Posts Tagged ‘Clarence Thomas’

Liberals Are The Racists And Misogynists. They’re Also Hypocritical Demagogues Who Project Their Own ‘Values’ On Their Opponents.

November 6, 2014

I’m watching a Democrat strategist give his post-mortem on the November 4 elections in which Democrats got their heads handed to them (not that Obama has a clue as he plans his next fascist executive order power-grab between golf rounds.  All we know is that Obama doesn’t feel “repudiated” no matter how much of a toxic pariah he’s become even to his own party).  Why do Democrats tend to fare so badly in midterms, the strategist is asked.  And he says, “We’ve got to do a better job reaching out to white voters.”

This is PRECISELY what Democrat strategists are saying.

You are not a human being to Democrats.  Human beings are created in the image of God and Democrats piss on both God and His image.  No, you are a black voter, or a Hispanic voter, or an Asian voter.  Or you are an enemy who has to be tricked into voting for the party that wants to give the good races all the stuff your family worked so hard to earn because you belong to the wrong race.

Of course, that is racial politics from the PARTY of race politics.  If you want to divide people up by race and play the game of divide and conquer – and to hell with the increasingly incredibly polarizing results you are guaranteed to get as a result – you are a Democrat, pure and simple.

All you have to do is blame your racism and the climate of anger and polarization your racist engineering engenders on the other side.  And your media propaganda will duly report that “fact.”

Republicans are the party of ideas and the party of Americans.  Democrats are the party of racism and the party of bitterness against America.

It’s just the way it is.  And it’s just the way it has been since Democrats realized that if you can’t beat them, join them and then subvert them to the same plantation agenda they’ve always had.  Before you were useful as slave labor; now you’re useful as slave voters.  To wit: if you want your welfare check, you vote for the master party.

All the other party will offer you is the opportunity to get a job because they’re trying to make it easier for employers to build businesses and to learn because they’re trying to provide poor children of ALL races with vouchers for private schools to end the blue line union monopoly over “edyookashun.”

But of course it’s easier to sit at home and blame whitey – or blame whoever the convenient target to be blamed is – than it is to work.  And that’s just human nature.

Which party is the party of racism?  The party that hates Clarence Thomas, the party that hates Allen West, the party that hates Condoleezza Rice, the party that hates Dr. Benjamin Carson, that’s who.

I still remember the racist hate that Clarence Thomas received from the party that presents itself as oh-so-uber-un-racist.

In this election cycle, racist politicking was out full force as Democrats pulled out every trick to fearmonger the black community into getting out and voting against Republicans.  And no lie was too outrageous.

And of course there was the War on Women that Democrats just never got tired of playing.

Misogynists are Republican and Republicans are misogynists.  That’s what we’ve been told for the last how many years now from Democrats?

So I run across this story in the Los Angeles Times.  And it’s written by an uber-liberal named Meghan Daum:

The other thing the catcalling video shows: Our detachment issues
Meghan Daum
Los Angeles Times
November 5, 2014, 5:23 PM

If for some unfathomable reason you’re not among the more than 30 million people who’ve already seen the “catcalling video” that started ricocheting through the zeitgeist last week, I’ll give you a brief rundown.

An actress named Shoshana Roberts, unremarkably dressed, is videotaped with a hidden camera as she walks around a variety of New York City neighborhoods. Over 10 hours, men vied for her attention, asking, “What’s up, beautiful?” and demanding to know why she won’t talk to them. Some seem pretty innocuous. Others, like the one who walks next to Roberts silently for five minutes straight, are downright creepy.

What began as feminist activism from an anti-street harassment organization called Hollaback expanded into a referendum on race, because Roberts is white and the vast majority of the men on the video are black or Latino. For all the video tells us about race, men and the discomfort women can experience on the street, it also tells us something about a different — and relatively new — kind of cultural discomfort: our awkwardness in negotiating public spaces.

When I watch the video, I see not just a woman being objectified by men but also a woman who, presumably at the behest of her director, is totally unwilling to engage in the world around her. She makes no eye contact, responds to no greeting, registers no interest in the people in her midst. I also see in it a filmmaker who hasn’t bothered to parse the difference between a “good morning” and a “hey, baby.” And in reading women’s reactions, I sense a perception that any of these guys could have pulled Roberts into an alley and assaulted her at any time.

Hollaback, which is committed to the message that a “hello” can easily and quickly escalate into violence, certainly seems to share that perception. But in the context of this video at least, it’s a little tone deaf. As she walked, Roberts was surrounded by hundreds of people, many of whom would surely have intervened if she’d needed help. As odd as the creepy companion walker was, does it fit Hollaback founder Emily May’s description of “a terrifying, terrifying experience”?

Obviously only Roberts can say how she felt about any given interaction. Nonetheless, here’s the thing about life in the big city, especially cities whose identities are rooted in the energy of the street: You can’t live in a vacuum. In fact, most residents don’t want to live in a vacuum. They have boundaries, but they still want to share a nod or knowing glance with a stranger on the bus or subway. They want to weave their individual, day-to-day experiences into the larger tapestry. And nothing about Robert’s disconnected, almost zombie-like comportment in the video reflects that spirit.

We all have our zombie-like days, of course. But I suspect that in real life Roberts handles men who talk to her on the street the same way most women eventually learn to: by saying “thank you” or saying something The Times won’t print, or waving a hand in a way that could be taken as either friendly or dismissive. Hollaback might consider these concessions are themselves symptoms of patriarchal oppression — and that is a fair, if not exactly new, point. I would say what’s missing from the video is that making concessions to strangers, sometimes acknowledging their existence, is part of what it means to share the world with other people — at least the real-life, three-dimensional world.

Of course, that world increasingly takes a back seat to the digital sphere, where ignoring unwanted communications is standard protocol, where many, if not most, conversations take place via text or email. Dating and sexual conquest belong largely to the realm of online dating sites and Tinder feeds. Moreover, most people when they do find themselves in public spaces, spend more time looking at their phones than looking at what’s around them. Little by little, we’re losing our instinct for joining the larger tapestry.

And maybe that’s the ultimate lesson of the catcalling video. It’s not just that men can be boorish or that race and class issues can be thorny but that walking down the street can be more complicated than hanging out online. Not to mention a lot more interesting.

And I couldn’t help but wonder: is this the tone this leftie would have decided to take if the woman victim had been a racial minority and the creepy catcallers had been white men???

Daum makes this point early on:

What began as feminist activism from an anti-street harassment organization called Hollaback expanded into a referendum on race, because Roberts is white and the vast majority of the men on the video are black or Latino.

And then proceeds to drop that point entirely as if it were a radioactively hot potato.  You never see the racial angle mentioned again.  It’s almost like she waved her hand at it, and that’s more than enough.  From that moment on, her article actually became a DEFENSE of the black and Latino men – i.e. the core members of the Democrat Party racial constituency – who sexually harassed the white woman for ten hours.

Now, I must confess that there have been a couple of times that Meghan Daum – who in the past was just so over-the-top lefty-moonbeam that she maxed out the measurement apparatus – has surprised me of late.  It’s possible that she actually is able to realize that the identity politics game the left keeps playing is as dangerous as it is toxic.

You know, the way Bill Clinton just did:

“I believe that in ways large and small, peaceful and sometimes violent, that the biggest threat to the future of our children and grandchildren is the poison of identity politics that preaches that our differences are far more important than our common humanity,” he told the crowd of activists, celebrities, and lawmakers.

But no matter: the REST of the Democrat universe plays it as their first card, their second card, their third card, their fourth card and their fifth card in every political game of five-card poker.

And it was, as usual, the central card played in this election.

We had the FIRST female elected to the United States Senate from blue state Iowa in American history.  And not only did this Republican woman have to suffer getting sexually trivialized over how attractive she was (you know, for a bimbo) by a career sexist Democrat male senator, but she had to suffer the booooooring whine of three-term Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu as she complained that she won’t get re-elected to a fourth term because she’s a woman and Louisianans are conservatives who hate women and hate blacks:

“And number two: I’ll be very, very honest with you. The south has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans. It’s been a difficult time for the president to present himself in a very positive light as a leader,” she said.

“It’s not always been a good place for women to present ourselves,” Ms. Landrieu continued. “It’s more of a conservative place. So we’ve had to work a little harder on that. But the people trust me, I believe — really they do … trust me to do the right thing for the state.”

