Archive for the ‘Racism’ Category
Ed has a great post up about MSNBC’s racist behavior. Here’s part of Ed’s commentary:
Why did they just happen to block all of these speakers? Obviously, it’s not a coincidence. They’re afraid of two outcomes by showing these speakers, the first of which is the exposure of the intellectual vapidity of their repeated accusations of raaaaaaaaaaaacism. The second is the possibility of acknowledging that conservatism appeals to a broad, diverse section of the electorate, which might encourage more people of color to consider its policies, especially with the powerful personal stories told by Mia Love and Ted Cruz. Instead of dealing with that reality, MSNBC chose to deliberately misinform their
15 1412 viewers. Fortunately, the MSNBC lineup (with the apparent acquiescence of Comcast) is so busy marginalizing themselves that it really doesn’t matter any more.
Ed’s point that MSNBC might be frightened of the thought that “conservatism appeals to a broad, diverse section of the electorate” is worth closer examination.
This past June, I attended the RightOnline conference, where I had a fantastic time. At the Saturday night banquet, I joined Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft at a table that included at least 5-6 women, including several women of color.
The point is that the TEA Party movement has appealed to Americans from a wide array of backgrounds. This isn’t Ronald Reagan’s Republican Party, though there’s no doubt that he’d approve of it.
This is this generation’s conservative movement, a movement represented by TEA Party favorites like Michelle Malkin, Mia Love, Susana Martinez, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.
The racist myth that MSNBC is peddling was discredited before most people read their morning papers. Their dishonesty was that blatant.
The last week, Chris Matthews has repeatedly accused Republicans of being racists. Newt Gingrich and Reince Priebus laughed at Matthews while he vented.
It’s in this context that this news must be viewed:
MSNBC wants you to think the Republican Party hates minorities. So much so that the liberal news network cut minority speeches from it’s convention coverage.
When popular Tea Party candidate Ted Cruz, the GOP nominee for Senate, took the stage, MSNBC cut away from the Republican National Convention and the Hispanic Republican from Texas’ speech.
MSNBC stayed on commercial through former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis’ speech, as well. Davis, who recently became a Republican, is black.
Then, when Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno’s wife Luce’ Vela Fortuño took the stage minutes later, MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews opted to talk over the First Lady’s speech.
And Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval? Noticeably missing from MSNBC, too.
Mia Love, a black candidate for Congress in Utah, was also ignored by MSNBC.
In conventions past, liberal commentators on CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC commented about how the delegates at the Republican National Convention “didn’t look like America.” Based on shots of the convention floor, these delegates definitely look like America.
MSNBC isn’t about journalism. It isn’t about giving Americans accurate information. It’s all about sabotaging Republicans to keep President Obama in office.
Little Chrissie Matthews is a disgusting person. He’s arrogant, ignorant and insufferable. If MSNBC didn’t exist, they’d have to create it so he’d have a job.
Jeff Poor’s article has more about MSNBC’s disgusting behavior:
In lieu of airing speeches from former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, a black American; Mia Love, a black candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Utah; and Texas senatorial hopeful Ted Cruz, a Latino American, MSNBC opted to show commentary anchored by Rachel Maddow from Rev. Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes and Steve Schmidt.
MSNBC’s commentary is either proof that they’re willing liars or that they’re exceptionally lazy journalists. Their commentary has nothing to do with reality.
Democrats talk like they’re the most compassionate people in the history of mankind. This article is proof that they aren’t the compassionate people they portray themselves as:
On Sunday, Ellen Barkin expressed her hope that Tropical Storm Isaac would smash up the Republican National Convention in Tampa and drown all its delegates.
She retweeted the message of one of her followers that read: “C’mon #Isaac! Wash every pro-life, anti-education, anti-woman, xenophobic, gay-bashing, racist SOB right into the ocean! #RNC” Barkin did not express any disagreement in her retweet.
