Archive for the ‘Racism’ Category
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 13, 2010
Huntsville City Councilman Showers
Is it possible to use the word “black” anymore and not have to contend with over-sensitive, uneducated, dimwitted race-obsessed relics coming out of the woodwork crying racism? Must every phrase or expression that employs the word “black” – or references anything to do with blacks – be cleared by a panel of civil rights arbiters before it is acceptable to use in public?
(Remember when Dallas Commissioner John Wiley Price went ballistic because fellow commissioner Kenneth Mayfield used the phrase “black hole” to describe misplaced paperwork?)
Recently, the NAACP muscled Hallmark into removing a talking greeting card that featured the words “black hole” because some blacks heard it as “black whore.” The graduation greeting card, which had an outer-space theme, referenced such things as the solar system and Saturn’s rings. But because some folks inexplicably heard the words “black whore,” – a conspicuously uncelestial phrase – the card was yanked. Even when told that the words being said were “black hole,” some swore they could hear an “r” at the end.
Welcome to post-racial America.
One cannot help but wonder if it is at all possible to disagree with a black person in public office anymore and not be branded a racist. Can one actually take a stand against unfavorable or unpopular policies supported by people of color and not have to withstand accusations of bigotry or prejudice? Is it conceivable to the floundering remnants of the race-baiting, intellectually vapid left that a black person could be wrong simply because his or her policy is, you know, a bad idea?
Better yet, is it possible for a white man to behave inappropriately against a black man and not have it be because of racism? Or latent bigotries? Or deep contempt for those with melanin-heavy skin? Can inappropriate behavior against someone of color ever happen because the person perpetrating the act is being an undisciplined, boorish ass?
In Huntsville, Alabama, the idiocy of the city’s mayor apparently cannot be a result of a lack of self control or bad values. It must be about race.
From the Huntsville Times:
Mayor Tommy Battle, acting in frustration with councilman Richard Showers, threw a plastic bottlecap into the dais at the end of Thursday’s city council meeting.
A member of the audience, the Rev. Mitchell Walker of Church Street CPCA, later that night sent a strongly worded email to Battle, as well as dozens of church and community leaders. Walker demanded an apology.
“Well, I can just say for me,” wrote Walker, “to see an elected authoritative Caucasian male mayor totally lose his cool and have the utter gall to throw something at or near a senior African American male Councilman … I’m just speaking for me … very much carries ‘racial’ overtones.”
I cannot possibly be the only one who is infinitely tired of this crap.
To the left, everything under the sun is about, related to, defined by or measured in terms of skin color. To them, all that comprises every day life in the United States of America, in some context, can be filtered through the prism of race. Whether we are redressing grievances – such as opposing the destructive policies of half-white Barack Obama – or reacting childishly by tossing a bottle cap at a city councilman, rest assured that if the recipient is a person with dark skin, the motivations must be racial.
Whether Mayor Battle will be charged with a hate crime is unknown at this time.
Posted in Racism | Tagged: Huntsville Alabama, Mayor Tommy Battle, NAACP, Racism, Richard Showers | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 30, 2010
Okay, enough is enough.
I’ve long since exhausted my reserve of tolerance for the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. I’ve already gone into tolerance debt regarding the man and his weak-minded, poorly-articulated, do-nothing leadership of a party that should be running for an easy touchdown with a ball long ago fumbled by flailing Obamacrats.
I am no longer willing to dig into my “benefit of the doubt” bag.
I am tired of Michael Steele’s act.
It’s bad enough that in the past he has succumbed to breaking out the race card on behalf of his party. It’s embarrassing that he feels white Republicans are afraid of him. It’s sad that he could not stand up to D. L. Hughley’s assertion that the Republican National Convention was reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
(Is there anything liberals disagree with that does not resemble Nazi Germany?)
Apparently, Michael Steele cannot – or will not – make the very real distinction between immigrants and illegal aliens. It’s the same thinking that keeps the Left from being able to differentiate between health care and health insurance.
On CNN’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, the exchange, in part, went like this:
BLITZER: As you know, the former Florida governor, Jeb Bush – Marco Rubio is running for the US Senate from Florida, another Republican – they’re among an increasing chorus of Republicans thinking, “Well, maybe the Arizona law is a mistake.” What does Michael Steele, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland say about that?
STEELE: (laughs) Well, Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, understands that the realities right now for the country, as reflected in Arizona and elsewhere, is that we, as a people, have to come to grips with this issue of immigration. We can no longer use it as a political football. We must keep in mind the families that are impacted by the lack of decision in this area. And the leadership has to confront what has always been the growing chorus of concern for the American people: this deal with border security and control. Let’s put that house in order and rest takes care of itself.
Someone really ought to inform the RNC Chair that this is not – repeat not – about immigration.
Overwhelmingly, Americans welcome immigration. We are pro-immigration. The nation was built on immigration. We recognize that America is strongest when the best and brightest from all over the world come here to pursue the American dream … legally.
This is about illegal aliens.
The key word here is “illegal.”
It’s simple stuff, really.
BLITZER: But you know there are some Republican strategists – Karl Rove, among others – who are worried. This is going to alienate Hispanic voters. The Republican Party needs these people.
STEELE: I think Karl Rove is exactly right about that. And we need, as a party, to be mindful that our prior actions in this area – and certainly our rhetoric in this area – has not been the most welcoming and the most supportive of those who want to assimilate to the way of life of America …
First of all, why are Hispanics going to be automatically alienated? Are all Hispanics inherently in favor of “illegal immigration?” Are they so shallow of a group, with no sense of right and wrong – so incapable of thinking independently – that they will reflexively vote Democrat because a Republican governor is finally deciding to uphold and enforce already existing laws in Arizona? If Mexico were populated with fair-skinned Swedes, would they react differently?
Second, what “rhetoric” by Republicans is Michael Steel talking about? What “prior actions” is he referring to? At last look, Democrats – including the President himself – are the ones constantly infusing race, gender, class and ethnicity into every situation, not Republicans.
Let me be clear. The passage of the law in Arizona has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with anything other than the legality of someone’s presence in the country, period.
To be “welcoming” does not mean one turns a blind eye to the law. To be “supportive” does not mean we appease those who should not be here at the expense of those who are.
The question is … why are Hispanics so overwhelmingly “in the bag” for Democrats and gutless Republicans on this particular issue? Isn’t that the real question here? Isn’t that more important than asking why there are so many whites at the Tea Parties?
Think about it.
If the Tea Party movement really was race-based, as libs contend, how can there are so many whites on the Left making no sense? If the country south of America was filled with blond-haired, blue-eyed Norwegians, and they were crossing into the country illegally, would white America look away? Are white drug overlords more tolerable than Hispanic ones? Would the murder of an Arizona rancher by a white man been more acceptable had the illegal alien been Caucasian?
Fair questions, no?
Posted in illegal immigration, Racism, Republican Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged: Arizona immigration law, CNN, illegal aliens, illegal immigration, Michael Steele, Republican National Committee, RNC, Wolf Blitzer | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 27, 2010
It’s been played so much in recent times, handled by so many Obamacrats, that the race card must be nothing more than a mass of frayed wood pulp and lint by now.
From the party of tolerance, acceptance, character-over-color, unity, and plummeting poll numbers comes the latest appeal to potential voters, from none other than the Head Cheese himself.
Try to imagine, if you can, how fast the Reverend Al Sharpton would jettison himself from behind his cheeseburger to find the closest open microphone had a white Republican President, looking to garner support for an upcoming election, said: “It will be up to you to make sure the young people, Caucasians, folks of European descent, and men who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again. It will be up to each of you to keep our nation moving forward, to keep working to fix Washington, to keep growing our economy, and to keep building a fairer, stronger and more just America.”
Arteries would be bursting in the necks of liberals everywhere.
The collective sound of millions of liberal conniptions would wake the dead and trigger seismograph activity across the globe.
It would be uglier than a surfboardless Keanu Reeves trying to act.
Thank God we don’t have to worry about such things. Thank God there is a Messiah “in da house.”
It is, once again, a Kumbaya liberal bringing all of America together (except those reluctant Limbaugh wing nuts) by breaking out that old tattered race card in the name of justice, fairness and whole lot of blah, blah, blah.
Everybody’s president has spoken.
And no, the Reverend Al Sharpton won’t be needed this time around.
And why not?
Because the President did not single out Caucasians. Instead, Obama appealed to African-Americans.
The President never mentioned “folks of European descent.” Rather, he kept his focus on Latinos.
And Obama did not reach out to men, God forbid. Instead, he was all about the female vote (i.e., the pro-abortion chicks).
Yes, the President of the United States actually said those words in a clip put out by the Democratic National Committee yesterday.
That’s because “fair” means singling out specific races and ethnicities. That’s because “just” means taxing the so-called “rich” – the job creators in this country – even more so that those who don’t earn it themselves can get it anyway. That’s because “stronger” means punishing those who succeed instead of trying to elevate those who haven’t (without handouts).
As Dems continue to do their best to label the Tea Party movement as “racist” and “angry” and “exclusionary,” it is the President himself who just cannot seem to free himself from his own skin-color and ethnicity fixation.
I humbly ask: Who exactly is the divider?
Has there ever been a man to occupy the Office of President of the United States (as well as the Office of President-Elect) who was less Presidential than he?
Hillary Clinton doesn’t count.
Posted in American culture, Obama Bonehead, politics, Racism | Tagged: Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Democratic National Committee, DNC video, leftists, Liberalism, post-racial America, race-baiting, Racism | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 26, 2010
Jan Brewer, Arizona Governor
I promise you, as God is my witness, that if I had the ability to do so, I would extract liberals from deep within the cerebral prisons they currently dwell and facilitate a kind of out of body experience for them. I truly believe that if afforded the opportunity to see and hear themselves as the rest of us do, they could – I say, could – actually come to realize how absurd they sound on relevant matters.
Arizona is the busiest portal into this country for narcotics and illegals. Residents there have had it up to their nipples watching their state become overrun with unwanted intruders and drug-peddling vermin.
Yet, none of this seems to concern liberals very much – at least not enough to actually do something other than fashion some clever commentary chuck full of buzz words and phrases like “fairness” and “civil rights” and “comprehensive.”
Well, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer actually did something about it.
When she signed what has become this country’s latest raging controversy into law on Friday – namely an actual immigration enforcement bill – you’d have thought she issued an edict calling for the murder of the state’s first born … or appointed Meghan McCain as Lieutenant Governor.
Brewer essentially removed the shackles from her state’s law enforcement officials so that immigration laws that are already on the books can actually be enforced.
It’s a novel concept.
It’s an inevitable – and commendable – reaction to a situation that has been festering for a long time.
Like any law in any state, there will be time for adjustments and modifications. Parameters will have to be solidified, and any abuses that may arise – as there would be with any piece of legislation – will be tended to. There is no perfect law.
But make no mistake, this law needed to be passed – to protect all American citizens, regardless of their race, creed, ethnicity or color. (Yes, libs, that includes Americans of Hispanic ancestry … like me).
This is about stopping illegals. Nothing more.
True to form, the first thing out of President Obama’s waffle hole was that the law is “misguided.” Cries from across the land that the new law would open the door to civil rights abuses could be heard from coast to coast, echoed by whiny leftists, out-of-work infomercial watching liberals, government-teat feeders and John Lennon “Imagine-there’s-no-countries” leftists.
The words “racial profiling” once again have hit the front burners of America’s consciousness.
Said our heralded Commander-In-Chief:
Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.
So, am I to understand, in attempting to decipher The One’s words, that the “basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans” translates into allowing illegal aliens – non-Americans – to break our laws? That it “undermines fairness” to enforce those laws meant to protect law-abiding, tax-paying citizens? How about Arizona rancher, Robert Krentz, recently shot to death on his own property by an illegal? What about his basic notion of fairness?
What on earth is Barack Obama talking about?
This is what I mean by sounding “absurd.” This is the brilliantly teleprompted, Harvard Constitutional scholar in action? This is the best he’s got?
If I may, allow me to briefly help Barack Obama understand what Americans really cherish.
Americans cherish a leader who will abide by the Constitutional charges of the office: to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Americans cherish a government actually doing what it is supposed to do. Americans cherish liberty.
In that sense, Obama is right. Protecting America is the federal government’s job. The Constitution says so. But trusting Barack Obama with national security is like leaving the key to the meat locker to Michael Moore.
Governor Brewer of Arizona decided that if the feds weren’t going to do something about rampant illegal immigration, she had to.
It’s called leadership.
Seventy percent of Arizona’s citizens – including fifty-one percent of Arizona Democrats – support this law.
That’s right, support this law.
Yet, Bammy the Heavy Handed-One – the man who never met any kind of liberty he didn’t dislike – has “instructed” the administration to “examine the civil rights and other implications of the legislation.”
So, then what?
Does that mean those elected officials in Arizona who are trying to protect their citizens – precisely because the federal government won’t – could feel the hot breath of Eric Holder’s Justice Department on their necks while illegals gun down innocent Americans? Will liberty-loving patriots in Arizona be subject to the totalitarian boot of Washington Obamacrats because enforcing existing immigration laws may, indeed, “offend” certain segments of the population?
See what fifteen months can do?
But the best part of all this is the fact that the Overlord of All Race Baiters himself – the slick-haired, riot-inciting, arbiter of all that is decent and fair – Al Sharpton is set to travel to Arizona to protest.
Who didn’t see that coming?
From the Washington Post:
The Rev. Al Sharpton says he’s ready to travel to Arizona and march in the streets to protest the state’s new immigration law.
Sharpton joined Lillian Rodriguez Lopez from the Hispanic Federation in New York City on Sunday to speak out against the law. They say activists are prepared to commit civil disobedience to fight it.
Feel free to take a “yippee!” out of petty cash.
As one caller to the Laura Ingraham show pointed out this morning, the biggest difference between illegal aliens and Al Sharpton is that illegals do all they can to remain unseen. Al Sharpton, on the other hand, does all he can to make sure the world is looking right at him.
Let’s be clear here: This is not about the police pulling over people who look Latino, demanding to see proof of citizenship. That is not what this is about, and the Governor of Arizona has explicitly said so. This is about law enforcement officials being able to enforce immigration laws when there is reasonable suspicion that people are here illegally. Despite what up-in-arms activists and loud-mouth reactionaries say, simply pulling someone over for “looking Latino” won’t cut it. Something like that would get thrown out of court in about four nanoseconds.
But, for argument’s sake, let’s say that there was some degree of racial profiling being employed in enforcing the new law (even though “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race). Why is singling out and offering special preferences to certain races and ethnicities perfectly acceptable when it comes to things such as college admissions, but not for protecting citizens of all colors and creeds?
If using a person’s race is not an acceptable criterion on one hand, why does the other hand get a pass?
Incidentally, look for this legislation to be duplicated in other states.
Posted in illegal immigration, national security, Racism | Tagged: Al Sharpton, Arizona, illegal immigrants, illegal immigration, Jan Brewer, Obama | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 9, 2010
No, that sound you heard was not another tongue-clacking liberal demonstrating why leadership needs to be left to the adults.
It was simply Michael Steele … again.
With every ounce of due respect I can muster, this man’s act is painfully tired.
It’s time to pull out a “farewell to thee” out of petty cash.
I’m sure he’s a wonderfully personable guy – the kind you’d like to hang out with while watching the game, or share a platter of cocktail franks with – but so is the guy who replaced my shocks. That doesn’t mean he is qualified to be the head a political party.
I hate to be the one to break it to Mr. Steele, but it is not advantageous or strategically sound for the Chairman of the Republican National Committee to sound like a typical, non-substantive liberal whinycrat.
I’m out on a limb, I know.
