Alphonzo Rachel explains clearly how the government has been stealing his money, and preventing him from giving money to charities. Of course, he also explains how the government views him, as a black conservative.
Tag Archives: racism
When: Tuesday, April 23rd, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific
What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.
For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)
Tonight: This administration decided it was a good idea to stay focused on gun issues, so here we go! Well, before we get to the guns, we’ll talk a bit about racism, with someone who’s trying to show that it isn’t wrong to be proud about being white. (And no, it’s not someone from that Democrat organization, the KKK!) Then we’ll have a little chat about guns, and more importantly, the way Facebook deals with gun and ammo companies on their site. So, as usual, don’t expect politically correct talk!
The images of vicious bombings that once littered the landscape of the civil rights movement in the 1950’s and 1960’s in America are now a distant memory. Cities like Birmingham, Alabama which were at the epicenter and caught the brunt force of the segregationist fury to deprive black voters of their voting rights have been replaced by a vast number of local and federal minority public officials throughout states and in congress. And of course we cannot forget the two times elected Barack Obama, as president!
So this week, Shelby County, Alabama made the case before the U.S. Supreme Court that the federal Voting Rights Act has seen its day and that Section Five should be overturned. Conservatives have long held that in states and localities like Shelby County where voting rights suppression no longer exists, it makes little legal or moral sense to continue to list a community as being engaged in racist voting practices where none exist.
In reality this case has much deeper significance for the other communities across the country which are also similarly weighted down with this federal mandate. The purpose of the bill is well intended and was needed in its day to protect the rights of minority voters who were systematically deprived of their constitutional right to vote. Now, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, without the presence of racism this law seems to favor racial entitlement, reports Fox News
Yet, in the 21st century, where those same states which bore the mark of racism in their practices regarding minority voting rights, no longer practice those tactics. So should they continue to be marred with the title and legal penalty?
That is essentially what Shelby County has presented in its legal arguments before the justices of the Supreme Court. It is an argument which can be cross-tied with the similar Affirmative Action inequality which has burdened America more recently with imbalanced racial favoritism where racism may no longer exist.
There are many detractors on the left and in civil rights communities who have made a living off of crying falsely crying racism. Their behavior can be likened to the famous fictional Chicken Little character, who claimed, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!” Well if you remember the rest of the story, Chicken Little finally meets Foxey Loxey, who welcomes Chicken Little and Henny Penny into his den, and, “They never, never come out again.”
Well, this is what is happening to America with this law as well as with continued use of Affirmative Action application and enforcement. Much like Chicken Little, there are those liberal leaders like Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson and President Obama and even the NAACP who insists the sky is still falling. Unfortunately they still continue to lead America into the fox den, where justice and equality under the law for all Americans will never emerge again.
A central question that the court must answer, is when does justice arrive for all Americans if institutional injustice does not exist any longer? If racism in voting practices no longer exists, then what is being monitored?
Some civil rights officials on the left have attempted to use poverty, lack of jobs and even illegal immigration attitudes as an indication of why voting rights for minorities must continue to be monitored. This is a red herring that has no legal connection to the purpose and intent of Section Five of the Voting Rights Act.
The case in Shelby County, Alabama does bear witness to the fact that voting injustice, once wide ranging, is no longer present. Therefore, this law must not continue to be used as a hammer to pound local officials into submission for legal infractions that no longer exist. Is it truly a racial entitlement to voting protection that is now punitively used against cities, counties and states?
If Shelby County and other communities across the nation have moved beyond any measurable discriminatory practices against minority voters then, the U.S. Justice Department has no alternative but to remove them from the list. The U.S. Supreme Court must instruct the justice department to do so.
In conclusion, the U.S. Supreme Court must move with all deliberate speed to put an end to this continued imbalance of equal justice for all Americans. Equal justice under the law does not mean more justice for some and less for others. The court must remove this law as a useful tool for liberals who seek office and want to drum up the ghosts of past injustices long buried.
Racism in America is not the issue of the 21st century. A united country where race is color neutral and justice and equality does not play favorites is what the bottom line must be for the nation.
There is no place for reverse racism in America. This is the conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court must arrive at in reaching a decision to overturn the irrelevant section of the law.
