Libertarian Hawk


Free Hot Water: The New Civil Rights Movement

July 23, 2014 By: Scott Spiegel Category: Columns, Racism

20100722raceSince Democrats seem to think everything is racist except their own party’s history and the screwball schemes they’ve inflicted on us since then to atone for it, I thought I’d post a primer on interpreting a recent spate of racially-tinged events, a sort of Racism for Dummies. How many can you get right?

Event: Detroit’s Water and Sewerage Department recently shut off water to 7,200 mostly black customers who haven’t paid their bills in months.

According to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which filed a lawsuit against the city, the shutoffs were racist, because there are white-led corporations with large unpaid water bills that haven’t had their water shut off. However, the difference is that said corporations have good credit, a history of reliable transactions with the city, and a public reputation to uphold. Not so for individual deadbeats, many of whom have been caught paying rogue operators cut-rate fees to get their water illegally turned back on.

Verdict: Not racism.

Event: The University of Wisconsin-Madison is considering “diversity-based grading.”

The University, which has publicly announced its goal of ensuring that its high-level and honors courses are filled with a racially diverse mix of students, recently announced that it may go a step further and work to guarantee that different racial groups are proportionately distributed across grade bands in such courses. UW economics professor W. Lee Hansen protested that such a policy could lead to non-white students getting higher grades than they deserve, and will likely accelerate grade inflation due to professors giving everyone high grades to avoid complaints.

Verdict: Racism.

(Were you fooled? Here’s a hint: There are other forms of racism besides anti-black. Try again!)

Event: Israel endures daily rocket attacks by Hamas, defends itself by destroying Hamas’s weapons and tunnels, and suffers accusations of war crimes.

Every democratic nation is unquestioningly allowed to defend itself against outside attack, except Israel. If Canada started lobbing missiles over the border and killing U.S. civilians, its army would be gone by the morning. But because the world has been brainwashed into believing that Islam is a peaceful religion and that its adherents would never use human shields by storing their weapons in schools, hospitals, and mosques, Israelis are called vile racist names and told that the conflict is their fault. And the verbal attacks don’t just emanate from the Arab League—they come from British MPs, Canadian citizens, and hot-miked U.S. Cabinet members.

Why are the Israelis treated differently?

Verdict: Racism.

Event: A police chief and two officers in Fruitland Park, Florida recently resigned after an under-cover reporter revealed their ties to the Ku Klux Klan.

Running interference for the left, the Associated Press downplayed the KKK’s exclusive roots in the Democratic Party—“[T]he Klan used to be politically powerful in the 1920s, when governors and U.S. senators were among its 4 million members” [emphasis added]—then stupidly compared this dying breed of troglodytes to Republicans: “[N]owadays it is much less active than other sectors of the radical right.” Oh really? Why not compare the Klan to other sectors of the radical left? The KKK did not emerge from the Republican Party, whose members fought it in the South in order to protect the rights of freed blacks. As the article notes, even up through the 1960s, the Klan was active in some parts of the country, and it wasn’t Republicans donning those white sheets.

The “radical right” has never had any ideological affinity with the Klan. Racist police officers in Fruitland Park reflect only their own racism.

Verdict: Racism. (That was an easy one. Consider it a free space on your bingo card.)

Event: Americans protest a black President’s policies, a pattern of behavior that Attorney General Eric Holder claims is driven by “racial animus.”

According to Holder, no U.S. President has ever been treated as harshly as Obama—not Reagan, whom liberals called demented while he was in office; not Clinton, who was impeached for lying about a couple of blow jobs; not George W. Bush, whom liberals burned and hung and crucified in effigy when they weren’t drawing Satanic horns on his head or Hitler mustaches on his face.

According to the left, referencing Obama’s exacerbation of welfare dependency, food stamps usage, and inner-city dysfunction is evidence of racism, because everyone knows that Republicans don’t expect white people to get jobs and raise their children, only blacks.

Verdict: Not racism.

And finally…

Event: A black teen films a montage of himself in a store while a racist clerk supposedly follows him around.

In one of the most pathetic attempts at race-baiting ever, a precocious kid named Rashid Polo cavorts around a convenience store, flamboyantly filming and talking to himself in several different aisles, while a female employee always seems to be stocking shelves or cleaning machinery behind him. The montage of Vine clips went viral and provoked a chorus of charges of racism. Curiously, we never glimpse the employee actually following Polo—we see only the two of them standing in place. In fact, the one time the employee emerges into the frame from off-camera, she seems surprised to see Polo—then smiles and politely backs away to avoid interrupting his photo shoot.

Verdict: Even the publicity-seeking, aspiring documentarian Rashid Polo doesn’t believe this is racism.

Print This Post Print This Post

Cliven Bundy vs. Donald Sterling: One of Them Is Worse

April 30, 2014 By: Scott Spiegel Category: Racism

?????????????????????Have you noticed how, whenever public figures make racist statements that get them in trouble, conservatives are always caught holding African Americans to higher standards and liberals are caught holding them to lower ones?

