Posts Tagged ‘janitor’

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.

Advertisements