Posts Tagged ‘racist’

What Racist Bigot Donald Sterling Needs To Be Saying: I’m Clearly Not A Racist Because I’m A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT

April 28, 2014

The moment you’ve got an ugly scandal like this one and the word “conservative” or “Republican” isn’t blasted all over the story, you pretty much know the cockroach is a liberal:

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Liberal #Democrat Donald Sterling Caught on Tape Screaming Ugly Racist Epithets

Amazing.It’s been almost like clockwork this last couple of weeks. Leftists got a squirrelly reprieve with the fake Cliven Bundy sideshow, but then the left gets back on track with their racist repertoire of hate. Seriously. It’s too good. You just can’t make up these far-left Democrat Party supporting leftists spewing vile racial epithets, all caught on tape. Clockwork baby.I say it all the time: the Democrat Party is the country’s natural home to racists and ethnic eliminationists. And now we have über liberal real estate mogul and sports owner, Democrat Party contributor and philanthropist, Donald T. Sterling in the news with yet another case of vile leftist racial hatred.Here’s the headline story at Memeorandum, “Clippers Owner Donald Sterling to GF – Don’t Bring Black People to My Games, Including Magic Johnson” and on Twitter:And there’s a YouTube clip at the Independent Journal Review, “Explosive Audio: L.A. Clippers Owner Donald Sterling Shows Us All What Truly Ugly Racism Sounds Like.” As it notes there:

Just for the record, Sterling’s record of political support is for two Democratic politicians: former California Governor Gray Davis and three-term Senator Bill Bradley.

Of course! Sterling’s a liberal leftist Democrat of the first order! Also here, “Follow the Money: Political Contributions of NBA Owners.”

What’s hilarious is none of this is new. Sterling’s far-left racist bigotry has been on the public record for a long time. See this Los Angeles Times report from black liberal Los Angeles Times columnist Sandy Banks in 2010, “Donald Sterling is generous, impolitic and eager to be liked“:

You can’t flip through our newspaper these days without spotting the giant ads Sterling buys promoting his awards and donations, his smiling face plastered among a jumble of names and cut-and-paste photos.

I wangled an invitation because I wanted to meet him. I was curious about the man — and the motives — behind the generosity. Sterling has been dogged for years by claims that he’s a bigot. Was this simple image repair or true redemption, I wondered.

Two months ago, Sterling settled a housing discrimination lawsuit by the U.S. Justice Department for $2.7 million. Four years ago, he spent millions to settle a similar lawsuit brought by a fair housing group.

Both accused him of trying to exclude blacks, Latinos and families with children from renting apartments in buildings he owns.

Yet there he was last week playing Santa, handing out $1 million from his private charitable foundation to 10 high schools in South and East Los Angeles and 20 charities across Los Angeles County.

Like Skid Row’s Para Los Niños, “another fabulous Hispanic charity in Boyle Heights, where I grew up,” Sterling said.

And Roosevelt High, “with all the Hispanic kids,” he said, “where nobody thought they could study and learn calculus until that teacher” — Jaime Escalante — came along.

Oops — Escalante taught at Garfield High, which also received a Sterling grant.

And left-wing author and activist Earl Ofari Hutchinson, back in 2009, hammered Sterling’s racism — and took the NAACP to task for giving the Clippers owner a pass on his disgusting racist bigotry. See, “Put Donald T. Sterling’s NAACP Award on Hold“:

A Google search with the name Donald Sterling and racial discrimination found nearly 12,000 results. Not one of them even remotely had Sterling doing anything to further racial goodwill. The checklist of reported Sterling racial escapades include a Justice Department housing discrimination lawsuit and forced settlement, slurs and gaffes against Hispanics and African-Americans, and that includes two high profile Clipper players, the shooing of minorities away from his pricey Beverly Hills condos and rentals, and an overblown and failed promise to build a Homeless shelter on L.A.s skid row. Then there’s the allegations and lawsuit by former Clipper General Manager Elgin Baylor that Sterling runs his operations like a Southern plantation.

The NAACP airbrushed this away and simply said that Sterling has been a gem in giving oodles of tickets away to needy inner city kids and ladling out some cash to charities and sports camps for them. How any of this ranks as a take the lead, storm the barriers battle against racial injustice is a mystery….

The issue is not what, whether or even if Sterling did anything to further the cause of racial justice and civil rights. He hasn’t. The issue is what the NAACP is doing to further it.

While perhaps Ofari Hutchison’s not persuaded that Sterling’s done much in fact to help the black community, as LAT’s Banks points out, the Clippers owner indeed has a long history of philanthropy for a litany of left-wing causes. Sports Illustrated, back in 2000, ran a major feature story on Sterling, critical of his success as an NBA owner but highlighting his liberal philanthropy, “Up And Down In Beverly Hills“:

Many people believe that Sterling is playing a different game from the rest of the NBA owners. “I don’t know how important winning is to Donald,” says [Carl] Scheer, the team’s general manager Scheer. “He seems more concerned mat his books are balanced, that he runs one of the few NBA franchises with no debt, that he can bring his friends to games.” Those friends—a mix of Friars Clubbers and Merv Era celebs—show up en masse at Sterling’s Malibu White Party, the extravagant tented barbecue-and-bubbly beach bash he often throws at his second home, a neo-Tudor oceanfront bungalow. The party is so named because guests are encouraged to dress all in white, as in The Great Gatsby. “Sterling’s agenda is as much social as professional,” says Los Angeles Times sportswriter Mark Heisler. “He loves the status that owning even a bad team confers.”

He also enjoys the publicity he’s received as a philanthropist. Southern California charities routinely fete Sterling as their Humanitarian of the Year. Since 1997, the title has been accorded him by the Vista Del Mar Orphanage, the Special Olympics, the Los Angeles Yeshiva, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation and the L.A. Police Historical Society. Not that every charity has found it easy to separate Sterling from his swag. Linda McCoy-Murray recognized that last summer when she phoned him to help sponsor a golf tournament in honor of her late husband, venerated L.A. Times sports columnist Jim Murray. Every pro franchise in California, according to McCoy-Murray had forked over at least $5,000 to her foundation, which provides journalism scholarships. Every pro franchise, that is, except the Clippers, which had memorialized Murray on the final page of last season’s media guide. Sterling offered McCoy-Murray two season passes. “You know, that’s wonderful,” she remembers telling him. “but we’re trying to endow a college scholarship fund. We could really use cash.”

Sterling’s a classic Beverly Hills-Hollywood schmoozer and left-wing philanthropist big shot, and the occasional leftist tight wad, heh.

Again, this is just one more case of leftist racism and bigotry, unfortunately too splashy of a celebrity story for the hopelessly biased leftist press to tamp down.

Hillary Clinton has said on multiple occasions that her political heroine is Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.  On receiving an award from Margaret Sanger’s organization Planned Parenthood, Clinton said:

Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision … And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.

Here are some of Margaret’s best lines:

    • …human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”  Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to blacks, immigrants and poor people
    • “More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12
    • The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
    • “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
    • In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107
    • “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
    • “Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.” (Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review)
    • “Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems (“The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5).

The heroine of Hillary Clinton was a freaking Nazi.  And I mean that literally.  Margaret Sanger was an ardent supporter of Hitler’s eugenics program and had a similar “master race” concept (with Aryans clearly being aforementioned “master race” in her warped and depraved mind.

We just saw a giant blowup over Cliven Bundy and his remarks about “the Negro.”  And I want to point out that Bundy is no hero of mine.  But as to the militia who flocked to protect him when the Government began to first confiscate and then to execute his cattle and bury them in mass graves, allow me to respond to liberals’ charges that these conservatives are criminals and “domestic terrorists” by pointing at their own Occupy Movement – which had 7,765 documented arrests including for rape and murder AND terrorism.  And of course we can likewise point out that racism is intrinsic to the left.

Harry Reid basically thought Obama was a “good” negro and that was basically fine with the left.

I mean, yes, liberals like Donald Sterling want to give “other people’s money” to blacks.  But that is because according to liberalism, black people aren’t actually “people” but inferior animals who as “the white man’s burden” need to be cared for on the Democrat Party’s plantation.  All they have to do is keep voting for their masters to get the care which as racial inferiors they clearly cannot provide for themselves.

Donald Sterling doesn’t have a problem with “black people.”  I mean, he hired a black guy as his head coach, right?  He’s only got a problem with black people believing they’re his equals is all.

The Los Angeles Clippers are – as of the moment I write this – getting blown out by the Golden State Warriors.  You have to sympathize with the team: do they play their guts out to the ultimate reward of a racist turd?  Or do they deliberately tank the series after working so hard all year to get to the playoffs?  What the hell are they supposed to do?

Apparently, the black population as a whole doesn’t have much of a problem with Donald Sterling: because they’re going to keep helping the racist turd’s political party – and the plantation system that Sterling endorses – with their votes.

I think of Bill Clinton and what he said to Ted Kennedy when he was trying to persuade him to support Hillary’s nomination over Barack Obama’s:

“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,”

And:

 “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.”

I mean, white liberals are perfectly happy working with the black people that they own lock, stock and barrel via the welfare system.

I think of Hillary’s attitude toward blacks – via her own sense of entitlement to power as a white liberal – as expressed by liberal Father Pfleger:

“We must be honest enough to expose white entitlement and supremacy wherever it raises its head…. [W]hen Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, ‘This is mine. I’m Bill’s [Bill Clinton's]wife. I’m white. And this is mine. I just got to get up and step into the plate.’ And then out of nowhere came, ‘hey, I’m Barack Obama.’ And she said, ‘Oh damn, where did you come from? I’m white. I’m entitled. There’s a black man stealing my show.‘” Pfleger then mimicked Mrs. Clinton crying as the audience gave him a standing ovation. Added Pfleger: “She wasn’t the only one crying. There was a whole lot of white people cryin’.”

