The Democrat coalition may be fracturing more visibly along abortion lines in the Obamacare debate, but that’s not the only popcorn-friendly battle going on right now. ‘Minority’ groups are going after Net Neutrality now, and nobody is sparing the ‘race card.’
The Totally Real And Not Fake Stupid Quotes Shenaniganza!
Wikiquote: Keepin' it real since 1887 (that's their real slogan, says teh internets)
RRRAAAACCCCIIIIISSSSSSTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That’s what the MSM had to say in comments about Rush Limbaugh’s recent bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams. According to some guy I overheard at the mall, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs suggested that Limbaugh owning the Rams “is exactly the same as slavery, but fatter.” And then there’s what Helen Thomas probably said, “Rush to what window? With a ram? Where’s my sweater?”
So in honor of the controversy, I’ve compiled a top ten list of some completely ridiculous but totally true and not fake quotes of famous people who are not (or so they claim) Rush Limbaugh. These are, like, so teh true. For really real. Really. No … really.
THE TOTALLY REAL AND NOT FAKE QUOTES SHENANIGANZA TOP TEN
10. Democrat Fritz Hollings of South Carolina thinks being from Africa makes you a cannibal: “You’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.”
9. Howard Dean reaches out: “I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.”
8. California Democrat Diane Watson thinks interracial marriage is icky: “He’s married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn’t want to be black.”
7. Howard Dean thinks service positions are for minorities, not big fancy white people: “You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? … Only if they had the hotel staff in here.”
6. Joe Biden explains why southern Democrats should vote for him: “My state was a slave state.”
Michael Williams (R Cand, SEN-TX) wants to talk about race.
The problem with this essay on race by Texas Railroad Commissioner and Senatorial candidate Michael Williams is that you really need to read the whole thing: there are too many good bits to cram into just one snippet. But a taste:
What grieves me most, however, is not that false cries of racism shortcircuit our debate, but that it makes legitimate concern about pockets of racism impossible to hear among the majority of Americans where it truly exists. Racism does still exist in America today – on both sides of the political spectrum. Now it will be that much harder to expose because the real cry will be impossible to distinguish from the false one, much like the boy who cried, “wolf.” Racism exists, but so does opportunity, and I can personally attest to the fact that there is far more opportunity than racism.
We have rid our institutions of government of the practice of discrimination; if only we could rid our political discourse of the ugliness that ensues when we ascribe discriminatory motive to statements with no obvious discriminatory aspect. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd couldn’t help hearing a missing word in Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst during President Obama’s speech to Congress. The Congressman yelled, “You lie.” Ms. Dowd couldn’t help hearing, “you lie, boy.”
While Congressman Wilson started a fire, Ms. Dowd poured fuel on it. The greater ugliness is not the inappropriate outburst, but Ms. Dowd intentionally injecting a word loaded with a history of racial condescension to label a whole movement of opposition.
Obama Is Opposed By Racists
If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel then crying racism must be in the other half of the duplex.
Many of us noted back during the ‘08 primaries and general election that the Obama camp would cry racism at the drop of a hat. He performed poorly in Pennsylvania because of racism. He was trounced in WV because of racism. In August 2008, Jacob Weisberg wrote that the only reason McCain could win the election was because of racism. They could never quite fathom that there were lots of reasons to oppose Obama other than race. Being the least qualified presidential contender since Wendell Wilkie and choosing convicted terrorists, terrorist who would have happily murdered Americans were it not for their epic levels of incompetence, and racist hatemongers as BFFs and mentors certainly popped on my radar as reasons why even Hillary Clinton was preferable to Barack Obama.
We predicted that should he win, the climate would only get worse.
Up until this weekend the accusation that only racists opposed Obama had been made sotto voce with the real criticism being directed at cartoonists. Now that criticism is being directed at all of us.