Not that I have ever found him particularly motivating or very effective at his job. I don’t really care for the way he’s “led” the Republican Party – especially during this time of across-the-board Democrat implosion and plummeting poll numbers.
As the Obamacracy continues to sputter, you’d think one would realize, at least in theory, that the door is wide open for the GOP.
This should be the time when a real party leader steps in and makes things happen for the party. This should be a time when a real leader picks up the ball and marches it down the field – especially when the opposition’s defense is non-existent. Outside of a two-thousand foot tall, two-million watt neon sign outside of RNC Headquarters flashing, “Hey, Republicans, This Is Your Shot!” I’m not sure how much more obvious it can be.
Unfortunately, Steele has fallen far short.
One minute he’s convinced Republicans can’t win in November, the next minute he’s saying they can – maybe, sort of.
You may recall that, according to Steele, white Republicans are afraid of him. You may also recall his inability – or reluctance – to respond when D. L. Hughley said the Republican National Convention looked like Nazi Germany. Steele sat there like a soggy Wheat Thin and let it go.
Of course, Steele, by his own admission, never ever plays the race card.
On that point, he‘s absolutely right … except, of course, when he plays the race card.
Greg Sargent at the Plum Line blog writes:
It’s been awhile since Michael Steele has landed himself in the news, but this might stir things up again: In a new interview, Steele bluntly suggests criticism of his tenure — and all the media coverage it’s garnered — may be motivated by racism.
The story, called “Up in the Air,” is in the February issue of Washingtonian magazine, and it isn’t online yet, but here’s the key passage, buried way at the end of the piece, on page 96 of the mag:
Steele acknowledges that at times he has a tendency to take things too far. “And I get checked on that, just as when I was a young boy and I pushed the envelope too far and my Mama was there to check me.”
But there’s an edge to his voice when he talks about a double standard that he believes has been applied by his critics, and he posits racism as the cause: “I don’t see stories about the internal operations of the DNC that I see about this operation. Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?”
The larger context of the story is the tension created by the fact that Steele continues to take constant criticism, despite the GOP’s undeniable gains and the likelihood of more advances in the future.
There are two ways of reading Steele’s stab at an explanation: Either Steele is suggesting the media gives more ink to the RNC’s inner workings because a black man is chairman, or he’s suggesting that fellow Republicans are leaking damaging info about the RNC because a black man is chairman.
Either way, it seems at odds with his claim back in November that he doesn’t “play the race card” or “play the race game.”
On one hand, I agree whole-heartedly with the assertion that liberals are far more obsessed with race than conservatives. It is demonstrably so. And perhaps there is some truth in the notion that the left-leaning mainstream media pays a little extra attention to Steele because he’s black. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit. The media is always looking to pounce on right-leaning blacks for any sign that their “blackness” is inauthentic.
But Steele has been such a stunning disappointment to conservatives, and has shoved his foot in his mouth so many times, my initial reaction to all of this is to tell him (respectfully) to shut up, step aside, and allow a real leader to step in.
Incompetence is color blind.
Many of us on the right are disgruntled with him because he is bad. Not black.
Besides, Mr. Steele leaves himself open to easy pot shots. If criticisms of him are based on his color, as he suggests, Steele loses a whole lot of credibility when he says that criticisms of Barack Obama are not.
It makes our side look like Democrats.
Posted in Racism, Republican Politics | Tagged: "conservative blog", Michael Steele, race card, Racism, Republican National Committee Chairman, RNC | 4 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 22, 2010
I can sum this up in short order.
Not that anything I say will make any difference to my leftist brethren, mind you. (I don’t expect it to). I’m a conservative, so any policy position I support will confirm in the suspicious minds of the tolerant class that I am motivated by sinister motives.
Because true compassion is not possible from a conservative – only conniving manipulations devised to feed fat cat wallets at the expense of the everyday American – I am to be considered any one (if not all) of the following: homophone, xenophobe, sexist, racist, intolerant and bigoted. (Thank you Dennis Prager for the list).
What else could explain it?
Only embittered, child-eating, puppy punching, gun-wielding, Neanderthal beasts who enjoy putting butterflies in the microwave to watch them explode, or feed Alka Seltzer tablets to baby ducks, can really support conservative positions. It’s simply not possible to support such things as traditional marriage, gun ownership and less-intrusive government without being an intolerant, knuckle-dragging troglodyte.
Well, to the best of my ability, I’ll make this catastrophically simple so even a caveman can understand it … or a liberal.
I am tremendously confident that I speak for the overwhelming vast majority of conservatives when I say that those of us who are proponents of a strong immigration policy (i.e., a strong anti-illegal alien policy) couldn’t care less about the skin tones, ethnicities or ancestral origins of the infiltrators.
Not a damn thing.
Do you hear?
Naturally, I can hear the screeching Leftocrat class call me a liar, pointing their fingers, proclaiming that folks like me would rather see illegal alien babies rotting in the gutters of our American cities than fork out any more tax dollars to feed them, clothe them and give them, at the very least, some old newspapers to wrap up in to stay warm.
Lib perceptions of how Conservatives think can be summed up in what Howard Dean famously said in 2005: “Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans’, is we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”
Dean must’ve had someone well-disguised sneak into one of our meetings, because I’m not sure how he found out. It’s only a matter of time before the Dems find out about our “My Little Swastika” line of stuffed animals and snack cakes.
I’ve said this before, and I will say it until I am Massachusetts-blue in the face: There is nothing less relevant to me than one’s race or ethnicity.
But that’s not what some of the big boys on the Left believe.
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, the genius behind the Daily Kos, truly believes, for instance, that because we on the right are for securing our borders and cracking down on illegals, we obviously “hate brown people.”
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, a Democratic strategist and founder of the left-wing blog “The Daily Kos,” told reporters Thursday that “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation sponsored by Rep. Luiz Gutierrez (D-Ill.) — which would provide a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal aliens — has a good shot at passage this year.
But Moulitsas said that “teabaggers” and Republicans who “hate brown people” would try to push back against it.
“I think the votes want to be there in the Senate — I think the House is fairly solid — I think the votes want to be there,” he said of an immigration bill’s chances, “but you have this growing ‘teabagger’ movement that is going to be pushing very hard from the other side.”
There’s that word again … “teabagger.”
Not that the word is meant in the pejorative sense or anything.
He and Roger Ebert ought to play mahjong.
The fact is, the people who come into America illegally from the country south of the Rio Grande could be pasty, white-skinned, blonde-haired, hazel-eyed English-speakers who look like they just came from summer camp in the North of Ireland, and conservatives like me would still feel the same exact way about them – that they have no business being here, and they need to go about the process of entering (and eventually staying) in the country legally. It has absolutely nothing to do with “hating brown people.”
It’s about national security, economic stability, controlling crime, and making America a better place for her citizens and those who wish to come here the right way.
My Lord, can liberals ever get off the race and ethnicity thing?
Incidentally, there already exists a “pathway to citizenship” … the same one my ancestors followed: the law.
Posted in illegal immigration, Racism, Values | Tagged: "conservative blog", conservative bigotry, Daily Kos, illeagal aliens, illegal immigration, Racism, teabaggers | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 16, 2010
The horrific scenes of chaos and destruction coming from Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake are as disturbing as any I’ve seen a long time. The country has descended into total bedlam. Reports of violent gangs running wild are abundant. Grizzly accounts of corpses lining the streets as far as the eye can see have become commonplace. No one knows who is in charge. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people are in immediate need of assistance, unable to get the help they require.
Words like “catastrophe” and “unspeakable” fall short.
The humanitarian response has been overwhelming. But the airport there is small and dangerously congested. There are at least a dozen airplanes full of supplies sitting on the tarmac with many more waiting on the grass with nowhere to go. There is no reliably functioning communications system and no real idea on how to coordinate the distribution of badly needed supplies.
The people of Haiti are desperate. It is difficult to imagine the situation there getting any worse.
My heart is breaking.
But imagine for a moment a Republican was in the White House. Imagine George W. Bush being the Chief Executive while the enormous difficulties in getting relief to Haiti’s beleaguered citizens were taking place. (Hint: Think about how the Left reacted to President Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina).
Talk show host Mark Levin – the Great One – on his radio program Friday evening put it this way:
It needs to be said, and you know it … If Ronald Reagan were President, or Richard Nixon, or Gerald Ford, or either of the Bushes, this would be an issue of race and politics … It would be said we’re not doing enough, no matter how much we do, no matter how difficult the circumstances, it would be said we’re not doing enough; it would be politicized; it would be called racism, because that’s exactly what happened with (Hurricane) Katrina.
No matter how much supplies we sent, no matter how much military went down there, it never mattered. And Bush, foolishly, apologized. And he’s still attacked for it.
Meanwhile, in Haiti – before we know exactly what’s going on down there – we’re told that the job we’re doing is terrific.
Well, let me say this … the men and women who are actually doing the work are terrific. But why is it that if supplies are stuck at the airport, that’s not Obama’s fault, but it would have been Bush’s fault?
I’ll tell you why.
Because the media in this country is so bastardized that they will take facts and twist them any way they wish to. And we’ll be told to focus –and focus only – on the desperate condition of the Haitians. Fair enough. But during Katrina, half the focus was on politics was it not?
I don’t hear Charles Rangel, or John Conyers, or Jesse Jackson, or Not-so Sharpton. I don’t hear them. I don’t see the liberal media, the anchors, going on and on about the failures of American assistance and leadership at the top.
And you won’t.
And I might add, you shouldn’t.
After Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast, it was utterly reprehensible to hear many claim that George W. Bush’s supposed laxidasical response had anything to do with the fact that predominantly black areas of New Orleans were hit particularly hard. Bush didn’t just react slowly to the tragedy, they groaned; it was his prejudism against blacks that caused more damage and loss of life than there needed to be. He simply didn’t respond with the same urgency he would have afforded primarily white populations, they exclaimed.
Remember that load of steaming excrement?
One positive to come out of all this is the fact that it may be much easier now to predict when an earthquake is on the way.
Check the thermostat.
Actor Danny Glover – activist, certifiable idiot – says that the Haitian earthquake was the result of man’s inability to deal with global warming … or climate change … or whatever it’s being called this month.
It must’ve been one of the six remaining polar bears known to still exist falling off one of those breakaway blocks of melting ice in the Arctic, hitting the rapidly warming waters with such ferocity that it set off a chain reaction that (naturally) led to the shifting of the earth’s tectonic plates.
Posted in Democrats, global climate change, Global Warming, Natural Disaster, politics, Racism | Tagged: "Double standard", Danny Glover, earthquake, George W. Bush, Haiti, Huricane Katrina, politics, race, Racism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 12, 2010
Georgetown Professor Michael Dyson on MSNBC
This has been some post-racial era since the dawn of the Messianic Age, hasn’t it? The topic of race relevancy was supposed to (finally) be an archaic one – or at least one that simply wasn’t going to matter nearly as much anymore – where the significance of American skin tone was going to be irrelevant; where character would finally triumph over color.
The long-desired colorblind American society would, at long last, be upon us once Barack Obama hit the White House and started transforming things – and if, after saving America (and the world) by his mere presence there still existed a surplus of disunity in the country, it could then be rightfully blamed on stubborn conservative racists unwilling to meet the future.
Remember, Obama’s election was “historic,” “groundbreaking,” “game-changing” and whatever other blah-blah-blahs were tendered by the orgasmic media. A new era of understanding, universal love, snuggly puppies and big fat hugs was being ushered in, despite a significant portion of America’s population unwilling to let go of its racist, unjust, slave-owning, prejudice, exploitative past. During the campaign season, news outlets opted to pay minimal attention to Barack Obama’s actual message, choosing instead to latch on to his wonderful sounding platitudes, treating each word he uttered as if it had never before been heard by human beings. They didn’t bother to focus too much on his history (what little we were able to learn), or on his glaring lack of experience (unlike the detailed scrutiny given Sarah Palin). Instead, the media made the 2008 Presidential election all about his skin color – and that alone became the message: he’s black, vote for him, love him, let him take care of things.
It was left’s finest hour.
Barack Obama’s “blackness” made a whole bunch of things okay that probably would have been subjected to far more scrutiny had he been anyone else: an association with a known terrorist, having an anti-American race-baiter for a spiritual mentor, his unambiguous support of redistributing wealth, etc.
After Obama’s election, instead of race issues finally becoming the promised societal dinosaurs they deserve to be, the indomitable crusaders of the left sprung into action, hell-bent on seeking out and proving that racism still existed in this country, lest their own existences be rendered meaningless. In short order, as many had predicted, it became perfectly legitimate to conclude that racism played some of sort of role when one stood up to disagree with Barack Obama. Indeed, in the minds of many, to oppose him was to oppose the election of a black man. Democrat after Democrat told us so.
One thing is clear … Democrats are obsessed with race.
Whether it was Hillary Clinton talking about Ghandi running a gas station in St. Louis, Joe Biden commenting on how “storybook” it was that Barack Obama – a black man – was so clean and articulate, or Sonia Sotomayor talking about the superior judgment capacity of Latinas over whites, Democrats have been no strangers to foot-in-mouth disease. They get away with far more than any conservative ever could because the media presumes to know what exists in the hearts of Democrats – and to liberals, nothing matters more.
Their intentions are good, and that is the bottom line as far as the media is concerned.
Personally, I couldn’t care less what is in a politician’s heart. I don’t care what he or she thinks, and I certainly don’t care what they say in private. I care only about their public actions and statements – not their private ones (unless, obviously, they are breaking the law or are plotting to do so). I care about the deeds of people, not what may or may not be buried in their hearts. Their feelings may matter on a micro level, but on a macro level, their feelings are irrelevant to me.
Let’s say, for instance, a man privately wrestles with feelings of anti-Semitism, for whatever reason. If that man, conflicted as he may be, still manages to do good works that benefit the Jewish community – charity work, for instance – then his feelings are as irrelevant to me as his skin color, his favorite song or what toothpaste he uses. I don’t care. Neither do those in need. His deeds are what matters. Isn’t it more desirable to have someone who may be struggling with their faith or their prejudices doing good for others than to have someone who espouses togetherness and harmony doing nothing? I believe this with ever fiber of my being. As a Jew, it doesn’t matter to me what someone thinks. I care what they do.
Let God deal with what exists in a man’s heart.
What makes people good is their ability to weigh thoughts and feelings privately, whatever they may be, and to ultimately choose to do the right thing. Human beings, indeed, are entitled to their private thoughts and feelings, but they are not entitled to act on those feelings.
In this country, with such travesties as “hate crimes” on the books, private thought is being taken into account where it has no business being. The notion that someone’s feelings can lead to harsher penalties for a crime that is already wrong is outrageous.
By the same token, that someone can say something so disgraceful and contemptible – and get away with it – simply because the media presumes to know what is in one’s heart is indicative of a dangerous trend.
In an appearance yesterday on MSNBC, Georgetown Professor Michael Eric Dyson had the following exchange with the anchor woman (whose name is unknown to me at the time of this posting):
Professor Dyson: Let me tell you this: We should push the President. This President runs from race like a black man runs from a cop. What we have to do is ask Mr. Obama to stand up and use his bully pulpit to help us. He is loathe to speak about race … As a result of that, his disinclination to speak about race means that he won’t even take this teachable moment to help America understand. He shouldn’t do that as a black man, by the way. He should do that because he’s President of the United States of America.
MSNBC anchor: We’re out of time, and I certainly appreciate it, but Professor Dyson, I will have to ask you: Are you going to apologize now for saying that the President runs like a black man from the cops, or are you sticking by that one?
Professor Dyson: I’m sticking by that because the brother runs very well, and he’s running like a brother running from a cop.”
I must give credit where credit is due to the anchor; at least she recognized that the professor’s eyebrow raising comments were, at the very least, worthy of revisiting before ending the segment.