Commentators will spend the next few weeks lumping together scrappy Nevada rancher/Tea Party mascot Cliven Bundy and billionaire L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling over their recent racial remarks, citing these as proof of the lingering scourge of bigotry in our society. Some will try to tie both figures to the political far right—until their editors remind them that Sterling has given to multiple Democratic politicians and liberal causes over the past 25 years, including $2,000 to Democratic Senator Bill Bradley in 1989; $1,000 to Democrat Gray Davis in 1991; $1,000 to Democratic Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy in 1991; $5,000 to Gray Davis’s California gubernatorial campaign in 2002; and $1,000 to an animal rights proposition in 2008—and $0 to Republican candidates or conservative causes.

But in fact the two men’s statements have zero in common, and reflect a sharp divide between Democratic and Republican views of African Americans traceable all the way back to the institution of slavery, through the mid-20th-century civil rights movement, and up to today.

Consider: Senator Lyndon Johnson, Democrats’ civil rights champion, opined in 1957, “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness…” How dare those uppity Negroes demand full equality rather than the illusion of equality!

While filming a segment on insurance fraud in 1981, liberal 60 Minutes anchor Mike Wallace speculated, “Blacks and Hispanics were too busy eating watermelons and tacos to read the fine print on their insurance policies.” If they can read at all, you can almost hear him adding under his breath.

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) once said of former Klansman Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), “I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment… He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation.” Blacks’ freedom be damned, of course, if it would have besmirched the glory of his filibustering friend.

In 2006, Joe Biden gushed of Senator Barack Obama, “[Y]ou got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” Also raving about Obama’s political potential, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid described Obama’s possible appeal to Democratic voters: “[L]ight-skinned… with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Meanwhile, arguing against Obama’s racial fitness as a candidate, former President Bill Clinton groused to Senator Ted Kennedy, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”

In 2012, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schulz and other liberals called former Secretary of State and Republican National Convention Speaker Condoleezza Rice “window dressing,” a “token,” and “nice shiny packaging.”

It isn’t just white liberals who condescend to African Americans. In 2001, Latino California Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante unleashed the n-word in a speech on black history to a shocked African-American audience. Apparently he had assumed that, as blacks, they wouldn’t mind being insulted.

Indian-American abortion doctor Ashutash Ron Virmani was caught on videotape in 2012 bragging to a group of pro-life activists that his services provided a benefit to taxpayers. He challenged them, “Let me see you adopt one of those ugly black babies.”

Black liberals also patronize African Americans. In an Esquire cover interview in 1992, director Spike Lee conveyed his disdain for interracial couples: “[W]hite women when they want to be with black men, they just know all they have to do is go to some club… Most black men… have nothin’ going for them, nothin’. Doesn’t matter what she’s doing, what she’s about, she’s just there, and you have a prize—a white woman on your arm. A trophy.”

In 2008, former Obama spiritual advisor Reverend Jeremiah Wright informed an NAACP audience that they have separate but equal brains: “Africans and African-Americans are right-brained, subject-oriented in their learning style. They have a different way of learning.”

Now we have Donald Sterling ordering his girlfriend not to sully his basketball games with black people: “You can sleep with them. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it… and not to bring them to my games.”

So according to Democrats and their supporters, African Americans are: uppity, immature, stupid, inarticulate, dirty, incapable of speaking proper English, lacking in dignity, ugly, congenitally emotional, unskilled, tokens, and good only for a romp-in-the-hay. Do I have that about right, Dems?

Meanwhile, the left is in a tizzy because Bundy suggested that black people are capable of accomplishing more than staying home and collecting Democrat-sponsored welfare checks.

Note how the media left out the parts where Bundy insisted that he would never want this country to go back to slavery; where his black bodyguard declared that Bundy was not racist and that he would take a bullet for him; or where Congress of Racial Equality spokesperson Niger Innis admitted that Bundy had made “an important point.” Liberals are just upset that Bundy wants to hold blacks to the same standards as whites.

Other examples of “racism” in which Republicans used inartful phrasing to discourage black dependency:

In 2012, Newt Gingrich called Obama “The greatest food stamp President in American history”—because, um, he is—and was promptly labeled racist.

Also in 2012, GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney gave a speech to the NAACP in which he decried welfare dependence: “I am also a believer in the free-enterprise system. I believe it can bring change where so many well-meaning government programs have failed. I’ve never heard anyone look around an impoverished neighborhood and say, ‘You know, there’s too much free enterprise around here.’” For this he was rudely booed, then accused by mentally ill liberals like Lawrence O’Donnell of having tried to elicit boos so he could play the footage in racist districts.

In just about every radio show he’s ever done, Rush Limbaugh is accused of racism for saying crazy things like “Continued unemployment benefits increases unemployment.”

That all you got, Dems?