It sounds to me like that is what “almost” NAACP-award-winning Donald Sterling was doing: he was perfectly fine with a black man bringing him his coffee.  Just don’t let them stand too close to the woman he bought himself to keep along with his wife.

Did you get that?  Donald Sterling was just about to get an AWARD from the NAACP for his wonderfulness.  They were JUST about to give this racist pile of filth a lifetime achievement award.  Because he’s a liberal and thus his rather lengthy history of previous race issues was irrelevant.  And the only reason they cancelled it was because it would have made them even bigger laughing stocks than they already ARE.

Tell me how close the damn Koch brothers have ever been to being on the receiving end of an award from the NAACP.  Pluto is closer to the sun is than any conservative has ever been to receiving such an award from this leftist hate group masquerading as an equal rights organization.

“Racism” is just a game to these lying liberals.  It’s no different from the National Organization of Women: they don’t represent women in any way, shape or form.  They represent a leftist ideology and if you are a successful, fulfilled, accomplished conservative woman such as Sarah Palin, well, you’re clearly “anti-woman” the same way a Clarence Thomas or a Ben Carson becomes an “Uncle Tom” if they don’t tow the plantation line and pick the cotton the way they’re supposed to as far as doctrinaire liberalism is concerned.

You better stay on your damn plantation, negro.  Especially if you’re not “light-skinned” and “clean” and “articulate” with “no negro dialect” like Obama or Eric Holder.  Otherwise you can count on the left coming after you with all the viciousness and race-hate it can muster – and they can muster a LOT of race-hate as virtually all black conservatives have learned.

Had Donald Sterling not been literally caught on tape by his mistress explaining in detail what a racist he is, this racist scumbag would have been just one more among many other white liberals who got an award from the black establishment that serves as the foremen on the elitist white liberal plantation.

‘Non-Stop’ Liberal Fascism And The Vileness Of Liberalism Which ALWAYS Twists Truth And Reality

April 15, 2014

What the hell – and I DO mean “hell” because hell is IN these people – is wrong with liberals?

Here’s the latest outrage in which liberals “twist” truth and reality by making the real-life villains the victims and the heroes while making the real-life victims and heroes the villains:

On Saturday, Breitbart.com reported that the villain in Liam Neeson’s new action thriller, “Non-Stop,” is a 9/11 family member who also served in the military.

“‘Non-Stop’ is a good movie,” John Nolte wrote. “Heck, it is darn near very good. But the left-wing sucker punch at the end is a new low, even for Hollywood.”

Nolte said the villain joined the military after losing a loved on in the terror attack on the World Trade Center, but became disillusioned by the ongoing wars.

So, the veteran decides to blow everyone up on a plane so the air marshal can get blamed, causing airport security to be tightened even further.

Worse yet, Nolte added, the villain’s sidekick turns out to be an American military member willing to murder 150 innocent people for money.

Moreover, Nolte said the “one passenger on the plane who is forever helpful, kind, reasonable, noble, and never under suspicion is a Muslim doctor dressed in traditional Muslim garb including a full beard.”

Glenn Beck also excoriated the movie, according to a post at The Blaze.

“It is really great, until you find out that the killer is U.S. military and a guy who believes in the Constitution,” he said sarcastically. “Oh, darn it. Did I just wreck that movie for everybody? Oh, I didn’t mean to…”

Beck said that even in liberal New York, the ending was met with groans.

“I’m not going to say anymore, except the killer is … a schoolteacher and so you completely dismiss him,” he added. “And there’s a little hole in the bathroom where they do a blow-dart, and they kill the pilot.”

The Blaze added:

Beck said the killer’s rationale was something “nonsensical” along the lines of: “It’s the government that has been putting people like you, you drunkard, on planes and allowing you to be our TSA. And that’s just wrong. So I’m going to blow everything up and take the money. I’ve got a parachute here, so I’m going to live. And I’m going to take all the money, and I’m going to get away with it. A-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha.”

He also said the movie shows that “no amount of research … can help these people in Hollywood,” because they simply do not understand what a “wildly, wildly insulting movie” they made.

Beck’s advise: “Don’t go see Non-Stop.”

Nolte had even harsher words: “Sc**w you, Hollywood.”

“Non-Stop” is rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association of America for “intense sequences of action and violence, some language, sensuality and drug references,” and was given two out of four stars by the Associated Press‘ Jake Coyle.

That’s right.  It doesn’t matter if in REALITY Muslims are responsible for 99.99999% of all terrorist attacks and 9/11 victims’ families and the heroes who served are responsible for 0.0000001%.  Because to be “liberal” means to think just the opposite of reality and piss on the truth.

Liberals are the people who constantly assure us that Nazis are “right-wing” because everybody apparently just knows that if there was a “National Socialist American Workers Party” the way Nazi stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” it would be a conservative Republican Party.  Because you know how we conservatives adore “socialism” and “workers parties” and how much the left despises them.

Oh, wait.  It’s the other way around.  Not that lying liberals give a damn.

Liberals have managed to assure us that women who want to murder their own babies are heroes and victims and the babies they kill are worthless things that have no right to life.  Babies, liberals assure us, have the duty to die for the convenience of their mommies much the same way that Jews had the duty to die for the convenience of Adolf.

Liberals have managed to assure us that homosexual men who lust after being bending over and being sodomized by another man after sucking him to orgasm are “normal” and the people who recognize that these people are depraved, unnatural perverts are the weirdos.

LIberals have managed to assure us that snarling black men who join the Black Panthers with the following message -

We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.

Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”

I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”

We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”

- aren’t racist at all.  They aren’t racist – morally depraved jackass liberal pseudo-intellectuals tell us – because black people are people who hold both the presidency and the attorney generalship and are therefore victims forever and thus incapable of “racism.”  Do you know who IS racist?  Republicans.  Not ALL Republicans, they tell us out of their fairness and decency.  Just ALMOST all of them:

WASHINGTON — “Not all” Republicans are racist, said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) on Sunday, but “to a significant extent, the Republican base has elements that are animated by racism, and that’s unfortunate.”

Israel’s comment was in response to a question from CNN’s Candy Crowley, who asked the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee about remarks by Attorney General Eric Holder this week. In a speech to a civil rights group, Holder questioned his treatment by Republican lawmakers at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, and implied that race may have played a role.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also suggested this past week that racism was a factor in the Republican party’s opposition to immigration reform. “I think race has something to do with the fact that they’re not bringing up an immigration bill,” Pelosi told reporters, adding, “I’ve heard them say to the Irish, if it were just you, this would be easy.”

Which of course means that the same “almost” all of the 54% of Americans who voted to have that Republican majority are clearly “racist,” too.

And of course, liberals have assured us that it is “racist” to try to limit or reduce illegal voting in any way, shape or form.  But that it is most definitely NOT “racist” to stand outside a voting place with clubs threatening and mocking voters of the other political party (and see here and here).

Liberals have assured us that Jesus was a socialist who demanded that King Herod and Pontius Pilate be empowered to radically expand big government to “help” the poor with institutionalized welfare rather than saying to His disciples, “YOU feed them.”  In the same vein, liberals have assured us that Barack Obama and Joe Biden – who gave poor people VIRTUALLY NOTHING from their own wealth are “generous” and that men like Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney – who gave 28% and 78% of their respective incomes to charity – are “selfish.”

Democrats and liberals are people who pathologically pervert the truth and slander reality.

I am so sick to my soul of twisted and perverted liberal “morality” that makes a mockery of everything the Word of God declares it is beyond unreal.

 

 

Liberal Fascist Hypocrite Joan Walsh Says It’s ‘Racist’ To Go After Obama’s Family – After Viciously Slandering Bush’s Family In 2001.

March 27, 2013

Joan Walsh is a typical liberal hypocrite.  She literally says it’s racist to do what she herself did.  Only of course it wasn’t racist when she did it.

Here’s her article attacking George W. Bush as a father and then attacking his daughters back in 2001 (note that the picture of Bush’s daughter below was a prominent part of the Salon.com piece) back when it was wonderful to demonize the president:

Thursday, May 31, 2001 01:00 AM PDT
The first family’s alcohol troubles
President Bush downplayed his own drinking problem and hid a DUI. Now his daughters are making news for underage drinking. Is there a connection?
By Joan Walsh

I don’t envy Jenna and Barbara Bush, going off to college under the watchful eye of the Secret Service and the international media. But the sudden flurry of headlines about the first twins’ alcohol-related mishaps raises new questions about the way their father handled his own “young and irresponsible” past.

I always thought it was a bad decision for Bush, as a politician, to refuse to acknowledge his wild youth — which, by his own account, lasted until he was 40. But now it seems it was a bad choice for Bush as a father. After his 1976 drunken-driving arrest was revealed last year, Bush said he didn’t admit it when he decided to run for president because he didn’t want his daughters to know about it. That was a mistake, and the twins’ recent run of bad behavior seems designed to let him know that.

There’s no evidence either twin has a drinking problem, but the string of news items involving their partying and scrapes with the law in the last few months can’t be ignored. First came the tale of Secret Service agents ferrying home Jenna’s boyfriend after he was arrested for public drunkenness. Then there were randy National Enquirer photos of Jenna, a University of Texas freshman, and a beer-drinking pal, and a story about her alleged marijuana use. Yale freshman Barbara, supposedly the studious twin, had a false I.D. confiscated at a New Haven, Conn., bar. In April, the Enquirer featured a lurid tale of Barbara’s drunken spring-break binge in Mexico, and by the end of the month all major newspapers were carrying a story about Jenna being cited by police at an Austin bar for underage drinking, while Secret Service agents waited outside.

Now, barely a week after a court appearance to deal with that alcohol citation, Jenna has been caught again using a false I.D. to buy alcohol at an Austin restaurant, with sister Barbara at her side.