But if, according to Dyson, the President needs to “take this teachable moment” (referring to the now infamous remarks made by Harry Reid) and “help America understand” what is going on – not as a black man, but as Chief Executive – then why was was it necessary to use the “black man running from the cops” metaphor? Why call him a “brother” who “runs very well“?
This is what passes for intellectual discourse at the university level?
“A brother who runs very well“?!
Are you kidding me?
If a white man were President, and Harry Reid made the same sort of comments regarding a high-ranking black politician, would anyone say that the President was like a black man running from the cops?
The fact that such a comment would be made at all demonstrates which side remains obsessed with skin color.
Posted in American culture, Harry Reid, Media Bias, Racism | Tagged: "black man running from the cops", Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Michael Eric Dyson, MSNBC, Racism, racist remarks | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 11, 2010
It isn’t that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn’t a bungling, incompetent excuse for a public servant.
It isn’t as if he hasn’t put his foot in his mouth so many times that he assuredly suffers from athlete’s gum.
It isn’t as if conservatives cannot set their watches to the next asinine comment Harry Reid will make.
No, I don’t think Harry Reid is any more or less racist than your average, garden-variety, race-obsessed modern liberal. His comments, published in a new book by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin called Game Change – private comments when they were uttered, incidentally – in which Reid referred to then-Senator Barack Obama as “a light skinned” black man “with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one” may have been ill-phrased and a “poor choice of words,” as Reid himself admitted over the weekend, but that isn’t the real issue here. (Isn’t President Obama’s mother white?)
People can choose to waste their time pretending to be outraged over the word “negro,” if they choose – and maybe some are. My grandfather used the word “colored” until the day he died, and he was one of the least racist people I ever knew. I truly don’t believe Reid is a racist – not in the white-hooded sense of the word. He may be a grandiose political joke in almost every sense of the word, but he’s not a cross-burning racist. His uneven talcum powder voice, scraggly mannerism and inability to speak rationally about anything is already enough to warrant his plummeting poll numbers. This latest boner only throws a few cherries onto an already monstrous sundae of idiocy and ineptitude.
The fact is, almost all Democrats are obsessed with race. Why should this be any sort of revelation? The outrage really should exist in how liberals are constantly portrayed as being race-blind when they clearly aren’t. No one brings up race, filters things through the prism of race, or creates policies based on race like liberals.
It isn’t even close.
The real issue is how this Reid thing is being handled by the mainstream media. The in-your-face double standard being applied here is as obvious as a nipple at a belly-button convention. Harry Reid is being given every pass in the world – and then some. Democrats from every nook and cranny of the political muffin are coming out in defense of this wretched little rube with offerings of forgiveness – something that would never have been afforded any Republican had one said anything remotely resembling Reid’s comments.
Outraged liberals are nowhere to be found.
Where are the Democrat calls for his removal from the Senate?
Where is the NAACP?
Where is Maureen Dowd? Is there a man-hating vacation retreat somewhere that she has yet to return from? Maybe she doesn’t have the ability to see dead people, but what about that amazing talent of hers to hear the word “boy” after political commentary? (Maybe it only works when Republicans speak).
I wonder … Does the name Trent Lott ring a bell?
Even the contemptible race-baiter Al Sharpton let Reid slide, saying:
While there is no question that Senator Reid did not select the best word choice in this instance, these comments should not distract America from its continued focus on securing healthcare or creating jobs for its people. Nor should they detract from the unquestionable leadership role Senator Reid has played on these issues or in the area of civil rights. Senator Reid’s door has always been open on hearing from the civil rights community on these issues and I look forward to continue to work with Senator Reid wherever possible to improve the lives of Americans everywhere.
More disturbing than the mainstream media’s default position to snuggle up close to Democrats in peril is their even more mystifying reflex to call upon the always-disgusting and morally reprehensible Al Sharpton whenever something “black” makes the news. If someone somewhere says anything that could even be perceived to be disparaging to people with melanin-rich skin, all eyes in the mainstream media instinctively turn to the race hustler, Al Sharpton – the arbiter of all things “black” (or “negro,” for those who speak Reid) – to see what he thinks.
Next to trying to figure out why Keanu Reeves is a movie star, there is nothing more perplexing.
That this whole thing is America’s lead story is, perhaps, more pitiful than anything else.
Posted in Harry Reid, Racism | Tagged: "light skinned black", "Negro dialect", Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Democrats, Harry Reid, Racism, racist | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 10, 2009
Roland Martin and Michael Steele
There’s no question about it; when anyone in the public eye (particularly politics) decides they’re going to take a page from the “Idiot’s Guide to Being a Monumental Idiot” and break out the brutally tattered but always readily available race card, I’m all over it. I’ve littered this blog with endless examples of liberals (and other children) making melanin an issue of absurd importance. From Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman, when someone goes racial, I make mention of it. As a conservative, if there is anything less significant to me in the grand scheme of things than the color of someone’s skin, I’ve yet to find it.
The grooming habits of eleventh century Byzantines hold more relevance for me.
Thus, in the name of intellectual honesty (and fairness), when someone on “my side” of the aisle says asinine things – particularly when it comes to matters of race – I am obliged to shine a light on it and crack some GOP skulls.
Enter the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele – who apparently believes that white Republicans are afraid of blacks. Or afraid of him, specifically.
He said so while speaking with Roland Martin on TV One’s Washington Watch over the weekend.
Here was the exchange:
Martin: But your candidates got to talk to them. One of the criticisms I’ve always had is Republicans — white Republicans — have been scared of black folks.
Steele: You’re absolutely right. I mean I’ve been in the room and they’ve been scared of me. I’m like, “I’m on your side,” you know, so I can imagine going out there and talking to someone like you, you know, who [says] “I’ll listen.” And they’re like “Well.” You know, let me tell you. You saw in Christie and you saw in McDonnell a door open because they went in and engaged. McDonnell was very deliberate about spending…
Steele: I mean, Sheila Johnson was on his team. I mean, that was a big deal. That’s because he engaged her and she helped navigate him through that relationship.
Enlightening – in a narcissistic, unproductive, neanderthal sort of way.
So, if I’m to understand … Michael Steel has actually been in the room with “them?”
And he knows “they’ve” been scared of him?
How exactly could he tell?
They were already white, so what other indications were there?
Did they walk on the other side of the room when they saw him coming?
Most importantly, how on God’s green earth is it good for the Republican Party to have its own chairman dump on his fellow party members the moment he hits a forum hosted by a liberal’s liberal like Roland Martin? Why would he so effortlessly throw members of his own team under the bus? Because the “shoot-your-own-when-in-the-enemy-is-looking” approach worked so well for John McCain? Because making liberals salivate by feeding their archaic perceptions of Republicans helps the party grow?
Mr. Steele, I can assure you … neither I nor my fellow conservatives are “afraid” of you because you’re black. Or because we may be white. Or because you sounded almost tweenish with your multiple use of the word “like.”
What we are afraid of is you may not be the right man for this job. Period.
Bad move, Michael.
Dumb move, Steele.
Posted in politics, Racism, Republican Politics | Tagged: Michael Steele, Racism, RNC Chairman, Roland Martin, TV One, whites scared of Michael Steel | 5 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 17, 2009
NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell
Readers of Roman Around know that I’ve no need to resort to the use of profanity here, and save for a few occasions in which I’ve opted to quote someone else, I have deliberately avoided it. I assure you, I am no prude, and I certainly don’t say this from a position of superiority or righteousness. I do not begrudge any of my colleagues in the blogosphere who do (including some I respect immensely). It’s simply a choice I’ve made for this blog.
Primarily because I find it beneficial to elevate language whenever possible. Yes, I am wont to have a little fun with words now and again, but as a rule, I find wanton profanity polluting and wholly unnecessary – particularly in a world where competing ideologies and value sets can get explosive.
I don’t even allow replies with profanity to be posted here. If there is a point to be made in response to something I’ve written, I trust it can be made without having to resort to vulgarity.
If it cannot, then I invite the reader to go elsewhere.
Indeed, a case can be made that there is a time and place for profane language – like in a movie, or when listening to Senator Chuck Schumer speak.
However, there are times – rare occasions – when the inclusion of profanity and epithets on this blog become a necessary evil to illustrate critical points.
(Uh oh, says the audience … What am I trying to say here?)
Here’s my point:
The common criticism – the underlying theme – in the tsunami of anti-Rush Limbaugh rhetoric that has flooded the mainstream media in recent days has been Limbaugh’s (supposed) insensitivity and divisiveness. His bid to be a minority owner of the St. Louis Rams football team actually offended and outraged many.
Limbaugh has no place in the National Football league, his enemies have said. He is simply is not good for professional football, his detractors have argued. He would not project the right image or uphold the league’s high standards, his opponents have claimed.
At Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood site, blogger “Stage Right” exposes hypocrisy at its double-standard ugliest:
And now a word from an NFL owner:
“And the game done chose me to bring pain to niggas and pussy holes, they one in the same.” – I’m Real, co-written by Jennifer Lopez, minority owner of the Miami Dolphins.
Sensationally crude, I know.
(My sincere apologies)
But in light of the brutal beating Limbaugh has taken in the media for things he never said or did, such eloquence and lyrical vivacity bear repeating in order to emphasize the point: “Niggas and pussy holes.”
Isn’t it delightful?
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you that grandiloquent wordsmith – and minority owner of the Miami Dolphins – Jennifer Lopez.
As “Stage Right” explains:
Jennifer Lopez, whose Sondheim-like lyric genius is on display at the top of this post, holds the same status with the Miami Dolphins as Limbaugh would have with the Rams. And, not only does she have co-writer credit on this offensive drivel, she also recorded and performed it live. She continues to earn money in royalties for her genius use of the “N-Word.” My guess is that those who took issue with Limbaugh’s imaginary racial slur are OK with J-Lo’s actual racial slur because she looks a lot better in tight pants.
Although Limbaugh has slimmed down considerably in recent months, I’ll concede the point and give the nod to Lopez in the “looks-better-from-behind” department. However, distinguishing between that which is excreted from that shapely backside of hers and the filth coming from her mouth is no easy task.
(My apologies once again).
Remember, liberal bigotry unifies.
Compare Lopez’s lyrics with these words that actually did come from Limbaugh’s mouth:
When we (conservatives) look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don’t think that person doesn’t have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.
We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals.
How dare he say that he wants every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. How dare he see Americans as human beings. Perhaps if he saw them as “niggas” and “pussy holes,” he’d have been accepted by the standard bearers of professional football.
Stage Right at Big Hollywood continues:
Meanwhile, another minority owner of the Dolphins has some controversial issues with public statements as well. Recently, Dolphins minority owner Serena Williams broke quite a few FCC laws by letting loose an “F-word” filled tirade on live television during the US Open. Then she menacingly threatened a side judge and was subsequently disqualified. This kind of behavior and speech seems to be right in line with the NFL’s standards since I missed the press conference from Commissioner Roger Goodell condemning it.
Self control personified.
If only the coffers of Medicare and Medicaid could have been fortified with one dollar for each use of the F-word in Serena’s nationally televised snit; President Obama could have then focused on his pursuit of the Nobel Prize in Physiology instead of health care reform.
Finally, we get to Fergie, some-time member of the Black Eyed Peas and some-time solo artist. You betcha, she has also been approved as a minority owner of the Miami Dolphins.
Earlier this week, Goodell said of Limbaugh’s potential ownership, “Divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about.” Is he splitting hairs between “comments” and “lyrics?” Because these lyrics from a 2003 Black Eyed Peas song sounds pretty divisive to me:
Overseas, yeah, we try to stop terrorism
But we still got terrorists here livin’
In the USA, the big CIA …
A war is goin’ on but the reason’s undercover
The truth is kept secret, it’s swept under the rug
Nothing like accusing the CIA of terrorism and our government of lying to bring people together.
Goodell also said, “We’re all held to a high standard here.”
Really? Does this meet his high standard?
Whatcha gonna do with all that junk
All that junk inside your trunk
I’ma get get get get you drunk
Get you love drunk off my hump
My hump my hump my hump my hump my hump
My hump my hump my hump my lovely little lumps
How about drinking so much that you wet your pants, mid-song, on stage, in front of a live audience?
Where, pray tell, is the contingent of outraged football players on this one? And who will summon the courage to comment on the divisivness of accepting a member of a musical group that accuses the CIA of terrorist activities as a minority owner?
Am I to assume the league would somehow be tarnished to have a man who doesn’t care a damn thing about skin color – and has said repeatedly that he wants everyone in the United States to succeed – as a minority owner, but somehow benefits from embracing a foul-mouthed, undisciplined, F-bomb dropping cry baby?
When can we expect a statement from Al Sharpton on the unacceptability of a non-black using the word “nigga?” (Beacuse it’s clearly okay for blacks to use that word).
Aren’t 70% of the NFL’s players offended by the diviseness of Jennifer Lopez’s use of a racial epithet?
And other adjectives too.
Update – October 17, 2009, 10:08 AM
In a column published online last evening at the Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh wrote:
The sports media elicited comments from a handful of players, none of whom I can recall ever meeting. Among other things, at least one said he would never play for a team I was involved in given my racial views. My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views?
Posted in American culture, Media Bias, Pop Culture, Racism, Rush Limbaugh, Sports | Tagged: failed bid to purchase the Rams, hypocrisy, National Football League, NFL, Roger Goodell, Rush Limbaugh, St. Louis Rams | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 16, 2009
As a public service to faithful readers of this blog, I am going to cautiously lead some of you to a place that is all at once frightening, disorienting and embarrassing. It is a place that many of you have heard about in one context or another, but one that can make even the most iron-constitutioned conservative shudder.
It isn’t pretty.
I take you deep within the chattering ranks of a leftist blog.
(Now would be the time to remove any children or frail seniors from the room).
At Think Progress, back before it was announced that Rush Limbaugh would be dropped from the group looking to purchase the St. Louis Rams football team, many of leftism’s deepest and most articulate thinkers weighed in on Limbaugh potentially becoming a part-owner in the NFL.
The best and brightest of post-racial America voiced their concerns and shared their intuitive analyses.
Not a single word has been altered, and not a single one of the screen-names has been changed to protect the pathetic.
If Rush is approved , he could change the name from Rams to the Nazis or KKK, have his own Brown Shirt Army and at half time have them drill march with swastika flags and have a KKK celebration with a burning cross at midfield. -Nellieh
When I heard that Boss Limbaugh expressed interest of buying the Rams, I had to wonder what bad pain killer did he take. Having Limbaugh buy any football team which have predominently African-American players is like having the KKK buy a football team. This would put a black eye on the NFL franchise if EL Rushbo brought the Rams. -SP Biloxi
After all, when Limbaugh told an African-American caller to “take the bone out of his nose”, he was just “commenting on race.” -Ralph the Wonder Llama
I’m sure plenty of owners have racist tendencies. The only difference is that Rush’s feelings are on the record. -Badmoodman
It would be a real hoot if after tub-o-lard shelled out all that dough and bought the team, the entire team walked out on his fat ass. -Bozo the Neo Clown
Rush couldn’t even pass the NFL’s drug abuse policy. -Kid Charlemagne
Rush just wants a bevy of team doctors to shop from. -Xisithrus
Limpballs has so thoroughly immersed himself in white-wing racism that it will be a monumental task for any team he would own to keep non-white players. Limpballs has catered to the stereotypical dumb white bozo who hates anyone non-white. -Evangenital
This is great news… After Limberger’s ego gets back into shape after finding out he can’t change the symbol on the St. Louis Cards helmets to a burning cross, and that they refused to wear white hoods under their helmets, he’ll go on a two-week rant about his being singled out for discrimination. What joke this lump is. -Winski
You folks are thinking the wrong way about Rush. He thought that, by buying the team, he was actually buying the players. He figured that this would be an end run around the 13th Amendment and that he could treat his black players like the slaves he wishes he could own. -fergus
He also fantasizes about hanging around the locker room ogling his big, strapping athletes and ordering them to do nasty things to him. -fergus
I’m not sure any additional commentary is needed here. It speaks for itself.