Every party has its loose cannons. I’m just glad that those in our party who speak inelegantly invoke controversy for envisioning a world in which races are held to the same standard, rather than one in which minorities are perpetually treated like children.

Print This Post Print This Post

Enhanced by Zemanta

Democrats: Stuck Between Little Rock and a Hard Place

January 15, 2014 By: Scott Spiegel Category: Racism

byrdIn an egregiously dishonest news segment, National Public Radio reporter Debbie Elliott recently commemorated the 60th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education desegregation ruling by implying that nothing has changed since then.

Elliott began by recalling the tumultuous integration of Central High School in Little Rock, then reviewed a longstanding, expensive, state-funded program that Arkansas instituted in the 1980s to prevent “white flight” and keep Little Rock’s school district relatively desegregated.  Federal courts oversaw the costly program for decades, but recently Arkansas and the district agreed to a settlement that would phase out the state’s efforts to keep the district racially mixed.

Columnist Ernie Dumas lamented to Elliott, “The Supreme Court said at the time that you’ve got to desegregate, and end these disparities, and take us forward to a glorious day when education will be equal for all Americans.  As we know… it hasn’t really happened quite that way.”  Dumas’s implication is that Brown endorsed, not mere equality of educational opportunity, but equality of results, and that voluntary white flight to better schools has the same legal and moral status as state-ordered segregation.

Elliott concluded with this quote from a local superintendent: “‘I have had a lot of people comment about their kids going to schools where black students are, and not wanting to.  And I believe that’s still, unfortunately, a truth about human nature.’  A truth, he says, that courts don’t have the ability to change.”

What Elliott was doing was perpetrating a crafty little sleight-of-hand on NPR’s listeners.  Her story subtly implied that present-day conservatives—whom outlets like NPR constantly accuse of racism—are the contemporary version of people who refused to send their children to school with black children in the 1950s, and that, since it’s conservatives who are racists today, then it’s their type who were the racists back then.

However, as Elliott surely knows, not wanting your kids to go to school with black children in the 1950s and being leery about having your children attend predominantly black inner-city schools today are entirely different phenomena.

In the 1950s, racist Southern Democrats didn’t want to send their white children to school with black children because of their belief in Negros’ inferiority.  During the late 1950s and early 1960s, when Republican politicians were championing, passing, and enforcing civil rights legislation over the opposition of Democrats, the South was a genuinely racist environment, in which black families couldn’t get a fair shot at equal educational and employment opportunities.

During the 1960s, the Democratic Party realized that the country was slowly embracing civil rights protections, so Lyndon Johnson coopted Republican progress on achieving racial equality and adopted the mantle of the heroic Civil Rights President by loudly announcing his support for civil rights bills (while privately revealing his racist motives for signing them).

Then a funny thing happened.  Instead of simply correcting their racist ways, the left started going overboard in the other direction, no longer supporting equal treatment of races but rather favoring the conferral of material advantages on blacks and insisting on equality of outcomes.

If you draw a graph with time on the x-axis and pro-black bias on top and pro-white bias on the bottom, Democrats cruised along for a century in the pro-white section; then, around mid-20th century, started curving upward; and finally, around 1965, crossed the axis and started trending above the line—thus producing a mirror image of their former racist selves, but against a different group.  (The Republican path, meanwhile, would be a straight, solid line from left to right, from the party’s inception in 1854 to the present day.)

Whether to compensate for perceived guilt or cover their bloody tracks, Democrats started pushing for affirmative action benefits, cradle-to-grave welfare, and a generalized stance of coddling and encouragement of black dysfunction.  By excusing and subsidizing failure, and insisting that educational and employment offerings be untethered from merit, the left set black accomplishment, family stability, and moral accountability back by decades.

To cap off their grand scheme, Democrats fabricated the narrative that they were the ones who had always deeply cared about black people, and that Republicans—many of whom lived in the South—were the historical racists.  Democrats foisted this myth on the public by smearing present-day Republican efforts to deny special benefits to minorities, then inappropriately connecting these efforts with false historical records.  For example, if you don’t favor spending billions on a worthless program like Head Start that serves largely minority children, then you’re racist, aren’t you?  And if you Republicans are racist now, then you would have belonged to the racist Southern Democratic Party in the 1950s, right?

(Wrong.  Virtually all of the Dixiecrat segregationists returned to the Democratic Party after 1964.)

But what about those contemporary parents who don’t want to send their kids to school with blacks, and who move to the suburbs to avoid doing so?

White, Asian, Indian, Hispanic, black immigrant, and even African-American parents in 2014 expressing ambivalence about sending their children to predominantly black urban schools has nothing to do with race.  These parents simply don’t want to send their kids to schools with compromised standards, underachievement, misbehavior, and violence, all of which unfortunately disproportionately exist in majority-black secondary schools.

In other words, parents don’t wish to send their children to school environments that Democrats created via decades of patronizing treatment of the black people they formerly abused.