Of course, many of us would have provided lively tabloid fodder in college if we’d been subjected to the scrutiny Barbara and Jenna Bush must endure. And their college drinking doesn’t mean they’ll turn into alcoholics as adults. Most teenage party girls become responsible citizens, eventually. Still, their recklessness in the first months of their father’s presidency suggests their parents screwed up by downplaying and even denying President Bush’s own drinking problem.

Bush’s he-man decision to quit drinking cold turkey is the stuff of legend. The morning after a boozy 40th birthday party in 1986, he woke up at Colorado’s tony Broadmoor Resort and decided, on his own, to get sober. Alcohol had begun to “compete for my affections,” Bush said later. Certainly he didn’t need Alcoholics Anonymous, he told the Washington Post: “I don’t think I was clinically an alcoholic; I didn’t have the genuine addiction. I don’t know why I drank. I liked to drink, I guess.”

But his close friends tell a slightly different story: “Once he got started, he couldn’t, didn’t shut it off,” Bush’s buddy Don Evans, now commerce secretary, told the Washington Post last year. “He didn’t have the discipline.” That sounds a lot like an addiction, though only Bush himself knows for sure.

He refused to discuss details of his drinking or rumored drug use throughout his political campaigns, relying on the stock excuse, “When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.” His parents have also repeatedly denied he had a drinking problem, even after several family crises involving his drinking came to light: an ugly Christmas confrontation with his father in 1972, after Bush drove drunk with his brother Marvin, crashed into a neighbor’s garbage cans and offered to fight “mano a mano” with his father; and the 1976 DUI incident near the family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, with his then-teenage sister Dorothy in the car.

We know Bush’s problem drinking, including the DUI, was a family secret. The night a reporter broke the DUI story, Laura Bush called both daughters, in Austin and New Haven, to break the news to them. “I made the decision that as a dad I didn’t want my girls doing the kinds of things I did, and I told them not to drink and drive,” Bush told reporters. But he didn’t tell them about his own arrest.

The secrecy, of course, was a mistake. Anyone who works with alcoholics and their families knows honesty is crucial: The drinking parent needs to come clean about his or her problems, and kids need to understand the family dynamics that were established around the drinking. And as teenagers, they need to know that alcoholism is a disease — whether because of psychology or physiology or some combination of the two — that is remarkably hereditary, and think about their own drinking in that context.

“We know for a fact that [Jenna's] father had a long history of alcohol use and abuse,” Lynn Ponton, a psychiatrist who studies teenage risk-taking, told Salon. “And this is an opportunity for the Bushes … to talk honestly with their children about risk-taking and really provide guidance and increase communication. And I would wonder what type of communication is actually taking place.”

I wonder, too. I’d bet there hasn’t been enough communication in the WASP-y Texas Bush family, and it looks as if the first twins are acting out as a result. Even with a Secret Service detail, there are ways for young women to party, if they’re discreet. Clearly, the first twins aren’t. Their blatant risk-taking and public partying (the Secret Service waits outside the bars where they drink illegally?) seem designed to force a family reckoning that their father’s drinking never triggered.

I’m reluctant to play family therapist for a family I’ve never met, but I’d say that Bush may have gotten past voters with evasiveness about his drinking problem, but he hasn’t satisfied his daughters. And if he sticks to the sanitized, up-from-Broadmoor version of the story, he may someday find he won the White House at the cost of an honest relationship with his daughters.

An earlier version of this story appeared in Bushed! last month.

That was then.  As liberal fascism always declares, it can’t be fascist when we do it.  So liberal roach-thug Walsh apparently gets pissed off about what is actually a pretty straightforward piece at Breitbart and writes this stinking pile of crap that these days passes as “journalism” (note the considerably more flattering picture of Obama’s daughters in which they look considerably less drunk than their choice for Jenna’s pic above).

For the record, I read over the Breitbart piece.  Somehow I missed the parts that Walsh alleges are there about a) the color of Obama’s skin; b) the unfitness of Obama as a parent; or c) the disgracefulness of the president’s daughters.  Please note, however, how Walsh just flat-out poured hate on George W. Bush as a father and slammed his daughters even after acknowledging that she had any actual factual basis for doing so:

Tuesday, Mar 26, 2013 09:51 AM PDT
How not to seem like a racist
A tip for right-wingers angry about charges of racial bias: Try treating the Obama daughters with decency
By Joan Walsh

How not to seem like a racistEnlargeSasha and Malia Obama(Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)

Writing my piece on Andrew Breitbart and Tucker Carlson, I missed a huge example of overlap between their two sham-empires: the reporter who broke the Caller’s now-disgraced “scoop” about Sen. Robert Menendez patronizing prostitutes, Matthew Boyle, now works for Breitbart.com. And on Monday he penned the ridiculous story revealing the location of Malia and Sasha’s spring break vacation (which is now at the top of the Drudge Report).

On Twitter Monday and Tuesday, Breitbart fans attacked my focus on their hero’s bizarre racially driven crusades. They continue to insist that they’re being unfairly tarred with the charge of racism, when they’re the real “post-racialists” who just don’t like Barack Obama because he’s a liberal. I have some advice for right-wingers who don’t want it to seem like their anti-Obama animus is racial: Try treating his daughters with respect.

You’ll remember back in December, the NRA went after Sasha and Malia with an ad insisting that the fact that they have armed protection, when the administration was supposedly blocking armed security at America’s schools (actually, it wasn’t), was the height of hypocrisy – ignoring the many threats to their safety faced by the children of presidents and the tradition of Secret Service protection, for all of them.

The Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper went even crazier, with a piece alleging that the girls’ school, Sidwell Friends, a Quaker school, had armed guards, too. Anyone familiar with the Quaker tradition of nonviolence found that claim strange, and of course, like most claims about the Obama family that come from the right, it turned out not to be true.

Unfortunately for the untalented Mr. Boyle, journalists have a consensus about not revealing the location of the presidents’ children’s vacations. Reporters don’t write about minor first children except when they’re attending “official or semi-official events.” It’s considered a security risk. As the Washington Post’s Paul Farhi reported last year:

The ban on such coverage has existed through many administrations by informal agreement with the White House Correspondents’ Association, which represents the interests of journalists who cover the president.

“There’s a general feeling among the press corps that it wants to be respectful” of the president’s children, said Caren Bohan, the White House reporter for Reuters who is president of the WHCA.

When Agence-France Presse wrote about Malia’s trip to Mexico last year, a few U.S. outlets picked it up, and the administration tried to get the details removed. Then an earthquake in Mexico made the first daughter’s vacation newsworthy, and other sites, justifiably, reported it.

A year later, along comes the brave Matthew Boyle, fresh off his Menendez humiliation, to tell Breitbart readers about the Obama girls’ vacation. The news hook seems to be that it’s a waste of money.

“It is unclear how long the first daughters will be staying in the Bahamas, or what the cost will be to taxpayers,” Boyle harrumphs. “Earlier this month, the White House canceled public tours as a result of the recent budget sequester, citing Secret Service staffing costs.”

Esquire’s Charlie Pierce put it better than I can:

What possible interest does this serve, except to titillate the dark and envious nether parts of Boyle’s 22 readers? (No link, because fk that pudgy little monster.) There is no possible news value to this. Sooner or later, the frolicks of what my pal [Eric] Boehlert calls the “rightwing entertainment complex” are going to get someone killed.

The theme of most right-wing stories on Sasha, Malia and Michelle Obama’s vacations and leisure-time activities seems to be that they’re entitled princesses, when they do exactly the same kinds of things other presidents’ families have done throughout history. There’s only one difference I can see.

Drudge is also hyping the president’s vacation with the blaring headline “A vacation a month.” That’s another racially tinged trope on the right, that our first black president seems to be a little, well, lazy, because he can’t stop taking vacations. Of course, Obama is on track to take about a fifth of the vacation days George W. Bush did over his two terms. Obama took 131 vacation days in his first term – which would amount to 262 if he kept that pace in his second term. Bush took a staggering 1,060 vacation days over eight years, by far the most vacation in history (he also took the longest single presidential vacation in the modern era, a full five weeks.) Can someone explain why Obama is supposedly the vacation-hog?

Oh, and the comments on Boyle’s Breitbart.com story are pretty awesome, too. Here’s a good one:

They will indeed grow up to be monsters. Very, very, angry and vengeful monsters. Just like momma… Especially after they are forced to visit their obamination of a father in a federal penitentiary following his impeachment and conviction for Treason… Although I’d far prefer they visit his plot occasionally following his hanging for treason.

Boyle is perfect for his new employer (although he was a pretty good fit for the Daily Caller, too). In a post explaining why he jumped ship (which didn’t mention the higher salary he got), he bragged about “enlisting in Andrew Breitbart’s army … I’m shipping out today. It’s time to go to war.”

A war on the president’s daughters? Boyle ought to talk to some veterans of actual war. What a putz.

Paul Farhi’s story on the media’s traditional treatment of first children quoted Democratic pollster Celinda Lake on the political appeal of Obama’s family: “The value of the family is enormous. The more you know this family and the more you think of Barack Obama in these terms, the harder it is to vilify him.”

That’s true for the vast majority of Americans. But not the haters and racists who belong to Breitbart’s “army.”

The galling, appalling hypocrisy of liberals and liberalism is disgusting beyond belief.

Hey, maybe if Barbara and Jenna Bush had jetset all over the world on other people’s money the way Obama’s daughters have, they wouldn’t have, they wouldn’t have ever had any issues with alcohol.  That and the fact that the Bush daughters were in their college years rather than their grade school years like Sasha and Malia.