As liberals continue to counter the criticism directed towards Ambassador Susan Rice with the race card, Eliana Johnson at National Review aptly noted how similar criticism was lobbied at Condoleezza Rice when she was nominated for Secretary of State.
In my previous post, “Deciphering Susan Rice without Being Racist” – Katrina Vanden Heuvel was exposed as using the terms “incompetent” and “liar” to describe Rice — Condoleezza Rice. Vanden Heuvel is the editor and publisher of the far left magazine The Nation. Eliana Johnson detailed on November 21 how left-wing media outlets and members of Congress were hurling similar accusations of incompetence and politicking at Condoleezza Rice that are we seeing ahead of Susan Rice’s possible nomination for Secretary of State.
Johnson wrote that:
[Condoleezza] Rice’s nomination, noted the Washington Post, garnered “the most negative votes cast against a nominee for that post in 180 years.” As the Senate debated her nomination, Senator Barbara Boxer charged that Rice “frightened the American people” into supporting the Iraq War; Senator Jim Jeffords accused her of being part of an effort to “distort information” in the service of “political objectives”; and Senator Pat Leahy, who voted in her favor, endorsed her by saying that her tenure as national-security adviser lacked “strong leadership, openness, and sound judgment.”
Hey, that’s racist. But so is this cartoon by Ted Rall, who has the then-Secretary of State saying she was Bush’s ‘house nigga.”
Jeff Danziger, whose cartoons are syndicated in The New York Times, had a caricature of “a big-lipped, barely literate Condoleezza Rice, nursing the aluminum tubes cited by the White House as evidence of Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.”
Johnson is dead on in her assessment that there’s a difference when someone calls you a “house nigga,” and when someone calls you incompetent. One is blatantly racist, while the other is isn’t. It’s not that hard to comprehend. Ambassador Rice misled the American people – and we deserve answers.
Conservatives may be unaware that the Democrat Party has passed new legislation redefining the rules of logic and political discourse regarding racism. For those who have grown used to such concepts as “hypocrisy,” and “logical inconsistency,” they need to eliminate these from their thinking and vocabulary.
Everyone must get hip to the new rules of civility and tolerance, or else face serious penalties. The following are some examples that should get you racist wingnuts up to speed on the “New Discourse.”
Clear cases of Racism against Black Democrats:
- Criticizing President Obama’s ineptitude
- Criticizing President Obama for black unemployment and poverty going up, wages and political influence going down during his presidency
- Criticizing the girth of domineering health food activist Michelle Obama
- Criticizing UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s less-than-honest statements about the Benghazi scandal
- Criticizing Reverend Al Sharpton for anti-semitism
- Criticizing Reverend Jesse Jackson for dropping the N-bomb and saying he wanted to cut Obama’s n*** off
- Criticizing Jesse Jackson Jr. for allegedly trying to buy a Senate seat
- Criticizing Maxine Waters for telling the tea party to “go to hell”
- Criticizing Hank Johnson for saying the island of Guam could “capsize”
- Criticizing black caucus chair Emanuel Cleaver for calling debt compromise a “satan sandwich”
- Criticizing Keith Ellison for obvious ties to Islamist organizations
- Criticizing Diane Watson for opposing interracial marriage
- Criticizing randomly elected Al Green for saying “take back the country”
- Criticizing Sheila Jackson-Lee for championing women’s rights, like in Rwanda, China, Algeria, and Afghanistan
- Criticizing Bobby Rush for describing his meeting with communist dictator Fidel Castro “almost like listening to an old friend”
- Criticizing Barbara Lee for characterizing voter ID laws (which they have in Europe) as a racist plot
Clear false claims of Democrat Racism:
- Criticizing the Democrat Party for never renouncing its racist past of supporting slavery and segregation
- Criticizing Senator Robert Byrd’s history as a KKK recruiter and Kleagle who filibustered the Civil Rights Act
- Criticizing Woodrow Wilson for screening racist, KKK-glorification film Birth of a Nation
- Criticizing the KKK past of FDR-appointed Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black
- Criticizing FDR for his forced detainment of Japanese-Americans
- Criticizing President Harry Truman for paying $10 to become a member of the KKK
- Criticizing Lyndon Johnson for saying, “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”
- Criticizing Jimmy Carter for writing the book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” which was praised on numerous white supremacist websites
- Criticizing Bill Clinton for once saying of Obama, “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.”
