Rubio is a coconut! That racist slur comes courtesy of MSNBC contributor Donny Deutsch.
Conservative minorities will not be tolerated by the identity politics adherents on the left. Watch, this vicious attack machine is only getting started. They will target him for personal destruction the way the left targets all minorities who wander off the reservation of government dependency and adherence to the Democratic Party.
1 comment
Print This Post
The race-mongering never stops. John Conyers avoided my by no means exhaustive list of the most egregious plays of the race card in 2009, but he’ll certainly be in the 2010 edition:
Fox has obtained a letter that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton asking that she demote Rajiv Shah, the Director of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
It’s rare for a lawmaker to write to a cabinet secretary and demand specific action on a personnel matter.
In the letter, Conyers says that he was “alarmed and chagrined” to learn that Shah did not bring any African American staff to a meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus on Wednesday to discuss Haiti.
…“This is so serious an error in judgment that it warrants his immediate demotion to a subordinate position at AID,” Conyers wrote, noting that there was “under-representation of minorities in key positions at the State Department.”
How post-racial of him.
Leave a comment Print This Post
Retracto, an impressive alpaca with a stare that could make Clint Eastwood jealous, has a field day with Salon.com and Max Blumenthal.
Go ahead, liberal media, make my day.
Print This Post
I recount a year’s worth of race-mongering in my latest article on Big Government:
Leave a commentBarack Obama came into office with a promise of ushering in a new post-racial era. One year into his term and Chris Matthews has already declared, “Mission Accomplished!” He forgot Obama was black, you see. America is now post-racial! Sadly, the facts tell a very different story. Over the last year, we have witnessed a proliferation of indiscriminate accusations of racism, or a period of what I like to refer to as hyper-racialism.
Print This Post
Apparently Chris Matthews forget to tell Keith Olbermann that Obama was not black during the State of the Union:
“But our winners, these guys, assessing not the speech, but the president himself,” Olbermann said. “Erick Erickson, ‘cocky.’ John Stossel said he hoped the president would admit he was, quote, ‘arrogant.’ Jay Nordlinger, ‘looks arrogant whether he is arrogant or not.’ Marc Thiessen, ‘defensive, arrogant.’ John Hood, ‘flippant and arrogant.’ Glenn Beck, ‘like a punk.’”
…
“Here’s a little secret, gathered, sadly, from witnessing it my whole life, even from some in my own family,” Olbermann said. “When racist white guys get together and they don’t want to be caught using any of the popular epithets in use every day in this country about black people – and there’s a chance one of them, or worse still a white guy who doesn’t get it, might wander in and hear the conversation, when there’s a risk even in saying “uppity” or “forgetting his place,” the racist white guys revert to euphemisms and code words.”
…
“And among the code words that they think they’re getting away with are cocky, flippant, punk, and especially arrogant,” Olbermann concluded. “Mark Thiessen of The Washington Post, Eric Erickson of Red State, John Hood and Jay Nordlinger of the National Review and Glenn Beck and John Stossel of Fixed [Fox] News, today’s ‘Worst Persons in the World.’”
Didn’t the left routinely call Bush arrogant? Doesn’t that contradict the notion that merely lobbing such criticism is proof of racial intolerance?
Leave a comment Print This Post
Regarding his moronic comment the other night, Chris Matthews offered this clarification:
“I think he’s done something wonderful,” Matthews said. “I think he’s taken us beyond black and white in our politics, wonderfully so, in just a year.”
This is a ridiculous bit of revisionism. What honest observer of the last year can say that we have forgotten about race? On the contrary, this President and his supporters have been hyper-racial in all things. Chris Matthews himself has been a prolific participant in such racial mongering.
He accused Joe Wilson of being racist for saying that Obama lied. He also said the town hall participants were racist. Now, he wants to pretend like Obama has removed race from the discussion? Chris Matthews, you lie!
Leave a comment Print This Post
The night was full of stupid lines. Obama gave his song and dance, bedazzling the nation with his usual pack of lies, silly excuses and tired divisiveness. And yet, it was MSNBC blowhard Chris Matthews who stuck his neck out to claim the title of Moronic Dolt for the evening with this gem following the State of the Union speech:
“You know, I forgot he was black tonight for an hour.”
Those of us not obsessed with race forgot it a long time ago, and never cared to begin with.
Isn’t constantly seeing and judging people by the color of their skin the very definition of racism?
1 comment Print This Post
When the city of New Haven tried discriminate against the police officers who passed their promotion test, because they weren’t appropriate ‘diverse’ for the PC crowd, the Supreme Court rightly struck it down. Now, the Justice Department’s Civil Right Division is suing New Jersey for not discriminating on behalf of black and hispanic officers who don’t pass the written exam for promotion in the same numbers as white officers. Though of course that’s not how they frame it.
The exam, a written test that New Jersey police officers must pass in order to advance to the rank of sergeant, quizzes candidates on state and local laws.