I have documented in the past that being “white” is no more a defense against “racism toward whites” than liberals accord to black conservatives for being immune to racism because they’re black.  Do I seriously need to post articles of liberals going after conservtive blacks in a racist manner?  Condoleeza Rice, Justice Clarence Thomas, Allen West, Michael Steele, Stacey Dash, Dr. Benjamin Carson, pretty much ANY black person who has ever expressed conservative views in his or her life, is labelled “Uncle Tom,” Oreo Cookie and far, far worse.  So blacks can’t be “racist” because of the color of their skin on liberal theory unless they’re conservative blacks – in which case they are the quintessential ESSENCE of racist bigotry regardless of the color of their skin on the view of these self-refuting turds.  And then these hypocrites declare themselves inpeccable – i.e. incapable of sin – while they define their opponents as ONLY capable of nothing BUT sin.

Facts get in the way, of course.

Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew who actively despised Jews in his writings.

If you can be a self-hating black, as liberals assert conservative blacks are by definition and if you can be a self-hating Jew, as Karl Marx clearly was, then just how the hell is it impossible to be a self-hating white???

Thus, by liberals’ vicious attacks against black conservatives as being self-hating blacks, and literally by her own diatribe, Joan Walsh is a far-leftist intolerant racist bigot.  She is a self-hating racist race traitor according to her own demonic views.  In addition to being a truly crappy excuse of a human being.

This is what pisses me off about the left above all else: they constantly drool out the most vicious and self-righteous slanders while demonizing everyone on the other side for doing the tiniest FRACTION of what they hypocritically do.  Unless you actually want to defend her attack against Bush relative to the innocuous piece that she poured her hate on in Breitbart.

It’s time to go, Walsh, you Nazi.  That that your fellow jackbooted stormtroopers right out of the Joseph Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda mold will ever make you leave.  Becuase they’re all as hypocritical and as fascist as YOU are: they’re just not as STUPID as you are in your glaring obviousness as a biased ideologue useful idiot.

Note: AJ Delgado took on the hypocrite Joan Walsh first.

Lunatic Liberals And Their Dumbass Argument Against Voter ID Laws

August 15, 2012

Al Sharpton explained why checking the ID of voters is tantamount to putting black people in chains and selling them into slavery:

Al Sharpton: Protecting the Voting Rights
Casting a ballot is a right, not a privilege. New laws restricting that right are wrong.
By Al Sharpton
August 7, 2012

A voting rights march in the Alabama town of Selma in 1965 was broken up by baton-wielding police. (Associated Press)

The American Revolution, which created our nation, was a fight for self-governance.

The American Evolution, which delivered the promises of democracy to all Americans, was a longer struggle, requiring countless protests, marches, sacrifices and even lives lost, all of which led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This landmark legislation became the great equalizer, bringing about the end of discriminatory practices of voter disenfranchisement. It was a victory for justice and for all Americans.

Now we face a new threat: that of an American De-volution, which could reverse nearly 50 years of progress since the Voting Rights Act.

Across the country, states have passed or have proposed new rules for voting, such as photo ID requirements and restrictions in early and absentee voting. The laws are new, but to many of us they’re just the same old tricks. I remember when tactics like these were called Jim Crow.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, 10 states now have highly restrictive photo ID laws that require citizens to produce specific types of government-issued documents to vote: Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, Alabama and Texas.

Alabama’s law won’t take effect this year, and others face legal scrutiny, but it’s possible that the restrictive rules will affect 127 electoral votes — almost half of the 270 needed to win the presidency in 2012.

And who are the voters who will be affected? As the Brennan Center reports, more than 1 in 10 eligible voters in the U.S. do not possess the kind of IDs required by those 10 states. More specifically, 1 in 4 African Americans, 1 in 6 Latinos and 1 in 5 Americans over age 65 lack the requisite ID.

Though it may be difficult for some of us to imagine, many of these people simply do not drive or cannot afford a vehicle and therefore don’t possess a driver’s license. And the process of obtaining a valid ID — even when the states issue them for free — can be costly to those on fixed incomes or for those who must take time off from work, lose wages and find the means to travel to a government agency. Often they must produce copies of items such as birth certificates, which not only cost money to reproduce but may take weeks to process.

If these added difficulties weren’t discouraging enough, in Wisconsin, Mississippi and Alabama, fewer than half of all ID-issuing offices are open five days a week and none are open on the weekends. And many have irregular operating hours. The Brennan Center documented an office in Mississippi open only on the second Thursday of the month, and in Wisconsin, only on the fifth Wednesday (only four months in 2012 have five Wednesdays).

Those championing tough new voter ID laws say they are concerned about voter fraud. I’ve heard their arguments: “What’s wrong with requiring voters to have an ID? After all, you need a state-issued ID to drive, to get on an airplane, to write a check. Why not to vote?”

Here’s why. On a fundamental level, that argument confuses privileges with rights. No American has a constitutional right to drive, fly or pay by check. We do not have constitutionally protected rights to rent cars or to use credit cards. That some people think these activities are comparable to voting is alarming — and revealing.

[Me: it's at this point that Al Sharpton literally refutes himself if we just consider ONE fact that he refuses to mention]

Every American 18 or older has the right to vote. Poor Americans, black Americans, Americans who live in rural areas, Americans of every background. For decades we have recognized this truth, making it easier to vote, expanding options for casting ballots and improving access to registration. These new ID laws take us backward; they truly are nothing more than modern-day poll taxes and literacy tests.

We’re watching history repeat itself.

Why now? For the same reason partisans demanded to see President Obama‘s birth certificate. For the same reason some whisper that the president is a Muslim: to de-legitimize those with whom they disagree. The new voter suppression movement has taken off since the game-changing 2008 presidential race, when minorities and young voters turned out in record numbers.

Most of these first-time or occasional voters cast their ballots for Obama. Very quickly, Republicans began doing their best to stop them from voting again. Even a few hundred thousand votes not counted or cast in battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin could make a big difference in November.

I’ll be in Los Angeles on Thursday to keynote the Western Baptist State Convention. The focus of the convention this year will be on systematic voter disenfranchisement. We as a nation must realize the suppression is spreading. According to the Brennan Center, since the beginning of 2011, at least 180 restrictive bills have been introduced in 41 states, and 19 states have cut back on voting rights in various ways.

Millions of voters are at risk, and wherever we live, we must combat voter disenfranchisement nationwide. The ability for Americans to participate in the process was won by all; we now must join together once again to ensure that it stays that way.

The Rev. Al Sharpton is the president of National Action Network and the host of “PoliticsNation” on MSNBC.

I want you first to consider the picture.  If you support voter ID laws, you’re one of those thugs who are literally beating black people for trying to vote.  You ought to be ashamed of yourselves; you probably clubbed little baby black children, too.  Well, at least the forty percent of black babies that escape Al Sharpton’s abortion holocaust.  Consider that Planned Parenthood was caught on tape agreeing with the statement of being “against blacks in college.” Why? Because “The less black kids out there the better.” And consider that Al Sharpton is all for more killing of black babies.

Consider that liberal heroine Margaret Sanger said “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” 

Liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed and explained, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Reverend Sharpton says “Amen to that!”

Apparently, there is something truly wrong with black children that Al Sharpton knows about.

Anyway, in an article about seeking laws that require that somebody be who they claim they are when they’re voting, Al Sharpton and the LA Times throw in a picture of black people being beaten.  Because it is a well-documented fact (as per MSNBC) that absolutely every single person who wants Voter ID laws has physically taken a bat and beaten a black person into a coma.  So that’s why the picture is so appropriate.

This is the point where Al Sharpton either reveals he is a truly stupid man or that he is an incredibly dishonest one:

Those championing tough new voter ID laws say they are concerned about voter fraud. I’ve heard their arguments: “What’s wrong with requiring voters to have an ID? After all, you need a state-issued ID to drive, to get on an airplane, to write a check. Why not to vote?”

Here’s why. On a fundamental level, that argument confuses privileges with rights. No American has a constitutional right to drive, fly or pay by check. We do not have constitutionally protected rights to rent cars or to use credit cards. That some people think these activities are comparable to voting is alarming — and revealing.

Every American 18 or older has the right to vote. Poor Americans, black Americans, Americans who live in rural areas, Americans of every background. For decades we have recognized this truth, making it easier to vote, expanding options for casting ballots and improving access to registration. These new ID laws take us backward; they truly are nothing more than modern-day poll taxes and literacy tests.

We’re watching history repeat itself.

Put on your thinking caps, boys and girls: is there a “right” that liberals LOVE to regulate and routinely flat-out try to deny and take away?

Hey, “Reverend” Al.  Have you ever heard about this thing called the 2nd Amendment?  Yeah, it’s pretty neat: it says, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  It even says “right” right there!

It’s kind of interesting how you forgot about that right, Reverend Al.  But I guess I can understand why: it turns that whole article of yours into something truly idiotic.

Al Sharpton has frequently protested guns.  Al Sharpton’s partner in slime Jesse Jackson actually protested guns shops to try to shut down people from being able to buy or sell the guns that the Constitution says we’ve got a RIGHT which shouldn’t be INFRINGED.

It’s kind of convenient and interesting that Al Sharpton somehow forgot a RIGHT that he has dedicted himself to undermining while he is simultaneously arguing that such rights are sacrosanct. 

This is why people like me use terms like “hypocrite” to describe people like Al Sharpton.

If Al Sharpton had so much as a microscopic particle of credibility, he would be out there demanding that everybody ought to be able to help themselves to a giant pile of guns.  And anybody who tries to check or inspect the IDs of those who want to exercise their RIGHTS to keep and bear arms in any way, shape or form is tantamount to a club-weilding fascist thug beating on the head of some poor victom.

That’s right.  If Al Sharpton and his idiot left were consistent in any way, shape or form, they would be loudly demanding that “ID checks” be immediately suspended for anyone trying to get his or her hands on a gun.  Either that, or these hypocrite slimebags would be affirming that, you know what, yes, some rights carry responsibilities.

It isn’t that we refute the lunatic left with our arguments for voter ID laws; they refute themselves with their own idiotic arguments.

For the historical record, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party was ELECTED to rule Germany.  Voting can be every damn bit as dangerous as guns – unless you’re fine with another Adolf Cockroach Hitler.