- Criticizing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for describing Obama as “light skinned,” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
- Criticizing Hillary Clinton for faking a “negro dialect” (as Harry Reid put it) in front of a black church audience
- Criticizing Joe Biden for once saying to an Indian-American voter, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”
- Criticizing Joe Biden for saying Republican Mitt Romney wanted to “put y’all back in chains”
- Criticizing Joe Biden for saying of Obama, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
Statements that are Not Racism or Reverse Racism made by Democrats against Republicans:
- Criticizing former RNC Chair Michael Steele, like Steny Hoyer did, for his “career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party.”
- Criticizing Condaleezza Rice like left-wing radio host Neal Rogers: “Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey’s cars?”
- Criticizing former Representative Allen West, like Andre Carson did, for aligning himself with the tea party, which “would love to see us as second-class citizens” and would love to see blacks “hanging on a tree.”
- Criticizing Republican convert Artur Davis, like Gary Franks did: “I do not believe it is healthy for Americans to go around looking for blacks to put in a congressional district.”
- Criticizing General Colin Powell, as Harry Belafonte did: “In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and [there] were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master…”
- Criticizing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, like Spike Lee called him, “A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom.” Leftists commonly call Thomas a “House N*gga,” but that’s not racist.
- Criticizing rising Republican star Mia Love as a “token” and an “Aunt Tom”
- Criticizing conservative media personalities like CDN’s Kira Davis, or Alonzo Rachel, “News Ninja”Wayne Dupree, blogger Sister Toldjah, Crystal Wright and many others using racial epithets
- Criticizing Republicans for allowing numerous diverse speakers at their convention by playing a popular Twitter game called, “#Negrospotting.” (This would be tough to play while watching MSNBC, which refused to air minority speakers at the convention.)
- Criticizing any black Republicans in the party as pure “tokenism”
- Criticizing minorities in the way journalist Mike Wallace did: Blacks and Hispanics are “too busy eating watermelons and tacos” to learn how to read and write.
Racist code words about Black Democrats:
- “Welfare Queen“
- “Food Stamp President“
- “Kitchen Cabinet“
- “Empty Chair“
Simply put, if you are a conservative who is for Constitutionally limited government, free market capitalism, equality under the law, and freedom for all Americans, then you are a racist. If you are for unlimited government and increasing dependency on the Democrat Party, then you are not a racist. Any questions?
I’m almost at the mark! I’m so excited. I just have one more jar of Ovaltine to drink before I’m able to send in my application for the James Clyburn Racial Code Word Decipher. It’s going to be useful – as we all try to make sense of the various racial code wards that have been hurled at Ambassador Susan Rice for her
incompetence less than adequate job performance.
Racism is, and will always be, an effective tool employed by liberals. Racism is anathema to American society. So, when one person cries racial discrimination – Blacks, Whites, Asians, and Martians come out of the bushes, like perverted voyuers, to listen. Additionally, the person who has been accused must explain how they aren’t racist to the public. In politics, that’s perfect. One candidate hammering away at the opposing side’s economic record, like in the case of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, is inhibited from continuing to do so once the racism accusations start flying.
In the case of Ambassador Rice, she’s been accused of being ‘incompetent’ and ‘lazy’ from Republicans. Democrats say that’s racist and sexist. However, no one dares think about the alternative situation where a Republican Ambassador to the UN would have been chastised heavily from Democrats – and rightfully so. There’s no excuse to misled the American people on the Sunday morning talk shows.
Concerning Rep. Clyburn, this is how he frames the whole situation:
“You know, these are code words,” Clyburn said. “We heard them during the campaign. During this recent campaign, we heard Senator Sununu calling our president lazy, incompetent—these kinds of terms that those of us, especially those of us who were grown and raised in the South, we would hear these little words and phrases all of our lives, and we’d get insulted by them.”
The Washington Times’ Kerry Picket noted this as well. In fact, she even went into the past, and dug up liberal accusations of incompetence that were thrown at then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Of course, you have to cite the worst of the worst, which is what Picket did quoting left-wing blowhard and editor of The Nation Katrina Vanden Heuvel – who wrote in November of 2004.
Last July, the Washington Post devoted much of its front-page to a well-reported story indicting National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice for her role in misleading Congress and the public in the run- up to the Iraq war. The bottom line: Rice was either incompetent or a liar.