Ms. Landrieu’s comments come as some Democrats are making direct, often visceral appeals to black voters, notably in southern states like Georgia, in hopes of energizing the party base ahead of Tuesday’s election.

A woman who has been elected to the Senate by her state three times blames her state’s hostility to her on her gender and on racism.

You see, there’s one way to play this game: the Democrat way.  If you try to play it in a way that doesn’t politically help the political exigencies of the Democrat Party, it’s because you’re a racist, or you’re a misogynist, or you’re a racist misogynist.

It’s NEVER fascists when Democrats do it.  It’s ALWAYS fascist when Republicans do it.  Every time.  No matter how much of a pretzel you’ve got to twist your brain into to believe the liberal line.

War veteran Joni Ernst is tired of the “war on women” meme the Democrats constantly play (her male Democrat challenger actually had the complete lack of balls to play it on her):

She didn’t want to hear opponent Bruce Braley’s campaign claims anymore that she wages war on women with her positions because, the war veteran said, “I’ve been to war; this is not a war.”

Of course, it IS a war, because it is a vicious attack strategy from the party of hate and division, from the party that pits race against race, income-level against income level, gender against gender, etc.

It’s a war for the soul of America.  And even Bill Clinton admits that the Democrat Party machine is on the side of Satan in the war.

Abortion isn’t a “woman’s issue.”  It’s a CHILDREN’S issue.  If abortion is only a woman’s issue, then men are to be excluded from having anything to do with children and whether they should live or die.  If abortion is a “woman’s issue” as Democrats believe, and if a man and a woman don’t produce a child at the moment of conception, as Democrats believe, then ANY responsibility men have ought to end the nanosecond they roll off of that woman and go to sleep.  Because he DID NOT FATHER A CHILD according to the left and according to the left he has nothing whatsoever to do with the most critical choice involving the “woman’s choice” involving this non-child.

What Democrats want and what they have largely already achieved is the end of fatherhood.  Fathers are not “fathers” any more; they do NOT procreate a child and they are therefore not to be allowed ANY choice or ANY responsibility whatsoever in the MOST important decision involving a child that somehow mysteriously develops at some later time.

And of course homosexual sodomy marriage is nothing more than an extension of liberal thought: marriage is an institution for families; but the party of militant hatred for fatherhood necessarily becomes the party of militant hatred for the family of which fathers are a necessary component.

So Democrats have this twisted, perverted, hateful view toward any woman who loves her family and loves her children and values families and children.

And so your Sarah Palins and any woman who is pro-marriage and pro-family have to be rabidly attacked in the most hateful wayIt’s FINE for Democrats to call Republican women “whores.”  Just try being a Republican white male who calls a minority female governor a whore and see what happens to your career as the media feeding frenzy goes into beyond-rabid mode.

But like what we see somehow happen in Meghan Daum’s piece with black men and Latino men – in other words with Democrats – the left just strips the narrative of the elements they don’t like and then retells the story according to their ideology.  Just as in Daum’s piece what could have – and WOULD have had the sleazeballs been white men howling over a minority woman – been a piece about the racist and misogynistic attitudes about minorities toward women becomes a piece about the snooty way a woman carries herself which of course apparently invites abuse with aforementioned abuse being no big deal.  In any and every story involving the nastiest and most despicable racist and misogynistic behavior of liberals gets explained away by some “narrative” had the political party or the race or the gender of the person or people engaging in the despicable conduct been the politically incorrect sort (i.e. white men).

I’ll grant Meghan Daum credit for taking on the perennially offended feminist left over what they perceive as such a hostile climate that a man who says “good morning!” is tantamount to a rapist.  Believe it or not, she has courage to take on that group of rabid harpies given the instant media access that band of vermin has.  But we’ll know Meghan is truly courageous when it is WHITE REPUBLICAN MEN who act the way these black and Hispanic men acted that she defends.

Doubt very much that it will ever happen.

 

Profile Of A Herman Cain Accuser

November 8, 2011

Let’s take a little look-see at the women who are accusing Herman Cain.

The truly amazing thing about this woman is that she is actually the most credible accuser with the most credible allegation against Herman Cain to date.  Because this is the ONLY woman who has publicly come forward against Herman Cain.  Everyone else is anonymous, with no details available.

Let’s look at this most credible accuser to surface:

From ABC:

Who is Cain accuser Sharon Bialek?
Chuck Goudie
 
November 7, 2011 (MUNDELEIN, Ill.) (WLS) — Sharon Bialek, who lives in suburban Mundelein, said Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain reached under her skirt 14 years ago when she was asked him about a job.

In this Intelligence Report: Who is Sharon Bialek? The Chicago-area woman has an extensive corporate and personal history in the area going back to the early 1990s.

It was her hope for a new job that Bialek says brought her to Herman Cain that day in 1997. Bialek’s resume and a trail of public records indicates that changing jobs has been a regular occurrence for the Chicagoan. She has worked for at least nine different employers over the past 17 years and appears to have struggled financially.

The public record on Bialek begins in 1991 when she filed personal bankruptcy for the first time while living in Des Plaines.

Between 1993 and 1996 Bialek worked for four different companies in promotion and marketing positions.

In 1996, and part of 1997, Bialek was at the National Restaurant Association. After being let go from that job in mid-1997, she says that she went to Washington, D.C., to meet with Cain, president of the association, because she needed a job.

In 1999, Bialek’s son Nicholas was born and a paternity lawsuit was filed by the father, a media executive.

In 2001 came Bialek’s second personal bankruptcy, filed after sizable legal bills. That year she was hired by WGN radio where she worked until 2004 when she took a marketing job and then a job at WCKG radio.

Along the way, according to her attorney, Bialek also held positions with Revlon and Easter Seals.

Bialek currently lives in Mundelein with fiance Mark Harwood.

“She’s of the same political persuasion as Herman Cain,” Harwood said. “There was no money on the table to go and have an interview. This is truly about an American girl who’s got a big heart and wants to do the right thing.”

Yeah, right.  And I’m of the same political persuasion as Barack Obama.  And I’ve got a big heart and want to do the liberal thing.  So please give me money and a bunch of attention.

According to public records, Bialek has NEVER donated to a SINGLE Republican candidate or organization.  Unlike Herman Cain, for what facts are worth.  Furthermore, her claim of having been to Tea Party events is simply a lie.

The AP pointed out that:

“Court records indicate Bialek had financial difficulties a decade ago when she filed for bankruptcy protection and reported $4,500 in unpaid rent and $13,000 in outstanding credit card bills.”

Oh, and for the official record, ABC left out the fact that  Sharon Bialek had a summary judgment issued against her with a court order to seize her assets for debts she never bothered to pay for just a couple of months ago.

But what the hell, she’s attacking a black conservative man, so let’s just believe her, anyway.

Note that her attorney is Gloria Alred, lifelong despiser of conservatives and Republicans (the last time she crawled out of her cockroach den she helped secure the election of Democrat Jerry Brown with a similar hatchet job of Republican candidate Meg Whitman):

Clarence Thomas – the LAST conservative black man to be viciously attacked by liberals – said this:

“This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”

Yep.  It will sure happen to you if you have the courage to be a conservative black man and try to escape the white liberal plantation and try to gain any kind of power or influence.  You become a threat to the plantation, and the plantation will come after you with the nastiest tactics they can muster.

Washington Post VP Says Herman Cain Has Sexual Harrassment Charges ‘Coming To Him’ – While Repeatedly Pawing Attractive Female Reporter

November 5, 2011

Understand something: if a woman decides that she was sexually harrased, then she was sexually harrassed.  And one of the ingredients of sexual harrassment is “unwanted touching.”

Here’s a working woman just trying to do her job.  And part of her “job” is getting pawed by drunk old lecherous liberal rat bastards – in the minds of said drunk lecherous liberal rat bastards.  But I guess the smiling bitch had it coming, or some other excuse.

It’s too bad this reporter doesn’t file charges against this vile old liberal hypocrite (beginning one minute into video):

Former Washington Post editor discusses Cain sexual harassment story while pawing Daily Caller reporter
Published: 11:26 PM 11/03/2011 | Updated: 4:43 PM 11/04/2011

On Wednesday evening The Daily Caller spoke to Washington Post Executive Editor Bob Woodward, and Washington Post vice president and former executive editor Ben Bradlee, about Chris Matthews’ new book “Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero” — and about the sexual harassment allegations facing GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain.