Either we have a damn RIGHT to demand that everybody voting be able to document who they say they are in order to prevent elections from being stolen or the left doesn’t have a right to check the ID of anyone who wants to get his or her hands on a gun.  Period.

I write as somebody who views the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms as require some level of inspection.  Criminals shouldn’t be able to own guns; but criminals shouldn’t be able to VOTE, either.  They shouldn’t be able to vote twice or ten times.  They shouldn’t be able to vote in other people’s names.  They shouldn’t be allowed to steal elections as they clearly did in the case of Al Franken.  In other words, I write as somebody having something called “integrity” that Al Sharpton has never had and probably never will have.

As we speak, the same Democrats who are so loudly standing up for the right of undocumented people to vote because those who cheat vote Democrat are at the same time disenfranchising legitimate Floridian voters and military voters.

Let me just say one more thing: Al Sharpton cites the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  For the historical record, I want you to note the Republican-Democrat voting tallies:

Senate: 77–19

  • Democrats: 47–17 (73%-27%)
  • Republicans: 30–2 (94%-6%)

House: 333–85

  • Democrats: 221–61 (78%-22%)
  • Republicans: 112–24 (82%-18%)

It is a FACT that Republicans supported the Voting Rights Act by a higher percentage in BOTH branches of Congress than did Democrats.  I point this out because a lot of people are stupid and ignorant of the truth, having been indoctrinated by media propaganda lies.

Republicans are all FOR valid civil rights, just as they were when they fought a Civil War against Democrats to free the slaves.

Update, 8/15/12: Thank God a federal judge just ruled that Pennsylvania’s voter ID law can go forward.

Joe Biden Tells Largely Black Audience: Romney And Ryan Are ‘Going To Put Y’All Back In Chains’

August 15, 2012

Obama has hit moral rock freaking bottom as he desperately chisels into the sewer to slander Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

Now Joe Biden has begun jack-hammering the bedrock at the bottom of the sewer.  Because Team Obama-Biden haven’t yet BEGUN to dig into slime:

“They’re going to put you all back in chains!”

The audience was primarily black.  I’m sure it never occurred to ANY of them to associate Biden’s words with the racist threat that Romney equals slavery.  Because as we all know, black liberals rarely ever think about race when Democrat vice presidents say their opponents will put them in chains.

If anybody wants to say this was just a misstatement, two facts: 1) The Obama administration said they were FINE with Biden’s remark; and 2) Biden was reading from a teleprompter.  And both of these facts document that this racist and racially-charged attack was planned.

What would be the “racist whitey” equivalent of this? To be honest, I’m not sure, but it would probably be “If Obama gets re-elected, he and Eric Holder are going to let those nasty black men rape your white wives and daughters!” This is just a rat skunk vile thing to do. It is the lowest form of race card from the man Bill Clinton said, “He played the race card on me!”

Obama will do ANYTHING to win.  The man has no shame and no integrity.  He is pure, distilled slandering demagogue.

Let’s see: Obama says Republicans want dirty air and dirty water.  Obama says Republicans want more children with Down Syndrome and autism.  Harry Reid says Mitt Romney hasn’t paid taxes in ten years and he says that in the Democrat Party vision of America you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.  Obama’s deputy campaign manager says that Mitt Romney is in fact a criminal who belongs in prison.  An Obama “Truth Team” member said Romney was a racist.  Obama’s campaign-funded super PAC says that Mitt Romney is a murderer.  Nancy Pelosi says Mitt Romney belongs to the “e-coli club” because he likes to spread disease around.  Now Joe Biden says that Mitt Romney is going to reinstitute slavery.

And the sad thing is that I’m sure I’ve missed several blatant demon-possessed psychotic cockroach attacks.

This is an incredibly cynical and dishonest man whom the New York Times once wrote this of in 2008:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

Barack Obama isn’t just a cockroach by my standards; Barack Obama is a cockroach according to his own lofty – but lying – rhetoric.

Obama Dives Into ‘Racist’ Trayvon Martin Shooting Case (Please Try To Remember That ‘Racist’ Shooter George Zimmerman Is Hispanic)

March 26, 2012

[Update 3/26/12] One of my good friends on this blog, HL, provides information in her comment that I did not know – such as the facts that the mainstream media have been streaming pictures of Trayvon Martin from when he was a twelve-year-old boy rather than recent pictures to create a false impression of “innocence,” and concealing facts about Trayvon Martin that indicate a propensity for violence.  In the same way, the media have deliberately demagogued Zimmerman’s 911 call to allege that he uttered a racial slur when there is no reason beyond their own biases to conclusively prove that he did.  Maybe he did use a racial slur, maybe he didn’t.  But even if he did use the slur, as offensive as such racism ought to be it still doesn’t in any way mean that Trayvon Martin did not attack Zimmerman as he claims (see below for more).

There are about 300 homicides a week in these United States of America.  The media only cares about an incredibly tiny cross-section of those tiny homicides, such as when a pretty little white girl is killed or when a black person is killed and it can at least be made to appear linked to racism.

More than nine out of every ten black people who are murdered in America are murdered by other black people -

The department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics report offers a snapshot of racial disparities among violent crime victims. Black people represented an estimated 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2005, the latest data available, but were the victims of 49 percent of all murders and 15 percent of rapes, assaults and other nonfatal violent crimes nationwide.

Most of the black murder victims — 93 percent — were killed by other black people, the study found.

- but covering all of those awful stories undermines the leftwing narrative, so let’s not trouble ourselves with all of those murder victims.  Let’s try to be like the liberal mainstream media and not give a damn about them.  Let’s try to think of murdered black people the way the left thinks of murdered black babies:

“Frankly I had thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of” — 7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

And if black people are murdering black people in the womb and out of it in droves, try to think, you know, good liberal thoughts instead.

Just remember what the left said in the form of überliberal heroine Margaret Sanger:

We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population.”

And try to remember that dead black people only count in liberalism if you can link the deaths to white racism. 

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson swooped into this tragedy like the vultures they are so they could get in front of the cameras and racially demagogue and demonize they way only they can do.  This case was all about racism and it’s frankly racist to think it could even possibly be about anything other than racism (well, except how guns are evil and how any law that allows an ordinary American to be allowed to touch a gun is evil), we’re told.

For the record, a former NAACP leader denounced Sharpton and Jackson as the exploitative vultures that they are.   Good for him.  That’s what courage looks like.

And of course nobody mentions that George Zimmerman, the shooter, is Hispanic (i.e., is a member of an ethnic group that overwhelmingly votes Democrat) because that kind of information doesn’t suit the leftist mainstream media narrative.  He is every scintilla as Hispanic as our first black president is black.  Oh, and some of his relatives are even black -

“His father is white, neighbors say. His mother is Latina. And his family is eager to point out that some of his relatives are black.”

- But how often have you been told that little bit of trivia on MSNBC???

The shooter, George Zimmerman – and I remind you again for the record that said shooter is Hispanic and therefore a recognized member of the Democrat voting block - has been about as convicted as the mainstream media can convict somebody.  Well, him and “stand your ground” gun laws.  Because how dare an ordinary citizen believe he or she ought to have a right to stand his or her ground in America!!!

Nothing has been allowed to stand in the way of justice.  If the media has to bury certain facts and hype certain others, well, demagoguery is a small price to pay for lynch-mob justice.  Which is why this item hasn’t made the story lines on MSNBC, either:

Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman
Updated: Friday, 23 Mar 2012, 6:19 PM EDT
Published : Friday, 23 Mar 2012, 5:47 PM EDT

ORLANDO - A witness we haven’t heard from before paints a much different picture than we’ve seen so far of what happened the night 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.
 
The night of that shooting, police say there was a witness who saw it all.
 
Our sister station, FOX 35 in Orlando, has spoken to that witness.
 
What Sanford Police investigators have in the folder, they put together on the killing of Trayvon Martin few know about.
 
The file now sits in the hands of the state attorney. Now that file is just weeks away from being opened to a grand jury.
 
It shows more now about why police believed that night that George Zimmerman shouldn’t have gone to jail.
 
Zimmerman called 911 and told dispatchers he was following a teen. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to.
 
And from that moment to the shooting, details are few.
 
But one man’s testimony could be key for the police.
 
“The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: ‘help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,” he said.
 
Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.
 
The witness only wanted to be identified as “John,” and didn’t not want to be shown on camera.
 
His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman’s claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.
 
“When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point,” John said.
 
Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense. According to information released on the Sanford city website, Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when he was attacked by the teen.
 
Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting.

Not that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson give a damn about such information.  Any more than the racebaiting duo cared about the evidence that exonerated the Duke Lacrosse team.  You know, before the black woman who wrongfully accused them – with Al Sharpton’s and Jesse Jackson’s assistance – ended up murdering - you should have guessed it - a black man named Milton Walker.  Not that the 93% of black people who get murdered by other black people matter one tiny bit to the left, mind you.  Let’s not lose our focus on racism, by which I mean focusing on cases involving killers who can at least be made to appear more or less white.

So why did Barack Obama jump into this case?  Because he’s the exact same sort of racebaiting media whore that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are, that’s why.

We’ve got a couple little pieces of info on Obama’s taking that question from the press.  The New York Times writes:

The president often appears perturbed when he is asked off-topic questions at ceremonial events, but on Friday, he seemed eager to address the case, which has quickly developed into a cause célèbre around the country. He cautioned that his comments would be limited because the Justice Department was investigating. But he talked at length about his personal feelings about the case.

And we’re also told how the whole question was a fascist media set-up for a fascist media-hungry president:

pm317

@Admin A few minutes before the press conference began Josh Earnest of the press office approached the NBC JournoLister present and whispered something into his ear. The NBC JournoLister later asked Obama about Trayvon. Yes, we are implying this was a set up question designed to exploit the death of Trayvon Martin.