Even sources described as “generally sympathetic” to the NSC adviser questioned her many shifting and contradictory statements regarding Iraq’s alleged uranium purchase and the WMD (non)threat. But Rice’s dogged loyalty to Bush served her well, and she stayed put.
Gasp! Ms. Vanden Heuvel – that’s racist! However, this plays into the mindset of liberals, which is conservative women, especially those who are minorities, aren’t really people. They’re the confused ‘others’ wondering through the woods, and looked down upon as semi-mentally retarded. It’s how liberals view most people who aren’t of the liberal persuasion. Hey, some people like to work hard, and pay taxes – I don’t blame them.
This perverse untermenschen category liberals have for conservative women extends to their affiliates in the D.C. non-profit and lobbying circle with groups like NARAL Pro-choice America and the National Organization of (some) Women. As far as I’m concerned, conservatives should continue to hammer away at Ambassador Susan Rice, and do everything possible to block her nomination for Secretary of State.
Originally posted at The Young Cons.
Liberals and democrats have now chosen to open their favorite boogieman door and take out the always convenient racism race card. This time, democrat leaders including the incoming Congressional Black Caucus leader, Cleveland democrat Rep. Marcia Fudge (D.-Ohio), the incoming chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus went on the attack Friday, November 16th charging racism! This time the targets were Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Senator Kelly Ayotte.
Out came the old tired and quite familiar race card. “How dare these white senators and especially these white men attack this black woman!” All one can say to these congressional women who sang this same familiar tune. Grow up! This is not 1962, it is 2012. Americans lives were lost and facts do matter!
Nearly 2 months ago, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on 5 national news Sunday talk shows selling a lie which covered up the truth of the murders of four Americans at the Benghazi consulate in Libya. The administration lies have taken on their own life, and on Thursday, November 15th the republican senators demanded answers.
Yes, it does matter that Ambassador Rice covered up the lie about a You Tube video being the reason for the attack on the Benghazi Consulate. The administration it knew to be a lie. It was a fiction that President Obama knew was a lie, and avoided telling the truth about. It was a lie that Obama’s former CIA Director David Petraeus knew as a lie 24 hours after the deadly 9/11 attack. Yet, Susan Rice never offered even a scintilla of evidence about an Al Qaeda attack being the reason for the assassination of Americans.
So why go back to the same card game with Americans. Why the double racial standard?
Why do congresswomen like Cleveland, Ohio congresswoman Marcia Fudge, incoming chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus feel it is necessary to state, “ It’s a shame that whenever anything goes wrong they pick on women and minorities!”
The answer is clear.
The politics of racism practiced by liberals, by the president, and by white guilt ridden apologists is that they need America to continue to be divided. They are now the true racists in an America that has moved on. This nation now has a president who is black. Americans believe that job security, an approaching fiscal cliff and crushing debt is more important than finding imagined racist boogiemen hiding in America’s dark corners.
Susan Rice does not need to be defended on the basis of her race or on her gender. Susan Rice as any other administration official that plays footloose with the facts concerning the deaths of Americans must be held accountable. There is no two-tier level of responsibility. American does not have nor need a racial Affirmative Action type of imagined protection for minorities or for women.
If Congresswoman Fudge is so concerned about protecting women who are being subjected to discrimination, not gaze into Obama’s mirror? After all, it is not senators McCain, Graham, or Ayotte, who are discriminating against women. It is the hope and change President Obama, openly discriminates against women and embraces the “do as I say and not as I do” rule. Women are paid up to 17 percent than their male counterparts in the White House!
So liberals and Congressional Black Caucus women, stop this nonsense about racism when the only problem of racism that seems to exist in this nation is a continued embrace of the race card. How about working toward the day when a Congressional Black Caucus is not necessary. What about demanding that public officials that lie to America and engage in indefensible incompetent behavior answer to it.
The truth, not fiction, is essential and must be investigated and the results placed before the American public. It’s simple, race and gender is no defense against the truth. It is about the truth, and nothing but the truth.
This is the 12st century. In the final analysis, America needs to know that when its sends its sons and daughters to fight a war or to place their lives in danger for this nation, their president will not cover up, will not deceive and will not ignore their sacrifice.