[video of interview available at Daily Caller]

Let’s imagine the reporter talking to her lawyer later: “I didn’t invite him to touch me, but he just grabbed me.  I felt very uncomfortable and threatened.  I was just trying to do my job.  And then he pawed me again!”

Ben Bradlee needs to “get what’s coming to him” too.

When asked if he had any advice for Cain, Bradlee said, “Run for the roundhouse,” which is an obvious allusion to the John Brown plot to free the slaves at Harpers’ Ferry. Slaves were told to go to the round house for protection and refuge.

Wonder if Bradlee gave the same advice to Democrats John Kennedy, who bedded at least two dozen women in the White House, and to Bill Clinton – who repeatedly had publicly identified women make specific and detailed charges of not only the most disgusting forms of sexual harrassment but actual RAPE – leveled against him.

Let’s just call this what it is: another “high tech lynching” by a racist liberal establishment against a black conservative man whose primary “crime” is the “thoughtcrime” of trying to wander off the liberal plantation.

As for the guffaws over allegations ‘racism’ by Cain (you know, over that strange coincidence that every single time a black male conservative is on the verge of attaining real power, liberals point out that black men are basically animals who can’t control their lusts), someone at the party should have been wearing this T-shirt:

Read “The Racist History of the Democrat Party” for more.

Is It Racist To Suggest Obama Is Stupid? Ask Racist Liberals Who Spent 8 Years Calling George Bush Stupid

April 29, 2011

I can find a thousand pull quotes from “journalists” who serve as the court eunuchs for the Democrat Party, but I’ll just stick with one from Bob Schieffer:

“I want to go on to what Donald Trump said after he said ‘this is out’ and everything. He said, ‘we need to look at his grades and see if he was a good enough student to get into Harvard Law School.’ That’s just code for saying he got into law school because he’s black. This is an ugly strain of racism that’s running through this whole thing. We can hope that that kinda comes to an end too.”

I mean, obviously, Schieffer is 100% correct.  I mean, the left would NEVER suggest that Republican president might be stupid, right?  And so for conservatives to suggest that Obama might not be the sharpest tack in the box can only be a code for “racism.”  Right?

Well, not quite.

The left tore into George Bush the way one of Michael Vick’s pit bulls tore into a piece of bloody meat.  And one of their favorite memes was the one that Bush was stupid.

Which demonstrates by their own warped, depraved and perverted logic that liberals are racist.

And there are a gazillion articles like this that asked questions and came to conclusions about George Bush that must not dare be asked and answered about Barack Obama.  [Updated, 4/30]  Here’s one that shows that the attack on Bush’s intelligence – which we now know is a racist, racist, racist thing to do – was so widespread that it essentially formed the centerpiece of the Al Gore campaign:

Gore Camp Targets Bush’s Intelligence
By Carter M. Yang
ABC News, Oct 9

With his truthfulness under fire and his opponent gaining in the polls, Al Gore’s surrogates are openly questioning George W. Bush’s intelligence.

Since this weekend, the Gore team has been ratcheting up its efforts to paint Bush as “confused,” “bumbling,” “babbling” and “ignorant.”

“George W. Bush seems incapable of talking about the important issues in this campaign in a coherent way,” Gore spokesman Mark Fabiani said today, just one in a series of statements from the Democratic candidate’s team drawing attention to the Texas governor’s mispronunciations and misstatements on the campaign trail.

“George Bush is routinely unable to string together a coherent sentence to explain his own proposals,” another Gore spokesman, Douglas Hattaway, said in an earlier statement this weekend. “Americans will decide whether Bush’s uncertain command of the facts and his garbled language bear on his ability to be an effective leader.”

Could that argument only be applied to Bush?  Let’s put that ugly little critter to bed:

We know that Obama uses his teleprompter far more than George Bush or any other president in the history of the republic.

We know that Obama even needs his prompter to speak in elementary schools:

We also know that Obama isn’t exactly coherent without the “TOTUS.”

And we know that in fact the man is an idiot:

“It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,” Obama said. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

But how dare you acknowledge the obvious, no matter how obvious it is.  It’s RACIST to recognize the obvious.

Because, you see, liberals souls swim in a deep racist ocean, and the unadulterated hypocrisy which quintessentially defines them means that you can tee off on a white man, demonize him for his stupidity, his values, his greed, etc., but you must grovel in the sackcloth and ashes of white guilt at the feet of the black man.

Well, as long as that black man is a liberal.  Becuase if he’s a conservative, liberals are allowed – encouraged, even – to allow the racism that also defines them full-throttled expression:

Liberals often respond by pointing out that it isn’t just black liberals or Hispanic liberals who constantly demonize white men; white liberals demonize white men, too.  So it clearly can’t be racist.

I respond by pointing out that just as Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew and Adolf Hitler was in all probability a self-loathing Jew, white liberals are merely caucasian-hating caucasians:

Take Karl Marx.  The man was profoundly anti-Semitic.  He was also a Jew.

Here are some quotes from the VERY Jewish “intellectual” Karl Marx:

“The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races.” (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April 29, 1849)

“Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas.” (MEKOR IV, 490, August 25, 1879)

“What is the Jew’s foundation in our world? Material necessity, private advantage.

“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money.

“Very well then; emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 37)

“What was the essential foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical needs, egotism.” (Ibid, p. 40)

“Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-constituted value set upon all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is the essence of man’s life and work, which have become alienated from him. This alien monster rules him and he worships it.

“The God of the Jews has become secularized and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 41)

And what about the most rabid anti-Semite of all time?

Hitler ‘had Jewish and African roots’, DNA tests show
Adolf Hitler is likely to have had Jewish and African roots, DNA tests have shown.
By Heidi Blake 6:25AM BST 24 Aug 2010
 
Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.

Jean-Paul Mulders, a Belgian journalist, and Marc Vermeeren, a historian, tracked down the Fuhrer’s relatives, including an Austrian farmer who was his cousin, earlier this year.

A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

“One can from this postulate that Hitler was related to people whom he despised,” Mr Mulders wrote in the Belgian magazine, Knack.

Can you be of a certain race and yet actively despise that race?  I think we’ve established that you most certainly can, if you’re vile enough.

And it doesn’t surprise me at all that rabid leftwing socialists like Marx and Hitler would be the models for radical leftwing socialists right here and right now in America.

And if you want to see naked racism, I’ll gladly show you naked racism.

We constantly hear conservatives and Republicans compared to the Ku Klux Klan.  Because liberals are either too stupid or too dishonest (and I personally believe both too stupid and too dishonest) to understand that the Klu Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of THE DEMOCRAT PARTY and in fact the Klan continued to be profoundly and directly associated with the Democrat party well into the 20th century.  And all the Democrat Party did was understand that if they couldn’t own black people by slavery, they could eventually own them by political patronage through welfare and socialistic redistributionism.

What did Frederick Douglass, one of the great moral intellectuals of any race, have to say about what is THE policy of the Democrat Party back when “stupid” white men were literally dying by the hundreds of thousands to free the slaves?

Frederick Douglass ridiculed the idea of racial quotas, as suggested by Martin Delany, as “absurd as a matter of practice,” noting that it implied blacks “should constitute one-eighth of the poets, statesmen, scholars, authors and philosophers.” Douglass emphasized that “natural equality is a very different thing from practical equality; and…though men may be potentially equal, circumstances may for a time cause the most striking inequalities.”  On another occasion, in opposing “special efforts” for the black freedmen, Douglass argued that they “might ‘serve to keep up very prejudices, which it is so desirable to banish’ by promoting an image of blacks as privileged wards of the state.”

Liberals are people who project and mirror their own hate.  And they reduce human beings to the absolute lowest common denominator, rather than try to lift people up and help them become better.  Bottom line.

Racism and race-baiting isn’t the last resort of the left; it is their first knee-jerk response.  And that is because THEY are the racists.  Racism defines them; it is the essence of their beings.  Whereas Martin Luther King dreamed of a society in which his “four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”  But liberals angrily refuse to do that, and demand that color is everything, and that everything must be viewed through the lenses of race and racism.

