Blog Archives

Why Democrats are compelled to attack some blacks and not others

MLKWhy must Democrats attack some—conservative only—blacks?

Because if Democrats don’t, they’re doomed.

From Deroy Murdock:

Republicans need not win the black vote. Securing 15 percent of the black electorate severely erodes the stalwart Democratic base. If 20 to 25 percent of blacks vote GOP, it’s curtains for Democrats.

This explains why people like Allen West, Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Herman Cain, Janice Rogers Brown, Ken Blackwell, Rod Paige, Artur Davis, and others must be demonized, marginalized, and ostracized by Democrats and (to be redundant), the left and the traditional media.

It also explains why the politics of old-timey black Republicans like Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Frederick Douglas are ignored.

Murdock asks blacks to ask, “What have the Democrats done for you lately?” The answer is this: nothing good. 

The Republican message should combine opportunity-related themes with historical facts about Democrats’ largely shameful record towards blacks (from stymieing Reconstruction, to launching the Ku Klux Klan, and filibustering federal anti-lynching legislation and the 1964 Civil Rights Act). Democrats’ treatment of blacks remains pitiful (e.g. celebrating the leadership of the late Senator Robert Byrd (D – West Virginia) — a former KKK Exalted Cyclops — until his 2010 death in office, Obama’s defunding of Washington, D.C.’s school-voucher program, and the rise of black unemployment (from 12.1 percent to 14.0 percent), increase in poverty among blacks aged 18 to 64 (from 34.9 percent to 38.6 percent), and fall in black median income (from $22,901 to $21,206) on Obama’s inaugural dates.

A better question might be for blacks to ask Democrats, “What have you done for me ever?”

Advertisements

Hey lefties, where’s your hate crime?

It isn’t enough that a person be tried for their crimes; instead they must also be charged regarding their hateful thoughts.

Example: media-and-leftist madness regarding “White Hispanic” George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case.

But now we have a Black man who has been charged with killing a Korean man by pushing him in front of an oncoming subway train which fatally crushed him.

And regarding the hate crime outrage we have… crickets.

I’m not in favor of hate crimes but the media’s hypocrisy patently absurd.

A word on racism from Montana’s governor: Montanans are white, racist rednecks…

From Watchdog.org comes the article MT: Schweitzer at Ohio Dem dinner: Montanans are white, racist rednecks.

Brian Schweitzer is a Democrat who is now the governor of Montana. He’s said to possess “rhetorical prowess.” On teleprompter, so does Barack Obama, but there’s a difference between being dear reader and an effective leader/intellectually sound.

In the same address [to Ohio Democrats], Schweitzer dipped into darker rhetoric to blast Caucasian Montanans as racist toward American Indians.

Why?

Schweitzer spearheaded the [Indian Education for All] program, which requires Montana school children to learn both American-Indian and U.S. history.

Why did Schweitzer shepherd the innovative and groundbreaking program? Well, because Montanans are a bunch of white, racist rednecks – the governor’s words.

“All over Montana, you can walk into a bar, a café or even a school or a courthouse and just listen for a while as people talk to each other,” Schweitzer explained, shortly after noting 93 percent of his state’s population is classified as Caucasian. “And you will hear somebody, before very long, say something outrageously racist about the people who’ve lived in Montana for 10,000 years.”

Racist. You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a Democrat who thinks the unwashed masses are racist. Especially those who don’t vote for him/her.

Regarding Schweitzer, methinks I need to consult Dr. Freud again on the issue of projection. Maybe the bitter racist clingers of Montana will reward Schweitzer (as well as Jon Tester) with the fate he deserves.

Elizabeth Warren Comedy Gold Continues

Elizabeth Warren’s U.S. Senate candidacy is the comedy gift that just keeps giving. From The Boston Globe:

US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has said she was unaware that Harvard Law School had been promoting her purported Native American heritage until she read about it in a newspaper several weeks ago.

But for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.

In addition, both Harvard’s guidelines and federal regulations for the statistics lay out a specific definition of Native American that Warren does not meet.

I guess all this fraud and deception can be justified in that she’s trying to win the seat long held by Ted Kennedy.

You know, tradition.

If Elizabeth Warren were a Republican, she’d be getting something worse than the Christine O’Donnell treatment.

Elizabeth Warren, diversity magic!

Obama fail: Democrat racism or his own incompetence?

From the Washington Post-It:

That President Obama lost roughly 40 percent of the vote in Democratic primaries in Arkansas, Kentucky and West Virginia over the last two weeks has drawn massive national headlines.

Those headlines have drawn a collective eyeroll from Democrats — and many others who closely follow national politics — who ascribe the underperformance by the incumbent to a very simple thing: racism.