So, Susan Rice come forward and be a woman, and not hide from your conduct or let a president beat his chest like a prehistoric cave man protecting his women from the big bad imaginary republican dinosaurs. After all, hopefully Obama did not nominate you as a black woman for a job. Hopefully he nominated you as a woman capable of doing your job and defending your conduct on your own.
Reject the race card being played in your name, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, so that America can move onto matters which impact all Americans, colorblind and one nation under God.
Following the debate last night Chris Matthews quickly grabbed the race card from his pocket. According to the host of Hardball, those against an Obama second term are racist Southern right-wingers who hate President Obama more than al-Qaeda.
Is this a sign of desperation by a news station that put all its eggs into the Obama basket and his loss will leave them with nothing? Perhaps.
Remember the ‘reporter’ who felt a thrill up his leg when Obama spoke? Can it be that this hero worship blinded Matthews so much that he can’t see the policies and failures of this administration?
Or is this a grasping at straws argument geared toward inciting the left base into action? By calling conservatives racists is this an effort to improve the vote numbers by the minority population?
Maybe all of the above are true.
It is an insult to say that if I disagree with President Obama then I must be racist; that I might have some concocted hate filled agenda that to promote.
Isn’t it entirely more likely that conservatives will be voting with a true concern for the continued faltering economy complete with malaise and despair this country is currently in?
Watch the clip for yourself…the text is below.
Chris Matthews speaking about conservatives, “Well, I think they’re more political than either you or I. I think they hate Obama. They want him out of the White House more than they want to destroy al-Qaeda. Their number one enemy in the world right now, on the right, is their hatred, hatred for Obama. And we can go into that about the white working class in the south about looking at these numbers we’ve been getting the last couple days, about racial hatred, in many cases. This isn’t about being a better president, they want to get rid of this president. That’s their number one goal and they’re willing to let Romney go to the hard center, even to the left on some issues, as long as they get rid of this guy.”
“Romney went in there tonight with 16 ounce gloves. He didn’t want to look too ferocious, he just wanted to win. And the way he wanted to win was not making himself into the right-winger that the right wing that’s supporting him really are.”
I have danced around this issue, avoided it, felt guilty for saying nothing, and in general increased the probability that I will end up with a stomach ulcer. In 2008, we ended up with our first black President, and there was a slight promise that we would reach the point of being able to call ourselves a “post-racial” nation. Of course that has been blown out of the water since, as the Obama administration has turned out to be the most racially divisive in recent memory.
Conservatives regularly complain about liberals playing the race card, and are, in return, regularly called racist. Of course there is also the liberal propaganda about blacks only being Democrats, and if a high-profile black is insolent enough to admit supporting Mitt Romney, they are met with abuse. But, the last straw for me personally came with the rampant death threats against Romney. I gave Wayne Dupree (@NewsNinja2012) a heads up about it, and he offered his two cents on the issue. Then, I questioned Wayne on the issue on The 405 Radio (Hour 2, about 10 minutes in), asking if I was wrong to suggest that black liberals threatening to riot and kill Romney were actually racist themselves.
What struck me was that Wayne stated that he felt badly that I, as a white conservative woman, was uncomfortable bringing this up in the first place. Whether or not this can be considered racism or reverse racism is theoretically an argument for sociologists. Given the state of academia in general, the result would probably be a statement against whites suggesting that blacks are capable of racism at all in the first place. However, that does not change the fact that race relations in America have gone downhill over the past four years. It could be argued that there is yet another swing toward self-imposed segregation among liberal blacks. And the irony is that while some community leaders might scream against blacks becoming members of a permanent underclass, at the same time, they are supporting Obama, a President that has done a great deal to guarantee that, at least when considering low-income blacks. There is no argument that social programs have grown by leaps and bounds, and that is one of the largest bones of contention in this election.
But, this is nothing new in the world of Democratic Party politics. Democrats have regularly made their way by giving voters programs that they think they want, purely for political support for at least a few years – until the bills come due. And Democrats rely heavily on the lack of intelligence of their followers. James Carville has finally admitted it, but it’s no great revelation. Here in Pennsylvania, Democrats are known to fund their war chests with Union money, and then tell anti-Union supporters that either they aren’t really taking that money, or that it won’t turn into pro-Union votes while in office. Both are bald-faced lies, of course. But it is what is politically expedient. And their supporters buy it. Even my father did, for a short while. Then he started campaigning for Republicans, in spite of remaining a registered Democrat.