Aside from the fact that America used to have a quaint and bizarre notion that accused people were supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty – and Zimmerman may actually be innocent of everything but not having an adequately Hispanic-sounding surname – Obama’s assistance as “Demagogue-in-Chief” may very well be the thing that gets George Zimmerman off on this shooting.

Because how is George Zimmerman going to get a fair trial for shooting a young black man who “looks like Obama’s son” would have looked???

“But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

Have you ever heard of the legal term “mistrial”???  Apparently our Constitutional-Scholar-in-Chief hasn’t.

Not that it matters – because the New Black Panthers have Barack Obama’s back:

If you’ve been living in a cave: George Zimmerman is the guy who killed the young black kid Trayvon Martin. So forget the system — let’s kill him if necessary!

On Thursday, members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense circulated a “wanted dead or alive” poster for George Zimmerman over the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

The posters were circulated during a press conference led by Minister Mikhail Muhummud, who said he is the southern regional director for the New Black Panther Party in Jacksonville, Florida.

You remember the New Black Panthers, right?  They’re the ones that got to intimidate white voters because that clearly isn’t a crime???  Barack Obama sure remembers them.

For what it’s worth, I have absolutely no idea what took place between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. All I know is that it was a tragedy, and Trayvon Martin looked like a real nice kid with a big smile in the pictures I’ve seen of him. It sounds like Zimmerman was following Martin – quite possibly after he was told to stop – and that therefore this wasn’t a “stand your ground” case. It’s possible that this whole thing was a terrible misunderstanding, in which George Zimmerman was pursuing a suspicious black guy in a hoodie and Trayvon Martin was becoming increasingly paranoid about the Hispanic guy who clearly seemed to be stalking him. It’s quite possible that both young men actually thought they were legitimately defending themselves from the other man. All I know is that Obama didn’t help anybody but Obama by injecting himself into this case.  And all I know is that by attempting to transform this case into one about guns rather than about homicide, the left has turned it into a political football and undermined the justice process.

[Update, 3/26/12] I said immediately above that “Trayvon Martin looked like a real nice kid with a big smile in the pictures I’ve seen of him.”  What I didn’t know was that the mainstream media propaganda was playing a collage of pictures from when Trayvon Martin – who looked very different when George Zimmerman encountered him – was 12 years old.  I also didn’t know that the facts that we haven’t been given by the media paint a very different picture of this “kid” that begins with the fact that he had just been suspended from school for ten days for drug possession and was temporarily staying with his father:

Of course, this is why Trayvon was staying as his Father’s house, so far away from school. And it also explains why George Zimmerman, who by all accounts seemed to stay on top of everything that happened in his neighborhood, didn’t recognize him that evening, Trayvon didn’t really live there, and was only in town because of the suspension.

It seems we may not find out more anytime soon, as a lawyer representing Trayvon’s family has sealed his school records.

[...]

Even though Trayvon was only 17, he already was sporting gold teeth, and several large tattoos. This one was on his wrist, apparently of his girlfriend’s mother’s name.

[...]

It seems that Tray was also on Twitter, but his account seems to have been recently deleted by his family or friends.

His screen name was “@NO_LIMIT_NIGGA, as you can see from the twitpic account screenshot above. He was also a member of a twitter hash group #team4dat.

At first, I was skeptical that anyone would maintain an account with that sort of derogatory slur in the title, but after doing some research, it’s apparent that it was Trayvon’s account.

[...]

There seem to be several allusions to violence on Tray’s Twitter account.

Oh, and Trayvon Martin’s suspension from school also possession of stolen jewelry as well as possession of a burglary tool.

THAT’S the 6’3″ “kid” the 5’9″ Zimmerman encountered the night of the shooting.

And Barack Obama and the mainstream media propaganda are doing absolutely everything they each can to poison the justice process so they can convict a “racist” “white” guy who is really Hispanic out of their larger goal to convict guns in the hands of American citizens.

It very much sounds like Trayvon Martin was growing into a brutal thug.  And I think about that thug when I contemplate Chicago-style thug Obama saying, “If I had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon.”  It sounds a lot more true now than it did before, knowing what I’ve learned about Trayvon Martin and knowing what I’ve sadly experienced in Barack Obama.

[End update].

This country is such a mess it is absolutely unreal.  And when you’ve got a president interfering in a state case that’s already being interfered with more than quite enough as it is instead of doing his job keeping Iran from getting nukes and causing Armageddon, or maybe keeping gas from getting to $5 a gallon, you can understand why.

Liberal Black People Are Racist Bigots. And The Democrat Party And The Mainstrem Media Condones Leftwing Racist Bigotry

February 8, 2012

What if a white man refused to shake a black woman’s hand, saying, “I’m scared because some of that blackness might rub off on me”????

Decent people would be rightly appalled.  If that white man were a media figure, he would almost certainly lose his job, whether he “apologized” or not.  If he were a conservative, all the more so.  His true racist bigot heart has been revealed, people would say.  And there’s no place for that kind of vile crap on America’s airwaves.

Thank despicability - you sure can’t thank goodness - for Thaddeus Matthews that liberals and particularly liberals in the Democrat Party and the mainstream media are anything but “decent” people.

Outrage subdued after DJ goes on racially charged rant on GOP congressional candidate
By Judson Berger
Published February 03, 2012 | FoxNews.com

In a profanity-laced tirade, a Memphis DJ last week used an on-air interview to berate a local Republican congressional candidate — calling her a “token negro” who is doing the bidding of “white folk.”

DJ Thaddeus Matthews called Charlotte Bergmann, who is black, “stupid.” He referred to her as a “curly-haired nigga.” When she walked out of the interview, he refused to shake her hand, saying he didn’t want to get her “whiteness” on him.

The outrage? The fury? In Memphis, you can hear the crickets.

Bergmann told FoxNews.com that, while the web video of the interview has gotten a lot of attention on blogs, local media are largely ignoring it. She said she hasn’t gotten any calls from politicians about it. “No organization has spoken out,” Bergmann said.

“The anger has been expressed throughout the nation, but not in my local … area,” she said.

As for her treatment on air, which she described as “racist” and abusive, she said it stems from the notion that black politicians should uniformly be Democrats.

Bergmann is running in Tennessee’s 9th District, which is mostly black. The seat is currently held by Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen, whose office so far has not returned a request for comment on the radio interview.

Matthews has stood by the bulk of his comments. He told MyFoxMemphis.com on Thursday that he’s apologized on air for the “whiteness” comment, but he defended the rest.

“I do not regret the content of what I said. In the anger of having another politician in my studio that knows absolutely nothing about nothing and gives me stupid answers, I don’t regret that,” he said. “Now the context of the whiteness rubbing off … that part I do regret, that particular portion of the show. But the rest of everything I said, I meant exactly what I said.”

It’s unclear how the radio station management, at WPLX-AM 1180, is handling the incident, but the owner of the broadcasting company apparently has issued an apology. Bergmann said the owner, William Pollack, called her Wednesday to apologize. She also provided a written apology under Pollack’s name, which expressed regret for the “ill treatment” on air.

“I was unaware of the horrific treatment of you until today. I have personally met with Matthews and will assure you this situation is receiving our complete attention,” the statement said, adding that he “personally supported” Bergmann in 2010 and will do so again.

Bergmann eventually walked out of the interview, which was conducted last Tuesday.

But for the first 12 minutes, Matthews repeatedly challenged her loyalty to black people.

Matthews started by asking about her affiliation with the Tea Party.

He accused her of evading the question, later asking, “Are you a token of white folk? And white folk using you to come against black folk?”

After she started to respond, Matthews interrupted, saying: “Damn, Ms. Bergmann, shut up for a moment. OK, shut up for a moment, because you shucking and jiving.”

The confrontational interview continued as he challenged her on plans to help the black community. “All I see in you is another token negro,” he said, likening her to former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.

After several minutes, the DJ threatened to cut off her microphone and throw her out of the studio. “I’m so sick of your sh-, yourself, and I’m about to put your ass up outta here,” he said. “You are a token negro that white folk have control over.”

Eventually, Bergmann said “we have a failure to communicate” and left the studio.

Matthews continued to berate the congressional candidate.

“Get up and get your ass up outta here. Get your stupid, ignorant ass up outta my studio,” he said.

As she left, Bergmann held out her hand to the DJ.

“I don’t need to shake your hand,” he told her. “I’m scared because some of that whiteness might rub off on me.”

Bergmann told FoxNews.com that she’s trying to get the video of the confrontation shown at the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference — an annual meet-up in Washington of prominent conservatives.

She said her campaign has reached out to two Republican lawmakers about that possibility.

She also said donations to her campaign have spiked since the incident.

Matthews has a reputation in Memphis as a controversial blogger and radio host. According to MyFoxMemphis.com, he was booted from another AM station in 2010 — he claimed white Republicans pressured the bosses to remove him, according to the report.

Matthews went on to launch his show on WPLX, which was billed as a mostly blues music program.

This is what Democrats being “civil” looks like.  It’s also what “Republican obstructionism” looks like.

The Democrat Party has ALWAYS been the official party of racism in America.  It was the party of racism when it literally fought our nation’s most brutal war to continue black slavery.  It was racist when its members created the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party to intimidate or even kill black people and Republicans:

Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871 the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes.[18] Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks’ voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.

And:

Dressed in robes and sheets, intended to prevent identification by the occupying federal troops (and supposedly designed to frighten blacks), the Klan quickly became a terrorist organization in service of the Democratic Party and white supremacy. Between 1869 and 1871 its goal was to destroy Congressional Reconstruction by murdering blacks — and some whites — who were either active in Republican politics or educating black children.

And:

History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party.

The Democrat Party was bitterly racist throughout the entire period during and after the Civil War.

The Democrat Party was racist when Woodrow Wilson resegregated the military and the federal government.

The Democrat Party was still racist to the core sixty years after it waged the Civil War to fight for black slavery when its 1924 National Convention was so filled with Ku Klux Klan members it was called “Klanbake.”

The Democrat Party was racist when Franklin Delano Roosevelt put Japanese-Americans in camps.  Oh, and for the record, FDR’s New Deal policies also attacked black people by keeping them from being able to work (and see also here).

When Martin Luther King, Jr. marched for Civil Rights, he marched in Democrat-controlled areas and encountered his most vicious opposition from Democrats.  As an example, look at Montgomery Alabama when Martin Luther King organized his bus boycott in 1955 or his Bloody Sunday March from Selma To Montgomery in 1965.  And then check which party was totally in control over Alabama.

Martin Luther King, Jr. marched on Washington D.C. in 1963.  It was the most liberal city then and it is still the most liberal city now.

Oh, and it was after that march that the FBI began to attempt to discredit and undermine Martin Luther King, Jr., under the authority of a Democrat administration.

This of course brings us into to the Civil Rights era. 

Here is something interesting about the Civil Rights act and which party supported it:

What is the breakdown by party of who voted for and against the Civil
Rights act of 1964?

House of Representatives:
Democrats for: 152
Democrats against: 96
Republicans for: 138
Republicans against: 34

Senate:
Democrats for: 46
Democrats against: 21
Republicans for: 27
Republicans against: 6

39% of House Democrats were opposed to Civil Rights versus 20% of Republicans. Which is to say that twice as many Democrats in the House opposed Civil Rights as Republicans.

31% of Senate Democrats were opposed to Civil Rights versus 19 percent of Republicans.

Liberals are treacherous and pathologically dishonest; they want to keep people ignorant that Republicans were at the epicenter of the Civil Rights movement from DAY ONE in the 1850s and CONTINUED to be at the epicenter of the Civil Rights movement.  Until that movement was hijacked by a movement that pissed on everything Martin Luther King, Jr. stood for as epitomized by his famous words, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

And we find that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a registered Republican.  Just as his father who was first to bear the name “Martin Luther King” before him was a lifelong Republican.

Liberals continued to document their gross racism when they openly acknowledged that their white SEIU members were “f-ing rabidly racist” and also in their vicious racist attacks against Clarence Thomas when they said, “Send him back to the fields!” and “String him up!”

The same Democrat Party that had been racist for 150 years didn’t just suddenly turn on a dime; they discovered a new way to “own” black people.  Just as the drug dealer wants to get kids addicted to crack cocaine in a neighborhood he wants to control, so also the Democrat Party found that it could get desperate blacks addicted to the welfare agenda and OWN their vote for life.

And the Democrat Party continues to be the party that oppresses and undermines black people.  I document as a FACT that the minimum wage law that you so praise as helping blacks actually has created a tragic and awful situation in which more than HALF of young blacks are not able to get a job. We conservatives predicted that exactly what has happened would happen.

But who is to blame for a Democrat policy that we rightly predicted would fail and which then failed just as we predicted?  Bush.

Thaddeus Matthews is a racist bigot.  But that’s okay: he’s got an entire political party and nearly the entire media propaganda behind him because they’re just like him.

There’s a fitting sentence in the article above that the black victim of the racist attack provides: “As for her treatment on air, which she described as “racist” and abusive, she said it stems from the notion that black politicians should uniformly be Democrats.”

It’s fitting because Democrats feel that THEY SHOULD OWN BLACKS now.  And if they can’t own a black person, if a black person is off the Democrat plantation, then Democrats should be able to hunt that fugitive slave down and punish him/her.

There’s an incredibly racist theory that black liberal “intellectuals” hold; namely, that black people cannot be racist, because racism is not an attitude that any and all people of any and all colors can have, but rather it is a power relationship.  And even though black people currently have a black person sitting in the White House and even though black people have a black attorney general running America’s law enforcement, they have no power and so can’t be “racist.”  Whereas white people are institutionally racist by the same definition.

But isn’t Charlotte Bergmann black???

So this is the twisted, perverted and frankly morally evil metric that black liberals have to define “black people”: being “black” has nothing whatsoever to do with ancestry or skin color or genetics and everything to do with whether or not one is sufficiently owned by the Democrat Party machine.

You go ahead and call me a “racist” for writing this article.  I will consider your attack to be a badge of honor knowing that it is coming from a genuine racist bigot who is a true enemy of the dream that Martin Luther King, Jr. shared with America.  And I know that the Democrat Party must be defeated today for that dream to be made manifest every bit as much as the same Democrat Party that fought for black slavery had to be defeated at all costs in 1865.

No Winning Vs. Liberalism: Gingrich A Racist For Wanting To Give A Minority A Job But Not A Handout; Romney A Racist For Giving A Black Woman Money

January 18, 2012

If you are a conservative and you zig, the mainstream media will pronounce you a racist.  But don’t you dare zag, either, or else the mainstream media will pronounce you a racist.

We cannot win if the most dishonest media since Hitler and Stalin has anything to do with it.  They hate us and they will treat us dishonestly because the very core of their beings are dishonest.

Newt Gingrich, we were assured, was incredibly racist in wanting to give minority kids jobs rather than teach them to accept handouts for life:

Gingrich to Juan Williams: Capitalism Is Not Racist
by AWR Hawkins

A funny thing happened in the GOP debate in South Carolina last night. FOX NEWS’ Juan Williams implied racism in Speaker Newt Gingrich’s defense of capitalism, and Gingrich did not back down:

Williams: Speaker Gingrich, you recently said, “Black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps.” You also said, “Poor kids lack a strong work ethic,” and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. Can’t you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?

After Williams asked this question, about three people applauded somewhat timidly, but there was mostly silence in anticipation of how Gingrich might dig himself out of this one. He had been put on the spot in front of the world by a media spokesperson who not only opposed Gingrich’s position, but who himself was black, and who views almost everything through the lenses of race.

But Gingrich did not fold. Instead he looked at Williams and responded: “No, I don’t see that.” In other words, Gingrich was saying “No, I don’t see how capitalism is racist nor do I see how a defense of capitalism is racist.” The venue exploded with applause and cheers.

Gingrich then continued by telling the audience his daughter’s first job had been as a janitor in a Baptist church in Georgia when she was thirteen. Said Gingrich: “She liked earning the money, she liked learning that if you worked you got paid, she liked being in charge of her own money, and she thought it was a good start.”

Amid applause, Gingrich continued

What I tried to say [is that] New York City pays their janitors an absurd amount of money because of the unions. You could…hire 30-some kids to work in the school for the price of one janitor and those 30 kids would be a lot less likely to drop out, they would actually have money in their pocket, they would learn to show up for work, they could do light janitorial duty, they could work in the cafeteria, they could work in the front office, and they could work in the library. They’d be getting money, which is a good thing if you’re poor. Only the elites despise earning money.

At this point, the audience rose to their feet and Gingrich received a standing ovation as Williams did everything he could to try to salvage some aspect of the exchange for the left. And the only way he could do this was to try once more to find racism in Gingrich’s words.

Said Williams:

The suggestion you made was about a lack of work ethic. And I’ve got to tell you, my email account and twitter account have been inundated by people of all races who are asking if your comments are not intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities…[People have asked] why you refer to President Obama as the “food stamp President.” It sounds like you’re trying to belittle people.

As the audience booed Williams, Gingrich responded:

Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any President in American history. I know among the politically correct you are not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable. Second, you are the one who earlier raised the key point. The area that ought to be I-73 was called by Barack Obama “a corridor of shame” because of unemployment. Has it improved in three years? No. They haven’t built a road, they haven’t helped the people, they haven’t done anything.

As the applause grew to unprecedented levels, Williams retreated. He literally just sat silently, staring straight ahead, while Gingrich rose above the applause to say:

One last thing…I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness, and if that makes liberals unhappy, I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn to get a better job and learn some day to own the job.

Bottom line: Capitalism is not racist, nor is the defense of capitalism racist. Conservatives needn’t be ashamed of offering the world a job instead of a government handout.

The statistics show that 43 percent of black teens are unemployed; but don’t you dare offer them a job or encourage them to begin developing a work ethic, because that would simply be racist, wouldn’t it?

For the record that catastrophically high rate of unemployed young people – and particularly young black people – isn’t a result of Newt Gingrich; it is rather the PREDICTED result of Obamanomics.

Liberalism is wrong 100 percent of the time.  The only things that liberals are good at is lying and demonizing.

Now we’ve got Mitt Romney branded as a racist for giving a black woman in need a $50 handout:

MSNBC: Romney racist for giving $50 to black woman
by Charlie Spiering Commentary Staff Writer

MSNBC commentators were not pleased that Mitt Romney gave a struggling unemployed woman $50 after she told him about her hardships.

MSNBC’s Alex Wagner called it “one of the more uncomfortable moments on the campaign trail,” setting off an angry response from the analysts on the panel.

“As an African American woman it galls me. I don’t even like to watch it. I felt like it plays into every sort of patronizing stereotype of black people,” MSNBC contributor Joy-Ann Reid said. “‘Oh, here is this little lady let me give her 50 bucks’. . . I think it plays into that conservative meme, that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we’ll just give them charity, I’ll just give him 50 bucks.”

“There are a lot of very convenient elements to this story, as you said Joy, it really makes me cringe. We have this black woman who suddenly almost becomes this mascot for the campaign,” said MSNBC contributor Janell Ross. “She is sort of affirming all sorts of Conservative ideas about who is poor and how certain people deal with their poverty and seek out the assistance of a wealthy white man to hand you some form of aid.”

I particularly appreciated the very first comment to this article from Wakeus_com:

The liberals are furious that the money went directly to a struggling woman! They didn’t have a chance to skim some for themselves via one of their “social programs” that have obviously done so much for the poor and minority communities of this great nation. Without the skim, the liberal can’t keep itself in a useless job, therefore it hates.