Ms. Barkin is a disgusting hateful woman. What’s most disgusting is the fact that her accusations aren’t close to being accurate. They’re fictional. They’re chanting points that the DNC published 20 years ago.
What is it about Hollywood types thinking of themselves as being worthy of judging others? James Earl Jones, Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover and others have made disgusting, hate-filled, statements over the past 4 years. Had a Republican made their statements, the media would’ve demanded that the GOP cease to exist.
When this collection of bigots, has-beens and haters make the disgusting remarks that they’ve made, the press just shrugs their statements off. It’s time for the press to start criticizing these haters.
It doesn’t matter whether they’re role models or public figures that people look up to. They’re haters. People should reflexively ridicule haters wherever they’re found. PERIOD.
Ms. Barkin, you’re a disgusting human being. Step out of the public eye so we don’t have to tolerate your disgusting accusations.
There’s no question that Eric Holder wasn’t the US Attorney General when thugs from the NBPP threatened voters, including legendary civil rights attorney Bartle Bull. He wasn’t the US Attorney General when the DOJ won the civil case against the NBPP. What’s indisputable, though, is that Holder was the US Attorney General whose DOJ dropped the case after a previous DOJ team of attorneys had won the case.
New evidence has surfaced showing a high-ranking DOJ official, Thomas Perez, lied under oath. This scandal is about to get major national press thanks to this video:
First, let’s review what’s known. Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request, which led to Judge Reggie Walton’s ruling. Here’s the vital part of Judge Walton’s ruling:
Judicial Watch…has obtained documents from the Obama [DOJ] that provide new evidence that top political appointees at the DOJ were intimately involved in the decision to dismiss the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NBPP). These new documents, which include internal DOJ email correspondence, directly contradict sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership was involved in the decision…The new documents include a series of emails between two political appointees: former Democratic election lawyer and current Deputy Associate Attorney General Sam Hirsch and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli.
Here’s one of the emails disclosed by the DOJ:
For example, in one April 30, 2009, email from Hirsch to Perrelli, with the subject title “Fw: New Black Panther Party Update,” Hirsch writes:
I need to discuss this with you tomorrow morning. I’ll send you another email on this shortly.
If you want to discuss it this evening, please let me know which number to call and when.
This entire administration must go, starting with Eric Holder. That means prosecuting him for politically undermining a case involving a voting rights violations.
That includes criminal prosecution of Gen. Holder and President Obama’s political appointees. President Obama’s political appointees undermined the American system of justice through acts of political sabotage that helped their political allies. That’s corruption of the worst kind.
The indictment against this administration keeps getting longer. What’s worse for this administration is that it keeps revealing more corruption and economic ineptitude.
If there’s anything that’s undeniable, it’s that Hilary Shelton isn’t even loosely tethered to reality. He’s a liar through and through. He spent the better part of 6 minutes telling Bill O’Reilly that Mitt Romney didn’t say what O’Reilly played video of Mitt Romney saying. This video tells the tale:
Goldie Taylor is either the biggest liar not named Hilary Shelton or she’s a blithering idiot. Here’s what she said on MSNBC:
TAYLOR: He might’ve walked into the room and talked about how we fix basic public education, which we know disrupts poverty.
O’Reilly dismantled her argument seconds later when he played a portion of Mitt Romney’s speech where he talked specifically about education:
ROMNEY: I will give the parents of every low income and special needs student the choice of where their child goes to school. For the first time in history, if I’m president, federal education funds will be attached to a student so that every parent can send their children to the public or charter school they choose.
That’s exceptionally straightforward. There’s no ambiguity in Mitt’s statement. Except that Mr. Shelton didn’t hear things so clearly:
SHELTON: He did not talk about what he would do to improve public education.
O’REILLY: That’s not true. He absolutely said what he would do.
SHELTON: He talked about absolutely bailing out of the public education system.
O’REILLY: He said he’d open it up to competition.