And keep in mind, this was but a sampling.
These are the same cerebral heaviweights who profess that if you are in favor in same-sex marriage, you must hate homosexuals. These are the same intellectual powerhouses who say that if you are opposed to affirmative action, you must hate minorities. Therefore, what other reason could there possibly be for Rush Limbaugh to want to be part-owner of a professional football team other than his desire to be able to say he effectively “owns” black men?
Meanwhile, on his radio program yesterday – just one day after being booted from the potential buyers group – Limbaugh took a few moments to speak with Ken Hutcherson, a former NFL linebacker who is now best known as the pastor of the Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Washington.
Incidentally, “The Hutch,” as Rush calls him, is black.
(It shouldn’t matter, but to the American leftocracy, nothing matters more).
Here was the exchange between Hutcherson and Limbaugh. (That’s Uncle Tom and Adolf Hitler to you lefty bloggers):
Limbaugh: Hutch, Welcome to the program.
Hutcherson: Hey, my man. I am so mad. I am doing backflips up here in Seattle. What in the world is going on in the United States? I mean, the whole issue, Rush, whether you like it or not, is they have done you wrong. And this is intolerance. It’s prejudice. And if America don’t wake up, it’s going to happen to them. I am so mad, man, I can’t even – and I’m a man of the cloth, Rush. I’m not supposed to get this upset.
Why don’t they talk to some African-Americans who know you?
Limbaugh: Oh, that would destroy the narrative. That would destroy the template.
Hutcherson: Oh, forget that. You know, and talk to some African-Americans who know the poverty pimps, Sharpton and Jackson. They’re nothing but slave sliders and pushers to get their way. And they’re going to let them have a voice on all the stuff that they’ve done? Jesse Jackson was telling Bush to, “Stay out of the bushes.” He was the one in the bushes having illegitimate kids. How in the world can the NFL – and I’m going to tell you something else, brother, straight from me, who played football – those African-American brothers who talk about they wouldn’t play? That is the biggest lie on this side of the universe. Not only would their wives get on them and make them go – and their girlfriends, and their moms – they would beat them all the way to the 50 yard line and tell them, “You better get out there and get that game check.” And why don’t they talk to the hundreds of African-American players that would be excited about you owning a team?
Limbaugh: Well, they want to present the idea that there are none, and that’s what they’ve done.
I’ll have to check the archive of Rush’s famed “ditto cam” to see if he was still wearing his minstrel paint when talking to Hutcherson.
Posted in American culture, Pop Culture, Racism, Sports | Tagged: "Think Progress", Conservatism, conservative, Ken Hutcherson, NFL, Rush Limbaugh, St. Louis Rams | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 15, 2009
contemptible, as always
Whenever the repugnant slice of human debris that is Al Sharpton declares anything a moral victory, it should be an unmistakable signal to anyone with a functioning cerebrum that taking the opposite position is the best – and ethical – course of action. So sure am I in making such an authoritative statement that I am willing to stand up on any stage, in any forum, in any location, anywhere on God’s green Earth to not only state it with conviction, but explain in impassioned detail why it is so.
Sharpton is to civil discourse what ulcerative colitis is to the large intestine. That the repulsive race-baiter Sharpton is given even a whit’s worth of credence by anyone in the mainstream media, let alone camera time and print space, indicates that white America is still very afraid of him.
It also shows that the bulk of racist Americans live and thrive on the Left.
It is they who infuse race into every nook and cranny of American life.
It is they who reject assessing their fellow human beings based on the content of their character, and instead focus like laser beams on the color of their skin.
Do the names Maureen Dowd, Charlie Rangel, Henry Louis Gates, Diane Watson, Paul Krugman, Jessie Jackson, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (among others) ring a bell?
Following Rush Limbaugh’s booting from the investment group looking to purchase the St. Louis Rams football team late Wednesday, the lying, riot-inciting, shakedown king Al Sharpton said in a statement, “It is a moral victory for all Americans — especially the players that have been unfairly castigated by Rush Limbaugh. This decision will also uphold the unifying standards of major sports.”
This statement fascinates me, because if there is anything I am obsessed with, it is the truth.
What players, pray tell, have been unfairly castigated by Limbaugh?
Who are they? What was said about them?
Are these “castigations” as provable as the malicious falsehoods spread across the internet about Limbaugh’s sympathies with James Earl Ray? Or Limbaugh’s belief that there was good that came from slavery?
Mr. Sharpton, you are a boldface liar.
I am an American, sir, and this is no moral victory for me.
Unlike Reverend Al, I do not see people in terms of race, and I do not slander those with whom I disagree.
And just where has the melanin-obsessed reverend’s moral compass been during the NFL’s ethically-challenged nine-year period dating back to the year 2000? Surely he’s aware that over 450 NFL players have been arrested since then for a veritable cavalcade of offenses, ranging from sexual assault to domestic violence to drugs.
I’d love for the slick-haired, unapologetic slanderer of innocent men to explain the moral victory in keeping someone like Leonard Little in the National Football league. Remember him? Eleven years ago, he killed a 47-year old mother of two while driving drunk. Where was Sharpton on behalf of the innocent back then? Where was Sharpton’s deep concern for the “unifying standards of major sports” then? And where was he when Mr. Little found himself arrested yet again for drunk driving six years after that?
Sharpton went on to say that major sports leagues like the NFL shouldn’t welcome owners who are “divisive and incendiary.”
Divisive and incendiary?
Kettle, meet pot.
And yet, Rush Limbaugh – who hasn’t a racist bone in his body, and adores the game of football – is a moral threat to the National Football League?
Rush Limbaugh is somehow more intolerable than convicted felons?
Excuse me, have I slipped through a crack in the space-time continuum?
Do the names Dante Stallworth, Adam Jones, Plaxico Burress, Michael Vick and Travis Henry ring a bell for the adjudicator of all that is morally sound and ethically conscious, Al Sharpton?
This isn’t an issue of race. It’s an issue of values.
By all means, let the scrupulously upright powers-that-be in the National Football League (and those outsiders who influence it and shake it down) crucify Rush Limbaugh and stand in the way of his free-market right to invest in a team that can use all the help it can get, but let’s be sure bona fide criminals are afforded infinite chances to play the game.
Do the words “upside down world” mean anything?
Please don’t misunderstand me.
League owners, players and observers can certainly hold any opinion they wish regarding Rush Limbaugh. The NFL is well within its rights to deny Limbaugh the opportunity to invest in one of its teams as a minority partner.
However, all credibility within the ranks of the anti-Limbaugh brigades is shattered as they squawk about what’s good and bad for a league that accomodates thug players with no regard for decency and the law. It is laughable to hear these people portray Rush as being the worst thing that could ever happen to the game because of things he never said or did while common criminals are accepted and embraced as heroes.
How about a little moral clarity?
Moral victory, my ass.
Posted in Ethics, Racism, Sports, Talk-Radio, Values | Tagged: Al Sharpton, Conservatism, conservative, race-baiter, race-baiting, Racism, Rush Limbaugh, St. Louis Rams | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on October 14, 2009
Did you know that Elvis Presley was not only seen at the Payless Shoe Source on North Avalon Street in Memphis, but he is contemplating a state senate run as an Independent? I know this is so because I read it on the internet.
Were you also aware that only two days before Michael Jackson died, both Madonna and Dick Cheney were seen tinkering with the gas meter outside of Jackson’s California home? I know this is so because I read it on the internet.
And have you read about the latest evidence that proves Desi Arnaz had a role in the murder of John Lennon? I know this is so because I read it on the internet.
So then, how does a Pulitzer Prize winning jouranalist and Professor of Journalism at Hunter College in New York – a professor, mind you – verify the accuracy of an allegation regarding a well-known celebrity? How exactly, in the name of professionalism and integrity, does she get all of her journalistic ducks in a row before speaking publicly on a highly controversial subject? How does that professor, who has presumably spent her entire professional life in the realm of investigating the unknown, conveying the news, uncovering the truth, and mentoring those who wish to forge their professional paths in the fields of objective and opinion journalism, go about getting to the bottom of something that is causing such a stir?
She googles, of course.
Such is the case with Karen Hunter.
Indeed, she is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, a successful author, and a teacher of Journalism, among other accomplishments.
But she is not too happy that talk show host Rush Limbaugh is interested in becoming part owner of the St. Louis Rams football team. In fact, her discontentment with Limbaugh’s bid – according to her – is based, in part, on negative things she found about him on the internet.
During a segment on MSNBC yesterday afternoon, Hunter – the obvious choice for a discussion of football ownership (author of such dazzling titles as “Pimpology: The 48 Laws Of the Game” and “On the Down Low: A Journey Into the Lives of “Straight” Black Men Who Sleep With Men”) – showed the nation why her journalistic prowess is in such high demand.
I can just see the visions of plantation grandeur dancing in (Limbaugh’s) head as we speak. Yeah, it doesn’t make you a racist to want to own a team. But, it does kind of with all his history question his power position over these players who make millions of dollars and his ability to be able to move them around, deny them contracts and do whatever he wants willy-nilly. It’s the ultimate power position to be an owner of an NFL team.
If that phrase alone – coming from the mouth of an allegedly well-read, well-spoken, highly-respected journalist – does not summon the gastric secretions to bubble up into your throat, you need to have your decency meter re-calibrated.
What in the name of Sam Hill is she talking about?
Moving people around and denying players contracts are what all owners in the National Football League do, Professor Hunter.
And yes, there are plenty of conservative white owners in the National Football League – and they all have a large number of black athletes working for them.
My Lord, do knee-jerk, victimization-happy liberals ever listen to the things they say?
But hold on … that was not the sweetest plum to come from the intellectual tree of the Pimpology Queen.
Hunter went on to say:
You even put up two of the statements he said about the NFL looking like the Crips and the Bloods. He even said that Dr. Martin Luther King, his killer, James Earl Ray should have a medal given to him, a medal of honor. He says, ‘We miss you, James.’ You can go online as to the top 10 Rush Limbaugh racist comments.”
Is there anything else that needs to be said?
“You can go online …” she says.
Such rectitude. Such honor.
Incidentally, I happened to read online that Karen Hunter did not author her own books, and instead hired a twenty-one year old white girl to do the job, so it must be true.
I also read online that she had a torrid affair with a West African man who made his fortune in the sex slave trade, so it must be accurate.
I’m still a bit sketchy as to whether or not the reports of her transexuality are true, but I’ve read it enough times on the internet to believe there must be some truth in it.
The fact is, if Limbaugh had even come close to ever saying the reprehensible things that are being attributed to him by his enemies, it would have, by now, seen more reprintings than the King James version of the Bible. And because there are liberals who are actually paid to sit down, record, and take out of context every word that comes from his lips, the sound bites extracted from such despicable commentary would have been played and replayed incessantly via every news outlet this side of his golden EIB microphone.
There can be no doubt about that.
Talk show host Dennis Prager, never one to resort to name calling – and one of the most cordial and civil talk show hosts in the country – announced today that he will begin referring to MSNBC as M-Sewer-N-B-C until “they apologize and do right after this. It is now, in my mind, the ‘Sewer Network.'”
For me, MSNBC became permanently gutter worthy the day Keith Olbermann accused talk show host Michael Medved of endorsing and supporting American slavery.
By the way, as far the “ultimate power position” is concerned, I wonder if Karen Hunter has ever heard of Barack H. Obama?
Update October 14, 2009 – 6:57 PM
Mark Levin, on his radio program, had a great line just a few moments ago in reference to Karen Hunter.
He said, “They’ll give a Pulitzer Prize to anyone. The next thing you know, they’ll give Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize.”
Posted in Liberalism, Racism, Sports | Tagged: Conservatism, conservative, Karen Hunter, Racism, Rush Limbaugh, St. Louis Rams | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 25, 2009
From the folks who brought you such timeless classics as, “Race Doesn’t Matter” and “Let Us Judge By The Content Of One’s Character Rather Than The Color Of One’s Skin” comes the latest barrier-breaking, bigotry-busting, everyone-is-equal initiative – this time from the Tucson Arizona Unified School District. Taken directly out of the “Poor Baby, He’s Black And Cannot Read” file – which rests along side the “Poor Baby, He’s Spanish; No Wonder He’s In A Gang” file – is the latest and greatest guideline for student discipline to come along since the paddle.
In short, if one is either black (a racial designation) or Hispanic (a cultural designation), then his or her measure of discipline is likely going to be different from their Caucasian school mates. It is – to quote supporters – a restorative system.
The bottom line is … there will be one set of standards for blacks and Hispanics, and one for “everyone else.”
Drew Zahn of World Net daily writes:
Arizona Republic columnist Doug MacEachern drew attention to a decision made by the Tucson Unified School District’s board over the summer to adopt a “Post-Unitary Status Plan,” which includes the goal of reducing suspensions and expulsions of minority students to reflect “no ethnic/racial disparities.”
“TUSD principals and disciplinarians (assuming such creatures still exist) are being asked to set two standards of behavior for their students,” MacEachern commented. “Some behavior will be met with strict penalties; some will not. It all depends on the color of the student’s skin.”
MacEachern’s column quoted a section of the board’s 52-page plan titled “Restorative School Culture and Climate,” subhead, “Discipline”:
“School data that show disparities in suspension/expulsion rates will be examined in detail for root causes,” the new policy states. “Special attention will be dedicated to data regarding African-American and Hispanic students.”
The board also created an “Equity Team” to ensure “a commitment to social justice for all students.”
“The happy-face edu-speak notwithstanding, what the Tucson Unified School District board of governors has approved this summer is a race-based system of discipline,” MacEachern concluded. “Offenses by students will be judged, and penalties meted out, depending on the student’s hue.”
School officials, however, have both refuted MacEachern’s description of the policy as “two-tiered” and argued that the new guidelines will only help correct racial inequalities that already exist in the system.
An “Equity Team?”
Lord, help me.
If you are not shaking your head, check with your physician. Your hinge may be rusted.
What kind of socially destructive, race-obsessed, dangerous poppycock is this? Where on earth do these overpaid, hyper-sensitive, university-educated social relics with no real answers to real problems come up with these asinine ideas? How is it that people who are supposed to be serious adults, charged with the task of educating and molding our children into functioning members of a civil society, come up with such counterproductive, preposterous notions of how to deal with the so-called “inequities” that exist among students of different cultures and races? How in the world can anyone anywhere think this actually makes any kind of sense?
Above all, what message does this send to non-whites?
Try, “We’re not good enough to meet the standards of Caucasions, so it’s up to guilty whites with power to treat us extra special.”
Try, “I can get away with more because I do not meet – and can never exceed – the standards of people who are paler than I.”
The board’s report includes statistics that while American Indian students make up only 4 percent of the student body, they account for 20 percent of the suspensions across the district. And while black students only make up 7 percent of the student body, they account for 16.3 percent of out-of-school suspensions.
(TUSD Governing Board member Adelita) Grijalva also told the Star that administrators have had too much discretion over the years to give some kids a pass while throwing the book at others; and since the majority of teachers are white, they might not understand cultural differences.
“This will allow us to look at the situation with a bigger lens,” she said, “and I am 100 percent supportive of it.”
Think of the logic here …
If, for example, the majority of holdups in New York Cityare perpetrated by blacks, and if the definition of a holdup is changed to include only those heists that involve $200 or more, there will be – by definition – a sudden a drop in the number of black thieves. To leftists, the problem is thus solved. Everything is cool. The negative stigma has been removed. The heartless, compassionless, racially insensitive standard has been relaxed.