I despise liberals for one reason; what they have done to hold down poor and minority citizens of this nation. They are modern-day plantation owners … and don’t you dare step out of line.

The unemployment rate for black people is nearly double the national average; which is to say that liberals have black people exactly where they want them: dependent for life on the tit of government.  And anything that would make black people less dependent on the government tit and the Democrat Party that offers it is “racist.”

If a Republican voluntarily gives me money it demeans me.  But nothing could possibly be more honorable than taking money that has been forcibly redistributed from other Americans and handed out to me in the form of a welfare check courtesy of a Democrat Party that wants to buy my vote.

The only thing in this entire universe that isn’t “racist” to a liberal is Marxism.

I once quoted Burton Folsom in his great book “New Deal Or Raw Deal?” It’s time to quote that passage again:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function. Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands. Most Americans believed that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups. It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity. James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

Prior to FDR, the American people took care of their OWN, family by family, town by town, county by county, state by state. They had NEVER had welfare, and in fact found the very concept of welfare distasteful. And I’m going to tell you right now that they were better, stronger people than we are as a result of that moral superiority and that faith in THE PEOPLE and not the GOVERNMENT.

Barack Obama – who gave virtually NOTHING to charity when giving would have demonstrated the character he proved he DIDN’T have – doesn’t trust the American people, or much care about them, for that matter. He doesn’t want to help people; he wants to grow the size of government. He wants only to make the state bigger and bigger and more and more powerful and controlling. Obama is angry because he doesn’t believe people should have the right to decide for themselves how much of their own money they “need”; HE wants to make that decision for them and then impose it on them so he can seize their money and redistribute it to people who will vote for him and for his party.

Whenever a Democrat calls for more taxes, understand that what they are really saying is that they believe that the government is too small and needs to become larger. And whenever they call for more taxes for the sake of helping people, what they are really saying is that you are a bad and immoral person who can’t and shouldn’t be trusted to help people in need and that it is better to take your money away from you and put it into the coffers of a big government socialist redistributionist agency which will piss it away on boondoggle programs that benefit the politically connected far more than they do the poor. And the fact that even as Barack Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority that had dictatorial control of both branches of Congress made government bigger than it has ever been and yet blacks are now worse off than they’ve been for generations and women are being set way back is the icing on the cake of the proof of that fact. Liberals hurt the people they cynically and falsely claim to be helping – and then demagogically use the misery that they themselves created to accumulate even more power for themselves and their failed agenda.

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.

Barack Hussein Obama Marched With Über Racist New Black Panther Hate Group In 2007

October 3, 2011

Remember Jeremiah Wright?  Remember all of his racist tirades?  Somehow it didn’t matter one iota that Barack Obama had been tied for this racist, bigoted anti-American Marxist “reverend” from hell for more than twenty years.

Remember the case of the New Black Panthers sending club-wielding goons into a Philadelphia polling place to intimidate white voters?  They would have gone down hard for voter and civil rights violations, but the new status quo under Obama is, “Never bring a lawsuit against a black.”

Here is the personification of the racist New Black Panthers:

SHABAZZ: I hate white people. All of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him! You want freedom? You’re going to have to kill some crackers! You’re going to have kill some of their babies.

That certainly isn’t all that the guy Obama wanted to protect - from an organization that Obama publicly identified himself with - said:

Samir: We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.

Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”

I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”

We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”

Democrats have a lengthy history of being completely wrong on race.  The only thing that has changed is that they have become even more cynical than they used to be – and are now using race as a weapon even as they basically retain the same racist mindset of the “good old days.”

Well, Obama is that racist sewer up to his eyeballs, too:

Shock Photos: Candidate Obama Appeared And Marched With New Black Panther Party In 2007
by Andrew Breitbart

New photographs obtained exclusively by BigGovernment.com reveal that Barack Obama appeared and marched with members of the New Black Panther Party as he campaigned for president in Selma, Alabama in March 2007.

The photographs, captured from a Flickr photo-sharing account before it was scrubbed, are the latest evidence of the mainstream media’s failure to examine Obama’s extremist ties and radical roots.

In addition, the new images raise questions about the possible motives of the Obama administration in its infamous decision to drop the prosecution of the Panthers for voter intimidation.

The images, presented below, also renew doubts about the transparency of the White House’s guest logs–in particular, whether Panther National Chief Malik Zulu Shabazz is the same “Malik Shabazz” listed among the Obama administration’s early visitors.

Tomorrow, J. Christian Adams, the Department of Justice whistleblower in the New Black Panther Party case, will release his new book, Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department (Regnery).

The book exposes Obama administration corruption far beyond the Panther dismissal, and reveals how the institutional Left has turned the power of the DOJ into an ideological weapon.

Adams’s book also describes, in detail, the Selma march at which then-Senator Obama was joined by a group of Panthers who had come to support his candidacy.

Among those appearing with Obama was Shabazz, the Panther leader who was one of the defendants in the voter intimidation case that Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed. Also present was the Panthers’ “Minister of War,” Najee Muhammed, who had called for murdering Dekalb County, Georgia, police officers with AK-47’s and then mocking their widows in this video (7:20 – 8:29).

Injustice includes a disturbing photo of Shabazz and the Panthers marching behind Obama with raised fists in the “Black Power” salute.

There are even more photographs.

I have learned that Regnery initially received approval from a person who took pictures of the events in Selma to publish these additional photographs in Injustice.

After the photographer wrote Regnery reversing his permission to include the photographs in Injustice, the images were removed from the photographer’s Flickr account. Yet we were able to capture them before they disappeared.

The photographs show Obama sharing the same podium at the event with the Panthers.

In the first image, Shabazz stands at the podium, surrounded by uniformed Panthers, including Muhammed. In the second photograph, Obama commands the same podium.

Here are the images:

The First Amendment allows photographs of such enormous public importance to see the light of day. Cases, including one involving skimpy photographs of Miss Puerto Rico, have established that fair use and the First Amendment allow publication of these photos.

It is true that then-Senator Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton were also in Selma at the same event. But the Panthers explicitly came to Selma to support Obama, as Adams details in Injustice.

They spoke with Obama at the podium shown above, and departed together with Obama for the main march itself, as shown by this grainy image captured from YouTube:

Obama seems not to be reviled by the Panthers in any of the video or photographs. And Obama’s own campaign website would post an endorsement by the New Black Panther Party in March 2008. As Adams writes in Injustice:

Somehow, the fact that the future President of the United States shared a podium with leaders of the New Black Panthers, marched with them, and received a public, formal greeting from their party has vanished from the history of Obama’s campaign. Apart from [Juan] Williams’ single dispatch, no other media outlets ever reported it.

After NPR initially reported that the Panthers were present at the event with Obama, subsequent reports from Selma omitted any mention of the hate group appearing with the future President.

Had any of Obama’s opponents appeared at an event with the KKK or Aryan Nation, The New York Times would have had to double its ink buy.

Obama’s appearance does much more than expose mainstream media hypocrisy. It also exposes an association between a vile racist organization and a future President of the United States. Only the degree of association is subject to debate.

And only a few voices outside the mainstream media have continued to press the Obama administration about its past and present ties to fringe groups.

I have been calling for the White House to disclose which Malik Shabazz visited the private White House residence on July 25, 2009, two months after the DOJ voter intimidation case was dismissed. So far, the White House has refused to do so, leaving open the question of which “Malik Shabazz” appears in visitor logs released to the public.

To reiterate: nobody, including Adams, is suggesting that Obama is a secret member of the New Black Panther Party. At a minimum, however, the events in Selma expose the media double standard that has buried this story until this week.

The mainstream media should ask Obama a few questions before they rush to his defense:

What did he and Malik Zulu Shabazz say when they conversed that day–something that Shabazz has said happened?

Did the Obama campaign play any role in having the Panthers travel to support his presidential ambitions?

Who posted the Panthers’ endorsement on the Obama campaign’s website, and at whose instructions?

Who–finally–was the Malik Shabazz who visited the White House residence on July 25, 2009?

Now, I’m going to claim – with justification – that Barack Obama is a racist.  People are going after Rick Perry because of something painted on a small rock on leased property even though there is no evidence that he or his family painted the slogan.  They never actually owned the property in any way, shape or form.  And there is no evidence whatsoever that they did not in fact paint over the rock way back when when the Perry family claimed they did.  And this is also both ancient history and frankly pretty damn trivial compared to Jeremiah Wright or marching with the white people-hating cracker baby-killing New Black Panther Party.  Unless you’re going to argue that repeatedly inciting the racist murder of white babies is trivial compared to painting a word on a rock somewhere.  This simply comes down to the fact that the left is CONSTANTLY demonizing the right with race-baiting – which is itself quintessentially racist – while whitewashing their own racism.

Consider that leftwing white union members are “f-ing rabidly racist” even according to an SEIU vice president.  Oh, but that’s okay.  Consider that liberals thought it was perfectly okay to “string up” Clarence Thomas and “send him back to the fields” as long as the black man happened to be a conservative.  But none of that seems to matter to the most hypocritical people on the entire planet.

If liberals would be willing to lay off on conservatives being “racist” (which they aren’t because these racists view everything through their racist-colored glasses), let’s assume for the sake of argument that “race” isn’t the issue here with Obama.  It becomes an issue of JUDGMENT.  Should you trust the judgment of a man who chose to belong in a vile, racist, anti-American and Marxist church for more than twenty years?  Should you trust the judgment of a man who chose to identify himself with a vile racist organization like the New Black Panthers?  Should you trust the judgment of a man who came out – after stating that he knew none of the facts surrounding the case – and state categorically that the white Cambridge police “acted stupidly” in arresting a black professor who made an unreal scene and literally forced the officer to arrest him?

When are people going to wake up enough to realize that the same man who made all of those – and many other – “stupid” decisions is the same man who is making incredibly stupid decisions with the economy?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 512 other followers