So let’s see if we can unpack the thinking here:

  1. Only racists would vote against Obama;
  2. These primaries are for Democrats;
  3. 40 percent of the Democrats in these states failed to vote for Obama;
  4. Therefore, 40 percent of Democrats in these states are racists.

Snip:

“Race, resentment [and] fear,” explained Donna Brazile, a Louisiana native and Democratic strategist when asked about Obama’s underperformance.

As such, Donna Brazile confirms that many Democrats are racists, resentful, and fearful.

The reality is that Brazile is queen of denial and any such race discussion keeps the traditional media from talking about Barry Oh’s! record on unemployment, his crony capitalism, epic lobbyism, the federal debt, the legislative ram-jam known as Obamacare, and the rest of their President’s “ultra-left” failures (and ignoring other pesky foreign policy and national security issues like the Russian “reset” and a nuclear Iran).

Obama’s thick bubble means no one will be around to challenge him to change his ways or positions, hence the foolishness and incoherence seen from the Administration even as the President runs away from his own record. The Obama 2012 effort has November fail written all over it and the more befuddling issue remains how can the President’s poll numbers remain as high as they are given the depth and magnitude of his failures?

Maybe it’s racism.

More Elizabeth Warren!

elizabeth-warrenheadressIt turns out there is evidence Elizabeth Warren is a person of color.

In fact, she is a Village Person of color.

I’m sure her campaign is relieved they will still be able to stay at the Taj Boston and not the YMCA.

Elizabeth Warren, Woman of Color

Elizabeth Warren was once a woman of color? I guess it depends on how you define color:

…a 1997 Fordham Law Review piece described her as Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color,” based, according to the notes at the bottom of the story, on a “telephone interview with Michael Chmura, News Director, Harvard Law (Aug. 6, 1996).”

The mention was in the middle of a lengthy and heavily-annotated Fordham piece on diversity and affirmative action and women. The title of the piece, by Laura Padilla, was “Intersectionality and positionality: Situating women of color in the affirmative action dialogue.”

Intersectionality and positionality? If Naomi Riley is available to mock Laura Padilla, I’d say she could start with affirmative action “programs [that] are often slipshod, academically non-rigorous, and repositories for “grievance” politics.”

But I digress on Warren as a woman of color. White is a color.

And she might have a freckle or something.

(Not that I’d know or want to know…in fact, eww.)

Elizabeth Warren’s New Native American Strategy

As far as the Warren campaign is concerned, it’s gotta be worth a try.

From the aptly monikered Big Government site:

Despite an avalanche of irrefutable evidence that demonstrates beyond any doubt that Elizabeth Warren has no proof to back up her phony claims of Native American ancestry, the embattled Massachusetts Senate candidate doubled down and repeated her heritage lie on CNN today.

“You know, I’m proud of my Native American heritage,” Ms. Warren stated this morning on CNN.

Now bear in mind that the whole Native American thing was simply a modest capitalization error; a typo.

Warren meant native American. You know, native: being such by birth or origin.

Like Bruce Springsteen, you were born in the USA, so give it a shot Elizabeth.

What do you have to lose? You’re already a national laughingstock.

Does protected equal favored?

Thomas Sowell asks why black on not-black crime so often goes unreported, that is, why does the traditional media (often with government complicity) self-censor on some issues of race and not on others?

The obvious answer is that some individuals—and groups—are more protected, more equal, and more favored than others. One of innumerable political examples: Fast and Furious would be bigger than Watergate if this were a Republican administration.

The protected groups (a representative, but not exhaustive, list): non-Asian minorities, global warmers, women, homosexuals, liberals, the poor.

The non-protected: white Hispanics and a few others.

Why is this? Because the traditional media (again, often with government complicity) is all about agenda and worldview. Myths and templates need to be preserved so as to not confuse themselves or their audiences. Why do these things need to be preserved? In a word, power.

The grievance industry has to be the most productive—that is, they produce a great deal of grievance, not that they’re useful—segment of the American economy.

My observation: many people don’t want to be treated fairly. They want to be treated preferentially.

Shout-out for fee and Samuel L. Jackson on race

The President’s new shout-out for fee program is certainly un-presidential (but that hasn’t stopped him yet).

The White House is also thought to be working out the details for their product placement scheme. Products being considered are soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, household items, office products, and for non-teleprompted appearances, Government Motors automobiles. Exclusive endorsements and corporate sponsorships (example: Burger King—the official fast-food choice of the Obama White House) are said to be still available.

The good news for the President is that he appears to have actor Samuel L. Jackson’s vote locked up, regardless. Well, at least as long as the President doesn’t lose his mixed-race heritage (emphasis added).

Obama’s “message didn’t mean sh*t to me,” Jackson said, according to the New York Post. “I just hoped he would do some of what he said he was gonna do.” Implying that Obama has not yet been able to behave like a “scary” “n*gga,” Jackson said he hopes Obama will be more “scary” in his second term, “cuz he ain’t gotta worry about getting re-elected.” “I voted for Barack because he was black,” Jackson said. “Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them.”