Democrats obfuscate matters by pretending that government-sanctioned segregation is the same as concerned parents wanting to send their children to schools Democrats haven’t screwed up.

The left today not only lies and claims that we’ve made no progress on racism, they rewrite history to make it seem that Republicans were always the racists, and that Democrats stepped in as black people’s saviors.  The truth is the exact opposite.

How sad that Democrats choose to commemorate the anniversary of Brown, the desegregation of Little Rock, and every other civil rights milestone by pretending that Republicans are still the racists they never were.

Print This Post Print This Post

Enhanced by Zemanta

Race-Baiters Batting .000 in Trayvon Case

April 25, 2012 By: Scott Spiegel Category: Crime/Ethics

Up till now, the most accurate reporting the mainstream media have done on the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case has been relaying the fact that Martin had Skittles and iced tea on him when he was shot.  At the rate they’re going, I won’t be surprised if it emerges that he was carrying Pop Rocks and Four Loko.

Here is a partial list of the wild, reckless, irresponsible claims the left-leaning media have made in the Martin-Zimmerman case, every one of which has been rendered highly suspect or outright false:

Zimmerman is a white racist who killed Martin because he was black.

Multiple acquaintances of Zimmerman’s, including black friends, testified to reporters that Zimmerman—who is half-Hispanic—isn’t racist.  Zimmerman comes from a multiracial family and, during the period when the shooting took place, was tutoring a black neighbor’s two young children and helping raise money for her all-black church.

Maybe Zimmerman wasn’t racist, but he racially profiled Martin and told a 911 dispatcher Martin looked suspicious because of his race.  Zimmerman also uttered a racial slur.

In an egregious act of journalistic malpractice, an NBC producer chopped up the 911 audiotape to make it seem as though Zimmerman had found Martin suspicious because he was black, when in fact Zimmerman was merely responding to the dispatcher’s request to identify Martin’s race.  As for the slur, forensic experts enhanced the sound quality of the tape to isolate Zimmerman’s voice and concluded, not that he had used the archaic term coon, but that he was lamenting the cold.

OK, Zimmerman may not have racially profiled Martin, but he was a trigger-happy vigilante who shot Martin because of the cover provided by Florida’s barbaric Stand Your Ground law.

As Walter Olson and others have explained, Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is utterly irrelevant in the Zimmerman case.  If Zimmerman stalked Martin and shot him in cold blood, then obviously he didn’t act in self-defense.  If Martin set upon Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, and started pummeling him, as Zimmerman claims, then Zimmerman couldn’t have safely retreated, which is what Stand Your Ground opponents would have potential victims do instead of fighting back.  Either way, Stand Your Ground has no bearing on the propriety of Zimmerman’s actions.

Well, Martin wouldn’t have started a fight with Zimmermanhe was a sweet, innocent kid.

The night he was shot, Martin was serving a suspension for carrying a plastic baggie with traces of marijuana.  Previously he had been suspended for tardiness, truancy, and spray painting graffiti on school property.  Martin had been reprimanded for possessing an assortment of stolen women’s jewelry and a lock-breaking device.  His Twitter account revealed an affinity for gangsta culture, a flood of misogynistic tweets describing graphic sexual fantasies, and the suggestion that he had assaulted a school bus driver.  Photos of Martin displayed a menacing figure grimacing at the camera with a grill over his lower teeth.

Martin’s school suspensions are irrelevant.  He may have gotten into a bit of trouble now and then, but clearly Zimmerman was lying about Martin bashing his head into the concrete.

Police on the scene confirmed Zimmerman’s injuries and the presence of grass stains on his clothes.  When ABC News released a grainy surveillance video taken in the Sanford Police Station that didn’t show obvious wounds on the back of Zimmerman’s head, the media jumped all over him and called him a liar.  When ABC later released an enhanced video that showed clearer evidence of two gashes on the back of Zimmerman’s head, liberals claimed the evidence was inconclusive and that conservatives were playing Columbo.  When multiple witnesses attested that Zimmerman had bandages on his head and nose the day after the shooting, skeptics questioned the witnesses’ credibility.  Finally, last week ABC released a graphic photograph taken just after the incident showing thick rivulets of blood streaming down the back of Zimmerman’s head.  Liberals have been silent while trying to figure out how to squirm out of the latest corner they’ve painted themselves into.

Confronted with evidence disproving their claims of discrimination, race-baiters always shift the standard of proof to make their case just one step harder to discredit, so that they get a clean slate from their previous raft of false accusations and must meet only their current, self-determined burden of proof.  When that standard is refuted, they cry, “Yes, but…” and move on to the next unmet standard, claiming that all of the previous standards are irrelevant to their case.  The logical endpoint of this burning platform approach to argumentation is for the left to claim that, okay, the facts don’t support their case this time around, but the problem they are decrying is nonetheless legion.