Keep in mind that the value set of the criminal that led to the thievery is never scrutinized. That would be judgemental.
Second, this gobbledygook about “cultural differences” is about as tiresome and idiotic as a Joe Biden lecture. What the hell does that really mean? Where exactly do these students come from? How is it that their cultural value sets are so different as to be so misunderstood by teachers who live in the same country as they? Are the vast majority of these students – whether they be black, Spanish, American-Indian, whatever – new to the United States? Or Western Civilization? Have they just been dropped off in America from Planet Zaytox without any sense of what is right and wrong?
Do liberals even bother to listen to the things they say?
Either theft is wrong or it is not. Either hitting another student when it is not in self-defense is wrong or it is not. Cheating is either acceptible or it is not.
Are these values unique only to White Americans? Is the effectiveness of punishment somehow synonymous with melanin levels in the skin? Or by one’s identification to his or her Spanish heritage?
Absolute mindless liberal crap.
As Michelle Malkin wrote on her blog:
I am sure Eric Holder and his racial preference-mongers (not to mention the “social justice” purveyors at Obama’s Department of Education) approve.
Is there anything less progressive than being progressive?
Posted in American culture, Education, Liberalism, Racism, Values | Tagged: "Double standard", "two-tiered form of student discipline", blacks, Hispanics, race, Race Equity Team, racial discipline, Restorative School Culture and Climate, student discipline, Tuscon Unified School District | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 22, 2009
Barry and Dave
I suppose the easiest thing would be to just call everyone involved a racist and have done with it. Unfortunately, the two players in this interesting little saga are not only black, but painfully liberal – which automatically renders the “Clarence Thomas/Uncle Tom” angle unusable.
Still, the David Paterson-Barack Obama story keeps getting better all the time.
On one side is David Paterson, the beleaguered, do-nothing, impotent, in-over-his-head, stumbling, bumbling Governor of New York. He is the man whose approval rating is often confused for his shoe size. He is the man who has already blamed a racist press for his unpopularity, despite the fact that New York is among the bluest of the blue states.
On the other sides is Barack Obama. He is the Messiah.
The story almost writes itself.
Paterson says he is still running for Governor, period. Despite reports that he was asked to drop out for the good of the Democratic Party by Obama henchmen (after saying that American black leaders, including the President, are treated unfairly by the media), Paterson has refused to throw in the towel.
Whether or not President Obama personally agrees with Paterson’s perceptions of a racially biased media doesn’t matter, nor is it particularly relevant, because almost immediately after the Governor’s comments, the White House decided that Paterson was – pardon the expression – a “black eye” on the Party and needed to go away.
After all, with so much of the national dialogue consumed with matters of race in recent times, it just wouldn’t do to have the President associated with race-baiting twaddle such as Paterson’s – especially with health care yet to nationalize and so much government yet to grow.
Hence, the request from the White House for Paterson to bow out.
Paterson predictably took offense to the White House meddling in Empire State politics, brandishing an attitude that was something akin to, “Stay the hell out of New York!“
(If Paterson was white, Maureen Dowd would have undoubtedly heard the word “boy” at the end of that sentence).
And so we begin the latest chapter of this twisted tale.
As it stands now, the New York Governor is effectively blaming Prseident Obama’s ineffectiveness as Chief Exceutive for the friction that exists between the two of them – and ultimately for Paterson’s own deficiencies.
Azi Paybarah at PolitickerNY.com writes:
Paterson chalked up Obama’s intervention to Washington politics.
“I understand the president’s concern and I understand concern of staff members at the White House. If you look at it from their perspective, they haven’t exactly been able to govern in the first year of their administration in the way that other administrations have, where you would have, theoretically, a period in which the new administration is allowed to pass the needed pieces of legislation.”
But Paterson said Obama “was gracious to me. He asked me how I was feeling” and “he expressed a little chagrin about the process in this situation.”
Paterson also said it was untrue that he had been given a “direct message from a congressman” as had been reported in the New York Times, which named Representative Gregory Meeks as the messenger.
Bam and Company are not exactly thrilled about being tied to Paterson’s failures.
I guess Governor Dave shouldn’t expect any invites to supper at the White House any time in the forseeable future.
Posted in Democrats, Liberalism, Racism | Tagged: Barack Obama, David Paterson, New York Governor, Racism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 17, 2009
Congressman Hank Johnson
“He did not help the cause of diversity and tolerance with his remarks,” said Congressman Hank Johnson about colleague Joe Wilson, “If I were a betting man, I would say that it instigated more racist sentiment.”
Tolernace is a peculiar word to use.
I would say something about the pot calling the kettle black, but I might get accused of being a Grand Wizard or something.
I don’t recall Mr. Johnson – or any of his fellow Dems – condemning anyone during the nearly eight-year cavalcade of vitriolic Bush bashing that took place prior to the Messianic Age. Where exactly was Mr. Johnson when swastikas were being substituted for the letter “s” in any number of anti-George W. Bush protest signs? Where were his thoughtful remarks after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called President Bush a liar? Where was the call for civility when former Vice President Al Gore bellowed like an angry old man returning socks at Wal Mart, screaming that Bush had betrayed this country.
I suppose Dems were just being tolerant.
If I were a betting man, I would guarantee that the overwhelming vast majority of Americans are at (or near) their breaking points, tired of this ongoing desperation game being played by panicked Democrats.
Johnson went on to say, “I guess we’ll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again, riding through the countryside intimidating people.”
Contemptibility, thy name is Hank Johnson.
Come now, Congressman, do you actually believe that people will now start sporting white hoods and uniforms? Are you serious? Do you truly think that in this day and age Ku-Klux-Klan-like bands of angry racists are going to take to the “countryside” and terrorize people? Because of two words blurted out by one congressman?
Are liberals born this way, or is it a contracted condition?
I don’t expect the mainstream media, in its infinite uselessness, to question such ignorant and embarrassing comments made by a black congressman. The fact is, from Charles Rangel to Diane Watson, when black politicians cry racism, the rest of the world is expected to take it, accept it as truth, fold up like a cheap table, and go find other racist conservatives to yak about.
But aren’t Johnson’s claims of a possible return to burning crosses and lynching at least as provocative, or worthy of at least the same media attention, as the assertion by the President that illegals would not be covered by his health care reform plan? Is there no one in the mainstream media who thinks that Mr. Johnson needs to explain himself any further? Are there no follow up questions anywhere to be asked of this man? Are journalists simply exhausted from expending all their energy and resources into covering Joe Wilson and the aftermath of his ruthless “You lie!” attack on the President?
I would ask Mr. Johnson, and every other coward who has used racism to explain away opposition to the President’s agenda, if it is possible to disagree with Obama and not be a racist? If so, what would that opposition look like or sound like?
Posted in American culture, health care, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: Congressman Hank Johnson, Hank Johnson, Joe Wilson, Racism, racist, white hoods | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 15, 2009
What is wrong with these people?
It makes no sense.
It’s almost as if those who oppose Him don’t wish to be saved. Can’t these contrarians and malcontents understand that when they cry afoul and moan about the erosions of personal liberty, they are helping to extinguish moral and economic imperatives being proposed for their own good? Can’t these rabble-rousing, tea-party drones cool it with their tiresome talk-radio inspired “personal responsibility” chatter and all that “liberty” rhetoric?
Clear-thinking reasonable citizens of the world would never oppose such a battery of forward thinking policies as we are now seeing nine months into the Messianic Age. It thus stands to reason that to be against Him is to be mired in timeworn obsoleteness. To oppose Him is to oppose all that would unify. It cannot possibly be the substance of an Obamacratic policy that causes people to take an opposing position; not when the policy in question is cut from messianic cloth. It can only be the myopic citizenry wallowing in their antiquated prejudices and bigotry, hell-bent on stifling an uppity black man with vision. And since asking the question, “What is wrong with these people?” will never bring an answer that satisfies the disciples, there can only be one reason why there still exist those who won’t board the Obama transformation train.
His skin color.
That’s what we’re told by the most serious thinkers on the left.
Those who postulate and predicate modern liberalism are doing all they can to create new conventional wisdom – namely, that what sits at the core of the uproarious opposition to Barack Obama’s push to drop the health care delivery system on the lap of the federal government is the darkness of his skin.
It has to be, they say.
What else could it be?
Fair and open-minded people would never argue that there will be a major problem in adding thirty million people (formerly forty-seven million) to the nation’s insurance rolls while the number of physicians and nurses remains stagnant. No way. That’s race-based gobbledygook.
Rational thinkers would never question how such an expansive plan could possibly save money, as He suggests it would, even though demand would explode to astronomical proportions. No chance. To do so would be engaging in masked racism.
Level-headed policy wonks would never question Him when He says that illegal aliens would not be covered with taxpayer dollars, even though there is no provision that allows for the citizenship status of potential patients to be verified. No sir. To suggest He is being dishonest about this, as Congressman Joe Wilson did last week, is akin to burning a cross, or using the “n” word.
In short, those who stand up against the policies of Barack Obama do so because he is black.
And they hate having a black President.
So we’re told.
If it were Joe Biden (God forbid) making the same speech last Wednesday, Joe Wilson would have said nothing.
The ever-effervescent Maureen Dowd in her most recent column writes:
Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.
But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!
Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.
Dowd goes on to point out that Wilson, at one time, belonged to the Sons of the Confederacy – an offense so hanus, its equal has yet to be realized. I’m not sure exactly how much weight Ms. Dowd really puts in the past associations of elected officials, but the names Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright immediately come to mind. The organization ACORN also rings a bell.
Nowhere did the magnificent Ms. Dowd bother to mention that Mr. Wilson is also a colonel in the National Guard.
She’s silly that way.
Sports-scribbler-turned-incoherent-leftocrat Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News wrote:
This is an America where Rep. Joe Wilson, whoever he is, thinks he can call the President of the United States a liar, Wilson talking to the President the way he would the help, or some waiter who was supposed to bring him another drink.
Wilson really did sound like somebody who had been on hold for an hour, waiting to scream about socialism to Rush.
But why wouldn’t Wilson scream out the way he did? This is a time when a radio host like Mark Levin routinely refers to President Obama as “that jerk,” all in the name of liberty, of course, and the fight against tyranny. Or maybe this all just comes out of a fury that there weren’t enough screamers to keep the black guy from getting elected.
Such is the intellectual left.
Note that race magically becomes a negligible component when the likes of Ms. Dowd and Mr. Lupica, i.e., white liberals, speak out in opposition against powerful black conservatives, like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (black). Does Thomas’ “blackness” – or lack thereof as some have suggested – suddenly become irrelevant when lefties espouse criticisms of his positions? Why does no one accuse Dowd of harboring deep-seated racist inclinations when she criticizes a black who happens to be conservative? Or Lupica? Or any white on that side of the garden? Surely, they have no great love for the positions and philosophies of people like Larry Elder, J C Watts and Walter Williams. So then, when white libs criticize black conservatives, where are the “You’re not black enough, boy!” accusations?
Because race is an issue only to conservatives, even though liberals are the ones who keep bringing it up. Even the ever-affable and lovable Bill Cosby referred to Clarence Thomas as a “brother lite” not too long ago.
I suppose that when “one of them” criticizes “one of their own,” there is truth in it.
So, when columnist extraordinaire Paul Krugman takes the opposing view of conservative thinker Thomas Sowell, is it because of Sowell’s race? Shouldn’t Krugman be branded a racist by default?
How about columnist Frank Rich? Safe to say, he’s no supporter of RNC Chairman Michael Steele. If he lambastes the Republican Party in his columns (which is like saying, “if he breathes”), should those of us on the right now fit him for a white sheet and hood?
As long as guilt-ridden white people can point out how awful other white people are, with a whole lot of black people looking on, modern liberalism will never run out of nourishment.
Posted in health care, Liberalism, Media Bias, Racism | Tagged: "You lie", health care reform, Joe Wilson, Maureen Dowd, Mike Lupica, Obamacare, Racism, racists | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on September 3, 2009
New York Congressman, Charles Rangel - the Ethical One
I’m convinced; it is hard wired into the liberal brain. It is an automatic – like seeing someone talk to himself on a subway train, or that smell you get at your grandmother’s house. The reflex in libs to demonize and marginalize those with whom they disagree is involuntary. It’s like a back spasm or a reality television program – you can’t control it and it just won’t go away. As one reader of my blog noted, to even bother mentioning this phenonmena anymore is akin to breaking the news that grass is still green.
Yet, I admit to being captivated by it. It fascinates me – like an overturned truck on the side of the highway or an ever-expanding blood blister.
To the liberal mind, opposing a leftist positions can only be attributed to that which is unsavory – such as greed, prejudice or lack of compassion. There can be no other reason to want to see liberal policies fail, according to liberals. That’s because the conservative is not merely a bearer of a contrasting view; he or she is driven by sinister motives. And because only liberals really care about people, those motives must be exposed to a nation in desparate need of some good old fashioned big government healing.
Nothing soothes the boo-boo like a little liberty-raping liberalism.
Thus, if something is repeated often enough, regardless of how farcical it is, it will just blend into the nooks and crannies of conventional wisdom.
Recently, New York Governor David Paterson blamed a racist media for his failures and unpopularity. The fact that he governs – using the term loosely – a state so prevailingly blue doesn’t seem to matter. It just isn’t possible that he is inadequate. After all, he’s black. It has to be racism.
Last week Congresswoman Diane Watson – a black woman – said that those opposed to ObamaCare wanted to see a President that looked like her fail. It just isn’t possible that the idea of universal health care is a bane to Americans who are paying attention. After all, the President is black. It has to be racism.
And now, added to the simmering bouillabaisse of race-card playing intellectual lightweights is everyone’s favorite corrupt politician – a man whose integrity and ethical standing can be placed on the surface of a diminutive electron with room to spare – Congressman Charles Rangel of New York.
Carl Campanile from the New York Post writes:
Rep. Charles Rangel said Tuesday that “bias” and “prejudice” toward Obama are fueling opposition to health-care reform.
“Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is president of the United States. They go to sleep wondering, ‘How did this happen?’ ” Rangel (D-Manhattan) said Tuesday.
Speaking at a health-care forum in Washington Heights, Rangel said that when critics complain that Obama is “trying to interfere” with their lives by pushing for health-care reform, “then you know there’s just a misunderstanding, a bias, a prejudice, an emotional feeling.”
“We’re going to have to move forward notwithstanding that,” said Rangel, the powerful chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a chief health-care negotiator.
Rangel then likened the battle over health-care expansion for the uninsured to the fight for civil rights.
For all the nuance and astuteness that liberals are supposed to possess, they regularly expose themselves as nothing more than emotionally-driven wells of featherbrained fribble.
Unquestionably there is bias in the health care debate.
Shouldn’t there be?
Liberals are biased in thinking the government can ride in on a white horse and save the masses from impending doom. Conservatives are biased in thinking that decisions are best made by individuals.
Aren’t leftists, by definition, biased against conservative positions? And vice versa?
What point is supposedly being made here?
Frankly, Charles Rangel is an elitist ass.
He cannot muddle reality or redefine the terms of the game simply because he doesn’t want to accept the fact that Americans are exceedingly well-informed on the subject of ObamaCare and don’t like the idea of a government run system. Rangel and his ilk are in sheer denial that opposition to universal health care is really about defending liberty and preserving the power of the individual. His elitist instincts tell him that people really cannot be opposed to the messianic visions of health care coverage for all. Rather, it must hinge on racial prejudice – it has to.