SHELTON: That isn’t competition…He said that all the money would go into this new system and bail out of the public education system. That is not competition.
Later Shelton made this outrageous comment:
He didn’t say he’d provide for more than one option. He said that the money would follow the child. We know what that means. That’s code for vouchers.
Let’s stipulate that having the money follow the child would include vouchers. Let’s further stipulate that a good education frequently disrupts a family’s poverty cycle. Finally, let’s stipulate that there isn’t a single ‘silver bullet’ fix to education.
That said, introducing competition into the learning process is a great way to guarantee parents having at least 1 viable option.
As offensive as those statements were, the worst statements Mr. Shelton made came when he talked about the NAACP being a nonpartisan organization. That’s total BS. Remeber this disgusting NAACP ad?
Renee Mullins: I’m Renee Mullins. My father was James Byrd, Jr. I still have nightmares thinking about him, the day three men chained him behind their pickup truck and dragged him three miles over pavement.
I can see skin being torn away from his body.
I can hear him gasping for air.
I can feel the tears in his eyes, the struggle of his brain as images of his life painfully bang through his head as the links of a heavy chain clinched around his ankles dragging him bump by bump until he was decapitated. [pause]
On June 7, 1998 this happened to my father, all because he was black. I went to Governor George W. Bush and begged him to help pass a hate crimes bill.
He just told me no.
I’m doing this commercial to ask you to call Governor Bush at 512-X and tell him to introduce a hate crimes bill in Texas.
Let him know that our community won’t be dragged down by hate crimes.
Male Voice: Funded by Americans for Equality, a project of the NAACP National Voter Fund.
That’s the most vicious, hyperpartisan ad I’ve ever seen. The NAACP should have their tax exempt status revoked outright.
This wasn’t a good day for the Obama campaign. First, Stephanie Cutter accused Mitt Romney of being a felon. Next, you had Goldie Taylor say that Mitt Romney’s appearance at the NAACP gathering was intended to relive Nixon’s Solid South stategy. Finally, Hilary Shelton made 1 truthful answer in his interview with Bill O’Reilly.
The candidate who had the Midas Touch in 2008 can’t do anything right this time. He looks discombobulated. He’s jumped the shark multiple times. He’s losing independents.
This isn’t a finely tuned re-election team. They’re a bunch of clutzes tripping over their own feet. They’re the gang who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.
At this rate, there’s no guarantee they’ll be able to do either by the time Election Day arrives.
This weekend, Democrats have visited the TV talk shows explaining that Eric Holder is the victim of Republicans’ vindictive political fishing expedition. That’s insulting for a multitude of reasons.
The morning of the vote, President Obama asserted executive privilege, which temporarily prevented the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee from seeing the documents. Most serious legal scholars expect the courts to laugh at President Obama’s claims of executive privilege.
Before we take that step, though, it’s time to remember Holder’s past indiscretions. The most recent indiscretion was his dropping charges against the New Black Panther Party thugs that threatened white voters outside a Philadelphia polling station:
Bartle Bull described himself as a “John Kennedy Democrat” during his interview with Bill O’Reilly. Here’s what he told O’Reilly:
O’REILLY: And that’s interesting, because you are leading the charge here against these Black Panthers. Now what did you see yourself on election day? What did you see?
BULL: I saw two armed uniformed threatening men blocking the door to a polling place, screaming rudeness at voters.
O’REILLY: What was their intent?
BULL: I can’t answer for what was between their ears.
O’REILLY: Well, what were they screaming, though?
BULL: I heard, well, one of them, for example, screamed, “Now you will see what it is like to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”
O’REILLY: Okay, did they have their Black Panther regalia on?
BULL: They wore jack boots, black boots, black combat boots, black paramilitary uniforms, black berets.
O’REILLY: All right, so they were intimidating as this young man who photographed them said. You concur with that assessment?
BULL: Oh, absolutely.