If the sheer volume of circumstantial evidence exonerating Zimmerman accumulates to such a degree that a majority of the population comes around to his side of the story, the left won’t ever admit that they were wrong.  They won’t take responsibility for the multiple retaliatory beatings across the country incited by their inflammatory race-baiting.  Just as they did with false rape allegations against the Duke lacrosse players, the flurry of phony noose-hanging and anti-black vandalism incidents on college campuses, the apocryphal rash of black church burnings, the Tawana Brawley case, and a million other made-up incidents, liberals will simply claim that the charges against Zimmerman were fake but accurate, because they drew national attention to a problem that in fact exists only in their heads.

Previously published in modified form at Red Alert Politics

Print This Post Print This Post

Enhanced by Zemanta

Global Warming Fanatics: This Generation’s Flat-Earthers

August 31, 2011 By: Scott Spiegel Category: Environmentalism

flat earth

Image by Scott Spiegel via Flickr

No longer content to compare global warming skeptics to mere Holocaust deniers, Al Gore recently implied that climate doubters will someday be seen as this generation’s Klansmen.

In an interview with the Climate Reality Project, Gore declared that the civil rights and climate change movements are similar in that both harbor a profound moral component.  (Honestly, Gore’s new comparison lacks the punch of “Today the evidence of an ecological Kristallnacht is as clear as the sound of glass shattering in Berlin.”)

The bloated old walrus offered his awestruck, rosy-cheeked interviewer a two-pronged strategy that global warming believers should adapt from anti-racism protestors to “win the conversation.”  First, global warming fanatics should persuade non-believers through facts; second, they should confront “inappropriate” statements by expressing loud disapproval just as if they were racial slurs.

I could be wrong, but I think in order to “win the conversation,” you have to actually have a conversation first, at least one in which both sides are allowed to speak.  Yet the Goracle is notoriously reluctant to accept invitations to debate climate change skeptics such as brilliant mathematician and former Margaret Thatcher advisor Christopher Monckton—probably because he knows Monckton has enough logic and facts at his disposal to mop the floor with Gore.

In his Climate Reality Project interview, Gore claims that it is no more difficult for warming adherents to “win the conversation” on global warming than it was for pro-equality Southerners to “win the conversation” on racism.  In other words, put Gore on record as stating that it’s no more accepted fact that people should be judged by the content of their character than it is that the folks who overestimated the impact of Hurricane Irene on New York City by an order of magnitude can tell us how many degrees warmer the planet will be in 100 years.

Gore also chides Texas Governor and presidential candidate Rick Perry for claiming that the world’s scientists are in on a vast conspiracy to profit from preventive actions to halt climate change.  In fact, Perry said no such thing.  What Perry said is that climate change has become a politicized issue—which it has—and that key researchers have been caught shielding data from the public—which they have.  Perry also noted that scientists have been stepping forward en masse to express skepticism about climate change science—which is true.

It is also true that a prevailing orthodoxy has set in regarding climate change, such that skepticism is discouraged, and only research expected to confirm the outlines of preordained alarmist conclusions is deemed fundable by government agencies and even most private foundations.  It’s unlikely that scientists the world over think as objectively about climate change as they would if there were equally large gobs of money for research opposing the notion of manmade global warming.

But back to Gore’s ludicrous race-climate comparison: Since he brought it up, it’s worth noting that most climate change skeptics these days are Republicans.  In contrast, the most recalcitrant racists from the 1950s and 1960s were Southern Democrats—like Gore’s father, Al Gore Sr., who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Bull Connor, whom Gore cites for his brutal act of turning fire hoses on protestors.  So comparing Republicans to civil rights opponents may not be Gore’s best rhetorical move.

Meanwhile, noted climatologist Paul Krugman advances the skeptic-bashing on another front by sneering that Republicans are “anti-science,” “anti-knowledge,” and “anti-intellectualism.”

Let’s see: What does the science tell us about climate change?  For one thing, it tells us that there has been no statistically significant rise in global temperature over the last 16 years, even though CO2 emissions have increased.  It tells us that there has even been evidence of global cooling over the last 11 years.

The science tells us that 9 out the past 11 winters have delivered above-average snowfall and below-average temperatures to North America, Europe, and Asia.

The science tells us that H20, not CO2, is by far the biggest greenhouse gas—though I don’t recall Democratic politicians’ calling for a ban on sprinklers watering the neatly manicured lawns at their beachfront resorts.

If all of this were really about the science, then climate “scientists” would be aggressively working to falsify accepted hypotheses, challenge conventional knowledge, and test the rigor of their models—not toadying up to politicized government funding agencies that hand out taxpayer-funded research money like candy.

Far from resembling Gore’s smear of narrow-minded segregationists, climate change skeptics have demonstrated abundant open-mindedness and courage in their willingness to confront institutionalized wrongheadedness and public acceptance of falsehoods.  These qualities suggest that, if right, global warming skeptics will someday be seen as this generation’s moral heroes.

