A black Tea Party protester who was selling buttons and flags outside a meeting was viciously, brutally attacked by Service Employees International Union members in Missouri last August. Today, Gateway Pundit announces that the perps will face trial.
I didn't know that this incident happened until today. Where are the cries of racism? Where is the NAACP? Why aren't the lefties speaking out on behalf of a man who was beaten, stomped on, and verbally assaulted with racist remarks simply for professing his political beliefs?
Because he disagrees with them. The left loves to talk about how it champions racial equality, but they will not raise a finger to defend a black man who opposes them. This shameful, disgusting selectivity undermines everything that liberals "stand for". Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and every other race-baiting mouth out there should be ashamed that they have let this incident pass in silence.
As for the SEIU: this incident is proof positive that big labor has still not moved away from its 1930s-style thug tactics. Union neanderthals use the same brutal tactics today that they did nearly one hundred years ago. The SEIU will do anything to stomp on those who don't enshrine the President that they stumped and cheated for.
The next time a liberal tells you that he or she supports free speech, laugh in his or her face.
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Friday, March 5, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Assclown of the Week: Keith Olberman
Apparently, because Scott Brown is a white male, owns a pickup truck, and opposes the healthcare plan of a black president, he is racist, and so are those who voted for him.
Thus sayeth Keith Olbermann, the liberal blowhard whose false, useless, race-baiting, hateful hyperbole was unleashed on TV screens across America prior to the Massachusetts senate election.
Liberals have begun to utilize the race card in truly bizarre, irrelevant ways. A Democrat loses to a Republican, even though neither candidate is a minority? Blame racism. A majority of Americans oppose the Democratic healthcare reform bill? Blame racism. It is utterly absurd. When will minority commentators stand up and object to this patronizing, utilitarian ass-kissing? Isn't it somewhat condescending and insulting to have fat, white, old, liberal "journalists" constantly invoke your race as a weapon against those whom they dislike?
Olbermann deserves to be sued for libel on this one. Keith, you are indeed the Assclown of the Week, and you may yet be Assclown of the Year.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Reid's Obama Gaffe Is Telling Indeed
Yesterday, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), the Senate Majority Leader and the White House's healthcare reform lackey, apologized for racially insensitive comments that he made during the 2008 presidential campaign season. The apology was prompted by the fact that Reid's quotes will be appearing in Mark Halperin and John Heileman's new book Game Change, which will detail the 2008 campaign. The crux of the controversy is that Reid apparently referred to then-Senator Obama as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no negro dialect-unless he wants to have one", and remarked that the country would accept such a candidate with ease.
From what I have read, Reid's statements about Obama being "light-skinned" and lacking "a negro dialect" seem to be drawing the most heat from the media. I find the context of the remarks even more disturbing, though.
Remember that Reid was assessing Obama's strength as a candidate when he made these remarks. That he felt the need to appraise Obama's lack of darker skin and his caucasian speaking voice as positive selling points for the Democratic Party is telling. It would seem that at the highest levels, the Democrats were indeed conscious of Obama's viability in regards to the race card. Reid apparently saw potential in Obama's lack of typical African-American features; had Obama been a "blacker" candidate, would Reid have been more ambivalent? What if Obama had featured what Reid called "a negro dialect"? Apparently, the Democrats (or at least their Majority Leader) want their candidates to be diverse, but only to a point. They claim to be the party of tolerance, but African-Americans with "a negro dialect" need not apply.
Being white, I can't speak for African-Americans on how they feel about this. I would guess, however, that many of them are insulted, and I cannot blame them.
P.S. Yes, I know, Reid apologized. Politically-motivated apologies, spurred only by the fact that the initial offense is becoming public, do not impress me.
P.S.S. Reid's chances of re-election are not promising. I look forward to the embarassment that the healthcare reformists will face when half of them are given a beatdown at the polls when the time comes.
P.S.S.S. If Reid runs for re-election, I am willing to bet that ACORN will stage a coup in Nevada.
From what I have read, Reid's statements about Obama being "light-skinned" and lacking "a negro dialect" seem to be drawing the most heat from the media. I find the context of the remarks even more disturbing, though.
Remember that Reid was assessing Obama's strength as a candidate when he made these remarks. That he felt the need to appraise Obama's lack of darker skin and his caucasian speaking voice as positive selling points for the Democratic Party is telling. It would seem that at the highest levels, the Democrats were indeed conscious of Obama's viability in regards to the race card. Reid apparently saw potential in Obama's lack of typical African-American features; had Obama been a "blacker" candidate, would Reid have been more ambivalent? What if Obama had featured what Reid called "a negro dialect"? Apparently, the Democrats (or at least their Majority Leader) want their candidates to be diverse, but only to a point. They claim to be the party of tolerance, but African-Americans with "a negro dialect" need not apply.