And just like clockwork, the Van Jones race baiting begins
In Saturday night’s late-night diary about the Jones resignation, I commented in the discussion threads that before the day was out today (Sunday), cries of “racism!” would sound. And just as predictably as the sun rising in the morning, there they are.
From page 2 of the Politico story, published late Sunday:
Some progressives said they saw racial overtones in Jones’ departure – which came as critics began to step up their scrutiny of Jones’ past words of support for Abu-Jamal, a former Black Panther on death row whose murder conviction in the death of a police officer is a cause célèbre for some on the left.
“It struck me, why go after this guy? He is a minor player, he has no power, no budget, why take him? It’s because he looks like Obama and he has all those same attributes of being well-educated and he’s an electrifying speaker with an elite education,” said John Anner, a good friend of Jones and former chair of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, an organization Jones founded in Oakland. “It seems to me that he is symbolic of what the Obama administration is and could be and that’s inspiring for me, but for some people on the right, it’s terrifying and threatening.”
No one should be surprised at this at all, for apparently it is impossible for conservatives and/or Republicans to oppose anyone who isn’t white without spawning accusations of racism. As so many have written already in recent months, Obama’s so-called “post-racial” America is…not. And folks, it isn’t the conservatives and the GOP who brought this on - it is the leftists who cry “RACISTS!” every time something doesn’t go their way.
Here’s a clue, race-baiters: sometimes a person is just wrong, no matter what their melanin level, and that was clearly the case with Van Jones. Furthermore, on the czar-hunting front, I personally believe the next one we need to expose is John Holdren, Obama’s “science czar.” And guess what: he’s white.
This is how they see you (image may be NSFW).
[UPDATE]: I’ve had a copy of the image sent to me that includes the URL. The Google cache for the site is here; as you can see, not only did the image originate from the site, but the author him/herself was present at the Reston Town Hall, writing posts about it. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I think that we’ve established that the flier found below represents a deliberate attempt by the Left to incite racially-motivated hate against the Right.
I apologize in advance for the ugly and graphic nature of the image that will be available for viewing after the fold: I would prefer not to show it, but unfortunately somebody decided that it was suitable for distribution after the Reston, VA Town Hall - and I can’t actually talk about it without showing it.
Gawker Media: Only terrorist furriners have rights
You may recall that during the Bush administration and the Presidential campaign, Gizmodo was constantly harping on wiretaps of terrorists. Specifically, Gizmodo claimed that the Bush-era program constituted “domestic spying,” that telecommunications firms spied as well, and that they ‘won’ out over the American people on the matter.
They were practically in hysterics, hiding under sheets and crying into a camera “Leave the phones alone, Bushitler” over the matter.
So imagine my surprise when I find out today that when Nokia is being protested for taking part in a genuine domestic spying program of the Iranian Islamofascist regime, they don’t care. It’s not even worth a post. It’s so unimportant they go out of their way to say they didn’t post on it.
So, to recap: American firms aiding the US government in spying on calls between foreign-based terrorists and their US-based cells: a crime for which they must not get immunity. Foreign firm aiding the Iranian government in oppressing the opposition: “Nokia’s role here seems to be the same as a car company’s role in a drunk-driving incident.”
Clearly the signal here is that the Iranians just don’t really need rights, unless they’re terrorists plotting attacks against Americans. After all, they’re only foreign Muslims. They don’t even have a European complexion. Gawker must think they’re barely even people, which is why they opposed liberating brown-skinned Muslims from Saddam Hussein, and they oppose brown-skinned Muslims from liberating themselves from the Islamic Revolution.
Our Racist Enemies
Any Republican who peeks in on the pages of a left-wing web site like Daily Kos or Politico is immediately struck by how strongly our friends across the aisle believe that opposition to their ideas stems from racism. To hear a Democrat tell it, all Republicans are racists. Furthermore, virtually the entire Republican Party consists of white males from the Southern states.
One wonders how, if this were true, Republicans ever win an election. But never mind that. Once a liberal feels that something is true, mere logic and empirical evidence cannot stand in the way.