I couldn’t be more disgusted with the vileness that characterizes the left.  I have as much right to call Barack Obama a stupid man as any liberal had to call George Bush a stupid man.  And you can easily identify as a racist the person who shouts that I don’t have that right.

And I don’t give a flying fig what color your skin is, and what color the skin of the person you’re defending or denouncing is.  If you play that game, you are a racist.  And a nasty hypocrite racist at that.

Cokie Roberts Says We Hate Obama Because He’s Black (But Then Why Do We So Despise YOU, Cokie?)

April 26, 2011

File this one under the category “Stupid liberal tricks.”

It is pulled out all the time, because liberals are people who have no possibility of debating on the level of ideas, and can therefore only demonize and race-bait.

Last year, I responded to the same exact charge from Jimmy Carter the same exact way: “Question For Jimmy Carter: If We Despise Obama Because Of Racism, Why Is It That We Despise YOU?”

But here we go again, another liberal ideologue who assumes that just because she can’t get over her own personal issues of racism, neither can her opponents whom she projects upon:

Because They Can’t Say ‘I Don’t Like Him Cause He’s Black’
By Noel Sheppard | April 24, 2011 | 12:06

ABC devoted its entire “This Week” on Easter Sunday to “God and Government,” and not surprisingly the question of President Obama’s faith prominently entered the discussion.

When it did, Cokie Roberts said, “The bad part about this is that it’s acceptable to say that he’s a Muslim because the same people won’t say, ‘I don’t like him cause he’s black’” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

STEVE ROBERTS: The word Muslim is a code word, and it’s a metaphor. It’s a metaphor for racism. It’s a metaphor for he’s different from us, he’s not like us, he’s got this funny name, which he says all the time. And it is – and he’s an alien on some level. But this goes back to our earlier discussion, that there has always been a strain of America that wants to exclude the other. Exclude someone who’s different…

(CROSSTALK)

COKIE ROBERTS: But – but – but the bad part about this…

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS, S.: But in the long run, the forces of…

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS, C.: Right. But – but…

(CROSSTALK)

RICHARD LAND, SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION: Forty seven percent of white people voted for him.

Actually, it’s 43 percent, but still a spectacular point by Land that most on the panel missed and most in the country ignore. They also forget that shortly after his inauguration, Obama’s favorability rating was around 75 percent. That includes a lot of white people as well.

What the media just can’t get their hands around is that disapproval of Obama today isn’t because he’s black – it’s because of his policies. Or do the 70 percent of the country that now believe the nation is on the wrong track also feel this way because the President is black?

ROBERTS, C.: But – but the bad part about this is that he – that – that it’s acceptable to say that he’s a Muslim…

EBOO PATEL, INTERFAITH YOUTH CORE: That’s right.

ROBERTS, C.: …because the same people won’t – won’t say, “I don’t like him cause he’s black.” So it’s – it’s – and – and the fact that it’s acceptable to dislike him because he’s a Muslim is the problem that you were talking about.

Calling Americans racist, despite there being an African-American in the White House, is acceptable on Easter Sunday.

I doubt I’m the only one that felt this was highly inappropriate on such a holy day.

So why is it that I think you’re a total disgrace, Cokie?  I mean, you’re white and everything.  Why is it, based on your racist theories, that I think that an obviously quite-caucasian-person like you is utterly morally depraved???

 I would rather appreciate it if liberals would search through my blog for liberals like Jimmy Carter, or Nancy Pelosi, or Barbara Boxer, or Harry Reid, or Alan Grayson.  And maybe you can do a pull-quote where I say, “I can’t agree with __________’s politics, but he/she happens to be white, so I like him/her.”
 
I could care less about Obama’s melatonin level.  It’s the color of his ideology I can’t stand.  Same as with you, Ms. Roberts.
 
Cokie Roberts and this Steve Roberts are racists.  They are racial demagogues.  They falsely use the issue of race to attack their opponents.  They are among the very worst human beings in America.  Because if you don’t agree with them in their politics, they will stoop to the lowest and most loathsome tactics to paint you in the most hateful way they know how.
 
I like Clarence Thomas, when I know you can’t stand him, Cokie.  Same goes for tremendous (and black) men like Herman Cain and Allen West.  You can’t stand these black men.  And they are actually considerably “blacker” than Barack Obama.  And going by your own “logic,” I can only conclude that it must be because you are a racist.
 
You are poisonous, vile people.  Frankly, it never would have even OCCURRED to me to think that disliking a politician from the “other party” was due to racism, but you racist bigoted people just keep forcing me to apply your own twisted and perverted standards back at you.
 
It is crap like this that explains why I don’t bother to watch ABC unless they have something like the NBA playoffs on (which somehow I love to watch even though there seem to be an awful lot of black people).  I mean, how much is it worth to hear Cokie Roberts look into my mind from the other side of the television camera and attempt to diagnose my mental states?  You know, when I know that a) she hates me; and b) that she is a fundamentally dishonest and venemous person???  You know, even in spite of the fact that she’s white and all.
 
I like black people just fine, Cokie.  It’s people who think and speak like you I can’t stand.  And I don’t care what color your skin happens to be.
 
For the record, I have never said Oama is a Muslim.  If anything, I think Barack Obama’s god is Barack Obama.
 
I DO know that he is most certainly no Christian:
 in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country …” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
 
What does Jesus say?  Consider Matthew 16:24-25:
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If any one (individual) wishes to come after Me, he (individual) must deny himself (individual), and take up his (individual) cross and follow Me.  For whoever wishes to save his (individual) life will lose it; but whoever loses his (individual) life for My sake will find it.
 
Consider 2 Corinthians 5:10 for the thoughts of St. Paul:
 
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one (individual) may be recompensed for his (individual) deeds in the body, according to what he (individual) has done, whether good or bad.
 
And again, St. Paul in Romans 14:12:
 
So then each one of us (individual) will give an account of himself (individual) to God.
 
Or consider Galatians 2:20:
 
“I (individual) have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I (individual) who live, but Christ lives in me (individual); and the life which I (individual) now live in the flesh I (individual) live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me (individual), and delibered Himself up for me (individual).”
 
And, again, in the words of Jesus as recorded in Revelation 3:20:
 
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock.  If any one (individual)  hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him (individual) and will dine with him (individual), and he (individual) with Me.”
 
Barack Obama is most certainly not a Christian to so miserably misunderstand that we are EACH INDIVIDUALLY saved by our PERSONAL faith in Jesus Christ through what He did for us on the cross.  This is not some esoteric “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” sort of question; it is a core fundamental of the Christian faith.
 
And if you need further confirmation that Obama’s “Christian faith” is nothing more than a leftwing political ideology masquerading as religion, consider the hateful racist preacher he chose to listen to on Easter Morning when the rest of us were celebrating Jesus’ Resurrection.
 
The “Muslim” thing is a red herring.  To the extent that some “conservative” is wrong to call Obama a “Muslim,” liberals are every bit as factually incorrect to call Obama a “Christian.”
 
Then there’s the fact that Obama has largely brought the “Muslim” label on himself:
 

OBAMA: And what was the first thing the McCain?s campaign went out and did? They said, look, these liberal blogs that support Obama are out there attacking Governor Palin.

Let’s not play games. What I was suggesting — you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you’re absolutely right that that has not come–

STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith.

OBAMA: – my Christian faith.

 
You see, I’ve made a lot of gaffes in my day.  But I have never even once in my entire life inadvertainly called myself a Muslim.  That doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s a Muslim, but it definitely at least means that he doesn’t hold his “Christian faith” very firmly.
 
Just this past Sunday (which was Easter for you liberals who don’t give a damn about the day we celebrate the bodily Resurrection of Christ from the dead), Obama amazingly refused to give an Easter statement.  By contrast, Obama has released plenty of statements honoring Muslim holy days:
 
Barack Obama released statements for the Muslims holidays of Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, the Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha last year. Just last month he released a statement for the Persian Nowruz holiday
 
So it’s like when it comes to being accused of being a Muslim, Obama – at the very least – puts a great big giant “PLEASE KICK ME!” sign on his own pants, and then cries in outrage and shock every time somebody dares to kick him in the pants.  And then there’s all these mainstream media propagandists just following Obama around hoping that somebody kicks him in the pants so they can cry foul.
 
