Archive for the ‘Racism’ Category
Lord knows I’ve criticized Juan Williams for his beliefs that the Benghazi and IRS scandals are all about politics. I stand by those criticisms. Just about the time that I’m ready to dismiss Williams, he writes an article like this one that makes me realize that there’s more to Juan Williams than the political creature we see on TV.
If there’s a place where conservatives should join forces with Juan Williams, it’s on the subject of education. Here’s why:
Last week, 60 years after the Supreme Court ruled racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional with its 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, a group called “Journey for Justice Alliance” sent civil rights complaints to the Justice and Education departments. The group argued that too many failing public schools in black neighborhoods are being closed and replaced with charter schools.
You read that right.
When it comes to reforming the education system, Juan Williams sounds like the staunchest conservative imaginable. Here’s proof:
This attack on charter schools comes a week after the House, in a rare bipartisan vote, approved a bill to put more federal dollars into expanding charter schools. The House Education and the Workforce Committee bill was written by its Republican chairman, John Kline of Minnesota, and supported by its ranking Democrat, George Miller of California.
Kline told reporters that Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education, supports the bill and will urge Senate Democrats to pass it. In a Congress politically paralyzed over efforts to update the Bush administration’s plan for improving public school performance, No Child Left Behind, the charter school bill is the first sign of a breakthrough.
It’s time for conservatives to start highlighting their commitment to beefing up funding for alternatives to government schools.
It’s been said that education is the civil rights movement of the 21st Century. Whether it is or isn’t is something I’ll let others decide. I’ll just highlight another part of Juan’s article:
Thurgood Marshall, the lawyer who won the Brown case and later became a Supreme Court justice, told me as I was writing his biography that the case was not really about having black and white children sitting next to each other. Its true purpose was to make sure that predominantly white and segregationist school officials would put maximum resources into giving every child, black or white, a chance to get a good education.
But now people described as liberal “activists” are filing complaints against closing bad neighborhood schools. They put more value on having a bad neighborhood school than getting a child into an excellent school. The charge that some charter schools are no better than the neighborhood schools being closed ignores the truth that some charter schools have produced better results. Also, parents have the choice to pull their children out of charter schools that do not help their children.
In the 1950s, white-hot bigotry existed on a widespread basis. Racism still exists but nothing like what existed in the 1950s. Conservatives should join forces with thoughtful liberals like Juan Williams in making charter schools the education movement of the 21st Century.
First and most importantly, it’s the morally right thing to do. Second, creating competition will force the teachers’ unions to decide whether they’d rather become irrelevant or whether they’d prefer becoming part of the solution. When Juan Williams criticizes the teachers unions, it’s time for conservatives to join with him in creating an alternative to government schools.
There are now minority parents and civil right groups being used as props by teachers’ unions to oppose school choice by calling efforts to close failing neighborhood schools the “new Jim Crow.”
It’s time to expose the race hustlers as not being interested in improving people’s lives. They’re in it to make a fast buck for themselves. Race hustlers like Mssrs. Sharpton and Jackson should be put out of business ASAP.
Technorati: Juan Williams, Thurgood Marshall, Brown v. Board of Education, Jim Crow Laws, Charter Schools, Civil Rights, John Kline, George Miller, Bipartisanship, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Race Hustlers
If someone would’ve told you that the New York chapter of the NAACP and a hardline progressive mayor were siding with the teachers unions in preventing minority students from getting a good education, you’d think it was something from the Onion. Sadly, it isn’t:
On March 17, 19 parents who send their children to Success Academy, a Harlem charter school, filed suit in federal court to stop New York Mayor Bill de Blasio from denying them previously arranged space in a public school building. Without space, their children and 173 others will not be able to continue at Success Academy this fall.
School bullying is a problem nationwide, but in New York the bullies are de Blasio and his pals — state NAACP President Hazel Dukes and teachers unions. Their targets are middle-school kids, 97 percent of them minorities, and 80 percent eligible for lunch assistance.
This shameful behavior is brought to you by the Bigot Wing of the Democratic Party. Don’t confuse these bigots with well-intentioned liberals like Juan Williams. They’re galaxies apart when it comes to education reform.
Juan Williams is fighting for education reforms that give every student the opportunity to live the American Dream. Part of his fight involves limiting teachers unions’ influence on educational opportunities, especially for minorities.
Consider what another Success Academy called Bronx 2 is doing to educate minority students. In that charter school, 97 percent of students passed state exams in mathematics, and 77 percent passed English. In math, the school ranks third in the state, besting schools in well-heeled suburbs. Bronx 2 shares space with a district public school, where kids under the thumb of the union and city bureaucrats, are failing. Only 3 percent passed the state English test. Same building, but a world of difference. Which school is giving kids their civil rights? Not the one Dukes and de Blasio are defending.
I’d love hearing Mayor de Blasio’s explanation on why he’s insisting that minority students’ only educational option is for failing schools. Smart policymakers would notice Bronx 2′s successes and do everything possible to expand those opportunities for minority students. Shouldn’t the NAACP be insisting that minority students be given the opportunity to excel in charter schools.
Instead, they’re being held back. The NAACP and Mayor de Blasio should be ashamed of themselves. Additionally, they should be required to meet face-to-face with these parents and students to explain why they’re being this hard-hearted.
Politically speaking, this is a fantastic opportunity for conservative school choice activists to explain why they’re for expanding choice options. From a human standpoint, it’s the perfect opportunity to explain why expanding educational options is a moral imperative.
Get ready for the bullies. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sued to stop school choice in New Orleans, arguing that it was getting in the way of the federal government’s 1975 court-ordered desegregation plan. When parents protested that they wanted to be the ones choosing their kids’ schools, not the Department of Justice, Holder’s lawyers told the court that parents lacked the standing to make their views known.
If anyone has standing in their child’s education, it’s parents. And parents in New Orleans said that racial balance was less important to them than being able to choose a school that educates their child. Ultimately, Holder had to give up.
Ultimately, this fight is about punching bullies like Eric Holder, Bill de Blasio and the NAACP in the nose. Negotiating with bullies doesn’t work. Inflicting pain does. That’s why the heroes in this fight are the parents and the activists who defiantly stand with them because it’s the right thing to do.
Bill DeBlasio, one of the biggest card-carrying hardline progressives in the United States, insisted that he doesn’t hate minorities or charter schools when interviewed by Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough:
“I don’t understand your positions on charters,” stated Mr. Scarborough. “The waiting list is 50,000. And it’s not a bunch of rich kids from Manhattan that want to get in there, it’s some of the poorest, most disadvantaged children of colors.”
“For me, charter schools make sense because they can teach us how to make the entire public school system better. Why not expand, why not open the doors, figure out a way to let that 50,000 get into new charter schools? … We can learn from these charter schools some things that are working,” he continued.
Ms. Brzezinski further brought up Mr. de Blasio’s 16-year-old son, Dante, as she inquired about some charter co-locations recently canceled by the de Blasio administration.
“Let me ask it this way mayor: With all due respect, your son goes to–is it Brooklyn Tech? Has a $13 million endowment, it’s a highly-selective school; you’re very excited, I’m sure, that he goes there. If you found out that he wasn’t going there next year, wouldn’t you want to know what the plan was? Do you think you played this out in a way that might not have been effective?” she asked.
Mr. de Blasio insisted he had nothing against charter schools, but he is focused on the broader student population. ”I’ve never been against charter schools,” he said. “I have to worry about 1.1 million kids a year. By the way, only 70,000 go to charters. But I care about those 70,000.”
Mr. DeBlasio’s insistence that he’s “never been against charter schools” is a stunning lie. He’s opposed charter schools since before getting elected to succeed Mayor Bloomberg.
Mayor de Blasio’s statement that he worries “about 1.1 million kids a year” is spin. I’d love hearing his explanation of how letting 70,000 charter school students hurts 1.1 traditional public school students. I’m betting the best he could do is more outrageous spin.
Check out this article about the feud between de Blasio and Eva Moskowitz:
Mayor Bill de Blasio is rescinding three of the 17 charter-school plans previously approved by the Bloomberg administration. To the de Blasio camp, this is a judicious, well-reasoned course correction. To Eva Moskowitz, who runs the only three schools being completely rejected, the decision is a politically motivated vendetta.
That de Blasio and Moskowitz are bitter antagonists is not new: As a candidate, de Blasio used his harshest language to attack her and the Success Academies she’s created.
It’s never been a secret that Democrats are beholden to public employee unions. They’re most beholden to the teachers unions. Playing connect-the-dots, it isn’t difficult to come to the conclusion that de Blasio cares more about the teachers unions, which hate charter schools, than he cares about underprivileged students, especially minorities.
When push came to shove, the teachers unions got the red carpet treatment while minority students got mistreated, even abused. When a decision was made, de Blasio chose to exile minority students to an uphill fight to achieve the American Dream.
He essentially did to these charter school students what George Wallace did when he stood in the doorway at the University of Alabama to prevent black students from enrolling at the university. There’s no question that some will criticize me as being provocative. Similarly, there’s no question that de Blasio’s decision to shut down charter schools that serve minority students is every bit as racist as Gov. Wallace’s actions 50 years ago.
Has politics gotten so unvirtuous that a political party thinks that outright lying is ok if it helps them win another election? That’s what’s apparently happening with the Democratic Party regarding Rep. Alan Grayson, (D-FL):
What’s the ‘T’ in tea party stand for? For Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., it represents a Ku Klux Klan’s burning cross.
Grayson’s 2014 re-election campaign sent out fundraising email today that compared the tea party movement to the KKK, titled, “The Tea Party: No More Popular Than The Klan.”
The email included a graphic image of two Klansmen standing near a giant burning cross. The cross is used to spell out “tea party” in burning flames.
I thought about posting Grayson’s disgusting picture but decided against it. It’s telling that Al Sharpton didn’t take the opportunity to criticize Grayson during his interview of Grayson:
Rev. Al: Congressman, does the President have the Tea Party on the ropes?
Alan: I think so. I think that ordinary Americans are with the President. They’re appalled by the Tea Party’s tactics. They come to the President saying, “If you don’t let us steal your car, then, we are going to burn down your house.” They are appalled by the way the Tea Party cheered on the shutting down of the government, cheered at the fact that we put our credit at risk for a generation to come. And they’re appalled by the enormous expense – the fact that this temporary shutdown ended up costing America $24 billion. That’s almost $100 for every man, woman, and child in this country. Frankly, they want their money back, and the Tea Party out of their lives. At this point, the Tea Party is no more popular than the Klan.
Rev. Al: Now, Congressman, some on the right are already threatening those who didn’t push the defund movement all the way to the end. Sarah Palin wrote on Facebook, and I’m quoting it, “Rest well tonight for soon we will focus on important House and Senate races. Let’s start with Kentucky.”From sea to shining sea. Congressman, what will happen if the right, not just the Tea Party, all [have] primary fights all over the country?
Grayson is a despicable excuse for a man. He’s intellectually dishonest. He’s hateful. Most importantly, he didn’t hesitate in accusing honest Americans of being violent racists.
George Wallace was one of the biggest biggots in the South. He was a lifelong Democrat. Robert Byrd was elected to be the Exalted Cyclops (the top officer of the local KKK). Later, he was elected to the US Senate, where he was the top Democrat in the Senate. Al Gore’s father filibustered the Civil Rights Act. Yet Grayson has the temerity to accuse TEA Party activists of being hate-filled racists?
I’m betting that Grayson isn’t as stupid as he appears to be on TV. I’m betting he’s just that hate-filled and dishonest. Further, I’m betting that he knows that the TEA in TEA Party stands for Taxed Enough Already.
At some time in the near future, the Democratic Party should be asked whether they’ll put a higher priority on winning elections than they put on honesty and civility. I think we already know the Democrats’ answer. It’d just be nice to hear a little honesty from a liberal.
Grayson is a disgusting excuse for a human. It says everything that the Democrats haven’t already booted him from their Party. If Democrats won’t boot out the closest thing they’ve got to human excrement, then they’ve told us that they aren’t interested in integrity. In fact, we can’t be certain that they’re interested in anything except accumulating as much power as possible. If the country suffers while they grab power, that’s fine with them.
In his most recent e-letter update, Keith Ellison suggested that the United States is just as bigoted now as it was in the 1960s:
Senator Klobuchar and I called on Congress to protect voting rights after the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act that protected voters in states with a history of voter suppression. The action of the Court was a step back for voting rights in the country.
With people like Sen. Klobuchar and Rep. Ellison, bigotry never disappears. The Supreme Court sees things differently:
(3) Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically.Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, “[v]oter turnout and registration rates” in covered jurisdictions “now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.” Northwest Austin, supra, at 202. The tests and devices that blocked ballot access have been forbidden nationwide for over 40 years. Yet the Act has not eased §5’s restrictions or narrowed the scope of §4’s coverage formula along the way. Instead those extraordinary and unprecedented features have been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and they have grown even stronger. Because §5 applies only to those jurisdictions singled out by §4, the Court turns to consider that provision.Pp. 13–17.
Sen. Klobuchar and Rep. Ellison insist that the extraordinary circumstances that temporarily justified the federal government’s intervention in state-run elections in 1965 still exist. Moreover, they insist that the remedies implemented in 1965 haven’t worked.
They’re entitled to their partisan opinions but the facts don’t support their opinions.
Though he’s an attorney, it’s apparent that Rep. Ellison doesn’t respect the Constitution much:
The right to vote should be guaranteed and that’s why I’ve introduced a constitutional amendment with Rep. Mark Pocan to do just that. The Pocan-Ellison Right to Vote Amendment would amend the Constitution to provide all Americans the affirmative right to vote and empower Congress to protect this right.
First, this proposed constitutional amendment won’t get a hearing because it’s at odds with the Ninth and Tenth amendments. States administer elections through counties. The federal government isn’t equipped to enforce election laws. That means Ellison’s talk about empowering “Congress to protect this right” is just that — talk.
Second, this is political grandstanding meant to fire up minority voters. This doesn’t have anything to do with good governance. It has everything to do with Ellison and other Democrats playing the race card right before the 2014 election.
Third, this is the Democrats’ war on election integrity. Klobuchar’s and Ellison’s proposal has everything to do with preventing Photo ID from becoming more popular. In Minnesota, Democrats know how to undermine election integrity. They’ve undermined election integrity by refusing to promptly updating the Statewide Voter Registration System, aka SVRS, which HAVA, the Help America Vote Act, requires.
We know this because hundreds of felons, both those still in prison and those who haven’t had their rights restored, are still on Minnesota’s SVRS. We know this because registrations that were submitted in 2008 had addresses that turned into empty lots. Six years after the fact, those ‘empty lot voters’ are still on the SVRS.
How likely is it that the federal government would be even slightly interested in maintaining the integrity of the SVRS’s for 50 states, especially considering how disinterested they’ve been in this since 2003?
Ellison is a race hustler on a par with Sharpton, Jackson and Michael-Eric Dyson. His agenda is focused mostly on stirring up racial hostilities where they don’t exist.
Tags: Keith Ellison, Amy Klobuchar, Michael-Eric Dyson, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Race Hustlers, Voting Rights Act, Help America Vote Act, Democrats, Election Integrity, Photo ID, Constitutional Amendment
In an appearance on FNC’s “The Five”, captured in this video, Juan Williams passionately called Al Sharpton and Michael-Eric Dyson race hustlers and civil rights hucksters:
This op-ed is, loosely speaking, a transcript of Juan’s opening monologue. The first 3 minutes of the video are especially powerful. That’s where Juan called Michael-Eric Dyson out for not providing solutions. Here’s part of Juan’s opening monologue:
Two of the worst: civil rights activist and MSNBC host Al Sharpton and Georgetown University Professor Michael Eric Dyson. Their goal: demonize white people, especially conservatives like Bill O’Reilly, so they don’t have to deal with the real problems that continue to plague the black community. Making an older, conservative white guy like O’Reilly a boogie man is easy for these hustlers.
But do they ever confront the real problems and threats in the minority community? No. High murder rates? How about that? What about high dropout rates? What about the breakdown of the family?
After Juan’s opening monologue, Dana Perino noted that Juan didn’t read the monologue off a teleprompter, that he spoke it from the heart. She then said that Juan’s opening monologue might’ve been the most impressive monologue in “The Five’s” history. I wouldn’t disagree with that, though I’d highlight the fact that all 15 minutes of the video are must-see video. During another exchange with Dana Perino, Juan highlighted something important. Starting at the 4:40 mark, here’s what Juan said:
DANA PERINO: What is the most important thing we could address the problem?
JUAN WILLIAMS: For me, it’s education. I grew up as a poor kid. If it wasn’t for education, I wouldn’t be anywhere so, in other words, I had a tiger mom and a black tiger mom who said “you’re gonna get good grades, you’re going to stay in school, you’re gonna work and, not only that, you’re going to achieve. You’re not just going to hang in there. You’re going to achieve.
I applauded Juan for saying that when I watched that monologue live. I’m applauding him again while I’m watching the video this morning. Juan didn’t stop there:
JUAN WILLIAMS: So if we’re serious about this, we go about taking on the unions, going at school reform, going at charter schools, going at vouchers. That’s why people say ‘Well, they provide a lot of jobs.’ You know what, unless you’re educating kids, unless you’re loving kids, you’re not doing anything. You’re not helping.
That’s powerful because a black liberal is talking about taking on the teachers unions, promoting school reform, charter schools and vouchers as solutions to black poverty. That’s something you won’t hear from Michael-Eric Dyson or Al Sharpton. I give Juan credit for writing this great op-ed because it’s part of the solution:
Here is the track record for that solution as I wrote about it in my book, “ENOUGH: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America–and What We Can Do About It.” “The poverty rate for any black man or woman who follows that formula is a mere 6.4 percent…in other words by meeting those basic requirements black American can cut their chances of being poor by two-thirds…even white American families have a higher poverty rate than black people who finished high school, got married, had children after 21 and worked for at least one week a year.”
The key for black women is also in the formula – do not have a baby outside of a strong marriage. Over a third [35 percent] of the black women who have children out of wedlock – now tragically more than 70 percent – live in poverty.
By comparison, only 17 percent of black women who are married live in poverty. And black children with both parents at home have a better chance for success, fewer dealings with the police, higher graduation rates and are more likely to marry before they have children.
Marriage and the presence of adults as role models and loving disciplinarians is absolutely critical helping young black men build the self-esteem that puts them in position to make good decisions that lead to the road to success.
While Juan repeats many of the Democrats’ talking points, these statements definitely don’t mimic Al Sharpton or Michael-Eric Dyson or Julian Bond or other race hucksters. These are time-tested solutions.
There’s another important lesson that needs to be learned from this discussion. While Sharpton’s, Dyson’s and Jesse Jackson’s statements are incendiary and counterproductive, Republicans aren’t without blame, either. Republican politicians should make frequent visits into the minority communities. While they’re there, they should follow a specific pattern.
First, Republican politicians should introduce themselves, then start listening. People that listen signal to the talker that what they’re saying is important. I coined a phrase years ago about that: “The fastest way to confer dignity on people is by listening intently because it sends the message that what they’re saying is important.”
When they hear something that approaches common ground, they should highlight that and express the fact that they’re willing, even eager, to work with minorities on improving their lives.
In the end, this isn’t a political issue. It’s a moral issue. I’m no fan of NCLB but I agree with President Bush’s statement that we need to end “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” That’s what Juan passionately and eloquently spoke about. It’s what Michael-Eric Dyson, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson won’t talk about. It’s what Republicans should do a better job of prioritizing.
In the end, that’s the ultimate solution.
Yesterday, Al Sharpton said that he hopes continued pressure on the DOJ would force them to file a civil rights case against George Zimmerman:
Sharpton has said he hopes continued public pressure will force the Justice Department to bring a civil rights case against Zimmerman.
That isn’t surprising. Sharpton’s been a hustler and liar for decades. He’s most famous for the Tawana Brawley fiasco. Since the verdict, he’s a) advocated for ignoring Florida’s manslaughter, b) brushed aside the fact that proof doesn’t exist that George Zimmerman acted with racial malice and c) insisted that Eric Holder ignore federal hate crimes laws.
From the start, the media, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the special prosecutors who tried the case have tried painting Trayvon Martin as a cherub-faced 12-year-old boy. They’ve omitted the parts about how he was prone to violence, that he was 4 inches taller than George Zimmerman and that the items he bought at the neighborhood store are ingredients to a drink that causes paranoia and fits of violence.