Yes, Mr. Rangel is correct in saying that many Americans haven’t gotten over the fact that Obama won the White House – but it is not based on his blackness. (It isn’t even based on his half-whiteness). Conservatives marvel at the fact that last November nearly 53% of Americans decided on a leftist candidate with a conspicuous history of Marxist sympathies.
Do liberals ever respond to criticisms of their precious government-expanding agenda with anything that does not involve knee-jerking idiocy?
And what better way of overloading the aforementioned cultural nooks and crannies of conventional wisdom with emotional twaddle then to tie the health care debate in with the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s? After all, once you do that, how can any self-respecting, decent human being argue against Obamacare?
Critics of ObamaCare blasted Rangel for taking the low road.
“Charlie Rangel knows that race has nothing to do with the health-care debate. He should not be implying that race has anything to do with it,” said Rep. Peter King (R-LI).
State Conservative Party leader Mike Long called Rangel’s comment “outrageous and outlandish” — and suggested the congressman might be trying to deflect attention from his ethics woes.
“Rangel is playing the race card. It’s clear that the congressman is trying to galvanize the minority community that this is ‘us against them.’ It’s going to backfire. A majority of people will see through this,” Long said.
Taking a page from the Paterson, Watson and Rangel Handbook of Politics, Logic and Foot Stamping, I cannot help but ask: Since President Obama is half-white, shouldn’t half of his plan be deemed acceptable?
I suppose the IRS is racist too, demanding all those back taxes from the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Commitee, Charlie Rangel.
Posted in health care, Racism | Tagged: Charles Rangel, David Paterson, Diane Watson, government run health care, health care, Obamacare, race card, Racism, universal health care | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on August 30, 2009
Serving California’s 33rd Congressional District is Los Angeles native, Congresswoman Diane Watson. Among her other laudable attributes is not only her titillating support of Fidel Castro and his country’s exemplary health care delivery system, but her capacity to deal cards from the race deck effortlessly.
At a town-hall meeting on Thursday, Watson declared that those who oppose ObamaCare do so because they wish to see the President destroyed. As sure as there are pungent armpits in a summertime New York subway tunnel, it is no surprise to learn that the President’s skin color is the real reason. Indeed, according to Watson, the desire to see Bracak Obama’s initiatives defeated – and thus, his presidency branded a failure – comes down to good old-fashioned, let’s-break-out-the-hoods-and-matchstick racism.
From the well of incisive thought and seasoned analysis that is Diane Watson, there are two comments she made during that meeting that I’d like to dissect.
First, said Watson:
“You might have heard their philosophical leader. I think his name is Rush Limbaugh. (She pronounced it Lim-BO). And he said early on, “I hope that he fails.” Do you know what that means? If the President – your Commander-In-Chief – fails, America fails.”
To begin with, the term “philosophical leader” is about as meaningless as the words that roll off an Obama teleprompter, or a New York Mets baseball game. However, seeing as I’m in a particularly festive mood this morning, I’ll roll with it.
Rush is certainly one of conservatism’s finest “spokesmen” (for the want of a preferable phrase), but he didn’t invent conservatism. To the great dismay of liberals, leftists and other children, he happens to articulate it exceedingly well – almost as well as the “drive-by” media misinterpret, misquote and misunderstand almost everything he says. And while there is definitely a profusion of weak-kneed, mushy-in-the-middle, pseudo-conservatives who attempt to redefine conservatism by abandoning its principles for more leftward ideals, Rush does no such thing.
His “philosophy” has remained steadfast since his Sacramento radio debut in 1984. That fact alone is enough to send the undergarments of liberals into vexatious knots.
Again, assuming the “philosophical leader” tag is applicable, the most entertaining part of Watson’s statement is when she says she “thinks” his name is Rush Limbaugh – as if trying to decide whether or not she’s heard of him.
There isn’t a single self-respecting, self-serving, big-government liberal taking in oxygen today who has not heard of Rush Limbaugh.
He haunts their dreams.
Additionally, Limbaugh’s “I hope Obama fails” remark has been so well explained, so painstakingly explicated and so remarkably misunderstood by the saliva-danglers who spend countless hours frantically collecting fractured phrases and out-of-context hateful commentary from him, that Watson – like all Democrat notions – comes across as weak, tired and pedestrian. However, for those who came in after the credits, read my articles The Limbaugh Fetsih – The Democrats Are Obsessed and My Two Cents On Whether You Can Support The President While Not Supporting His Policies.
In short, if the Commander-In-Chief fails to apologize on foreign soil for his own country; and fails to expand the deficit to unsustainable record-breaking levels; and fails in his quest to nationalize the greatest health care delivery system in the world; and fails in his attempts to have the government take over automobile companies and financial institutions; and fails to weaken the defenses of the country he is charged to protect by keeping agencies like the CIA from doing their job; and fails to recognize the ongoing battle against murderous Islamo-fascists as a genuine war; and fails to understand that enemy combatants captured on the field of battle are not to be afforded the same rights as American citizens; and fails in adopting industry-killing, job-killing “global warming” legislation … then America wins.
It’s pretty simple, really.
“Now when a Senator says that this will be his Waterloo – and we all know what happened at Waterloo – then we have him, and he fails. Do we want a failed state called the ‘United States?’ So remember, they are spreading fear, and they’re trying to see that the first President who looks like me fails.”
Regarding fear … it was not a conservative who scared America into believing that the nation would be ravaged by heterosexual AIDS in the 1980s. It was not a conservative who promised that food supplies would run out by the year 2000. It was not a conservative who warned that natural resources would be depleted by 1990 due to human over consumption. It was not a conservative who foresaw a world in peril due to global cooling. It was not a conservative who promised a planet devastated by overpopulation by 1996. It was not a conservative who said the bird flu would wipe out countless numbers of humans. It was not a conservative who promulgated the impending Y2K disaster and set up numerous agencies, websites, roundtables, taskforces and contingency plans to save the world from it. It was not a conservative who predicted widespread catastrophe due to mad cow disease.
And as far as the “first President who looks like me” remark … is there any group of people more intolerant, more race-consumed, more fixated on the skin color of people than leftists? Time after time, these sorry excuses for thinkers hurl their character-assassinating bombs into the public square, accusing conservatives of harboring animosity toward President Obama due to his race, never once realizing that everything they project is a direct reflection of how they think. To leftists, everything that carries even the slightest negative connotation regarding Barack Obama can only be about his color. It must be about his color. It simply isn’t possible for anyone to legitimately disagree with President Obama policy-wise and not be bad; it has to be because they hate blacks or resent the fact that America would put a black man in the White House.
Frankly, people like Watson need to get their antiquated behinds out of the 1960s and enter the real world. If Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream of a nation where character previals over color is at all being asphyxiated, it is happening because of the likes of Watson and her race-obsessed ilk.
To people like me, President Obama needs to fail because of his desire (and promise) to transform America into something the country has never been – a nation where the State is more important than the individual.
Obama’s failures assure that such a transformation cannot – and will not – take place.
Watson also threw in these gushing words about Cuba’s world-class health care:
Let me tell you, before you say, ‘Oh, it’s communist,’ you need to go down there and see what Fidel Castro put in place. And I want you to know, you can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met. And you know, the Cuban Revolution that kicked out the wealthy – Che Guevara did that – and after they took over, they went out among the population to find someone who could lead this new nation and they found … well, just leave it there … an attorney by the name of Fidel Castro.
Perhaps Ms. Watson could use a paper towel or a sedative … or a cigarette.
As Jay Ambrose wrote in October, 2007, outside of Guevara’s reckless extermination of “people proven guilty of absolutely nothing,” his desire to use Soviet missiles against America, and the fact that he “ran a Havana prison in which he killed, killed and then killed some more, and later helped start the labor camp system in which homosexuals and others considered undesirable were to be confined as nothing more than slaves,” what’s not to love?
Does anyone love a war criminal more than a leftist? Or a t-shirt manufacturer?
And as for Cuba’s health care system … until Congresswoman Watson ditches her inferior Capitol Hill health plan for CastroCare, the discussion is closed.
Diane Watson is a first-class farce and a genuine disgrace.
The great Breitbart.com website has the audio.
Posted in American culture, health care, Liberalism, Racism | Tagged: "I want Obama to fail", Diane Watson, health care debate, Liberalism, Los Angeles, Obamacare, politics, Racism, Rush Limbaugh, town-hall meeting | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on August 24, 2009
So, let me see if I understand this correctly – and please feel free to jump in at any time with any necessary corrections.
In a state so egregiously liberal as New York – ranked as the “least free” state “by a wide margain” in a recent study released by the Mercatus Center of George Mason University – where equality supercedes liberty, high taxes are driving out business by the boatload, and government intervention is the happy norm, Governor David Paterson believes a racist media means him no good.
In blue New York, where avid multiculturalists, same sex marriage advocates, abortion proponents, and Al Sharpton all feel right at home, David Paterson thinks a bigoted press wants to drive him from office because he’s black.
In a state so blue that centrists are seen as potential fascists; where campaigns for “gender neutral” bathrooms are par for the course; where individual income, corporate and sales taxes are disgustingly high and spending on social services is well above the national average; where certain cooking oils are banned from use in privately owned restaurants; where the mayor decided that the will of the people was irrlevant and put the kaibosh on term limits; and where one of the most diverse population centers of the world – including a large, vibrant, influential and culturally expansive black community – exists, the Governor is yanking out the good old race card and slamming it on the table.
In New York of all places!
Kenneth Lovett of the Daily News writes:
Gov. Paterson blamed a racist media Friday for trying to push him out of next year’s election – launching into an angry rant that left even some black Democrats shaking their heads. “The whole idea is to get me not to run in the primary,” Paterson complained on a morning radio show hosted by Daily News columnist Errol Louis.
He suggested that Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the country’s only other African-American governor, also is under fire because of his race.
“We’re not in the post-racial period,” Paterson said. “The reality is the next victim on the list – and you can see it coming – is President Barack Obama, who did nothing more than trying to reform a health care system.”
Paterson said the campaign against him is being “orchestrated” by reporters who would rather make the news than report it. But critics said the governor should blame his own blunders.
“He’s given the media more than enough to feed on with the incompetence shown in his administration,” said state Sen. Kevin Parker (D-Brooklyn), an African-American.
“To quote Michael Jackson, he should start with the man in the mirror,” Parker said. Even state Sen. Bill Perkins (D-Harlem), a black supporter of the governor, urged him to be more like Obama by staying “focused on the message.”
Paterson has been the target of Democrats who fear his low approval ratings – 18% at their lowest and about 30% now – will endanger the party next year if he decides to run for his first full term as governor.
Paterson’s incompetence as New York’s head honcho couldn’t possibly be the reason for any negativity coming his way. Rather, it must be the inherent “white hooded” mentality that secretly permeates the media in the Empire State – and elsewhere. The main stream media simply cannot stand blacks. They’ll do anything necessary to help facilitate their removal from public office. After all, it’s common knowledge that New York’s media complex is ferociously right-wing.
Everyone knows that.
As a blogger at Red State.com writes:
His inability to deal effectively with a complete break-down in the state economy, numerous state level scandals among the Democrat leadership and the leadership debacle in the state Senate have certainly not helped this lightweight.
Recall during the Presidential campaign that Paterson said the repeated use of the term “community organizer” by Republicans in describing Barack Obama’s experience was really code for “black.” Recall that it was during a speech at the NAACP convention in Cincinnati where Paterson implied that an Obama loss in the presidential election would be a win for racism. He also said that being called an “accidental governor” following Eliot Spitzer’s resignation was motivated by racial bias.
The Governor of New York has got to learn to shut his whiny mouth, act like a man, and come to the realization that he is simply ill-equipped to handle the position. His well publicized failures and almost non-existant support reflect his lack of skills as an executive, not the level of melanin in his skin.
No one gives a damn about his skin color.
Posted in American culture, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: David Paterson, New York Governor, post-racial period, racism in the media, racist media | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on July 29, 2009
William Lacy Clay Jr.
As I attempted to negotiate the contents my cereal bowl this morning, favoring the little marshmallow pieces over the less-delicious (and frankly boring) “regular” pieces, it occurred to me that I cannot stand the fact that there exists a Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) in the United States Congress.
On Capitol Hill, where the virtues of a colorblind society are constantly extolled, there exists a group of people who maintain (and defend) a racially segregated committee to the exclusion of all except blacks – and almost no one dares say a damn word about it.
Is this not definitionally racist?
Why does this committee exist?
And why are not more people, in the name of the precious equality that leftists believe is the most important American value, demanding that this group be abolished?
Is it because American blacks require a group of leftist, race-obsessed, victimization hounds to tend to their needs?
Are these men and women of the CBC not charged with the task of representing Americans in their respective districts, regardless of their race, creed or ethnicity?
In this day and age, how can such a group exist?
It is beyond despicable because this entire sham has absolutely nothing to do with representing black Americans.
Recall two years ago that Democrat Steve Cohen from Tennessee, a white man, attempted to join the CBC because he was elected to Congress as a representative of a majority black district. He was flat out denied because of his skin color. The “needs” of American black citizens suddenly weren’t as relevant when their representative was not “one of them.”
Congressman William Lacy Clay Jr. of Missouri was as clear as one could be:
“Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept – there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it’s our turn to say who can join ‘the club.’ He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.”
Are there any people more racist than leftists? Are there people more consumed with skin color than those who profess to want a genuinely colorblind society?
Okay, back to my toast.
Posted in politics, Racism | Tagged: CBC, Congressional Black Caucus | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on July 28, 2009
Nebraska State Senator Bill Avery
There are too many who conveniently forget (or are simply ignorant to the fact) that thirteen sovereign states gave birth to the federal government, not the other way around. The original thirteen states were not arbitrary divisions created by a national governing body to accommodate the fledgling plans of the Founding Fathers. Rather, what were in essence thirteen little nations came together over two centuries ago to create a system of government built on the nation’s founding document – the Declaration of Independence – that would secure the blessings of liberty as well as recognize and respect the sovereignty of each of those unique states. Thus, each of the thirteen states would be able to maintain its character and independence without the fear of a far reaching too-powerful central government meddling in its affairs.
There can be no doubt that the states would not have ratified the Constitution otherwise.
That system – federalism – as spelled out in the Constitution, would create a government with specifically enumerated powers, limited in its influence over the sovereign states, yet with just enough power to be effective as a governing body over a single nation.
The first ten amendments to that Constitution detail the limitations of that federal government in respect to the liberty of the people.
There is no ambiguity in the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It’s a fairly simple premise.
So what on God’s green earth does this have to do with Nebraska?
Martha Stoddard of the Omaha WORLD-HERALD BUREAU writes:
At least three Nebraska lawmakers want to send a message to the federal government:
Butt out of state business.
Next year they will see if a majority of their colleagues agrees.
The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
Nebraska wouldn’t try to secede from the union under their proposals but would go on record objecting to federal laws that they say go beyond constitutional authority.
“My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,” said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. “We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.”
As Stoddard points out in her article, such an action would be predictably dismissed by critics as silly symbolism or political posturing.
Nebraska State Senator Tony Fulton
Typical of today’s liberal is to ignore the substance of any given debate – particularly when the facts are against them – and respond instinctively with ad-hominem attacks and knee-jerk aggression, complete with character-assasinating “ist” labels and game-breaking “isms” as a means of keeping up. Because leftists largely formulate public policy as an extension of their emotions, it is archetypical to mask their inability to be substantive by summoning the indignation of the constituency. Thus, if words like “racism” and “sexism” can somehow worm their way into the discussion, the playing field is not only level again, but the game has actually tipped decidedly in favor of the leftist. After all, once one of the no-no “isms” are thrown out there and attached to one of those short-sided “strict constructionist” types, the contest is all but over.
Sprinkle in a few choice words and phrases like “civil rights,” “equality” and “segregation” and victory is assured.