In the end, I never cease to be shocked at just how unrelentingly biased and hostile these “objective” journalists are to conservatives.  And frakly, if so-called “journalists” like Cokie Roberts simply had the integrity to come out and say, “I am a rabid leftwing ideologue, and I’d like to tell you what I think,” they would be far more interesting.
 

New York University Liberal Celebrates Gang-Raping Of “War Monger” CBS Journalist By Egyptians

February 16, 2011

Liberals are people who need to be exposed so that everyone can see how truly hypocritical and in fact truly evil they are.

Invariably, liberals end up disguising who they are; they will run as moderates, fool the foolish masses, and then the gloves come off and the fangs come out.  And then they are widely rejected by Americans who don’t want the vile garbage liberals euhamistically label “social justice,” and they go back to trying to deceive the masses until they can demagogue their way to their next opportunity to sink their fangs into Uncle Sam and Lady Liberty.

Take Barack Obama.  Here’s a guy who spent two full years governing as an off-the-wall over-the-top liberal.  What were the magazine covers?

And even better:

What does the story somehow morph into once the people rise up in rage and vote out all these liberal scum?

Now, some fool might argue that that’s just elite media liberals, and Obama doesn’t have any control over what other liberals put on their magazine covers.  But that isn’t true.  Obama started this whole “I’m just like Ronnie!” thing off by carrying a book about Reagan around.  And then a few of his advisers went around and made comparisons.  And that started an Obama-friendly blitzkrieg of comparisons of Obama to Reagan, and how Obama actually has all the greatest of Reagan’s qualities while harboring none of his nasty policies.  And then Obama appears with his outgoing press secretary Robert Gibbs and refers to himself as “the Gipper,” which was clearly Ronald Reagan’s most famous line as an actor and a line he repeated often as president.  These people are not stupid; it was all quite intentional. 

The American people did not like the liberal face that Obama showed them.  So Obama said, “Don’t look at my face with the fangs!  Look over here at my Reagan sock puppet!”

Let me just take a moment to assure you that Ronald Reagan never tried to deceive people into thinking he was really a reincarnation of Jimmy Carter.

But rather than looking at the false face of liberalism that liberals want you to look at, the face they show you when they realize that the people have seen their ugly and hateful soul and rejected it, let’s look at the real face of liberalism.

Here’s the latest story exposing why you don’t want liberals in charge of anything but the insane asylum and convict inmate popuations:

This afternoon, atrocious news surfaced that CBS correspondent Lara Logan had been subjected to “brutal and sustained sexual assault” while covering the celebrations in Egypt.

According to a full statement released by CBS:

On Friday February 11, the day Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down, CBS Correspondent Lara Logan was covering the jubilation in Tahrir Square for a 60 MINUTES story when she and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration. It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into a frenzy.

In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers. She reconnected with the CBS team, returned to her hotel and returned to the United States on the first flight the next morning. She is currently in the hospital recovering.

There will be no further comment from CBS News and Correspondent Logan and her family respectfully request privacy at this time.

When the news initially broke, I was on Twitter as people began talking about it. Almost everyone was shocked, appalled, and deeply sympathetic for Logan, except for one man.

That man was Nir Rosen. Rosen is a fellow at the NYU Center for Law and Security. When he realized what he said was outrageous and others began informing him of that, he deleted his worst comments. However, some were captured using a “screen grab.”

The ones grabbed show Rosen letting everyone know that he “ran out of sympathy” for her and that everyone should “remember her role as a major war monger”. Also stating, we have to “find the humor in small things”. Rosen also deleted his bio as people began to tweet him. (click pictures to enlarge.)

These are not the kinds of things anyone should say, let alone a fellow at the NYU Center for Law and Security. If you would like to contact NYU about the matter, click this link for the contact information.

The left love to depict themselves as being “pro-woman.”  But they’re not; they hate real women unless those women are hard-core liberal feminists.  If you’re a successful and independent and accomplished woman such as a Sarah Palin, those fangs come out.  And nothing would make them happier than were Sarah Palin to be viciously gang-raped like that poor CBS correspondent in Egypt.  Nothing.

Of course, it’s the same way with the left being “pro-black.”  Unless your a black person who has any ideas of thinking for yourself.  Then you become an Aunt Jemima (e.g. Condoleeza Rice) or an Uncle Tom (e.g. Clarence Thomas) or a house negro (e.g. Colin Powell).  It doesn’t matter how successful or how accomplished you are; if you’re a conservative or even a Republican, those tolerant liberals will viciously call you a “nigger” and want to send you back to the cotton fields.

This crap never ends with the true racists among us, by which I mean liberals.  It just happened yesterday, as a liberal described successful black conservative businessman Herman Cain as a “monkey in a window” and used terms like “coon” and “sambo” to refer to him.  Every day in every way, it is LIBERALS who want to put a racial box over everyone and everything and if there’s a black person who wants to think for himself or herself, they have no compunction whatsoever of “putting that monkey in its place.”  And you remember that it was the Democrat Party that fought for slavery against Republicans who died to stop it.  And you remember that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party whose victims consisted of black people and Republicans.

And it’s not even just conservatives or Republicans.  Even liberal Hillary Clinton got “the treatment” when the more uber-liberal Obama ran against her.  She was mocked as a woman; Obama’s team played the race card on her.  These are the kind of people who will devour even their own if doing so will get them a step closer to the power to shape and control other people’s lives that they crave.

According to liberal writer and liberal university fellow Nir Rosen, CBS correspondent Lara Logan is a war monger.  And therefore it is a joyous thing that she was repeatedly violated as a woman repeatedly by the very Egyptian people that liberals hailed as being so wonderful even as the gang rape was happening.

Some liberals are more disciplined.  The fangs and the claws only come out when they believe they’ve gained the upper hand in the political debate.  Many others are just so ugly that they wear their fangs and claws and think their ugliness is lovely.  But one way or another the fangs come out and their ugliness is revealed.

The American people foolishly gave people very much like Nir Rosen a chance to govern in 2008 (I’m thinking of the open Marxists Obama appointed like Van Jones and Mark Lloyd and the many union thugs who serve as footsoldiers for Obama).  Then there are the craftier liberals like senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, who is in fact a slum lord.  These people are as thick as cockroaches in Obama’s White House.  In 2010, these same fang-bearing liberals got the most massive political asskicking since the 1920s when the people rightly saw them for what they are.

Don’t give these liberals another chance.  Because whether they’re showing it at the moment or not, there is a vile monster just beneath the surface of these people, just waiting to emerge.

Update, February 17: Nir Rosen resigned, citing a “right wing attack machine.”  Informing us that his university did not think he’d done anything to merit a reprimand (I mean, all he did was rejoice in the vicious gang-rape of a journalist), he said as his reason for leaving:

“US academic establishments are already under attack from the right, and my Center at NYU stood to be harmed by the pack of dogs sent to take me down, and I did not want to harm a very important center or the work of people I greatly admire.”

Let me first say that if you want to see a pack of dogs, take just a few moments to look through Lara  Logan’s eyes at the 200 men who jeered and celebrated while others were taking turns raping her.

I have written over a thousand articles on this blog.  You can search through them one by one; what you will find is that – as “hateful” as liberals want to claim I am – I have NEVER rejoiced in the killing, death, physical suffering or rape of a single person who had a different political ideology than my own.  And I can honestly say that if I were to come across a liberal progressive woman being raped, that I would rather be dead than not do everything I could to stop such an evil attack.

But that isn’t the way liberals like Nir Rosen think.  In fact, as I think of what the left has gleefully done to Sarah Palin or how they exhalted in the lingering death by cancer of Tony Snow, I have come to learn that many, many liberals are exactly like Rosen.

You see, liberalism and Nir Rosen are the victims.  They always see themselves as the victims, and they will use any distortion of logic and any rhetorical ju jitsu to make themselves the victims no matter what they said or did to bring righteous anger down on their own heads.  It is who they are and it is what they do.  You see, celebrating the vicious rape of a woman is a good thing as long as that woman has done something to offend liberal ideological sensibilities, and liberals are good people for pointing that out.  It’s the conservatives who don’t like rape that are the malicious attack machine.