But, this is not about political lies, per se. It is about a false conception by the public that if someone is black, they by definition, cannot be racist. That simply is not true. Why do these liberal blacks on Twitter want Mitt Romney dead? Why are they threatening riots in the streets if he wins? They are making these threats because Romney is a successful white man, period. To them, it is impossible to consider that a white man could ever understand them. Maybe no white man can, given the depth of hatred that has been instilled in them. And that is what racism is – hatred. Regardless of how this election turns out, we as a nation, will be left with masses of people that have learned to hate over the past four years. Maybe they had those feelings before 2008, but there is no denying that they have been amplified in the intervening years. That is the Obama legacy. He offered “Hope and Change”, but traded down to “Hatred and Divisiveness” instead. How’s that working for you?
On Tuesday, a tape was released from the 2007 primary season in which then, Sen. Barack Obama gave a very impassioned, somewhat eloquent and, I’ll say it, downright racist speech to a black clergy. The tone of the speech was, by many people’s standards, racially divisive and fraught with half-truths and flat out lies. To the group that was being addressed, and perhaps even to Obama himself, the words rang true and spoke volumes to the injustice that is America today. In the responses to this speech, both then and now, we see a disconnect. Through that disconnect we find the evidence that we truly do not live in a post-racial America.
President Obama is the first to claim that he seeks equality for all Americans. It his been his mantra since he catapulted onto the national stage. Despite often being referred to as the “post-racial” President, his actions have spoken louder than his words. His support of policies that encourage racial preference has been public from the beginning. However, many have still been to deaf to it.
I know people on both sides of the aisle will cry foul over what I have to say next but I believe it needs to be said.
When a man of mixed heritage, who has created a platform of standing for all Americans cannot truly even bridge the gap within himself, let alone society; I think it’s fair to say that, perhaps, he is not alone.
I was raised primarily in a “white” middle class neighborhood and at 18 I moved to an even “whiter” town, boasting a 97% Caucasian population, which my(white) boyfriend at the time was often eager to remind me. At 22, I moved to the Bronx. At 24, to southern Florida. As a black woman, I have been privy—and subject—to the conversations of America’s racial extremes.
From the conversations we have when we think no one else is listening, I can tell you one thing.
When the national narrative comes literally down to a case of black vs white as if there is no one else in between, I can tell you one thing.
And from the fact that we are not comfortable enough to make this an open dialogue as opposed to lobbing attacks from one side to the other, I can tell you one thing.
Whether or not this is a post-racial America, we are not post-racial Americans.
I can say this with optimism because, while I’m not saying it’s a good thing, I am saying it’s ok. Don’t get me wrong, racism is not now nor will it ever be ok but the way that we react to it today as opposed to yesterday and the way we will react to it tomorrow as opposed to today, is. We are still a young nation that has achieved a lot in a short amount of time but we’re obviously not there yet. We still have a lot of growing to do. However, considering the place that we were not 60 years ago, during the lifetime of many who are still among us today, we have come a long way.
There is a disconnect in this nation where we are seeing two different “truths.” There are those among us who claim racism at the release of a video that the American people deserve to see, those who insist Republicans are against black people for wanting to do away with welfare and social programs or those who call Mitt Romney a racist with no proof of his ever committing a racist act. It is those who are moving racism forward in this nation. Race baiting, perpetuating racial stereotypes and pulling the race card around every corner will not get us where we need to be. We need to understand where our country is now and continue to work to move it forward(but not Obama’s kind of forward). We need to not be caught up in claiming every person who does not support Barack Obama is a racist or an Uncle Tom. Most importantly, we need to open up a national dialogue and stop whispering in corners, or preaching to the black clergy, when we think no one else is listening.
You can follow me on Twitter @ReneeRankine
After becoming completely disgusted with MSNBC’s coverage of the RNC Convention, beginning with Chris Mathews assumption that all food stamp recipients are black, to their failure to cover Mia Love, or any GOP minority speaker, I took to Twitter to establish a new hashtag #RacistDemocrat, only to discover someone had beaten me to it.
With the thousands of examples of horrible epithets hurled at black conservatives from the left on social media, and the hundreds of examples of somewhat softer racism from the media and political leaders, it seemed important to have a place to post examples.