Apparently not even party labels get in the way. According to The New York Times this morning…
One African-American Democrat, Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia, pointed out that the seven Blue Dog Democrats holding up the health care bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee were “a nondiverse group” of white men.
As a Republican, I find this promising. It had long been my wish that Democrats’ not-so-subtle racism, which comes disguised as them calling other people racists, would someday turn inward… on themselves. Alas, it hadn’t happened. But now, thanks to the president’s police relations program and this House member from Georgia, I have hope that this will change.
The polls are turning on Sotomayor
I’m not particularly sold on Sonia Sotomayor one way or the other, other than to believe that nothing good could ever come from Obama. My lawyer colleagues here on Redstate are much better versed on the merits of her rulings and arguments in the courtroom, but they are not necessarily free to pass judgment on them, as there could be conflicts of interest in the future. It does seem that while she is certainly not a nominee that would come from a Republican president, she could be less harmful than some of the alternatives.
Despite what one thinks of her potential benefit or damage to the rule of law in the United States, it seems that Ms. Sotomayor’s journey to the Supreme Court bench has hit a couple of speed bumps. First it was her borderline-racist statements implying that a “wise Latina” judge would reach better conclusions than a “white male who hasn’t lived that life,” and the fact that her comments were not an isolated incident, contrary to the spin of the Obama administration. That particular episode seemed to be defused by th administration, as it seems to (at the time) have had little impact on her popularity. But it appears the latest, more significant courtroom events have had an impact on the public’s perception of Ms. Sotomayor.
Video of Black Panther: “You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”
Yesterday, the Washington Times wrote about Departmnet of Justice dropping charges against Black Panthers and Democratic operatives for voter intimidation. Michelle Malkin tracked down the complaint filed by Bartle Bull. Bull — and Malkin flagged — that one of the Black Panthers told him “you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker”.
Well, it turns out that there is video of it:
H/T Election Journal.
Judge Sotomayor’s ‘Wise Latina Woman’ Statement: Big Deal, or No Deal at All?
That’s one of the questions being debated over at Politico’s “Arena” blog. Here’s my take, in a nutshell, on Sotormayor’s statement at Berkley in 2001 that the “richness of experience” of a “wise Latina woman” makes her more fit to judge (or more likely to “reach a better conclusion”) “than a white male”:
This is a whole bunch of nothing to most liberals, who accept as the natural order of things that empathy and common ethnic experience are more important in Constitutional law than dispassionate review and application of an objective standard. To conservatives, on the other hand, Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” statement is a something — if not necessarily a “big deal” — because it injects subjectivity into an objective process, and because it reflects an adoption of the race-and-gender-obsessed liberal worldview that denies any objective good outside of “diversity” for its own sake.
Given that Sotomayor’s speech from which the “wise Latina” quote was pulled was part of a symposium entitled “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation,” it’s not surprising or offensive in the least that she discussed race as a topic. However, rather than using that pulpit to acknowledge that neither minority status nor an impoverished upbringing was the sine qua non of effectively interpreting legal texts and applying them to cases (her job as an appellate judge), Sotomayor chose to declare that, in her estimation, a white male simply isn’t as fit to render legal judgment as a “wise Latina woman.”
There’s a very clear reason why this statement has half of the nation up in arms. Ironically, the other half, which is brushing this aside and saying it’s no big deal, would be calling for the head of any white male who said his race and gender made him more qualified to judge than any “Latina woman.” The difference in that situation is that, had a white male said such a thing, conservatives would be condemning it as well — something race-and-gender-obsessed liberals simply can’t bring themselves to do with regard to Sotomayor’s statement, despite the obviousness of the double standard.
USA to boycott Durban II.
Just like Bush.
We are not going to the Bash-the-Jews Durban Review Conference after all:
US boycotts UN racism conference
Washington has confirmed it will boycott a UN forum on racism in Geneva next week because of differences over Israel and the right to free speech.