Take State Sen. Bill Avery of Lincoln who, according to Stoddard, said the Nebraska proposals sound disturbingly similar to the states’ rights arguments made in defense of racial segregation and laws blocking blacks from voting.
“The history of this movement is rife with racism in the name of states’ rights,” he said. “I’m not saying that the people making the case now are racist, but I don’t think Nebraska needs to be getting in bed with these kinds of resolutions.”
See how efficiently it is done? Without saying it, he said it. It is tactic that has become second-nature to leftocrats across the board.
Today’s liberal could find a way to spark a heated race debate over a bowl of oatmeal.
Avery made it perfectly clear that he was not – repeat not – calling anyone a racist.
No, of course not.
It was the furthest thing from his mind. Yet, somehow – with the ease of a beggar holding out his hand, or President Obama apologizing for the evil deeds of America – Avery managed to squeeze it in, just to remind everyone that he didn’t think that way, but that others might.
And please note Avery’s use of the word “movement.”
To Avery, the concept of “state’s rights” is not a Constitutional one. Rather, it is a “movement” – perhaps like the anti-nuclear movement, or a “Save the White-Nosed Monkey Squirrel” movement – outside of the mainstream, fostered by wackos, synonymous with racism. To him (and many like him), if one happens to believe in what the Founding Fathers created here – in the original intent of the Constitution – then one is caught up in a “movement.”
What does that make the Constitutional Convention of 1787? A sit-in?
Is the Declaration of Independence a well punctuated “gripe list?”
It’s impossible to make this stuff up and have it sound believable.
But that’s what modern liberalism is all about … to make the implausible, the unsustainable, the undoable, the unworkable, the unsuccessful and the unthinkable a reality.
Oh yes, and one other thing … State Senator Tony Fulton, who prompted Avery to make his “racial” remarks by pointing out that the federal government was overstepping its bounds in Nebraska, is a man of Asain descent.
Avery, a college professor, is white.
Isn’t the irony delicious?
Posted in American History, Conservatism, Constitution, History, politics, Racism | Tagged: Constitution, Nebraska, Omaha, Senator Bill Avery, Senator Tony Fulton, state's rights, Tenth Amendment | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 6, 2009
- dennis prager
The irony is that while they call themselves “progressive” (instead of “liberal”), Leftocrats continue to stagnate, if not digress – reaching back into history’s dustbins, resuscitating policies and positions that should have long ago been fitted with cement shoes, clinging to concepts and arguments with the obstinacy of an infected corn. That is the modus operandi of the American liberal – not to ask if something works, but to determine if it feels good or if it plays advantageously on the emotions of the electorate.
One old playlist favorite that never seems to lose its luster with the ever-mindful and substantive liberal thinkocracy is the “Nazi Card.”
On Wednesday, during the first hour of his radio program, Dennis Prager commented on remarks made by CNN host (and entertainer) D.L. Hughley, who last weekend proved once again that the only people obsessed with race in this country are Leftocrats. Hughley – deep thinker, social scholar and butcher of coherent English – put on display his intellectual prowess, digging deep into his bag of tired Leftocrat tricks by (once again) equating the Republican Party to the Nazi Party.
“The tenets of the Republican Party are amazing, and they seem warm and welcome … but when I watch it be applied – like, you didn’t have to go much further than the Republican National Convention. It literally looked like Nazi Germany. It really did.”
Hughley made the comments speaking with Michael Steele, head of the Republican National Committee, who, frankly, was not particularly compelling during his appearance and failed to react in any way to Hughley’s imbecility.
This little ditty went largely unnoticed, save for some conservative commentators, while the rest of the media was belly-button deep in Rush Limbaugh talk.
With Steele making the rounds and being bombarded with questions on the influence of Rush Limbaugh – a radio personality – on the Republican Party, Dennis Prager went on to make this excellent point:
… if Michael Steele is being asked to respond to Rush Limbaugh, then the head of the Democratic National Committee should be asked to respond to this CNN host. “What do you say about a host who says that the Republican Convention looks like the Nazi Party?”
In all candor, I was in the process of composing an article on this very subject, but in deference to the great Dennis Prager, who articulated my point as good, if not better, than I could have, I am simply commenting on the commentator here.
Prager went on to say:
d. l. hughley
“I assume he meant because there were so many white people there. It’s quite a remarkably stupid comment aside from being a vicious comment.
So, if it’s overwhelmingly white, it looks Nazi.
If it’s overwhelmingly black, what does it look like? What does that look like? … I would say, “Hughley, Did the Constitutional Convention look like the Nazi Party? Did the signing of the Declaration of Independence look like a Nazi Party?
Were you born foolish or did you become foolish when you adopted liberal ideas?”
Of course, there were “people of color” at the Republican National Convention, so in the most literal sense, Hughley is wrong. But the foolishness of Hughley’s position is best illustrated to liberals by turning the tables – although I’m fully prepared to field the inevitable birrage of comebacks from outraged leftists explaining to me how it is not the same.
Still, how do you think these words would play?
“The tenets of the Democrat Party are amazing, and they seem warm and welcome … but when I watch it be applied – like, you didn’t have to go much further than the Democratic National Convention. It literally looked like an inner city welfare office. It really did.”
As God is my witness, it turned my stomach just to write that, but you can bet if someone on the conservative side would have been asinine enough to say something such as that, it would have been splashed across every newspaper in the country and would have already spawned three MSNBC news specials on the ugly face of modern racism in America.
Posted in American culture, politics, Racism | Tagged: CNN, D.L. Hughley, Dennis Prager, Michael Steele, Racism | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 24, 2009
i'm sorry ... so sorry
Earlier this morning, CNN had a link to this blog – specifically to an article I “penned” called “Race Baiter On The Attack.” It was part of CNN’s “From The Blogs” section, underneath the headlining story of Rupert Murdoch’s apology for publishing a cartoon deemed “offensive” by old-school racists and victimized societal dinosaurs.
My “inbox” and I may never be on speaking terms again.
After all the ruckus of what should’ve been less than a non-story, it occured to me that it may, indeed, be time to resurrect and redefine the term “yellow journalism” for the twenty-first century. Fear, intimidation, apology and appeasement are becoming the cornerstones of today’s free press. The mainstream media exists almost entirely to reinforce the protective cocoon that surrounds Barack Obama. The Messiah is, for now, untouchable, and any reference to anything that could even appear critical is roundly disposed with.
Let’s be truthful … if anyone other than Barack Obama – and I mean anyone – got up in front of the media and said that federal spending was out of control and needed to be tamed after signing a nearly one trillion dollar porkfest into law, they’d be skewered (and rightly so) by every journalist, pundit, blogger, talk-show host, cab driver and columnist in creation.
The “objective” American press is a disgrace.
I was disappointed – but not surprised – to see that Robert Murdoch, owner of the New York Post (NewsCorp), felt it necessary to issue yet another apology for the now infamous dead-chimp cartoon published last week that some took as a racial attack on the President. Never have so many been so outraged over so little. It is both disturbing and embarrassing.
The paper already apologized for this, you may recall, immediately after the cartoon was originally published.
But like the less-than-relevant sniveling radio speck Don Imus did a couple of years ago, Murdoch caved.
Does Mr. Murdoch truly believe that this latest apology will finally be the end of this saga? Does anyone honestly believe that these disgraceful race merchants will go away now? Sharpton and Crew have been empowered. There’s blood in the water. They won’t stop.
When do liberals ever stop?
The haters have already called for the firing of the editor-in-chief of the Post as well as the cartoonist. What next? Will they be satisfied to see those who did the actual printing of the paper canned as well? Or the folks who supplied the ink?
As expected, many happy readers of CNN are in line with Reverend Al:
-Sharpton was right on about this one. The Post has a history of using monkeys to portray black people. Because of this I hesitate to only call it thoughtless. –Matt
-Another neocon speaks. I thought you people died off like the dodo bird. Yes Sharpton is extreme and can be a race baiter however even a klansman would have seen the NYP’s cartoon to be racist. Rupert gave a half assed apology by saying he was sorry if anyone was upset by the cartoon; which is the equivalent of apologising for your emotions rather than his racist content … Thanks for writing your blog, you have reminded me why I left the Republican party. It was once a party of intelligent people, real conservatives (not neocons) who had complex solutions to complex problems. Now it is populated and supported by monosyllabic idiots who see everything in either black or white and hate anything different. –Andy H
-If you’re so offended by Al sharpton then i would have to assume the sight and sound of the prejudice, racist and all out black race hating commentaries of Sean Hannity, Rush limbaugh and the rest of the ”white race is superior posse” makes u want to puke. It amazes me how people such as yourself get so upset abt sharpton but dont say or condeem any of the bigotry and racist comments tht come out of their mouths. The cartoon was racist and offensive and sharpton had every right to complain. –Tammy
Another Neocon, says the other Andy. Too funny.
And isn’t it interesting, as demonstrated by Tammy, that all roads (naturally) lead to Rush Limbaugh?
Speaking of Rush, a blogger by the name of Ben Sprouse said he actually agreed with my assessments of Al Sharpton as a racist. However, being an a confused moral relativist, Ben attempted to paint Rush Limbaugh with an equally unflattering racist brush, going so far as offering a series of “direct quotes” from Limbaugh that supposedly illustrated his hatred of non-whites. These quotes included:
-I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.
-You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.
-The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.
-They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?
-Take that bone out of your nose and call me back (to an African American female caller).
Valiant effort, Ben, but no dice.
First off, most of these so-called direct quotes are not even correct. Second, they are taken completely out of context – to such a degree that Ben ought to be embarrassed for attempting to use these as a point of argument. These “quotes” were used either to illustrate the absurdity of others who regularly attributed comments like these to Limbaugh (without proof) or they were used in demonstrating the ugliness of racism itself.
These things are verifiable with minimal effort.
There is no one in all of conservative talk radio to whom race matters least than Rush Limbaugh.
To those on the right, overwhelmingly race is a non-issue. Not so on the Left.
Are there conservatives who are racist? Of course.
But no one group finds more ways to interject matters of race into more different issues in more different ways than the modern American liberal.
Posted in American culture, Liberalism, Media Bias, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: Al Sharpton, apology, New York Post, Obama, Racism, Rupert Murdoch | 8 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 23, 2009
This is one of those instances that force me to come clean. On Friday, I predicted that the re-emergence of the deplorable and wholly repugnant Reverend Al Sharpton onto the public stage would be short-lived – perhaps a couple of days at best – once America remembered how entirely irrelevant he really is.
I was wrong … and I wish to extend both my apologies and some cherry Maalox chewables to those who put any validity in my assertion.
The race-baiting, riot-inciting, hateful, “civil rights” windbag – who is often far from civil and hardly ever right – is in full “don’t-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-skin” mode. He has not only called for a special session of the New York City Council to keep the city from advertising in the odious, conservative-leaning New York Post, but he is also asking the FCC to give a look-see at a waiver that currently allows Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp (owner of the New York Post) to own more than one newspaper and television station in the same city.
And all because of a dead chimp, a very bad spending bill and knee-jerk racism.
From WPIX TV in New York:
Outrage and protests continue to mount over The NY Post’s controversial cartoon interpreted by many as comparing President Obama to a chimpanzee that was shot and killed by police in Stamford, Connecticut last week.
“I think that they have sadly tried to reduce this to some personal fight than to really understand the level of offense,” Sharpton at a press conference on Sunday. “It seems that we cannot have a true level of democracy in terms of how the newspapers and airwaves are used in this city.”
The New York Post issued an editorial on its website last Thursday saying the cartoon was meant to mock the federal economic stimulus bill, and apologized to those who were offended by it.
The chairman of the NAACP, Julian Bond, spoke out about the cartoon on Saturday, and called for the firing of both the cartoonist and the editor-in-chief of the New York Post.
Of course he did.
While you’re at it, Mr. Bond, why not strip them of their citizenship, have them hung by their short-hairs in the village square and set them adrift on a wooden raft?
These are the same people (Bond, Sharpton, et al) who say that terrorists in Guantanamo Bay are entitled to a fair trial in this country, yet demand that a newspaper editor and freelance cartoonist lose their jobs for “offending” them.
First off, just about everyone – outside of a few crotchety, insignificant old race merchants locked in disgusting antiquity – knows what the New York Post cartoon was supposed to represent. Everyone with any sense of reality (and honesty) knows damn well that the cartoon was not meant in any way to be a racist slam at President Obama. I would wager the deed to my house that Sharpton, too, knows this.
The truth is … if it was meant as a racial incursion against Barack Obama, it wasn’t particularly smart, because President Obama did not write the bloody stimulus bill.
How much more clear can this possibly be?
If intended to denigrate Obama, it should have said, “They’ll have to find someone else to sign the stimulus bill.”
It was, in actuality (as has been explain thirteen million times) a direct hit at the “monkeys” in Congress – in other words, the real authors of the $787 billion pork-meat extravaganza. The bill, as seen by folks like me, was a stupid bill (to say the least), beneath the sensibilities of those who are charged to serve the American people. It was so dim-witted and ill-conceived, the cartoon lampooned, it could have been written by a temporarily world-famous chimp that just got killed in Connecticut.
It was satire.
Do the race-baiting haters think the cartoon’s artist, Sean Delonas, was just sitting around waiting for something – anything – to come across the news wire so that he might cleverly craft it into a timely racial attack on President Obama?
Second, Sharpton and Bond – and all of the other melanin-obsessed whinycrats – are only happy if they believe they have the power to see people’s lives ruined on demand. It affords them credibility. That they can insist the livelihoods of people be stripped at their whim bestows upon them a position of influence they should have long ago lost.
These haters seek to control the content of what’s published and – yes – what’s broadcast.
Can there be any doubt that Sharpton has been waiting for something like this to pounce on ever since the Don Imus “nappy-headed ho” scandal of 2007?
As I wrote back then, the Imus affair was the first real battle in the war that will be waged (and is now under way) in attempting to reinstitute the “Fairness Doctrine“:
In the aftermath of this incredibly overblown controversy, the gauntlet has officially been thrown down by Al Sharpton in his successful attempt to vanquish Don Imus from public view. With an authority vested in him by the state of his own love of publicity, speaking like he was FDR addressing Congress after Pearl Harbor, he has fired the first real shot in what is the latest, full-bodied, unexpurgated revival in the battle to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
With Imus (temporarily) excommunicated from the church of tolerance, Sharpton has decided there are bigger fish to be fried. Said Mr. Sharpton,”It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms the airwaves.”
Thank goodness he’s around.
Translated, using my Sharpton/English dictionary, his rousing words read like this: The “our” he is referring to is, of course, himself, his crony race-baiters and petrified guilt-ridden white liberals. The term “only the beginning” is self-evident – there are a whole bunch more evil, racist, sexist, whatever-ist radio talk-show scum who need to be examined and dealt with. When he uses the phrase “broad discussion,” he means that he and his ilk will dictate what is acceptable for the airwaves while the media continues to do all they can to demonstrate how unbiased and straight up the middle they are. The word “airwaves,” naturally, means talk radio.
The progression is a natural one.
Julian Bond also said, “This is tastelessness taken to the extreme and its something you expect from this publication. But for the publication to suggest that the only people who object to it are constant critics of the New York Post is beyond ridiculous.”
If not for bona-fide racists like Bond and Sharpton manufacturing this scandal and making this a “story,” would any of this really be an issue?
Posted in American culture, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: Al Sharpton, Julian Bond, New York Post cartoon, Racism | 26 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 23, 2009
Gutless recreants. Or as Michelle Malkin puts it, “Behold a nation of cowards…”
And so it was yesterday, the Washington Post issued an apology – on Page A02 – for a cartoon issued the same day in its Sunday magazine. Call it a pre-emptive move, if you like. Say it was cautionary, if it suits you.