Print This Post Print This Post

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bigotry In Between Every Line

October 13, 2010 By: Scott Spiegel Category: Racism

“I’m particularly offended by these people who want to take the nation back…  If you read the Republican Contract with America, you can see the bigotry in between every line.”Maida Odom, “One Nation Working Together” rally attendee, October 2, 2010

In a desperate, last-ditch attempt to salvage their miserable midterm election prospects, Democrats have been tarnishing Republicans and Tea Partiers with the smear of—wait for it… racism!

Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth…

At a recent rally in Philadelphia, President Barack Obama warned the audience, “They’re counting on young people staying home and union members staying home and black folks staying home.”  Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Harold Jackson declared that the Tea Party is the ignorant, Negrophobic reincarnation of the pro-slavery wing of the Know Nothing Party.

Zora Neale Hurston, Ida B. Wells, Roy Innis, Eldridge Cleaver, Samuel B. Fuller…

Actually, Democrats have been crying racism throughout Obama’s whole presidency.  For example, New York Times columnist Frank Rich has been using this trick to try to fool Americans into thinking conservatives oppose ObamaCare because they don’t like black people such as bill architects Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  Maureen Dowd proposed that Joe Wilson’s exclamation regarding coverage for illegal Mexican immigrants was… anti-black.  Leftist civil rights leaders sullied their reputations by falsely accusing Tea Party protestors of calling Representative John Lewis the N-word and spitting on Representative Emanuel Cleaver.  Obama supporter Henry Louis Gates, Jr. falsely accused a poor working-class cop in Massachusetts of racial profiling.

Martin Luther King, Sr., Martin Luther King, Jr., Coretta Scott King, Alveda King…

Democrats have been playing the race card since even before Obama was elected, as in their ludicrous claim that failure to elect Obama would lead to race riots.  Such efforts have done miracles for Obama’s promised improvement in race relations: Rasmussen recently reported that perceptions about black-white relations have gotten much more pessimistic since Obama took office.

Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, Shelby Steele, Mychal Massie, Deroy Murdock, John McWhorter, Erik Rush…

To hear Democrats tell it, you would think there were no African American historical figures, civil rights leaders, commentators, politicians, judges, authors, athletes, or celebrities who are Republican, conservative, libertarian, right-leaning, or Tea Party supporters.  Or if there are, that they’re all misguided, brainwashed Uncle Toms.

Armstrong Williams, Lloyd Marcus, Stanley Crouch, Angela McGlowan, Amy Holmes, Sonja Schmidt, Alfonzo Rachel…

You might also be forgiven for thinking that such organizations as the National Black Republican Association and The Alliance of Black Republicans were apocryphal, mere fictional entities.

J. C. Watts, Gary Franks, Alan Keyes, Lynn Swann, Ken Blackwell, Rod Paige, Allen West, Star Parker, Tim Scott, Ryan Frazier, Isaac Hayes, Robert Broadus…

Because Democrats view individuals as voting blocs and interest groups to be Balkanized along racial and ethnic lines, they’ve been caught engaging in some appalling acts in recent years.  Since Obama took office, we’ve been treated to the spectacle of the NAACP applauding Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod for reporting that she had once racially discriminated against a white farmer; Barbara Boxer condescendingly lumping ideologically opposed black groups together based on skin color; and Bill Clinton defending Robert Byrd’s Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops positions as necessary for getting elected to public office as a Southern Democrat.

Clarence Thomas, Janice Rogers Brown, Ward Connerly, Colin Powell, Michael Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Michael Steele…

It’s hard to discern who exactly is supposed to be offended by these smears.  Any thinking black person is surely aware of the black conservative movement, and any unthinking black person is clearly uninterested in the movement and mindlessly committed to the Democratic Party.

Jackie Robinson, Don King, Ernie Banks, Karl Malone, Jerome Bettis, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, Herschel Walker…

And any thinking non-black person waits for leftists to produce actual evidence of conservative racism and reserves judgment until that time.  Any non-thinking non-black person is happy to accept lies about Republicans spread by race hucksters and reject evidence to the contrary.

James Earl Jones, Jimmie Walker, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, L. L. Cool J, 50 Cent…

When accusations of racism are thrown around often enough, with as little evidence as they typically are, in place of discussion of the issues people really care about, the net effect can only hurt one-trick pony politicians who know that running on their record and their positions will hurt rather than help them.

…and on and on and on and on.

But if Democrats want to spend their dwindling political capital on a charge so old and worn-out even they don’t believe it, hey—I won’t let myself be prejudiced against their strategy.

As Featured On EzineArticles

Print This Post Print This Post

Enhanced by Zemanta

Obama Schedules Beer Summit With Ben Jealous and Andrew Breitbart

July 21, 2010 By: Scott Spiegel Category: Racism

Ben Jealous
Image by jdlasica via Flickr

Ben Jealous, President of the NAACP, declared at last week’s annual convention that the impetus for the Tea Party is hatred of nonwhite people and resentment of a black president.  Of the rise of the movement, Jealous announced, “Here comes the genetic descendent of the White Citizens Council, burst from its coffin.”