The state department said the proposed text of the conference’s guiding document remained unacceptable despite having been amended significantly.
Not very surprising, although I’d like to clear up something for the BBC. There has not been any sort of internal debate “raging” in the United States over this issue. The American people have consistently shown their support for Israel, and that hasn’t changed. What had happened was that various fringe groups in the United States had been pushing as hard as they could for some sort of flexibility in the language that would create a rhetoric crack in the pavement for future Israel-bashing behavior. This, of course, failed miserably: anti-Semitism is, after all, the bigotry of choice of the mediocre who wishes to think of himself as superior. Not sure why that is: nonetheless, we’re not going to this travesty.
I’d say “better luck next time,” except that I don’t even remotely mean it.
Moe Lane
Crossposted to Moe Lane.
G20 Protesters murder man in London. [Bumped: and the cops may have lent a hand.]
[UPDATE] And when they pull in the sick buggers that threw the bottles, make sure that none of these guys do the pulling in.
But don’t preen, ye blackshirts. The cops may have committed manslaughter. Your fellow-protesters are still on the hook for murder.
Yes, murder. When you attack people trying to save someone’s life - someone who is dying - then you have made a moral choice. Or in this case, an immoral choice:
Police were attacked as they helped dying man at G20 protests in City
Police officers came under attack while they tried to help a dying man at the G20 protests in the City last night.
The victim was found by a member of the public unconscious in the street near the Bank of England just before 7.30pm yesterday.
A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said officers arrived on the scene to help and had to move the casualty away for urgent treatment after bottles were thrown at them by protesters.
AP Confuses Criticism of Obama With ‘Racial Slurs’
As far as the AP is concerned, any criticism of Obama at all is considered racist!
Proving that the left cannot tell the difference between “racism” and “criticism,” the AP posted a lengthy March 30 story confusing and conflating the two as it pertains to attacks on President Obama. As far as the AP is concerned it seems the whole country is running around with burning crosses and wearing pointy hoods aiming to cast racial epithets at Obama at every turn. It may as well still be the year 1860 around here.
The AP starts its piece by informing the reader that “racial slurs continue” against the president “despite” his “historic achievement.” But the main problem with the piece is that much of the report details political attacks that aren’t really racial in nature but are instead just those normal sorts of political attacks we see against any president. Granted they are tailored for Obama (like his citizenship and religion questions) but they aren’t really “racial” attacks per se. Still, the AP illegitimately lumps any and all attacks against Obama under the rubric of “racial slurs.”
Yes, Zachary Roth, we know: Bobby Jindal’s skin color offends you.
You find it to be too dark for a *proper* Republican.
Get over it, and stop with the one-handed typing on this story. Contra your increasingly wild-eyed protestations to the contrary, this story started with your pet failed sportscaster babbling about Bobby Jindal being 75 miles from New Orleans, mostly because he’s just smart enough to read what people like you put in front of him, and too dumb to read a map. And now that enough people from the Louisiana that’s in Reality Non-Unicorn have shown up to point this out, you’re trying to base your increasingly shaky case on a post that Ben Smith just keeps having to clarify and clarify and clarify. He’s at the stage where the Jindal people literally calling BS on this story, which puts us right back to the fact that this says nothing about Bobby Jindal, and everything about your inability to get past skin color.
Oh, and before you tell me that you don’t believe Jindal’s aides, shall we listen to the late Sheriff Lee himself? This is from when he endorsed Bobby for Governor: unlike you, he saw the content of the man’s character rather than the color of his skin.
God save me from the racism of the Online Left. God save us all, in fact.
Moe Lane
PS: Thank you for confirming that you’re afraid of him. The smart thing would have been to just let the speech go.
PPS: I have to ask: is there sexing involved with this? Did they promise that you could wear the moose head during your session? - Because I have to say, you’re showing all the signs of being a person who has five hundred slightly different drawings of Sarah Palin being punched in the face saved on your hard drive.