After Mia Love’s speech last night, open-minded tolerant democrats took to twitter to call her horrible names and even went so far as to edit her Wikipedia page, calling her a “house nigger.”
Tuesday night after rising GOP star Mia Love brought down the house with her inspiring convention speech, the stomach-turning Left labeled the black conservative a “token” and an “Aunt Tom.”
Meanwhile, revoltingly racist, woman-hating Wikipedia vandals were hard at work updating her entry with disgusting slurs like “House Nigger” and “dirty, worthless whore.” The page called her a “total sell-out to the Right Wing Hate machine and the greedy bigots who control the GOP.”
Glenn Reynolds reported the defacement of Love’s Wikipedia page last night.
Here is a screen shot of the page before it was corrected:
While they claim to want a colorblind society, and discourse in a civil manner, it is becoming increasingly difficult to take anyone on the left seriously when they display this kind of bigotry and hatred.
“I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization’. You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.” – Toure, MSNBC analyst in reference to Mitt Romney.
Toure said this Thursday on MSNBC’s the Cycle with S.E.Cupp. Below is my YouTube response. A full transcript can be found at kiradavis.net
Just days ago, on August 12th 2012, the New Black Panther Party on its radio show was claiming that they(black people) were “under siege” by the “RNC, tea party, tea baggers, and people who hate black people.” The voice of the woman speaking is Michelle Williams. Chief of Staff to the group.
Breitbart has acquired two audio files of the group in action on their radio show, openly expressing their views of racism and hatred toward anyone not black.
In the second audio clip from the New Black Panthers, they are openly threatening white people. There is a man who is saying that you must “drag them(white people) from their homes, and skin their asses alive.” He continues to say that you have to “pour acid on their asses, dunk them in the G** Damn river, bring them back up and punch in the head.”
He goes on to explain how the New Black Panther Party needs to establish its own military organization. Listen to both audio clips from Breitbart.com below.
First Audio file.
Second Audio file.
The female voice that is heard in the first audio clip, is the chief of staff to the New Black Panther Party, Michelle Williams. The one who put out the bounty on George Zimmerman during the racial hype in the beginning of that investigation into the Trayvon Martin Case in Florida.
In a Monday press release ACE, the American Council on Education, stated that it was filing an amicus brief to support the University of Texas’ affirmative action admission standards in the case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Abilgail Fisher filed the suit after having been turned down for admission in 2008 what she believed was a decision based on her race – firmly in violation of the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ACE said that it was filing the brief, ” urging the court to reaffirm the constitutionality of the university’s use of race and ethnicity in its admissions process.” (emphasis added)
While most Americans already knew that affirmative action was race/ethnicity-based, the fact ACE is filing a brief that flat out says it is astounding. How does changing the tone from “separate but equal” to “together and unequal” remove racial division? Why isn’t it simply… equality of opportunity?
ACE goes on to trip all over themselves by describing the pluses of the UT admissions policy:
The ACE brief argues that a core holding in Grutter remains valid: Universities can consider race or ethnicity as a “plus” factor in the context of individualized consideration of each and every applicant.
The problem here is that if race is a “plus” factor for one group, does that not make it a “minus” factor for anyone not included in the “plus” groups?
Shouldn’t the focus be on achievement? If a middle-class hispanic student and a middle-class white student both score 1160’s on the SAT and have 3.4 GPAs, why should either one’s race come into the picture at all? According to ACE, it’s about diversity:
“Courts have long recognized that diversity is a compelling interest in higher education and that individual institutions are in the best position to determine how to pursue that interest in service to their own educational objectives.”
If a school wants to have a more diverse population, it should attract top performing members of ethnic groups, not knee-cap one group because there aren’t enough applicants from another.
One Supreme Court Justice won’t be deciding the case as Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself, likely due to her involvement with the case during her tenure as the Solicitor General. That leaves a right-leaning court that may seek to apply the 14th as it was intended, not as it has been abused.
The fourteenth amendment is precisely the amendment that was cited in Brown v. Board of Education that led to the de-segregation of schools. Can the supreme court possibly argue that the Constitution should protect one group more so than another?
If the court finds for Fisher, it will overturn Grutter v. Bollinger which affirmed the use of race and ethnicity in admissions. A win for the plaintiff will likely result in the end of affirmative action in schools across the nation.