Conservatives constantly find themselves in the difficult position of trying to reason with complete moral idiots who are about as capable of moral reasoning as cockroaches.

String Up Clarence Thomas? Death Threats For Sarah Palin? Liberals Continue To Prove Just How Full Of Hypocrite They Are

February 7, 2011

How many times are conservatives forced to nod their heads like cheap stadium bobble-heads while liberals constantly harangue them for being racist and for being violent?

The only problem with this picture is that all the racism and violence keeps coming almost entirely from the left.

Remember that Black Panther who intimidated Republican voters in Philadelphia, in addition to being caught on video calling for the murder of white cracker babies?  A completely racist and hypocritical system whitewashed this case and employed an explicitly racist rationale in doing so.  Career Justice Department officials resigned in protest, but the racist hypocritical propaganda could care less when good people put their careers where their mouths are.

Remember the Gabrielle Giffords shootings, when the hysterical left came emotionally unglued made Sarah Palin responsible for the shootings because she did something that liberals had been doing for years with no one blaming them for it, and in fact had even done to Gabrielle Giffords herself?  Remember how it turned out that the only threats of death and violence related to the actual situation turned out to come from a self-professing liberal (on top of the death threats that piled up against Sarah Palin)???

Now this:

NAACP won’t directly address racism leveled against Clarence Thomas at progressive protest
By Matthew Boyle – The Daily Caller | Published: 2:16 AM 02/07/2011 | Updated: 12:41 PM 02/07/2011

The NAACP won’t directly address the racism displayed by progressive protesters outside a summit hosted by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch at the end of January in Palm Springs, Calif., but the organization did call for an end to all “vitriolic language.”

In response to The Daily Caller’s request for comment on a video showing progressive protesters calling for somebody to “string up” African American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, or “send him back into the fields” or “cut off all his toes and feed them to him one-by-one,” NAACP spokesman Hilary Shelton pointed to the organization’s recent resolution calling for a “civil political discourse.”

“Last summer, the NAACP passed a resolution calling for a civil political discourse,” Shelton said in an e-mail to TheDC. “We continue to call on all Americans to abandon vitriolic language. It serves as a distraction from the real issues our society need to address and distorts the challenges we as Americans have to confront to make our nation greater still.”

Shelton would not, however, address the content of the video directly.

WATCH: Progressive protesters make racist remarks at rally outside conservative summit

This isn’t the only time in recent years that the NAACP has chosen not to condemn racism directed against black conservatives, according to Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the black conservative group Project 21. Borelli has called on Shelton and the NAACP to denounce racist remarks she has received as recently as last summer.

Appearing together on Fox News Channel’s “Geraldo At Large” in mid-July, Borelli asked Shelton if he and the NAACP would issue a public statement condemning racist remarks that have been directed against her.

Shelton answered her by saying, “Why, yes, ma’am. Just give us some details. The very broad answer is: Yes, we repudiate anybody calling you a bad name in the political arena.”

WATCH: NAACP spokesman tells Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli he would denounce racist remarks against her

Borelli says she sent the evidence of the racist remarks directed against her for being a black conservative to Shelton and the NAACP in late July 2010, but the self-described “civil rights” group has yet to release any statement. Shelton, according to Borelli, hasn’t even acknowledged receiving the documentation.

One of the sample e-mails Borelli sent to Shelton reads: “You faggot niggas need to be lynched by the Klan. I pray a nightrider strings up every one of you no count good for nothing niggas, it would serve you right for trying to think that these crackers love you. I hate a house nigga worse than I do a Klansman. Rot in hell you scurvy dogs. I would laugh to see you body strung up. It would save us real brothers the time and trouble to do it.”

One liberal at the liberal protest event said Clarence’s Thomas’ toes should be chopped off one by one and force fed to him.  Nothing hateful there.

Today – and frankly for most of my lifetime – the NAACP is a racist organization.  It cares only about “liberal people,” not “colored people.”  It’s very existence is an anathema and a demand to continue racism and racist policies (just what would the NAACP say if someone were to start a “National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People” form of “the NAACP”???).

Violence?  It is at the very shriveled soul of the left.  And it always has been.  Sarah Palin was scheduled to show up at a charity event whose proceeds were to benefit our veterans.  The result?

Palin speech honoring service members canceled due to liberal hate
February 5th, 2011 7:32 pm PT.

Thanks to an “onslaught of negative feedback”, an event featuring Sarah Palin has been canceled.

The Sharon K Pacheco Foundation announced Saturday it was canceling its 2011 Patriots & Warriors Charity Gala out of concern for the safety of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

Palin was scheduled to be the keynote speaker at the event, originally set for May 2.

According to the announcement on the group’s website:

Due to an onslaught of personal attacks against Governor Palin and others associated with her appearance, it is with deep sadness and disappointment that, in the best interest of all, we cancel the event for safety concerns, says the Foundations Director. 

Leo Pacheco, founder of the organization, expressed concern for the safety of military members and their families.  “Military members and their families have been through a lot due to the wars.  We have a responsibility to protect their emotional safety just as well,” he said.

“And unfortunately, some have overshadowed the purpose of this event by concentrating on their personal hatred of Sarah Palin, which is truly sad.”

The event was designed to honor service members and those who have served and/or sacrificed for the country.

Sarah Palin hasn’t just received one or two death threats.  It’s been an avalanche that has come from hypocrites who say she’s a hater while they are totally rabid with hate:

ABC News reports death threats against Sarah Palin have reached unprecedented levels.  That’s pretty amazing, given the smear campaign the Left waged against her in 2008 when she was a vice presidential candidate.

These despicable events would have been on the pages of every newspaper and television news station in America if it weren’t for the fact that the media is so shockingly biased.  If the Tea Party had done this to a prominent black liberal or a prominent female liberal, the coverage would have been so massive and last for so long that it would remain permanently ingrained on the American psyche.  The way the media made George H.W. Bush’s “Read my lips, no new taxes” a household word but never did so when Bill Clinton – and now Barack Obama - have repeatedly made similar statements.

Because of the demonic hatred by the mass media and the left that they represent, Sarah Palin has taken a real hit in popularity.  She was victimized, and then she paid for being a victim.  The media have verbally raped Sarah Palin again and again, and then called her a slut who deserved it.  And an increasingly stupid American people eat their manure like its a delicacy.

I used to read the book of Revelation and ponder at the Bible’s statement that “the whole world would worship the beast” (Reveation 13:8).  And I couldn’t understand how the American people would actually worship a vile dictator.

Since November 2008, and with further evidences coming each and every day, I no longer ponder that.  It is obvious to me that after the Rapture of genuine believers in Jesus Christ, a wicked people of a wicked United States of America will welcome a political tyrant and actually worship him.  And then this dictator, who will promise the same sort of leftist Utopia that leftist dictators have promised since the French Revolution, will bring about instead a literal hell on earth.

And the liberals who will have welcomed this bloodbath that unfolds in the pages of the Book of Revelation won’t have Sarah Palin or Clarence Thomas to blame any more.

Barbara Boxer Caught In The Act Exhibiting Classic Liberal Racism

July 17, 2009

As we reflect upon the profound racial bias exhibited by Sonia Sotomayor in both her speeches (a wise Latina woman can reach a better conclusion than a white male) and her rulings (the New Haven firefighters case), stop and think that she is well within the liberal mainstream in her racism.

It’s liberal racism.  And liberal racism is multiculturalism, pluralism, identity politics, moral relativism, a profound hostility to American exceptionalism, and the most cynical kind of demagoguery for partisan political benefit all rolled into one incredibly self righteous package.

Reflect for a moment on a situation that was going on simultaneouosly to Sonia Sotomayor’s hearing:

Black Business Leader Charges Sen. Boxer With Racial Condescension
The president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce accused Sen. Barbara Boxer Thursday of racially condescending to him during an Environment and Public Works hearing.

FOXNews.com

Thursday, July 16, 2009
Recommendations by Loomia

The president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce accused Sen. Barbara Boxer on Thursday of racially condescending to him during an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing.

Republican members of the committee had sought the testimony of Harry C. Alford, an opponent of a climate change bill that narrowly passed in the House.

Alford said in his opening statement that he spoke on behalf of his organization when he argued that the bill would have devastating consequences for small and minority-owned businesses.