I don’t know if Tea Partiers are genetically descendent from the White Citizens Council or not.  (Hey—isn’t an obsession with “genetic descendents” usually associated with racism?)

What I do know is that they’re not politically descendent.

The overwhelming majority of voters and congressmen who identify as Tea Party supporters are Republicans.

In contrast, the early leaders of the White Citizens Council were Louisiana politicians William Rainach and Joseph Waggonner, Jr., justice Leander Perez, and publisher Ned Touchstone, all Democrats.  The group was formed in reaction to political activities carried out by the Regional Council of Negro Leadership, led by black Republican T. R. M. Howard.

As part of its recent campaign against the Tea Party, the NAACP posted on its website a slideshow of Tea Party rally signs bearing such patently, explicitly anti-black sentiments as “Now Look!  Nice People Forced To Protest!  This Must Be Serious,” “Obama & His Gang of Thieves = America’s Toxic Assets,” “Freeloading Illegals Are Raping U.S. Taxpayers,” “Obama Was Not Bowing.  He Was Sucking Saudi Jewels!” “It’s 1939 Germany All Over Again,” “The American Taxpayers Are the Jews for Obama’s Ovens,” and “Hang ‘Em High!  Traitors in Congress—Pelosi, Reid, Waters, Schumer, Frank, Dodd, Conyers, Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy.”

The NAACP was once, many moons ago, a pioneer in spearheading crucial and controversial civil rights work, which culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Since then, the NAACP has distinguished itself as a water carrier for every racist fringe element in society but the KKK.

The writings of former local NAACP chapter president Robert F. Williams, for example, influenced the violent tactics adopted by the Black Panthers, the far-left, quasi-Marxist/Maoist revolutionary group formed in the 1960s that sprouted the Black Power movement and instigated numerous fatal confrontations with police over the next decade.

A revived version of the group, the New Black Panther Party, started in 1989, and was soon vilified by the Anti-Defamation League as “the largest organized anti-Semitic and racist black militant group in America” and labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Law Poverty Center.

More recently, in 2000 the head of the NAACP in Dallas, Lee Alcorn, used his radio show to slam Al Gore for selecting a Jew as his running mate: “If we get a Jew person, then what I’m wondering is, what is this movement for?  [W]e need to be very suspicious of any kind of partnerships between the Jews at that kind of level, because we know that their interest primarily has to do with money and these kind of things.”

After ABC News exposed the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s incendiary racist sermons in the spring of 2008, the NAACP invited him to give a keynote address to an audience of 10,000 members at a fundraiser in Detroit, where Wright unrepentantly reaffirmed his views to a welcoming audience and accused candidate Obama of disavowing his sermons for political reasons.  (As Bill Clinton might say, Obama had a “fleeting association” with black liberation theology.)  Wright added some charming eugenics-inspired comments about how blacks and whites’ brains are different and reflect separate but equal learning styles—remarks that also met with approval from the NAACP audience.

In November 2008, members of the New Black Panther Party brandished police batons and made menacing comments toward voters outside a Philadelphia voting center.  The Bush administration filed a lawsuit against the NBPP, which resulted in a slap-on-the-wrist injunction against one of the defendants.  In June 2009, Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed the suit against the remaining defendants in the case with no explanation.  Liberal commentators have dismissed the voter intimidation incident as “street theater”—you know, like break dancing or singing James Brown tunes, only with nightsticks and paramilitary gear.

Bill O’Reilly observed, “[A] number of New Black Panthers have been shown on TV saying incredibly bigoted things.  NBPP member King Samir Shabazz even suggested that black Americans kill white babies…  One of the weaknesses of the NAACP is that it has rarely acknowledged black racism.  The organization is silent on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.  Yet, it is outraged about the Tea Party.”

In a recent column titled “Is NAACP blind to Farrakhan & Co.?  The Nation of Islam is built on racism and lies,” Stanley Crouch highlighted the NAACP’s ongoing support for the anti-Semitic Nation of Islam and suggested that “were Jealous and the rest disturbed and vocal about [Louis] Farrakhan’s presence [in the NAACP], it would suggest some actual integrity of the sort we are not accustomed to hearing from ‘black leaders’ and ‘public intellectuals.’”

This week Andrew Breitbart unearthed video showing U.S. Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod admitting she had engaged in racist behavior toward a white farmer years earlier.  The remarks were made at an award ceremony held by the NAACP, whose audience members clapped and cheered and peppered her remarks with sounds of approval, all before they realized that she was citing her bad behavior as a mistake made on her way to embracing racial equality.

The NAACP responded to the Sherrod case by presenting video of Tea Party speakers telling audiences that tax cuts should be targeted toward whites and not blacks, and attendees shouting agreement with these sentiments.  Oh wait—no, they didn’t.