What a fool Jackson is. In addition to appearing on those idiotic iPhone ads—which make him look like an idiot—he also makes the mistake of thinking everyone else is as vapid and shallow as he is.

Bring out candidate Thomas Sowell and see how white conservatives vote.

The more Elizabeth Warren explains, the worse it gets

warren and friendsElizabeth Warren’s diversity double-dip gets worse each time she opens her mouth. It’s reminiscent of the John Kerry Christmas in Cambodia lie false memory.

From the Boston Herald:

“I listed myself in the [law school] directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren.

Warren’s statement fails to pass the smell test. I’m shocked her campaign hasn’t placed the issue off-limits for both the media and the candidate.

I’m also disappointed no one seems to have photoshopped a headdress onto Warren’s mug.

Elizabeth Warren as Ward Churchill

Ward Churchill is the disgraced former University of Colorado full professor, sans terminal degree, sans academic ethics, and it turns out, sans the Native American bona fides he claimed to possess. Churchill, in one of the better headlines I’ve recently read, was categorized as a Reprobate Without A Cause.

Ward Churchill was fired from Colorado University in Boulder in 2007 for “repeated intentional academic misconduct.”  The firing resulted not from his noxious comments about victims of terrorism, or his virulent anti-American rantings, but from proven instances of plagiarism, duplicitous writings, and questions about his unsubstantiated claim of having a Native American heritage.

Elizabeth Warren is a darling of the left, former Obama Administration worker and Harvard professor, and U.S. Senate candidate. Warren has claimed to be part Cherokee (one thirty-second), earning double bonus points on the diversity scorecard: female and Native American. The downside for Warren is that even if it’s true—she bases the claim on “family stories”—the game is over.

I just can’t shake the ridiculous image of you, Liz — a blue-eyed blonde almost as pasty white as me — letting yourself be described as a minority professor, a Native American, for years.

You’ve played the Indian card. You’ve grabbed for minority cred without enduring the minority grief. It’s poached diversity.

Snip.

Here’s the problem for you, Liz: We’re not talking some elaborate, arcane, confusing financial irregularity here that nobody can understand. Everybody gets this. It’s letting everyone think you’re something that you’re not. It’s letting stand the idea that you’re part of an aggrieved class of people.

First it was the zero interest twenty year loan. Then it was the massive professorial salary that didn’t really require teaching. Now, it’s the family story race card.

So, is it like Ward Churchill? That is, game over, Elizabeth, game over? (Maybe you can build a fire or sing a couple of songs.)

But does the race game ever end?

Glory, Scandal, Redemption, Nostalgia, and Marion Barry

Is our fascination with nostalgia some sort of attempt to forge the stories of our own struggles and redemption?

If so, consider some scandal nostalgia: it might be for a financial scandal (Michael Milken), a sex scandal (Michael Jackson), a drug scandal (Robert Downey, Jr.), a criminal scandal (OJ Simpson), or a race-driven scandal (Harry Reid).

However, only Marion Barry, to my knowledge, can lay claim to being involved in all the above scandal categories and yet manage to be continually redeemed by voters.

Faced with a torrent of criticism from his colleagues and other city residents, Marion Barry apologized Thursday afternoon for his Election Day suggestion that Asian business owners in his ward “ought to go.”

If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny.

Media, Race Hustlers Seek To Fan The Flames of Hate

It’s interesting how the media, specifically the New York Times, can twist itself into knots as it regards race and the Trayvon Martin case (emphasis added):

Mr. Zimmerman, 28, a white Hispanic, told the police that he shot Trayvon in self-defense after an altercation.

Would the Times describe President Obama as a white black? Or a white African-American? No, I don’t think so, either.

How about a black citizen of France? An African-Franco?

And what’s up with the race hustlers and bomb-throwers, to include Spike Lee? Are any of them interested in making things better, or is it more about blaming others and seeking victimhood? (I think I know the answer).

The definitive take is at National Review.

We need love and not hate.

Lovie Smith and Martin Luther King: Compare and Contrast

How far we’ve come, eh?

From Victor Davis Hanson:

What are we to make of the coach of the Chicago Bears, Lovie Smith, announcing on a campaign video, “I have the President‘s back and it’s left up to us, as African Americans, to show that we have his back. Also join African Americans for President Obama today.”

Versus this (in 1963) from the Rev. Martin Luther King:

…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.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Now, imagine Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination and John Elway said something like this: I have Mitt Romney’s back and it’s left up to us, as European Americans, to show that we have his back. Also join European Americans for Mitt Romney today.

Discuss amongst yourselves.