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.


But I thought liberals couldn’t be racist?

June 24, 2010

I guess Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) didn’t get the memo. Check out this statement made during a committee hearing on Capitol Hill:

We’re giving relief to people that I deal with in my office every day now unfortunately.  But because of the longevity of this recession, these are people — and they’re not minorities and they’re not defective and they’re not all the things you’d like to insinuate that these programs are about — these are average, good American people.

At best, when taken in the context of the full video clip*, he’s assailing whomever he’s talking to for assuming that all welfare recipients are minorities and defectives, but even that comes out looking bad for him. After all, it’s not hard to draw the conclusion that he does not include said minorities and defectives in the ranks of “good American people.”

We may well have a prime example of a Kinsley Gaffe, here.

Representative Kanjorski’s opponent in the November election is Republican Lou Barletta, the Mayor of Hazleton, PA. I know little about him, but maybe he has a broader understanding of what (and who) constitutes a good American. If so, then perhaps it’s time for the people of Pennsylvania’s 11th district to give him the job in Washington.

*(Hey, WordPress! How about letting us link Eyeblast videos the same way we can link YouTube?)

(via Ed Morrissey)

LINKS: More from Hot Air.


Black conservatives on the “racist Tea Party” smears

May 7, 2010

A bookend for this post: In the video below, Black conservatives take on the progressive smear that the populist Tea Party movement is a cover for racists:


Is the Tea Party movement racist?

May 7, 2010

Reason.TV lets both sides speak for themselves; you decide who the foaming-at-the-mouth bigots are:


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.


The media finally notices the bigotry of the Left?

April 11, 2010

Recently, a series of vicious and bigoted phone messages left for an African-American professor who was opposed to ObamaCare drew media attention. At Big Government, Bob Parks vents his disgust… at the media:

When I read Monica Crowley’s piece on Big Government, I must admit to being thoroughly disgusted.

Not because she posted racial-slur laden voicemails sent to Dr. Christopher Metzler, Associate Dean of Continuing Studies at Georgetown University because of his opposition to ObamaCare. No, I am disgusted because for years the mainstream media has invited black conservatives on their radio and television programs to be an opposing voice to the black liberals who are often sought as the voice of black America. We’ve told them (off the record) of the response we normally get after our appearances.

We know what the headlines would read if something were said to annoy Al Sharpton. But it took racist phonecalls to a dean to invoke outrage.

I know many other black conservatives have endured the racial slurs from the left for decades, and the media has never had our backs.

Parks then goes through a long list of racist attacks by the Left against Black conservatives that the media has ignored.

(Argh. Hit “publish” instead of save draft. The rest of the post follows….)

The question is why this happens. Why does the media regularly ignore churlish behavior originating on the Left that they gleefully expose when it comes from the Right?

For some, I’m sure, it’s ideological: the American mainstream media largely skews Left, and they’re supporting their allies. For example, look at the extensive effort of Dan Rather and other figures at CBS to smear President George W. Bush in order to help Senator John Kerry just before the 2004 election. (An overview of the scandal: Rathergate)

For others, though, I think it’s just the self-perception of virtue causing a form of blindness: “Our side is the good side; they’re the racists. We just can’t be guilty of the same thing. When we characterize Condoleezza Rice as Mammy, or Michael Steele as Sambo, that’s legitimate satire.” This refusal to see fault in one’s own side is the more common reason I think, and something not limited to the Left.


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.


Are You A Racist? A Frank Conversation.

September 24, 2009

Author Andrew Klavan on America’s most oppressed, victimized,  and exploited minority group:

Rolling on the floor


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.


Cambridge Police Profiling Still A Grim Reality for Harvard Faculty Assholes

July 27, 2009

Iowahawk once again turns over his pulpit to a wronged American who wants to share his pain with the people, the pain and humiliation he experiences everyday as an Asshole at Harvard:

When I first learned of the arrest of my colleague Professor Henry Louis “Skip” Gates after he stood up to the fascist jackboots of a declasse, ill-educated Cambridge police officer, I was of course angered — but scarcely shocked. L’Affaire Gates simply aired, in public, the dirty 100-thread-count table linen of an American culture where Harvard faculty assholes still face a daily struggle against profiling, abuse, and insolence.

It will come as no surprise that Skip’s arrest was the talk of the Douchebag Room at the Harvard Faculty Club last Friday. I and a group of colleagues had assembled for our weekly lunch; I opted for their competently-prepared Ahi Tuna Tartare and an amusing glass of ’05 Hospices de Beaune Premier Cru Cuvee Cyrot-Chaudron. I had noticed that the Franz Fanon Memorial Booth — Skip’s long-reserved lunch spot — was uncharacteristically empty, and asked our waiter Sergio for an explanation.

“Professor Skeep, he no is come today,” said Sergio. “I tink he is in the jail.”

Our table exchanged knowing glances, for we knew immediately that Skip was only the latest victim of a system that singles out the Harvard faculty asshole for stigmatization and unequal justice. It is a system that all of us knew too well, and provided an opportunity for an open conversation about our shared experiences as Harvard faculty assholes in America while waiting for Sergio to bring the dessert cart.

Read the whole thing. It’s a sad, tragic tale, and one can only hope this great nation will unite to fight for the rights of academic assholes everywhere.

Rolling on the floor