But he took offense when Boxer countered his statement by quoting an NAACP resolution that approved the climate change bill and putting it on the record.

Clearly agitated, Alford asked why Boxer would cite that group’s resolution.

“Sir, they passed it. They passed it,” Boxer responded. “Now, also, if that isn’t interesting to you, we’ll quote John Grant, who is the CEO of 100 Black Men of Atlanta.”

Alford protested that Boxer was condescending to him.

“I’m the National Black Chamber of Commerce and you’re trying to put up some other black group to pit against me,” he said angrily.

Boxer claimed that if Grant was there, he would be proud she was quoting him.

“He should have been invited,” Alford exclaimed. “All that’s condescending and I don’t like it. It’s racial. I don’t like it. I take offense to it. As an African-American and a veteran of this country, I take offense to that.”

When Boxer asked if he was offended that she would quote Grant, Alford said, “You’re quoting some other black man. Why don’t you quote some other Asian. You are being racial here. And I think you’re getting to a path here that’s going to explode.”

Boxer defended herself by saying she believes statements by the NAACP and 100 Black Men, who acknowledge the threat of global warming, are relevant.

“There is definitely differing opinions in the black community, just as there are in my community,” she said, adding that she was trying to show the diversity of support behind the climate change bill.

But that didn’t satisfy Alford.

“We are referring to the experts regardless of their color,” he said. “And for someone to tell me, an African-American, college-educated veteran of the United States Army that I must contend with some other black group and put aside everything else in there. This has nothing to do with the NAACP and really has nothing to do with the National Black Chamber of Commerce. We’re talking energy and that road the chair went down, I think, is god-awful.”

Boxer’s office later declined to comment about the exchange.

Harry C. Alford is a great American patriot.  And may God bless him for his integrity and his courage.

Why was he so outraged?

It bothered him that a liberal white elitist like Barbara Boxer would cite other blacks to dismiss and undermine him.  Like race is a card you can deal in a game and say, “I’ve got the Ace of Spades in my hand.  I win.”

What you say really doesn’t matter, Harry, because I’ve got blacks on my side, giving me political cover.  My blacks are better than your kind of black, Harry.  Just like Sonia Sotomayor’s conclusions are better than a white man’s – at least as long as both continue to oppose traditional or conservative principles.

What was Alford’s argument?  Let’s see that opening statement again:

Alford said in his opening statement that he spoke on behalf of his organization when he argued that the bill would have devastating consequences for small and minority-owned businesses.

It wasn’t, “Look how black I am.  Look how black my group is.”  He said, “You’re going to hurt small businesses, including minority-owned small businesses.”  And there are facts galore to back up the devastation Democrats are going to reap among small businesses.  And red or yellow, black or white, small business owners are going to get nailed by these massive tax increases.  They are going to experience a double whammy, seeing the taxes on their earnings shoot up with higher rates and surcharges even as they get nailed with an 8% payroll tax to fund health care.

And Barbara Boxer’s response was none of that matters, because she’s got even BETTER blacks (liberals universally agree the NAACP raises the best blacks, after all) on her side.  Her blacks cancel out Harry’s blackness and make it so it doesn’t even matter that Harry C. Alford happens to be black.

We’ve seen what liberals think of the “other kind” of black.  Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowell, and others: they’re “House negroes.”  They’re “Uncle Toms or Aunt Jemimahs.”  They’re “Oreo cookies.”  Or as Janeane Garofalo contemptuously dismisses them, they are stupid negroes with Stockholm Syndrome, slobberingly kissing the feet of their massahs.  Nothing to see here, folks.  These black people don’t count.  It’s okay to demonize conservative blacks in the most racist fashion imaginable because we’ve got our own blacks.

Colin Powell and Bill Cosby seem to leap in and out of their “house negro” status, depending on what they say on any given day.  Today, as long as they spout the language of global warming alarmism, they are not house negroes.  But they had damn well better tow the liberal line.

Barbara Boxer wants “her kind” of house negro.  And that nasty Harry C. Alford doesn’t want to be her house negro.  My gosh.  That uppity black man doesn’t want to be anybody’s house negro.  He wants to be his own man, if you can believe it, and stand up for legitimate business principles that will benefit anybody of any color.  That kind of attitude will get him in trouble.  Because liberalism is the new “bus.”  And conservative blacks had better get in the back and stay quiet if they know what’s good for them.

Barbara Boxer’s “kind” of house negro is Al Sharpton.  Think of Al when confronted by the fact that the Tawana Brawley “assault” was the worst kind of racist hoax:

‘The Brawley story do (sic) sound like bullshit, but it don’t matter. We’re building a movement. This is the perfect issue. Because you’ve got whites on blacks. That’s an easy way to stir up all the deprived people, who would want to believe and who would believe—and all [you’ve] got to do is convince them—that all white people are bad. Then you’ve got a movement…It don’t matter whether any whites did it or not. Something happened to her…even if Tawana don’t (sic) it to herself.’

Ah, now THIS is the kind of negro white liberal elitist like Boxer wants.  She can use them like laborers in the liberal plantation to spread the message of Marxist class warfare turned identity politics.  Bourgeoisie versus proletariat, white versus black, it’s all the same to us: We can exploit both versions in our big government narrative just the same.  “You’re a helpless victim!  Let us help you!  Let us grow government to encompass your entire world to create a cocoon of safety for you!”

Some years back, philosopher Francis Beckwith related a story of participating in a radio talk program with the subject under discussion being rape.  A woman calling in said Francis had no right to an opinion because he was a man.  And Francis asked her, “How do you know I’m a man?  My name is Francis.”  The woman said, “You have a deep voice.”  And Francis said, “So does Bea Arthur.”  Francis continued to object to being called a man, until finally the woman was resorted to shouting, “You’re a man!  You’re a man!” over and over again.

As Francis later related, actually that felt pretty good.

Francis Beckwith IS a man.  But his point was that arguments don’t have testicles.  An argument is true of false by virtue of whether it corresponds with logic and reality; it is not dependent upon the gender of the one making the argument.

Arguments don’t have melatonin, either.

Unless of course, you are a liberal.  If you are a liberal, nothing counts as being “true” unless it is said by a member of an official, certified victim group.  And then it becomes irrefutable whether it has anything to do with logic or reality.

Truth doesn’t matter.  Facts don’t matter.  The quality of the arguments being presented don’t matter.  Only the status of being a minority or a victim matters.  I am victim.  Hear me whine.

And if the fact is that a white male would have without question been crucified upside down for saying, “I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life,” so much the worse for the facts.  Blatant discrimination is fine, as long as the one being discriminated against isn’t a member of a liberal victimhood group.  Or as long as you have your very own blacks to draw upon.

Harry Alfred, thank you.  And not, “Thank you as a white man to a black man,” but rather, “Thank you as a man for standing up for values that transcend race because they equally apply to all men and women of all colors.

Allow me to say one final thing.  And if someone wants to tell me, “You’re just like Barbara Boxer, playing the ‘My black is better than your black’ game,” so be it:

Martin Luther King was a Republican who stood for the content of peoples’ character and the quality of their ideas being far more important than the color of their skin.  Does anyone believe that Dr. King would have been anything other than appalled that a man like Al Sharpton would be a leading figure in the movement he gave his life to advance?  Does anyone believe that he would have been anything other than outraged that a Latina woman could utter such profoundly racially biased words with such aplomb?  Tragically, Martin Luther King embodied transcendent principles that have largely been dismissed and even reviled by the left in favor of their near polar opposites.

Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush

November 6, 2008

I wrote an article that pretty much summed up my feelings with the Obama-Democrat victory on Tuesday: Obama Wins!  God Damn America! Two comments represent two very different points of view:

You people are rediculous [sic]. Take a minute and think about what you’re saying. You cannot continue to spew lies and deciet [sic] and expect us to come together peacfully [sic] as a country.

And:

Let’s give Obama the same chance his followers gave Bush in 2000. None.

I have to laugh at the first comment.  Did liberal individual expressing this opinion feel a similar righteous indignation for the over-the-top visceral hatred for President Bush that just seemed to go on and on and on?  I very much doubt it.  He may well be one of the many liberals with “Bush lied, people died” bumper stickers on his car.