Being white, I can't speak for African-Americans on how they feel about this. I would guess, however, that many of them are insulted, and I cannot blame them.
P.S. Yes, I know, Reid apologized. Politically-motivated apologies, spurred only by the fact that the initial offense is becoming public, do not impress me.
P.S.S. Reid's chances of re-election are not promising. I look forward to the embarassment that the healthcare reformists will face when half of them are given a beatdown at the polls when the time comes.
P.S.S.S. If Reid runs for re-election, I am willing to bet that ACORN will stage a coup in Nevada.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
The Hijacking of Abraham Lincoln
I just finished reading Jay Winik's 2001 historical treatise April 1865: The Month That Saved America. Weaving together the chronology of the Civil War's fateful final month with background on the major players and events leading up to it, Winik's book provides both a comprehensive look at Civil War-era politics and an insightful commentary on how so many factors contributed to the conflict's end. It's a fantastic historical book, and I highly recommend that you purchase it. Amazon is hawking used copies for less than a dollar; you have no excuse not to buy it right now.
The book's appraisal of its central characters, including U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, and Generals Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant, is appreciably honest. Winik admires all of the above, without whitewashing any of them.
In particular, his writing got me thinking about the legacy of Abraham Lincoln as it relates to today's political situation. Perhaps only two or three other presidents in history are as beloved and remembered for greatness as Lincoln. A well-cited Wikipedia article on presidential polls sees Lincoln as one of three perennial "greatest presidents", with Washington and Franklin Roosevelt taking the other two slots. Interestingly, according to the 1982 Murray-Blessing poll, Lincoln is just as loved by both conservatives and liberals.
No wonder, than, that during the past election cycle Old Abe's name was cited time and time again by the stumpers of both parties, primarily in two ways:
1, the Republican Party continued to remind us that it is, in fact, "the party of Abraham Lincoln" (and Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan), and that Lincoln is one of the great conservative heroes.
2, the Democratic Party continued to both draw and welcome parallels between its nominee, then-Senator Barack Obama, and Lincoln, framing both men as outsiders from rude beginnings who promise to bring change and unite the nation during times of crisis.
Last year I did not think much of such parallels. If I did at all, I remember being vaguely suspicious of Obama-Lincoln comparisons. Obama has always struck me as more of an anointed partisan standard-bearer than Lincoln (who was not always on the best of terms with his own party). Similarly, I thought it odd that John McCain would drop Lincoln's name, knowing that the Glenn Beck-fed Libertarian-Republicans of today are generally appreciative of states rights, to the point of identifying with the very Confederacy that Lincoln waged war against.
Winik's unburnished portrayal of Lincoln has given me clarity. When it comes to Abraham Lincoln, both parties are wrong, and neither can claim that, in their current form, that Lincoln would be onboard with their agendas.
Foremost, Lincoln was essentially a federalist. Conservatives might like to drop Lincoln's name, but the fact is, the 12th president used his executive power do the very thing that they always complain about: he amassed federal power and literally forced the southern states back into line via the Civil War. Would a true, small-government, states-rights conservative ever support such a methodology? No way, as is evidenced by this work from the endlessly readable Harry Crocker.
Secondly, liberals ought to take note that Lincoln never intended to be the great healer of the American racial divide. A look at his comments on the subject prior to the Emancipation Proclamation are telling indeed. He was not driven by modern notions of political correctness and equality; primarily, he needed to imbue the dying Union war effort with a new sense of moral purpose. Look no further than his famed letter to Horace Greeley:
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union
It would be unfair to say that Lincoln had a strictly utilitarian view towards abolition. His correspondence prior to the war, and during the early part of it, make clear the fact that he had sympathy towards the slaves and wanted to see slavery disappear as an American institution. Yet his efforts for the abolition of slavery and for general emancipation have to be seen in light of Lincoln's political savvy. He was not what liberal college professors would call a civil rights leader (as far as I can reason, the idea of freeing the blacks and segregating them, or sending them to Liberia, wouldn't qualify as an inspiring thing for a civil rights leader to suggest).
Therefore, in an ultimate sense Lincoln's legacy is not immediately relatable to either of today's political parties. He was neither conservative nor liberal as we define the two today. What was Lincoln, then?
He was magnanimous.
Today's political leaders enjoy defeating and punishing the opposition, shutting them out of the political process, blaming them, and marginalizing them. Obama, whose proponents always trumpet him with cornball monikers like "the president of change", "the bringer of the politics of transformation", etc, has done exactly this (look no further than the healthcare debate).
Lincoln did not. Lincoln reached not only across the aisle but across the battlefield, ensuring that a defeated Confederacy would not become a subjugated Confederacy. He exhorted the Union to accept the southern states' return with forgiveness, not brutality. Though he did not live to preside over the Reconstruction Era, he nevertheless impacted it by setting in motion a process of reconciliation, not retaliation.
I challenge you to name one politician today who can truly be called "magnanimous" in the Lincolnian sense. There are none. (In particular, the plethora of Democrats who continue to cite George W. Bush as the cause of all our current problems represent the opposite of Lincoln's approach.)
The next time you hear Lincoln's name on the campaign trail, be cognizant of the cheapness at hand. Some figures are too complex for the soundbyte age. The 16th president, in his glory and with his flaws, is a man not apt for comparison.
The book's appraisal of its central characters, including U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, and Generals Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant, is appreciably honest. Winik admires all of the above, without whitewashing any of them.
In particular, his writing got me thinking about the legacy of Abraham Lincoln as it relates to today's political situation. Perhaps only two or three other presidents in history are as beloved and remembered for greatness as Lincoln. A well-cited Wikipedia article on presidential polls sees Lincoln as one of three perennial "greatest presidents", with Washington and Franklin Roosevelt taking the other two slots. Interestingly, according to the 1982 Murray-Blessing poll, Lincoln is just as loved by both conservatives and liberals.
No wonder, than, that during the past election cycle Old Abe's name was cited time and time again by the stumpers of both parties, primarily in two ways:
1, the Republican Party continued to remind us that it is, in fact, "the party of Abraham Lincoln" (and Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan), and that Lincoln is one of the great conservative heroes.
2, the Democratic Party continued to both draw and welcome parallels between its nominee, then-Senator Barack Obama, and Lincoln, framing both men as outsiders from rude beginnings who promise to bring change and unite the nation during times of crisis.
Last year I did not think much of such parallels. If I did at all, I remember being vaguely suspicious of Obama-Lincoln comparisons. Obama has always struck me as more of an anointed partisan standard-bearer than Lincoln (who was not always on the best of terms with his own party). Similarly, I thought it odd that John McCain would drop Lincoln's name, knowing that the Glenn Beck-fed Libertarian-Republicans of today are generally appreciative of states rights, to the point of identifying with the very Confederacy that Lincoln waged war against.
Winik's unburnished portrayal of Lincoln has given me clarity. When it comes to Abraham Lincoln, both parties are wrong, and neither can claim that, in their current form, that Lincoln would be onboard with their agendas.
Foremost, Lincoln was essentially a federalist. Conservatives might like to drop Lincoln's name, but the fact is, the 12th president used his executive power do the very thing that they always complain about: he amassed federal power and literally forced the southern states back into line via the Civil War. Would a true, small-government, states-rights conservative ever support such a methodology? No way, as is evidenced by this work from the endlessly readable Harry Crocker.
Secondly, liberals ought to take note that Lincoln never intended to be the great healer of the American racial divide. A look at his comments on the subject prior to the Emancipation Proclamation are telling indeed. He was not driven by modern notions of political correctness and equality; primarily, he needed to imbue the dying Union war effort with a new sense of moral purpose. Look no further than his famed letter to Horace Greeley:
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union
It would be unfair to say that Lincoln had a strictly utilitarian view towards abolition. His correspondence prior to the war, and during the early part of it, make clear the fact that he had sympathy towards the slaves and wanted to see slavery disappear as an American institution. Yet his efforts for the abolition of slavery and for general emancipation have to be seen in light of Lincoln's political savvy. He was not what liberal college professors would call a civil rights leader (as far as I can reason, the idea of freeing the blacks and segregating them, or sending them to Liberia, wouldn't qualify as an inspiring thing for a civil rights leader to suggest).
Therefore, in an ultimate sense Lincoln's legacy is not immediately relatable to either of today's political parties. He was neither conservative nor liberal as we define the two today. What was Lincoln, then?
He was magnanimous.
Today's political leaders enjoy defeating and punishing the opposition, shutting them out of the political process, blaming them, and marginalizing them. Obama, whose proponents always trumpet him with cornball monikers like "the president of change", "the bringer of the politics of transformation", etc, has done exactly this (look no further than the healthcare debate).