Despite the eyewitness testimony of a civil rights movement legend and videotape of the Panthers’ thuggery, Eric Holder dropped the case against the New Black Panthers Party.
That alone is justification for doubting Holder. Unfortunately, that isn’t the only reason not to trust Holder:
This is the same man who was a driving force behind President Clinton’s pardons of members of the notorious Puerto Rican terrorist group, the Armed Forces for National Liberation (FALN).
This shows what type of terrorists FALN was:
After members of the FALN were arrested, they threatened Judge Thomas McMillen’s life during their Chicago trial. Carmen Valentine told the judge, “You are lucky that we cannot take you right now,” and called the judge a terrorist. Dylcia Pagan warned the courtroom: “All of you, I would advise you to watch your backs.” And Ida Rodriguez told the judge, “You say we have no remorse. You’re right. Your jails and your long sentences will not frighten us.” These terrorists convinced McMillen that they would continue being terrorists “as long as you live. If there was a death penalty, I’d impose the penalty on you without hesitation.”
What type of law enforcement official would tell the president that these terrorists deserve a pardon? Answer: an Eric Holder type of ‘law enforcement official’. That’s before considering the fact that Mr. Holder played a vital role in the Marc Rich pardon:
Mr. Holder had more than a half-dozen contacts with Mr. Rich’s lawyers over 15 months, including phone calls, e-mail and memorandums that helped keep alive Mr. Rich’s prospects for a legal resolution to his case. And Mr. Holder’s final opinion on the matter, a recommendation to the White House on the eve of the pardon that he was “neutral, leaning toward” favorable, helped ensure that Mr. Clinton signed the pardon despite objections from other senior staff members, participants said.
It’s interesting that the man that Democrats are telling us to trust today is the person who told the Justice Department to drop a case they’d already won a conviction on.
The person Democrats are telling us to trust today is the man who said the FALN terrorists should be pardoned. The person that the Democrats are portraying as an honest man is the person who refused to stop the pardon of a fugitive from justice.
With all due respect, these aren’t the actions of a trustworthy public servant. They’re the actions of an ideologue who puts a higher priority on setting thugs free than on preventing violent thugs from seeing the light of day.
Trust Eric Holder? Not even if my life depended on it.
Tags: Operation Fast and Furious, Executive Privilege, President Obama, Eric Holder, Marc Rich, Fugitive, FALN, Terrorists, Bill Clinton, Pardons, TV Talk Shows, Spin, Democrats, Brian Terry, Law Enforcement
Al Sharpton’s diatribe shows that his intellectual heft is missing. What he lacks in intellectual heft, he makes up for in spin:
First things first, let’s remember that Fast and Furious was created under the Bush Administration. While Republicans are busy denouncing the practice for its flaws, they fail to mention that AG Holder was the one who ended the program. Since the so-called investigation (a.k.a. witch hunt) began, the Justice Department has handed over more than 140,000 documents, 7,600 pages and participated in 8 hearings before Congress. Not only did Issa and his counterparts never go after previous attorneys general or the Bush Administration itself, but they continue to treat AG Holder as if he is indeed guilty of the most egregious crime. It is the same sort of tactic we see utilized against the hundreds of thousands of innocent individuals stopped and searched by police. They have no weapon, haven’t committed an offense, yet somehow ‘appear’ as a culprit.
First, Chairman Issa isn’t going after the Bush administration because the guns from Operation Wide Receiver were recovered.
Second, Chairman Issa’s committee is investigating Holder’s DOJ because they can’t seem to get their stories straight about who knew what when.
Third, and most importantly, this investigation is going forward because a US border patrol agent was assassinated on Holder’s watch.
Sharpton’s bluster that “AG Holder is being profiled, stopped and searched” is racist spin. If Janet Reno had been the AG when this happened, Chairman Issa would’ve conducted the same type of investigation. When DOJ operations result in the death of a US border patrol agent, the investigation must be tenacious. It must insist on finding out the whole truth, politics be damned.
Ed Morrissey does a great job of outlining why he’s skeptical of the PPP polling that shows Ron Paul leading in Iowa:
PPP says that they are polling likely Republican caucus-goers, but there’s a reason for a little skepticism on their sample. At 597 respondents, the size is respectable enough, but its composition and definition of “likely” is quite shaky. Only a little over half (55%) bothered to caucus with Republicans in 2008, an election primary with as much publicity and import as this one. Thirteen percent caucused with the Democrats, which is reasonable because (a) Democrats aren’t conducting a primary this cycle, and (b) some who caucused with Democrats might be inclined to support Republicans this year.
However, almost a third (32%) didn’t caucus with either party in 2008. How can they be considered “likely” caucus-goers in this cycle? It can’t be because Ron Paul is running this time, because he was running in 2008 as well.
There are other reasons for skepticism. RealClearPolitics notes two other polls taken in almost the same timeframe as PPP’s survey, and Paul was below 20% in both (Rasmussen and Insider Advantage). They all show fairly close margins, but the PPP looks like a bit of an outlier — at least for now.
I agree with Ed’s opinions but I’d like to add two other things that I think are noteworthy, one of which Ed touches on. First, Ron Paul’s support, for the first time ever, extended beyond his usual die-hard base.
Ed’s post about the racist material published in Paul’s name in Paul’s newsletter will, I think, stop the Paul boomlet in its tracks. James Kirchick’s article is just another nail in Paul’s Iowa coffin. I fully expect his numbers to tank long before the caucuses.
Nutty Uncle spent way too much time on stage Thursday night to help Paul, too. It was just another display of Paul’s conspiracy theorist side. That won’t hurt him with his loyal base but it’ll cripple him with thoughtful people who were recent converts.
I still fully expect Newt to win the Iowa Caucuses, though it’ll be a tight race. I also think that Mitt will drop, especially in western Iowa, because Mitt played the class warfare card in yesterday’s interview with Chris Wallace. Playing the class warfare card won’t endear Mitt to hard-working Iowans.
This race is fluid. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rick Perry and Rick Santorum finish with a ticket out of Iowa.
Much is being written about how Herman Cain hasn’t suffered in the polls since the start of his mishandling of the sexual harassment article. There’s a simple explanation for that phenomenon: Cain’s base is willing to overlook his shortcomings. And he has a sizable base.
The thing is, though, that this week has damaged Mr. Cain in ways that will be exposed in the weeks ahead.
First, Cain’s at his best when he’s talked about his great American story, how he grew up in the South at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, how he’d gotten a good education, then embarked on a successful business career.
It’s particularly unattractive to play the Clarence Thomas Card after talking about how he overcame true racism and bigotry. Mr. Cain can’t have it both ways. He can’t first say that he’s overcome bigotry and racism, then whine about high tech lynchings.
Like it or not, politics is a contact sport. If you can’t handle getting scuffed up a bit, you aren’t tough enough to be the future leader of the free world.
Second, Cain knew enough about the sexual harassment charges to brief his campaign staff about them in 2004. Now we’re supposed to think that he didn’t recall any of the details until pushed by Greta van Susteren.
Mr. Cain apparently thinks that we’ll take his word that he forgot that multiple women filed sexual harassment charges against him. His true believers might give him a pass but thoughtful people won’t.
Mr. Cain’s base of true believers might think he’s pro-life but thoughtful people don’t. Saying that the “government shouldn’t be involved in the decision” of whether to have an abortion is the ‘go-to euphemism’ for pro-choice people.
I’m betting that alot of the people who’ve hung with him now won’t hang with him a month from now. They might be sitting tight until the crisis passes.
Third, GOP activists won’t appreciate the Cain campaign’s accusation that Gov. Perry leaked this story to Politico without verifiable documentation supporting their accusation. That’s a tactic I’d expect from the DNC, not from a GOP presidential candidate.
Fourth, Cain’s policy misstatements continue to build. At some point, clear-thinking conservatives will question his qualifications to be president. If the president just dealt with the economy, Cain would be qualified. Since the president is the leader of the free world, his misstatements are more than a little frightening.
It’s time for thoughtful people to set aside the petty considerations and settle on the candidate who’s the total package: a movement conservative, a reformer, someone who knows what being pro-life means, a national security conservative and a leader.
It’s time to stop the flirtations with Cain. It’s time to pick someone with a lengthy list of accomplishments in conservative government.
This might be the first time I’ve agreed with Artur Davis. It might be the last time I’ll agree with him. After reading his op-ed, I’ll enthusiastically agree with Rep. Davis. Here’s what he said that I enthusiastically agree with:
I’ve changed my mind on voter ID laws; I think Alabama did the right thing in passing one; and I wish I had gotten it right when I was in political office.
When I was a congressman, I took the path of least resistance on this subject for an African American politician. Without any evidence to back it up, I lapsed into the rhetoric of various partisans and activists who contend that requiring photo identification to vote is a suppression tactic aimed at thwarting black voter participation.
The truth is that the most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African American community, at least in Alabama, is the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt.
Voting the names of the dead, and the nonexistent, and the too-mentally-impaired to function, cancels out the votes of citizens who are exercising their rights; that’s suppression by any light. If you doubt it exists, I don’t; I’ve heard the peddlers of these ballots brag about it, I’ve been asked to provide the funds for it, and I am confident it has changed at least a few close local election results.
I’ll give Rep. Davis alot of credit. Writing this op-ed won’t make Davis more popular with his former colleagues. This is a genuine profile in courage, at least on this issue. The thing that jumps off the page most to me is this:
If you doubt it exists, I don’t; I’ve heard the peddlers of these ballots brag about it, I’ve been asked to provide the funds for it, and I am confident it has changed at least a few close local election results.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory from a white guy living in rural Minnesota. It’s a statement by a black man living in the heart of Alabama who’s heard people brag about committing voter fraud.
There’s no question about Rep. Davis’ credibility on this issue. He’s got nothing to gain from taking this position. In fact, as I stated earlier, he’s got alot to lose by adopting this position. This takes courage to say, too:
The fact that a law that is unlikely to impede a single good faith voter, and that only gives voting the same elements of security as writing a check at the store, or obtaining a library card, is controversial does say much about the raw feelings in our current politics. The ugliest, hardest forms of disfranchisement were practiced in our lifetimes, and its still conventional rhetoric in black political circles to say those times are on the way back. Witness a last-minute automated call to black voters in the 2010 general election by state Sen. Hank Sanders, an ingenious lawyer and a skillful legislator who knew better, but who also knew the attack would resonate.
Think of the importance of the first clause in the sentence: “a law that is unlikely to impede a single good faith voter…” That’s a profound statement especially from a black man living in Alabama. Let’s remember that Alabama was where racist Gov. George Wallace practiced his racism from. TRIVIA: Wallace ran for president 4 times, 3 times as a Democrat.
The $64,000 question this poses is to the DFL legislature, DFL SecState Mark Ritchie and DFL Gov. Mark Dayton. Does the DFL, from Gov. Dayton to SecState Ritchie to Rep. Thissen and Sen. Bakk, want to fight Photo ID here in Minnesota now that Artur Davis has admitted that voter fraud exists?
Do these DFL ‘leaders’ want to hang vulnerable swing district DFL legislators out to dry on an issue that garners 80% support statewide? Do these DFL legislators want to argue with a black Democrat from Alabama when he says he’s heard people bragging about committing voter fraud?
God bless them if they do. If Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen push their vulnerable legislators into voting against Photo ID, they’ll be a much smaller minority caucus in 2013.