“This complaint should send a clear message to all public employers that employment practices with unlawful discriminatory impact on account of race or national origin will not be tolerated,” said Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department will take all necessary action to ensure that such discriminatory practices are eliminated and that the victims of such practices are made whole.”
Actually, what this complaint tells us is that it’s more important to bow at the alter of identity politics than to insure that police officers know and understand the laws which they are tasked to enforce. Unless there is evidence that the test itself is inherently racist, i.e. that the questions somehow lend themselves to be answered better by white test takers than others, then there is no discrimination. But there is no such evidence.
The entire argument of discrimination is based on nothing more than a few percentage points of difference between how white and minority candidates perform.
White officers pass the New Jersey test at a rate of 89 percent, as opposed to 77 percent of Hispanic candidates and 73 percent of African-American candidates.
So what? What percentage of right-handed and left-handed people pass the test? What percentage of blondes and brunettes? How is race any more relevant to understanding the law than these entirely superficial characteristics? The fact of the matter is that races are not taking the test – individuals are. Individuals who study and know the material pass, individuals are not prepared fail. Those who fail should not be promoted. Dicing these individuals into artificial categories and comparing passing percentages is entirely meaningless.
“Our suit does not have an issue with a written exam period, but we do believe it has a disparate impact on African-American and Hispanic candidates,” Alejandro Miyar, a spokesman at the Justice Department Civil Rights Division, told The Daily Caller.
Disparate impact is a little-known legal term that describes an employment practice that isn’t intentionally discriminatory, but which results in a discriminatory outcome. It is forbidden under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Disparate impact was first described by the Supreme Court in the 1971 case Griggs v. Duke Power Co. which found that “good intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as ‘built-in headwinds’ for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability.”
One would think that understanding the law goes to the heart of measuring the job capacity of police officers.
This is the same Justice Department that dropped the charges of voter intimidation against the Black Panthers after the case had already been won.
No, there’s no radical, racial agenda at Eric Holder’s DoJ.
Leave a comment Print This Post
Harry Reid is taking a lot of heat for the recently revealed statement he made regarding Barack Obama during the presidential campaign. The new book, Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime, revealed that Reid thought Obama’s electoral chances were improved by the fact that he was light-skinned and had no “negro dialect” unless he wanted one.
Is this statement racist? It is certainly about race, but I reject the identity politics tactic of taking anything racial and making it racist when it serves partisan purposes to paint it as such. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing in the context of Reid’s statement that suggests racial prejudice.
He used the word “negro.” This is an old fashioned word, for sure, but it was never one associated with racial venom the way other words have historically been. Moreover, it is still used by many national black organizations, such as the National Council of Negro Women or the National Association of Negro Business and Professional Women’s Club. Simply saying “negro” is not racist.
Beyond the word choic
e, the content of his statement reflects his opinion of the rest of America’s views on race, not his own. And there is likely a grain of truth to the idea that a lighter-skinned candidate who sounds more or less white would face less racial resistance than other black candidates. But even if it’s wrong and reflects an unfairly pessimistic view of American racial tolerance, that doesn’t make the statement itself racist.
It is interesting to note that Reid acknowledged Obama’s tendency to pander to black audiences by putting on a phony accent, where he drops his g’s and mimics the cadence of MLK. But beyond that, I find the statement wholly uninteresting.
It is fair for conservatives to point out that a conservative would undoubtedly be tarred as racist for making such a statement, but we can’t confuse pointing out hypocrisy with engaging in it. To brand Reid’s statement as racist in the process of pointing out liberal hypocrisy is to undermine the very position we have rightfully staked out in the past: talking about race does not make someone a racist.
1 comment Print This Post
Declaring people who don’t think gay marriage is good policy as “anti-gay” was always an obvious slander. The New York Times has now discovered that the people against gay marriage aren’t actually “anti-gay” after all:
When an openly gay woman won the mayor’s race here this month, it was the latest in a string of victories by gay candidates across the country, a trend that seems to contradict the bans on same-sex marriage that have been passed in most states in recent years.
Take Texas, by many measures one of the most conservative states in the nation. In 2005, it enacted a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage; the voters passed the referendum by a ratio of three to one.
Yet in the last decade, an openly gay woman has twice won election as the sheriff in Dallas County, and another openly gay woman was elected district attorney in Travis County, which includes the city of Austin. Gay candidates have also won city council seats in Austin, Fort Worth and Houston.
I guess when you’re the leading leftwing rag, you have to at least pretend to be surprised when your slanderous accusations turn out to be false. Conservatives who oppose gay marriage (I don’t care who gets married, personally; I just wish goverment were not involved in the matter at all) were never bigots merely because they took that policy stance. Anyone who said otherwise was simply trying to shut down debate.
3 comments Print This Post
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.
I am a libertarian-conservative blogger living in the DC area. I have a Master's degree in Political Science, but please don't hold that against me.