He might be one of the “Hamas Liberals” like this [please see the update at the bottom of this article]:

I Hate Bush!
FOUND by Fred Ames in Raleigh, North Carolina
I found this by a middle school / high school bus stop while walking my dog. I know – EVERYONE hates that a*****e Bush – but I haven’t seen it expressed quite so well by a kid before!

All I can say is, “That poor dog.”

I say “Hamas Liberals” because you clearly have a school indoctrination system pumping out the same hatred for Bush that Palestinian schools are teaching their little darlings to have for Jews.  But that stuff was fine.

When I was a middle schooler, I wasn’t doodling about my hatred for President Carter, even though the man was running the country right into the ground on every front imaginable.  There has been an unhinged – and frankly demonic – hatred for President Bush that has been like nothing I have ever seen.

As a Wall Street Journal article put it, “The treatment of Bush has been a disgrace.”  It begins:

“Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.”

Bush hatred didn’t take very long to manifest itself.  People went nuts screaming that Bush stole the election in an assult against democracy.  It didn’t matter that the Palm Beach, Florida debacle occurred in a Democratic County under Democratic leadership, or that the same flawed ballot design had cost Republican Bob Dole 14,000 votes only four years earlier.  No, it was because Bush was the devil.  The outgoing Clinton administration trashed the White House to set the official Democratic tone regarding the incoming Bush administration.

Now, I’m not saying that Republican parents should indoctrinate their children at home to despise and hate Barack Obama (presumably, the public schools will continue to teach children to hate Republicans).  Nor am I suggesting that the Bush administration demonstrate its loathing of the incoming Obama adminstration like the Clinton adminstration did.

But I AM saying that Republicans should realize that Democrats have set the bar for political discourse, and we would have to be world class limbo dancers in order to set the bar any lower than Democrats did in demonizing President Bush.

Democrats have been utterly vicious rabid political monsters for years.  They destroyed Robert Bork in a campaign of unwarranted personal demonization to begin the war of the politics of personal destruction.  And when Clarence Thomas’s appointment came up, they said, We’re going to bork him. We’re going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?”  The Republican response to this shocking viciousness on the part of Democrats and liberals was to confirm the incredibly liberal (the General Counsel of the ACLU!) Clinton appointee Ruth bader Ginsburg, citing that, whatever her perspective, she was qualified.  Trusting a Democrat to return professional courtesy is like trusting a frothing-at-the-mouth rabid dog not to bite you.  It just won’t happen.  Quit hoping it will, and get with the program.

Barack Hussein Obama and his Democratic lackeys get to wear the bullseyes on their foreheads for the duration of the next election cycle.  It is ALL on them now, and every single failure – and every single event that can be spun into the appearance of a failure – are ALL on them now.  Does Obama lead us into a war for ANY reason?  He’s a murdering warmonger.   Doctor pictures of him with the blood of his victims and fangs like the ugly and evil monster he is! Does Obama NOT lead us into war for any reason?  He’s an appeasing weakling who doesn’t have the will to protect us from tyrants.  Will we see any kind of terrible national disaster?  Then it’s “Obama drinks blood from human skulls!” Does the economy do anything other than spiral ever upward and upward?  It’s a failed Obama presidency” and “failed Democratic policies.” And – given the fact that yesterday marked the “biggest loss ever on the day after a presidential election,” well, Obama is already “a failed President” faster than anyone’s ever been a failed President.

Don’t let a bunch of appallingly blatant hypocrites try to tell you that you owe Obama one more iota of respect than they gave to Bush.  After what they’ve done, they don’t deserve to talk about graciousness, respect, what’s best for the country, or any of their other smarmy self-serving rhetoric.

It’s time to start burning down their houses and salting their fields.  The Democrats demonstrated the pathway to political success; let us follow the ashes to learn the example of the trail the Democrats blazed.

Update, December 21, 2o11: I had cause to cite this article again, and discovered that the liberal who posted the “I hate Bush!” note had deleted it (like the lying coward that he is). But no fear; I was able to find an archive of that image here. And this time I saved it to my hard drive as well:

For the record, I’ve never purged a single thing after posting more than 1,900 articles. Because unlike liberals, I actually have the courage that comes from the nobility of my ideas to stand up for what I said, and either defend it or at least have the decency to admit I was wrong to say it.


Supreme Court LIBERALS Blocked States From Regulating Financial System

September 29, 2008

We have literally been deluged with claims that it was the Republicans who prevented effective regulations that would have prevented the Housing Finance tsunami.  It is a bald-faced lie: it was Democrats who refused to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to continue to mandate foolish loans to low income and minority families who didn’t have sufficient collateral to pay their debts under the mantra of “affordable housing” (that dates back to a 1992 Clinton-era act).  I hope you read my article, “Democrats Refused To Regulate GSEs, Created Financial Tsunami,” which documents the Democrats’ astonishing lies.

But the Democrats’ abject refusal to regulate the housing finance industry extends all the way to the highest reaches of the temple of liberalism: the United States Supreme Court.  Liberal justices banned the states from having any voice in the regulatory process.  And they are directly responsible for the crisis that ensued:

Supreme Court Says Federal Government Is Sole Regulator of Bank Subsidiaries

Tony Mauro
Legal Times
April 18, 2007

National banks won a major victory Tuesday when the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government, not states, has the pre-eminent role in regulating banks’ mortgage business, even if conducted by subsidiaries.

By a 5-3 vote in Watters v. Wachovia Bank, the Court found that the National Banking Act pre-empts state regulation of banks — and that the pre-emption extends to their subsidiaries, which the Court said are “equivalent” to the national banks themselves.

Banks fought hard for federal regulation under the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, rather than subjecting themselves to differing — and more aggressive — rules and enforcement at the state level.

In the case before the Court, Wachovia Mortgage had been licensed in Michigan, but in January 2003 it notified the state that it had become a wholly owned operating subsidiary of Wachovia Bank, and as such no longer was subject to Michigan’s registration requirements. State banking regulator Linda Watters responded by barring the company from doing business in Michigan. Wachovia went to court to challenge her decision, and the bank won in the lower courts.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, ruled for Wachovia, stating that “State regulators cannot interfere with the ‘business of banking’ by subjecting OCC-licensed operating subsidiaries to multiple audits and surveillance under rival oversight regimes.”

Ginsburg also rejected states’ argument that the Bill of Right’ 10th Amendment justified a state role. The amendment, which reserves some powers to the states, does not apply in Ginsburg’s view, because the Constitution assigns banking regulation to the federal government as part of its power over interstate commerce.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg – archliberal priestess of the Supreme Court intelligentsia – wrote the majority opinion for the 5-3 decision.

And who was in the majority, and who was in the minority?

In an unusual lineup, joining Ginsburg in the majority were Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito Jr. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a stinging dissent, accusing the majority of upsetting the federal-state balance and improperly expanding federal pre-emption doctrine. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia joined Stevens’ dissent.

Without explanation, Justice Clarence Thomas recused in the case, though his financial disclosure forms do not reflect a connection to Wachovia.

John Roberts, Antonin Scalia were in the minority, with Clarence Thomas recusing himself, voted against this move to kill the states’ right to have any power to regulate the financial industry.  And a gang of liberals (with the exception of Alito and Stevens – a Republican Nixon appointee who has too often sided with liberals – switching roles and cancelling one another out) imposed their will in yet another example of liberal stupidity and their unconstitutional lust for power.

Blame Democrats.  Blame liberals.  They are all over this mess.  While Democrats in Congress prevented any Republican-led efforts to federally regulate out-of-control Democrat-run GSEs, Supreme Court liberals were killing any chance the states had to have any regulatory oversight of their own.

When Republicans were spearheading efforts to launch regulatory reform, Barney Frank was testifying against the regulators and against regulation:

You seem to be saying, well, these are in areas which could raise safety and soundness problems. I don’t see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems.

But I have seen nothing in here that suggests that the safety and soundness are at issue. I think it serves us badly to raise safety and soundness as a kind of a general shibboleth, when it does not seem to me to be an issue.

Even President Bill Clinton attributes the lack of regulation to Democrats:

Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC’s Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been “resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

If you elect Democrats, you will be putting the very people who created this economic tsunami in power.  And mark my words: with our markets already in crisis, you will come to rue the day you put these foxes in charge of the federal hen house.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 535 other followers