Lincoln did not. Lincoln reached not only across the aisle but across the battlefield, ensuring that a defeated Confederacy would not become a subjugated Confederacy. He exhorted the Union to accept the southern states' return with forgiveness, not brutality. Though he did not live to preside over the Reconstruction Era, he nevertheless impacted it by setting in motion a process of reconciliation, not retaliation.
I challenge you to name one politician today who can truly be called "magnanimous" in the Lincolnian sense. There are none. (In particular, the plethora of Democrats who continue to cite George W. Bush as the cause of all our current problems represent the opposite of Lincoln's approach.)
The next time you hear Lincoln's name on the campaign trail, be cognizant of the cheapness at hand. Some figures are too complex for the soundbyte age. The 16th president, in his glory and with his flaws, is a man not apt for comparison.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Equal Opportunity Adultery
The revelation of golf superstar Tiger Woods' many dalliances with sleazy women has come as a shock to many. Not to me. With fame and fortune come opportunities for illicit pleasures aplenty. In fact, even without fame and fortune, we live in an age of utter libertine subjugation to our base impulses. Money and prestige only make seeking gratification easier, which is why we have entire useless publications devoted to examining the prurient escapades of the celebrity set. I am not entirely sure why anyone is surprised about all of this.
I will say this: Eugene Robinson, of the worthless Washington Post, is a moron. He has taken the Tiger debacle in a whole new, completely unhelpful direction by insinuating that there is some kind of self-targeted racism at play in Tiger's choice of mistresses. The black golf pro's choice of busty, Playboy-style white women reflects a lack of diversity, says Robinson. Shame on Tiger for not screwing a few black, Latino, or Asian women while he was at it. If you're going to cheat, cheat in a more politically-correct fashion.
Apparently, should any of you readers ever decide to become serial adulterers, I recommend that at least one of your illicit partners be a minority. That way, hurt feelings can be avoided (except for your wife's hurt feelings, but those are aside the point; once the damage is done, liberal ire over non-diverse sexual attraction ought be your primary concern).
How nauseating. Yet, again, how unsurpising. Last week as I perused the Boston Herald, all the full-page images of Tiger, a black man, juxtaposed with his posse of caucasian sluts, stood out like sore thumbs. For race baiters, the contrasting skin colors of the parties involved are just too good to be true. Someone was inevitably going to seize on it.
Robinson's conspiracy theory about Tiger's presumed disinterest in minority women hasn't garnered much traction. This is probably because even other whiny, oversensitive editors and journalists know that these kinds of comments are infuriatingly off-base. Only a desperate person would drag the race issue into a fairly mundane sex scandal situation that is not at all germane to it. That Robinson suggests Tiger's exclusively white taste is a result of insecurity might be even more offensive. Is "security" defined as "having sexual preferences that cut across a multitude of ethnicities"?
People who try to stir up bad feeling needlessly are one of the primary reasons why the public affairs discourse in our country is so charged with artificial "controversy".
I will say this: Eugene Robinson, of the worthless Washington Post, is a moron. He has taken the Tiger debacle in a whole new, completely unhelpful direction by insinuating that there is some kind of self-targeted racism at play in Tiger's choice of mistresses. The black golf pro's choice of busty, Playboy-style white women reflects a lack of diversity, says Robinson. Shame on Tiger for not screwing a few black, Latino, or Asian women while he was at it. If you're going to cheat, cheat in a more politically-correct fashion.
Apparently, should any of you readers ever decide to become serial adulterers, I recommend that at least one of your illicit partners be a minority. That way, hurt feelings can be avoided (except for your wife's hurt feelings, but those are aside the point; once the damage is done, liberal ire over non-diverse sexual attraction ought be your primary concern).
How nauseating. Yet, again, how unsurpising. Last week as I perused the Boston Herald, all the full-page images of Tiger, a black man, juxtaposed with his posse of caucasian sluts, stood out like sore thumbs. For race baiters, the contrasting skin colors of the parties involved are just too good to be true. Someone was inevitably going to seize on it.
Robinson's conspiracy theory about Tiger's presumed disinterest in minority women hasn't garnered much traction. This is probably because even other whiny, oversensitive editors and journalists know that these kinds of comments are infuriatingly off-base. Only a desperate person would drag the race issue into a fairly mundane sex scandal situation that is not at all germane to it. That Robinson suggests Tiger's exclusively white taste is a result of insecurity might be even more offensive. Is "security" defined as "having sexual preferences that cut across a multitude of ethnicities"?
People who try to stir up bad feeling needlessly are one of the primary reasons why the public affairs discourse in our country is so charged with artificial "controversy".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