I prefer any of the following: intimidated, terrified, frightened, whipped, scared, owned, yellow, lily-livered, liberal … it all works.
Indeed, master (race) baiter Al Sharpton has suddenly become important again, screeching racism as only he can do, muscling the FCC and the New York City council, along with the New York Post, after a completely racially benign cartoon published last week has given relics like him something to do.
The Washington Post decided to bend themselves over the davenport voluntarily – before being bullied into doing so by Sharpton and company – by issuing the following apology for a cartoon that is about as racist as Sean Penn is conservative:
The headline, illustration and text of “Below the Beltway,” a column in The Washington Post Magazine today, may cause offense to readers. The magazine was printed before a widely publicized incident last week in which a chimpanzee attacked and badly mauled a woman in Stamford, Conn. In addition, the image and text inadvertently may conjure racial stereotypes that The Post does not countenance. We regret the lapse.
Lapse. Funny word to use there.
Here’s the thing …
The story that this cartoon is attached to has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with politics, President Obama, blacks, or anything of the nature. There is nothing about race anywhere in this article, nor is it implied in any way. It is actually a piece written by Gene Weingarten called “Monkey Business – The good news for men: Women love apes.” It’s all about a scientific study dealing with what arouses men and women.
The study suggests that while straight men were only aroused by images of women (and gay men aroused only by men), women “were turned on by absolutely everything … including videos of bonobos having sex. Bonobos are apes.”
Yet, the spineless Washington Post decided that it was prudent to cut off the race-baiting brigades at the pass before the Sharptonites started strong-arming them.
Word has it that the WaPo research team is combing through Post articles dating back to 1877, so that they might prepare apologies for the use of such phrases as “black eye,” “monkey around,” “ace of spades,” “guerilla warfare (before spellcheck)” and “dark chocolate.”
Retroactive apologies are also in the works for any and all articles about filmmaker David Lynch published through 2009, and any articles dating back to 1991 in the arena of computer technology that insensitively made reference to master drives and slave drives.
Posted in American culture, Animal News, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: Al Sharpton, Gene Weingarten, New York Post cartoon, race-baiter, Racism, washington Post cartoon | 4 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 20, 2009
Like cockroaches and reality television, old race-baiters die hard. The truth is, however, there just hasn’t been a whole lot for Al Sharpton to do in recent times, except maybe tinker around with his Turbo Tax software. The papers simply aren’t plump with bogus stories of young black girls being raped by white cops anymore, or of nooses being hung from trees by young whites.
Not like they used to.
Those were the days, eh Al?
Today, it’s hard to imagine anyone more insignificant or more detached from the societal realities of American life than Reverend Al. After all, what’s an old blowhard with bad hair to do now that a black man has been elected President of the United States and Donald Trump has already chosen the cast of Celebrity Apprentice?
Visions of Sharpton wandering the floors of his home waiting for something – anything – to happen that would require him to spring into action as a civil rights crusader aren’t difficult to conjure.
Enter the New York Post – my candidate for the Attaboy Award for February 2009.
The Post has decided not to take the crawling-on-hands-and-knees-for Sharpton’s-forgiveness approach mastered so brilliantly by radio talker Don Imus in 2007 after he made his silly – and now infamous – “nappy-headed-hos” comment (in reference to the Rutgers girls basketball team) that cost him his jobs at both MSNBC and CBS Radio.
The Post is not rolling over.
On Wednesday, they published a cartoon by artist Sean Delonas that brought Big Al scurrying (or rumbling) out of his Rice Chex and Twinkie hibernation to cry racism. (Fancy that). The cartoon was nothing more than effective commentary on a very bad spending bill signed by President Obama coupled with the very bizarre story (that has captured headlines everywhere) of a chimp shot dead by police in Connecticut after it attacked a house guest. Al and Company have called it offensive, because it supposedly depicts President Obama as a chimp, and also because it depicts him as dead.
These people really need something more to do with their days.
In truth, the most “offensive” aspect of the whole thing is that the Post cartoon will keep Sharpton’s face (and voice) in public view for a couple of days until America is reminded of how irrelevant he is.
On Thursday evening, the Post responded to the absolute inanity surrounding this cartoon and its phony controversy:
Wednesday’s Page Six cartoon – caricaturing Monday’s police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut – has created considerable controversy. It shows two police officers standing over the chimp’s body: “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill,” one officer says.
It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.
But it has been taken as something else – as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism. This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize. However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past – and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.
To them, no apology is due.
Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon – even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.
The cartoon is very funny and very smart … but let me correct the nothing-better-to-do Sharpton race warriors on something.
Obama didn’t write the bill.
True, it is certainly his in the sense that he is the President and it was written with his blessing and misguidance, but the “chimps” here – in the most literal sense – would be Pelosi and company (and all of the other Capitol Hill morons who shaped it into what it was when it was signed).
Another thing … can so-called legitimate news outlets stop affording this lying, hurtful, riot inciting, unapologetic, race-jockey credibility as some sort of arbiter of all that is just and fair?
To CNN, for example, he is a civil rights activist:
A New York Post cartoon Wednesday drew fire from civil rights activist Al Sharpton and others who say the drawing invokes historically racist images in suggesting an ape wrote President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package.
Barf bag, please.
Sharpton is as much a civil rights activist as Al Gore is a scientist.
Sean Delonas, creator of the extraordinarily clever cartoon, said in a brief interview with CNN, “Absolutely friggin’ ridiculous. Do you really think I’m saying Obama should be shot? I didn’t see that in the cartoon. It’s about the economic stimulus bill.”
I applaude the New York Post for not throwing Delonas under the bus and for taking the correct steadfast approach. Some may legitimately argue that the Post shouldn’t have even offered the apology they did, but that didn’t bother me.
I have no problem with it because the Post ultimately asserted what we all know to be true in no uncertain terms – that whenever there is any segment of the media that expresses a conservative point of view, it is swiftly criticized, labeled and attacked by any number of victims’ groups, special interest brigades, publicity-starved leftists or Oprah Winfrey with the predictable arsenal of “-ists” and “-phobes.”
Good for you, Post.
Posted in American culture, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: Al Sharpton, chimp cartoon, New York Post, race-baiter, Racism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 13, 2009
back in the day
From The “I’m With You, Reverend Joseph Lowery” file …
The naivety of Americans who believe that blacks are not still being asked to get in back, or that brown is not given the chance to stick around, is astounding. No matter how much we shake America, she is not responding to our wake-up call. Racism abounds, along with a veritable rainbow of other juicy “isms.” The reality that our President is black, that the majority of American athletes and pop music stars are black, that our favorite motion picture stars are black, that the most powerful star and TV talk-show mogul in all of the country is black, is irrelevant.
NBA Hall-of-Famer Elgin Baylor apparently agrees.
Baylor, who played from 1958 to 1971 and subsequently spent twenty-two years as the Los Angeles Clippers’ Vice President of Basketball Operations, is suing not only the Clippers, but the NBA and team owner Donald Sterling for alleged employment discrimination based on age and race. Baylor was released by the team last fall.
The lawsuit maintains that Baylor was “discriminated against and unceremoniously released from his position with the team on account of his age and his race” and that he was “grossly underpaid during his tenure with the Clippers, never earning more than $350,000 per year, when compared with the compensation scheme for general managers employed by every other team in the NBA.”
The NBA is named in the lawsuit, according to Douglas’ fax, as “a joint venturer/partner of condoning, adopting and ratifying this discriminatory practice since the league is fully aware of salaries paid to all of the general managers.”
It’s interesting how Baylor never mentioned anything about unfair treatment or discrimination during his tenure or in the months following his departure from the Clippers. He was certainly in the position to do so while he was there, and he would have been allowed to say whatever he wanted about any racism he perceived.
I might add that in twenty-two years with Mr. Baylor serving as VP of Basketball Operations, the Los Angeles Clippers made the playoffs three times – three lousy times. That he kept his job as long as he did is by itself astounding. That one could make the case the team bent over backwards to avoid any appearances of racism by keeping a wholly unsuccessful man employed for that long is reasonable.
Clippers attorney Robert H. Platt said in a statement Wednesday night that he had not seen the lawsuit and couldn’t comment on Baylor’s specific allegations.
“However, I can categorically state that the Clippers always treated Elgin fairly throughout his long tenure with the team. Prior to his decision to leave the team last October, Elgin never raised any claims of unfair treatment,” Platt said.
“It’s hard to believe that he would now make these ridiculous claims after the organization stood by him during 22 years and only three playoff appearances. It would be hard to find any sports team that has demonstrated greater loyalty to its general manager.”
“I can’t imagine because Elgin has always been very, very close to me,” the owner said in the team’s locker room. “He’s a fabulous person. I think there’s some mistake.”
Since, 2003, Elgin Baylor made $350,000 a year – more than the vast majority of white Americans make – after several salary increases over the course of his career with the Clippers. Is it possible – I say, possible – that he wasn’t paid as much as others in the NBA because of his less-than-stellar performance record as General Manager?
Baylor said, “I did not retire. I have so much more to give. The way I was treated by the NBA and the Clippers was unfair, and many ways discriminatory.”
Was it unfair that he held onto a position for more than two-decades with a track record that would have had him expunged anywhere else much sooner?
What exactly was discriminatory, Mr. Baylor?
Does anyone honestly believe that the Clippers deliberately chose to pay Mr. Baylor less than others after realizing that the melanin level in his skin was too high to warrant more salary? And if it wasn’t deliberate, how will Mr. Baylor’s disgusting publicity-seeking lawyers prove it?
Shameful, Mr. Baylor.
Posted in American culture, Racism, Sports | Tagged: ageism, Elgin Baylor, Los Angeles Clippers, NBA, Racism | 4 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 26, 2009
It’s going to be a long four years. The first six days have lasted about that long already.
I’ve shaken my head so many times since last Tuesday, I’m getting threatening mail from my cerebrum. Coupled with the already lib-heavy tone set forth by The One over the first week of his reign will apparently be the obligatory need to inject race into every nook and cranny of the Obama experience. It’s already been a great big melanin-level lovefest in less than a week of Obama-Nation – from the Reverend Joseph Lowery’s rainbow-flavored mumblings to the economic mighty-mo Robert Reich’s condemnation of caucasian show-offs – and it just keeps getting better.
Now, the First lady is being criticized by the Black Artists Association for not choosing an inaugural outfit designed by African-American designers.
How she will be distinguished from the likes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong come the Judgement Day is unclear.
From The Politico:
FLOTUS’s inaugural outfits sent designers to their drafting tables to design knockoffs and droves went to J.Crew to get those snazzy leather green gloves. But not everyone is happy with her choices. The Black Artists Association is chiding FLOTUS for not choosing any African-American designers.
They will send a letter to FLOTUS’s office and appeal to her to include items from black designers in her wardrobe. BAA Cofounder Amnau Eele, who was a former runway model told Women’s Wear Daily:
“It’s fine and good if you want to be all ‘Kumbaya’ and ‘We Are the World’ by representing all different countries. But if you are going to have Isabel Toledo do the inauguration dress, and Jason Wu do the evening gown, why not have Kevan Hall, B Michael, Stephen Burrows or any of the other black designers do something too?”
Wu didn’t find out Michelle O. was wearing his dress until he saw her on television Tuesday night. And aides said FLOTUS didn’t even decide until hours before her big night.
Taskforces are being created and put to work to assess the feasibility of making sure that from now on, everything the First Family touches, tastes, smells, looks at, thinks about, puts on, dreams of, steps in, coughs up, brushes up against and stumbles upon has, in some way, been associated with, created by, located near or mentioned in the presence of any African-American in some capacity.
Welcome to the Obama-Nation.
Leading the way to a race-blind society …
Update: January 26, 2009 – 8:22 PM
Special message directed to my lib readers…
I am not posting your expletive-filled, childish, ass-clown responses. Try composing without sounding like George Clooney.
I was not comparing Michelle Obama to despotic disctators of the past. That I have to explain that just to keep idiotic responses from filling my “inbox” says it all.
Posted in Obama's first 100 days, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: African-American designers, Black Artists Association, First Lady, FLOTUS, inaugural dress, Michelle Obama | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 22, 2009
Mr. Reich, professional
With the stirring, heartfelt words of Reverend Joseph Lowery still resonating across the multicultural divide that (according to liberals) defines America’s greatness, comes further revelation that the white people of America have had it too good for too long – particularly professionals.
Gather around for just a moment, if you would.
I’d like to try a little exercise in reverse racism you might find interesting. Just for grins and giggles, substitute the word “white” for “black” in following passages. (If you’d rather use “hispanic” or “oriental,” feel free).
Just beginning to make the rounds across the blogosphere in earnest today are comments made on January 7th by Obama economic advisor Robert Reich at an Economic Recovery Plan Meeting in which he said:
“Now let me say something about infrastructure. It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the conomy. The challenge will be to do it quickly – to find projects that can be done, that have a high social return, that also can be done with the greatest speed possible. I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals, or to white male construction workers.”
No, this is not a comedy sketch. It is a “Yes We Can” moment meant to foster unity.
He went on to say:
“I have nothing against white male construction workers. I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well, and therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you – and I’m certainly happy to talk about it more – ways in which the money can be – uh, the criteria can be set so that the money does go to others: the long-term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.”
Did you substitute “white” with any other racial and cultural designation?
Wasn’t it fun?
Maybe it’s just me, but if the advisor had been on the George W. Bush team of financial gurus, and non-white professionals were singled out, would the backlash be anything short of furious? Shouldn’t it be?
All that was missing from Reich’s assertions was the rhyming scheme, ala Reverend Joseph Lowery …
“Where blacks can build streets, so they can eat … Where brown can build a bridge in your town … Where the broken-hearted can survive by extending Interstate Five…”
By all means, let’s bring in the non-professionals to build up America’s infrastructure … and as long as they aren’t white professionals, may the spirit of freedom ring.
But what of black professionals? Surely there must be some in this country of intolerance, close-mindedness, oppression and hatred. Are they to be excluded, too?
Haven’t people of Spanish origin risen to the level of “professional” in this nation yet? I could have sworn I saw one once. Are they to be denied?
Personally, I feel a bit left out – and inadequate. Seeing as I am white, and whites apparently have not been affected by the recession, I have clearly let my fellow caucasions down. I promise to do my best to not let the recession affcet my family and me next time.
Here’s the Reich video from You Tube.
Update: 22 January 2009 4:04 PM
I received a private e-mail through one of the blog sites where this article is posted.
It read, in part:
“Are you a white supremist? Or sympathetic to the cause? Your article is posted at a White Power website, I hope you know. You must be a white racist, based on this ugly article.”
The ugliness is in the reverse racism of Mr. Reich’s remarks – and the fact that no one, outside of talk radio is even bringing this up.
I have no control where links to my articles are posted, except where I specifically post them – like at the great Free Republic.com website or at Townhall.com.
There is not a single racist phrase, passage, word or idea in any article I have ever written. I defy any clear thinking blogger – regardless of what side of the aisle he or she is on – to find where I have been racist. To discuss matters of race does not mean one is racist.
To answer your question directly, I am not a white supremist. In fact, being a Jew, I am guessing that I would not be among the most welcome in that particular group of people. Skin color is so irrelevant to me when it comes to matters of conducting life, making decisions and doing what’s right that I have yet to see a mechanism invented that can measure my indifference to it.
However, Robert Reich, as evidenced in the video I have linked to, apparently does care about skin color – enough that he could accurately be called a white racist, only in reverse.
It is sickening.
Racism against any race – including whites – is deplorable.
Posted in American culture, Liberalism, Racism | Tagged: Economy, high-skilled professionals, infrastructure, Robert Reich, white construction workers, white male construction workers | 2 Comments »