This video by Bill Whittle highlights the things Al Sharpton and the prosecutors didn’t and won’t tell people:
Setting those things aside, justice can’t be achieved through mob rule, which is what Sharpton specializes in. Sharpton also specializes in omitting key truths if they interfere with his storyline. That isn’t just speculation. Here’s what he omitted during the Tawana Brawley fiasco:
Much of the grand jury evidence pointed to a possible motive for Brawley’s falsifying the incident: trying to avoid violent punishment from her mother and her stepfather Ralph King. Witnesses testified that Glenda Brawley had previously beaten her daughter for running away and for spending nights with boys. King had a history of violence that included stabbing his first wife 14 times, later shooting and killing her. There was considerable evidence that King could and would violently attack Brawley: when Brawley had been arrested on a shoplifting charge the previous May, King attempted to beat her for the offense while at the police station. Witnesses have also described King as having talked about his stepdaughter in a sexualized manner. On the day of her alleged disappearance, Brawley had skipped school to visit boyfriend Todd Buxton, who was serving a six-month jail sentence. When Buxton’s mother (with whom she had visited Buxton in jail) urged her to get home before she got in trouble, Brawley told her, “I’m already in trouble.” She described how angry Ralph King was over a previous incident of her staying out late.
There was evidence that Brawley’s mother and King participated knowingly in the hoax. Neighbors told the grand jury that in February they overheard Glenda Brawley saying to Mr. King, “You shouldn’t have took the money because after it all comes out, they’re going to find out the truth.” Another neighbor heard Mrs. Brawley say, “They know we’re lying and they’re going to find out and come and get us.”
Ultimately, the man Sharpton accused of raping Ms. Brawley filed a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton. Here’s that lawsuit’s outcome:
In 1998, Pagones was awarded $345,000 (he sought $395 million) through a lawsuit for defamation of character that he had brought against Sharpton, Maddox and Mason. The jury found Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements about Pagones, Maddox for two and Mason for one.
Now Sharpton has a semi-national TV audience (He’s got a show on MSNBC) from which to spew his hatred and lies. Sharpton’s platform is different but his lies and omissions remain consistent.
In any other administration, I’d say I’d be surprised to see the DOJ file charges against Zimmerman. With the Obama/Holder DOJ, I’d be upset but not surprised if they filed charges against George Zimmerman. The facts and the law just don’t support the prosecution of George Zimmerman.
Then again, the facts and the law haven’t stopped Al Sharpton, President Obama or Eric Holder in the past.
While trying his best to put out the fire caused by his tweet calling Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Rep. Winkler’s attempt at damage control is pathetic at best. Based on his quote in this article, Rep. Ryan Winkler doesn’t think people should judge him by words he said were made in haste:
Asked if he believes his use of the term on social media will hurt his future political career, he said: “I don’t know. I hope people judge people on the merits of what they do in public office and not on the firestorm of a term that is used hastily but with no malintent.”
The thing is that most of Rep. Winkler’s statements are flippant, spur-of-the-moment comments. Few of his statements are thoroughly thought through. Few of his statements are taken seriously in terms of policy. That type of statement is part of his hit-and-run tactics of communicating. (Some might say he’s better at agitating than at communicating.)
Still, that isn’t the most cringe-worthy statement in the article. This is:
Winkler, who had been considering a bid for secretary of state, has called off his plans. He said it was a decision he made before “Uncle Thomas” started trending on Twitter and making headlines around the country, although not one he had voiced publicly.
I can smell the stench from that BS in St. Cloud, which is amazing considering it was made in St. Louis Park, more than 50 miles away.
The reality is that Rep. Winkler’s tweet ended Rep. Winkler’s bid for higher office in the future. I don’t think Rep. Winkler hates minorities, though I agree with much of what Michelle Malkin wrote in this article:
This Ivy League-trained public official and attorney relied on smug bigotry to make his case against a Supreme Court justice who happens to be black. “Uncle Thomas” wasn’t a typo. Denigration was the goal, not an accident. It was a knowing, deliberate smear.
While I don’t think Rep. Winkler hates people of color, I think he’s been exposed as a less-than-serious politician who lives by the code ready — fire — aim.
Rep. Winkler can now join Tarryl Clark in living in anonymity after supposedly being the DFL’s rising star.
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.