Tunku Varadarajan summed up the contrast between the two groups well: “Here we have the Tea Party, one of the nation’s most organic, Athenian, democratic movements, being attacked by a political organization—the NAACP—that is among the most sclerotic, dinosaurian, and cadaverous of America’s political groupings.

In true “post-racial” fashion, expect Obama to hold the equivalent of a beer summit between leaders of the NAACP and representatives of the Tea Party movement, in which both sides are treated as equally morally culpable, calls are made to put aside differences, and reputations and character are obfuscated rather than clarified.

As Featured On EzineArticles

Print This Post Print This Post

Enhanced by Zemanta

Doesn’t Matter What This Column Says—You’ll Call It Racism

September 16, 2009 By: Scott Spiegel Category: Racism

Jonathan Martin of Politico notes that, even though racism against the president is supposedly widespread, “it’s still a sensitive enough issue that the [Democratic] party doesn’t broach it directly.”  By “sensitive,” of course, he means “far-fetched, ludicrous, and laughable.”

Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) claims that in Senator Joe Wilson’s outburst toward the president last week, Wilson “kind of winked at that element” of the U.S. that disrespects Obama because he is black.  I’m not sure what criminal statutes are on the books for “kind of winking” at an “element,” but I do know that Democrats’ charges of racism until recently have been so timid and indirect, because they know that if they made them openly, they might have to produce actual evidence of racism.

Lately some of the attempts to label opposition to socialized medicine and trillion-dollar deficits as racism have gotten more blatant.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright was just caught on video snarling, “I think the racists in the right wing are upset because poor people are about to be helped.”  And it wasn’t even during one of his weekly sermons!

Jimmy Carter weighed in on the subject over the weekend: “[A]n overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man… [and] a belief among many white people… that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.”

MSNBC bloggers recently wrote, “Whether it’s fair or not, there is a perception growing that race is driving some elements of the opposition to Obama.”

Maureen Dowd wrote of Wilson in the New York Times, “[F]air or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!”  Oh, the New York Times doesn’t need to be fair!  Stop being so hard on yourself!

According to Dowd, who was praised by liberal bloggers everywhere for finally stating openly what they believed but didn’t feel comfortable expressing, “Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.”  Note to Dowd: None of the conservatives in Congress did, and it had nothing to do with Obama’s being brainy or black—it had everything to do with his being wrongheaded and pompous.

Dowd lamented “the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as… socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people.”

I don’t know—some would say that taking over banks, car companies, and the health care industry is a bit socialist; wanting to “spread the wealth around” is a bit Marxist; having a spiritual mentor who railed against white people in church for 20 years is a bit racist; nominating former communists as czars is a bit Commie; receiving material support from groups that beat up health care protestors at townhall meetings is a bit Nazi; and planning to set up government panels to ration end-of-life care implies a willingness to snuff old people.  Then again, some don’t write for the New York Times.

Dowd added, “Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president… convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.”  Yes, and the “shocking disrespect” for the office of Congressman at mostly white Senators and Representatives’ townhall meetings has convinced me: Some people just can’t believe white people can be in Congress and will never accept it.

Dowd charged that Obama is “at the center of a period of racial turbulence sparked by his ascension” and that “this president is the ultimate civil rights figure—a black man whose legitimacy is constantly challenged by a loco fringe.”

For liberals, the equation is “challenged” plus “black” = “victim of racism.”

I suppose we need to inform Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Sonja Schmidt, Mychal Massie, and other fantastic black conservative and libertarian commentators and harsh Obama critics that their opposition is based on mere black self-hatred.

It was also insinuated by major media outlets that the massive tea party held in Washington over the weekend was fueled by racist resentment of a black man in the White House.  As amply documented by photos of the event, however, signs protested the actions of not just Obama but: Bush, Congress, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Steny Hoyer, Saul Alinsky, government, and the mainstream media, among many other targets.

Tea party signs protested Medicaid and Medicare’s insolvency, passing on trillions of dollars of debt to future generations, providing health care to illegal immigrants, paying for abortions through health care legislation, excessive taxes, cap-and-trade schemes, government takeover of the automobile industry, and the appointment of czars.  (Take that, NAACP!)

Finally, signs supported tort reform, health savings accounts, a flat tax, gun rights, the war on terror, and a strange, unheard-of cult called “Liberty.”

Notably absent from protest signs were calls for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act and the resegregation of water fountains.  As Obama correctly observed in one of his health care speeches this summer, “This is not about me.”

As for the occasional reference to race on protest signs, Martin writes, “Republicans see an important distinction between Obama critics who are genuinely worried about his… policies and those whose fears go beyond the president’s liberalism…  But for some Democrats, it’s difficult to make that distinction when conservative marchers take to Washington bearing images of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Obama that read, ‘He had a dream, we got a nightmare.’”  And for some Republicans, it’s difficult to make a distinction between signs comparing King and Obama that would be acceptable to liberals and those that would be branded “racist.”

As one prescient and widely photographed sign at the protest read, “It doesn’t matter what this sign says—you’ll call it racism anyway.”