Does NY-20’s Scott Murphy (D) still think that the military’s a bunch of racists?
Do not blame me for the fact that he is on the record with this.
(H/T: Hot Air) That’s a serious question, because he signed his name to an article saying precisely that back in college. The quote goes:
The military not only discriminates on the basis of sexual preference, but on the basis of sex and race. Women are not allowed to serve in combat even if they are physically superior to males who do serve in combat. And, while there are not explicit rules discriminating against minorities, the Congressional Black Caucus has found that “racism has become institutionalized at all levels of the military. Black and other minority service men are victims of discrimination from the time that they enter the services until the time that they are discharged.” Will Harvard choose to ignore this discrimination?
Murphy went on to declare that military values - which he proceeded to get wrong, as only a liberal Democratic Ivy League student can - are directly contradictory to those of Harvard University, or at least the Harvard University of twenty years ago. I would like to say that Harvard’s grown up a little since then, but it’d be a lie. Still, I’d like to know: has Murphy?
Moe Lane
PS: Jazz Shaw has more; so does this site, even if they can’t get the name of the NRCC right. But one of their commenters noted that parts of this district were once Gerald Solomon’s (I think), so that works out. And, of course, see also Erick’s post on the subject.
PPS: Jim Tedisco. Republican. Running for the seat. Doesn’t hate the military. Donate here.
Crossposted to Moe Lane.
Hi There, Eric. I Can’t Help But Notice You’re Black. Let’s Talk About How Black You Are.
“We, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race,” said average American Eric Holder, Attorney General for the Obama administration, in a speech to Justice Department employees earlier today.
Holder, whose speech was meant to honor Black History Month, went on to call America “a nation of cowards” which “never been at ease with…frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us” despite the fact that “this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot.”
Holder continued:
[T]he need to confront our racial past, and our racial present, and to understand the history of African people in this country, endures. One cannot truly understand America without understanding the historical experience of black people in this nation. Simply put, to get to the heart of this country one must examine its racial soul.
Though he admitted the workplace is now “largely integrated,” Holder complained that, in his opinion, Americans “self-segregate” into “race-protected cocoons” on the weekends and in their private lives.
Apparently our esteemed Attorney General has a bit of a problem with the free association of a free people, as well as with the fact that we’re not all starting our conversations with fellow Americans with statements like the facetious title of this post.
The fact is, folks like Holder, the Rev. Joseph Lowery, and their race-minded fellows are clinging to an increasingly outdated and obsolete worldview like a man long-since rescued from the sea clinging to a life preserver.
Obama Says US to Help Plan, Possibly Attend 4th UN-Sponsored Bashfest of Israel
Administration officials confirmed late last night that the U.S. will assist the United Nations in planning and executing the fourth edition of the UNESCO-sponsored “World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.”
President Obama has yet to announce whether or not the U.S. will attend the conference, to be held in Geneva, Switzerland this year. Senior administration officials, including UN ambassador Susan Rice and national security council member Samantha Power, have reportedly been working to convince Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to commit the U.S. to the conference — an act which would reverse the Bush administration policy of boycotting future editions of the conference pending ironclad assurances that it would not be a repeat of the 2001 meeting which the U.S. and Israel walked out of due to the virulently anti-Semitic and anti-Israel tone of the proceedings and the conference’s official resolutions.
In 2001 in Durban, South Africa, the nations in attendance used the opportunity of the U.N.-sponsored conference to slander Israel and propose the adoption of United Nations resolutions declaring Zionism (the belief that a Jewish state of Israel should exist) to be the international legal equivalent of racism (in an ironic move, African countries like Nigeria and Zimbabwe, which are knee-deep in the slave trade, sought to pry a formal apology for slavery from the Caucasian West, as well).
Further, the NGO Forum held at the 2001 conference (for the purpose of “creating a worldwide anti-racism movement” and “to struggle against intolerance”) saw resolution language like the following proposed:
