André Leon Talley is an editor at Vogue and misspells “embarrassment.” And yet Allen West is the embarrassment? I guess this moron spent all of his money renewing his KKK membership and can’t afford spell check.
I don’t know why we expect these evil bastard democrats to act any differently than they do. This is the party of the KKK, Jim Crow, voter intimidation, Margaret Sanger, and institutionalized segregation. I’m beyond fed up with these totalitarian Neo-Nazi weasels who viciously attack anyone who they disagree with, especially women and minorities.
We’ve all seen how democrats treat blacks who “wonder off the plantation” and have the audacity to think for themselves. How dare these black men get “uppity” and defy their masters!
Lt Col Allen West has more integrity and honor in his little finger than every democrat that ever breathed …. combined.
Liberalism is not compatible with civilized society, and it’s time were eradicate this cancer on all of humanity once and for all.
It seems that besides being a jackass and a racist, André Leon Talley is also a coward. He has since deleted his hate-filled tweets. Of course, being a democrat, he ain’t all that intelligent. Embedded tweets are forever!
May we always be happy, and may our enemies always know it.
~Sarah Palin
By Gary P Jackson
Shouting racism where there is none is the last refuge of tyrants
Liberals are not the brightest of creatures. I think that’s well established fact. When many of us first saw the headline Sarah Palin used for her latest beat down of Barack Obama over his treasonous actions in the Benghazi fiasco [and the alleged shipment of arms to al Qaeda] we thought, “She wants to make sure this gets seen!.
Liberals fall for this every single time. Remember “death panels“? “Party like it’s 1773” [the year of the original Boston Tea Party] and how she skunked democrats by getting the facts of Paul Revere’s ride correct proving just how stupid the left is? There are literally hundreds of examples of this. I probably shouldn’t give this away, but even knowing she has their number doesn’t mean they are smart enough to react!
Liberals actually believe they are intelligent, superior to others, and that Sarah Palin, who has dual college majors: Journalism AND Communications, is dumb.
So, we get this from her:
Obama’s Shuck and Jive Ends With Benghazi Lies. Brilliant headline for a rather straightforward bit of commentary. Predictably, democrats went completely insane, and started screaming racism!
Sarah Palin has around 3.5 million followers on Facebook, where she posted her commentary, and close to 860,000 on Twitter. Most who follow her on Twitter will read her Facebook posts, as will most of her Facebook followers. I did a quick search on Google and Bing, just before typing this sentence, I got 4,490,000 and 228,000 “results” respectively. In short, What would have been read by many Conservatives, and likely picked up by some left wing newspapers and propaganda sites [yes I know, that's rather redundant] has now been amplified many times over.
Now tens of millions of people will see and read her comments. Yeah, it will [and already has] have the democrats spewing more hate than usual, and the death threats are pouring in, something we’ll hit in a future post, it also means a lot of important eyes, eyes of voters, will learn more about what a lying weasel and morally bankrupt human being Barack Obama is.
She’s taking the flack, but she’s getting her message out there. Besides, as warriors who fly in combat will tell you, you’re catching flack because you are right over the target!
So why is the left outraged? They’ve decided what Sarah has said is somehow racist. It even denotes a desire to return back to the time when blacks were slaves. I kid you not.
The democrats are obsessed with racism, because of their racist past, and well, one thing democrats are good at is projection!
Democrats see racism everywhere. If you say Obama’s middle name: Racist! Talk about how the amount of people on food stamps has doubled. REALLY racist! If you have the stomach for it, tune in to any show on MSNBC. Those lunatics find examples of racism roughly 7,642 times per hour. The bottom line though, is if you criticize Obama in any way whatsoever, no matter how gentle, you are a racist. Period.
There’s nothing racist about “shuck and jive” it’s a term many use for someone who skirts the issues, and/or outright lies. Another phrase she could have used was “tap dancing around the issue” a long standing phrase that people use to describe liars like Obama. Of course, had Sarah used THAT phrase, the hate filled left would have screamed racism so loud their lower intestines would have exploded!
For the record, there was nothing remotely racist in my use of the phrase “shuck and jive” – a phrase which many people have used, including Chris Matthews, Andrew Cuomo, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney to name a few off the top of my head.
In fact, Andrew Cuomo also used the phrase in reference to Barack Obama, and the fact that Mr. Cuomo and I used the phrase in relation to President Obama signifies nothing out of the ordinary. I would have used the exact same expression if I had been writing about President Carter, whose foreign policy rivaled Obama’s in its ineptitude, or about the Nixon administration, which was also famously rocked by a cover-up.
I’ve been known to use the phrase most often when chastising my daughter Piper to stop procrastinating and do her homework. As she is part Yup’ik Eskimo, I’m not sure if this term would be deemed offensive when it’s directed at her or if it would be considered benign as in the case of Chris Matthews’ use of it in reference to Rachel Maddow. Just to be careful, from now on I’ll avoid using it with Piper, and I would appreciate it if the media refrained from using words and phrases like igloo, Eskimo Pie, and “when hell freezes over,” as they might be considered offensive by my extended Alaska Native family.
The outrageously outraged reaction to this expression from perennial hypocrites like Chris Matthews has only made me laugh. Mr. Matthews, let me share with you my favorite Irish toast: “May we always be happy, and may our enemies always know it.”
It seems that there are many people flying off the handle and accusing Sarah of being a racist for using the term “shuck and jive” in a recent Facebook post. For the record, we’ve heard that term most of our lives and to us it always referred to someone who was skirting the truth. There was never an inkling of racism in it when we used it.
We also used the term “juke and jive” when we talked about faking someone out on the basketball court or the football field. Is that racist, too?
The origins of many American expressions may be dubious, but that doesn’t imply that people using them today have the same intent. I think the media demonstrates their hypocrisy on this issue when you look at the way they handled Jay Carney saying the same thing (total silence) on a national stage.
It’s exhausting, to say the least. Democrats have no viable ideas, and certainly have no viable solutions. All they have left is to spew hate and lies towards those who do.
Liberalism is a totalitarian ideology. Hell, it has to be. It’s such a flawed way of thinking that it can’t hold up to even the most gentle of glances. As such, liberals must stop all dissent, must shout down, in any way possible, those who DO have ideas and DO have solutions.
Leaders like Sarah Palin make liberalism look exactly like the failure it is, and liberals like Barack Obama look like the lying crapweasels they are.
Racist used to mean something really bad. If you were found to be racist, you deservedly were called out, and publicly ostracized. Treated like a leper.
Today the word “racist“, and being called a racist, simply means you are winning the argument against a democrat. Democrats are known for destroying words, taking benign words and turning them into connotations of evil.
For those keeping score, this is the first time in history democrats have actually improved the meaning of a word, changing it from a word that denotes evil to something completely benign.
Shouting racism where there is none is the last refuge of tyrants!
It’s time that all good men and women come together and fight the evil and diseased democrat ideology. Democrats are destroying this nation, and by extension, the entire world. It’s well past time we send this sickness to the ash-heap of history.
If you were on Twitter last night, you followed the blow-by-blow as each and every minority speaker came on stage. The buzz was, MSNBC managed to cut to a commercial, or go to the studio, when a minority speaker came up. And there was a whole lot of them last night.
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.
My only shock here is why everyone is surprised! This ain’t MSNBC’s first racist rodeo!
Remember a few year back, when the ObamaCare battle was in full swing? Before this evil piece of legislation became law, there were some seriously heated town hall meetings across the country.
At one meeting in Arizona, a black man named Chris showed up with a rifle. Legal in his state. Probably not the smartest thing to do, but legal. The man was there protesting ObamaCare.
As Greg Guttfeld pointed out at the time, the racists over at MSNBC went out of their way to edit their coverage to make sure their views never, ever, found out the fellow was indeed, a black man. The MSNBC anchorette even goes so far as saying the man was white! An absolute lie.
Of course, MSNBC isn’t the only lying, worthless media outlet out there. John Nolte over at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism was on Twitter and kept a running tab of all of the shenanigans going on with the media outlets and how they covered the media. The bad and the good. [mostly bad] Check it out here.
Dan Riehl observes that once again Sarah Palin is ahead of the curve by bringing up the Civil War when talking about Obama’s racist nature and the way he seeks to use race [and class] to divide us as a nation. Referencing her interview with Sean Hannity:
This is classic Sarah Palin. I’d wager people would be surprised to learn that progressive Obama czarist Cass Suntein agrees with her on this growing flap because Palin had the audacity to invoke the Civil War in reference to Derrick Bell. I reached the same conclusion myself studying Bell. Cass Sunstein in The New Yorker, May 3 2004.
[ …. ]
The American Civil War (1861–1865) policy yielded the cessation of legal slavery in the U.S., however not the intent of a different class of citizen. Before the end of the war, the Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act (Morrill Act of 1862) was passed to provide for federal funding of higher education by each state with the details left to the state legislatures.
Following the war, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guaranteed equal protection under the law to all citizens, and Congress established the Freedmen’s Bureau to assist the integration of former slaves into Southern society. After the end of Reconstruction in 1877, former slave-holding states enacted various laws to undermine the equal treatment of African Americans, although the 14th Amendment as well as federal Civil Rights laws enacted during reconstruction were meant to guarantee it. However Southern states contended that the requirement of equality could be met in a manner that kept the races separate.
Dan does a good job of showing where Sarah got it right, and how her contemporaries then got it all wrong.
This is a great interview. In the beginning they talk about Bill Maher, his vile statements toward women, and Obama’s hypocrisy. As always, Sarah pull no punches whatsoever.
In the second have Sarah just unloads on Obama and his ties to racists like Derrick Bell. She reminds us that rather than united the country, Obama seems to look for new and inventive ways to divide us all.
Sarah also [deliciously] throws Steve Schmidt under the bus for stopping her from speaking out the way she wanted to about Obama’s radical past during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Looks like we can add sex trafficking, child molestation, and prostitution to Planned Parenthood’s legacy of racism, genocide, and murder.Lila Rose at Big Journalism has uncovered massive wrongdoing within the Planned Parenthood network. This is shocking, but not surprising. The abortion mills have a long history of human rights violations.
The footage corroborates a 2002 extensive study of Planned Parenthood clinics performed by Life Dynamics. Through a series of phone calls, the study documents over 90% of over 800 abortion clinics willing to cover up sexual abuse.
In ten Planned Parenthood clinics, Live Action videos depict investigators posing as underage girls, as young as 13-years-old, saying they were impregnated by men over twice their age. Planned Parenthood’s typical response? “Whatever you tell us stays within these walls” (Alabama). Or, “I didn’t hear the age, I don’t want to know the age” (Indiana). Or, “You don’t have to say anything” (Arizona). Or, “Just say he’s 15″ (Tennessee).
We have also chronicled Planned Parenthood workers giving outright medical misinformation and manipulating vulnerable young women to purchase abortions. We’ve shown Planned Parenthood willing to accept funds for race-based abortions of unborn Black children. And for those who are willing to face the ultimate abuse of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, we’ve released a video revealing what abortion does to the defenseless unborn child.
What will it take for Congress to stop funding this abusive and corrupt billion-dollar organization? What will it take for the Department of Justice to launch a thorough investigation of Planned Parenthood’s sexual abuse cover-up and medical misinformation? What will it take for us, the American public, to say, “Enough is enough!“
This is nothing short of evil. And your taxes pay for this evil. As lawmakers are looking for things to cut in order to get our deficit crisis under control, one can think of no better place to start than Planned Parenthood. It’s well past time for the government to stop funding this outfit.
On the heels of the NAACP claiming the Tea Party is racist, without an ounce of proof, Andrew Breitbart has released a tape that clearly shows there is just a tad bit of racism in the NAACP.
This from Breitbart:
We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.
In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.
Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.
Indeed, this group wants to be the end all and be all when it comes to race, as Breitbart puts it, the supreme judge, and yet you have this sort of person among their ranks.Anyone find it ironic that this occurred at an event billed as a “Freedom Fund Dinner“? “Freedom for me, but not for thee” seems to be the name of this game.
It should be noted that while the NAACP, a racist organization who buddies up with the radical Nation of Islam, and the domestic terrorist group, New Black Panthers, is shouting from the rooftops that the Tea Party, which has members of all races, creeds, and colors, is racist, they have absolutely no proof of any racism within the organizations. In fact, Breitbart has offered up a $100,000 reward for any video evidence of said racism, and as yet, there are no takers.
Breitbart’s second tape may be even worse, BTW, as Sherrod implores those in the audience to go to work for the USDA because “when was the last time you heard about layoffs“! As pathetic as the NAACP, and phony racism charges, are and as sad real racism from NAACP members is, the out of control government that only grows and grows is the most alarming.
This woman should be the poster child for the first big round of federal government layoffs that need to happen.
“A socialist is someone who has read Lenin and Marx. An anti-socialist is someone who understands Lenin and Marx” -Ronald Reagan
For some time we have discussed some of the communists, racists, and quite frankly, out and out loons that populate the major positions in the Obama regime.
Everyone is familiar with radicals like Dr Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Obama’s Chief-of-Staff, Rahm “Naked Shower Boy” Emanuel, who serves as Obama’s health care adviser. Dr Zeke is the author of the “Complete Lives System” that is the blue print for health care rationing, and determines who is “worthy” of health care under the Obama regime. Emanuel’s program basically denies the very young, the old, and the disabled, setting up boards that would enforce these standards, or as Sarah Palin rightly calls them, “death panels.”
We also know about Cass Sunstein, who is Obama’s “Regulatory Czar” in charge of, well… everything. This is a guy who thinks animals should have lawyers and be able to sue in court. He also thinks the government has the right to your organs, presumably at death, and should be able to harvest them without consent. There’s a lot more, but you get the idea.
Then we have John Holdren, Obama’s “Science Czar.” This guy is a real winner who thinks humans should be eliminated, a common theme among far left environmental zealots, and has talked about the need to add sterilants to the water supply, as well as forcing certain “undesirables” to have abortions. This of course, is right in line with Klan sympathizer, and Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger who fought to make abortions acceptable in order to eliminate blacks and other “undesirables” (her words) whom she called “human weeds.”
Everyone is also familiar with former “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones, an openly communist, racist, hate monger who was fired after pressure from Glenn Beck and others, and we are becoming more familiar with Jim Wallis, the Obama regime’s new “spiritual adviser” and a radical communist, who hates capitalism and the American way.
Now, thanks to Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliot over at World Net Daily, we are learning more about the radical head of the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has been a problem for some time. They are out of control. Now that Obama is in office, he plans to use the EPA to institute job killing, economy crushing rules and regulations, which are basically wealth redistribution schemes.
Obama’s Congress has not been able to pass this crippling cap and tax legislation, so as is Obama’s standard M.O., he is looking for another way to impose his will on the American people, despite their strenuous objections.
With that said, meet Lisa Jackson, EPA administrator:
Does Environmental Protection Agency Chief Lisa Jackson view her post as an activist position that can be used to spread America’s wealth?
Jackson has given scores of speeches touting “environmental justice” and recently launched an initiative aimed at achieving “environmental justice,” a policy critics warn could be a ruse to spread the country’s wealth.
WND reported another top administration official, Obama’s regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, wrote it is “desirable” to redistribute America’s wealth using “environmental justice.”
Meanwhile, Jackson, the first African American to head the EPA, routinely mixes environmental activism with racial politics.
Jackson has made remarks on race that seem to echo controversial statements by Obama’s former “green jobs” czar, Van Jones, who resigned in September after it was exposed he founded a communist organization. Jones previously stated his advocacy for green jobs was part of a broader movement to destroy the U.S. capitalist system.
In an EPA video announcing a new “environmental justice” initiative, Jackson opens with, “There are too many places in this country where pollution and environmental degradation fall disproportionately in low-income and minority communities. … We can’t stand by and accept those disparities. As a start we are building our environmental team.”
Similarly, Jones drew fire for remarks he made in 2008 when he claimed, “The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities because they don’t have a racial justice framework.”
The concept of “environmental justice” permeates Jackson’s work.
For her first public appearance after being confirmed by the Senate in January, Jackson chose a national conference of “environmental justice” groups meeting in New York.
Just after she was confirmed, Jackson gave a press conference touting her decision to “expand the conversation on environmentalism and working for environmental justice.”
In , Jackson declared, “We, as a nation, must address this environmental justice issue.”
“New Jersey’s ports are located in Newark and Camden – two environmental justice communities. The residents of these cities, along with many other urban residents throughout the state, are disproportionately impacted by diesel exhaust.”
After Obama tapped Jackson to head the EPA, Monique Harden, co-director of the far-left Advocates for Environmental Human Rights, a nonprofit legal advocacy group in New Orleans, stated, “This is certainly a person who understands environmental justice and who has launched and initiated efforts to reduce pollution and therefore the cancer and health impacts in communities of color.”
Last August, Jackson was a speaker at the annual conference of the National Association of Black Journalists, discussing the theme, “This Land Is Our Land Too: Justice, Jobs and Environmental Protection.” At the conference, she stated it is necessary to make clear to people suffering immediate economic distress the relationship between “traditional civil rights and social justice issues” and environmental justice.
‘Leftist scheme‘ to redistribute wealth?
What does “environmental justice” mean?
Wikipedia defines the concept as “an equitable spatial distribution of burdens and benefits to groups such as racial minorities, residents of economically disadvantaged areas, or residents of developing nations.”
Ross Kaminsky, writing at Human Events yesterday calls Jackson’s concept of “environmental justice” a “leftist scheme to justify redistribution of wealth and the resulting regulations are not based on scientific evidence or cost/benefit analysis.”
If so, Jackson would not be the only administration official to think that way.
WND reported Obama’s regulatory czar Sunstein, wrote it is “desirable” to redistribute America’s wealth to poorer nations using “environmental justice.”
According to Sunstein, global climate change is primarily the fault of U.S. environmental behavior and can, therefore, be used as a mechanism to redistribute the country’s wealth.
The Obama czar penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – in which he debated whether America should pay “justice” to the world by entering into a compensation agreement that would be a net financial loss for the U.S.
Sunstein heavily leans on the side of such an agreement, particularly a worldwide carbon tax that would heavily tariff the U.S.
A prominent theme throughout Sunstein’s 39-page paper, entitled “Climate Change Justice,” maintains U.S. wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations. He uses terms such as “distributive justice” several times. The paper was written with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner
“It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid,” wrote Sunstein.
He posited: “We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.”
“If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation’s interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives,” he wrote.
Sunstein maintains: “If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses.”
Sunstein is not the only Obama czar to make such an argument. Van Jones made similar remarks before he resigned his position.
Two weeks before Jones started his White House job in March, he delivered the keynote address at Power Shift ’09, billed as the largest youth summit on climate change in history. A reported 12,000 young people were at the D.C. Convention Center for the event.
During his speech, available on YouTube, Jones used terms such as “eco-apartheid” and “green for some,” and preached about spreading the wealth while positing a call to “change the whole system.”
In one section of his 29-minute speech, Jones referenced “our Native American brothers and sisters” who, he claimed, were “pushed,” “bullied,” “mistreated” and “shoved into all the land that we didn’t want.”
“Guess what?” Jones continued. “Give them the wealth! Give them then wealth! No justice on stolen land … we owe them a debt.”
“We have to create a green economy, that’s true, that’s true. But we have to create a green economy that Dr. King would be proud of,” Jones exclaimed.
It makes me sick to see these radical communists to invoke Dr King’s name as they push their vile agenda. Dr King was a man of peace, a conservative, and a Republican. When these people use his name it is a slap in the face to everything Dr King and his followers stand for.
It also makes me sick to see that, just like with Obama himself, there seems to be a real hatred for America, and a want to blame all of the world’s problems on her coursing through these people’s veins.
As we have learned, anytime you hear someone use a word like “economic” or “social” and add the word “justice” to what they are saying, we are dealing with a socialist, a communist, a Marxist. These phrases are nothing more than code for “hey, let’s ‘spread the wealth y’all.” This is basically the government forcibly stealing from one group and giving to another. It can be money, opportunity, or as we are about to see, health care.
The problem is, with communism, is you don’t bring everyone up to a higher level. It’s just the opposite, in fact. Marxism, whether you call it socialism, or communism, seeks to drag the successful down to the level of the unsuccessful, because that’s somehow “fair” in the warped minds of those who espouse this failed ideology.
Sir Winston Churchill said it best:
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
To which Lady Margaret Thatcher added:
“The problem with socialism is that at some point you run out of other people’s money.”
Our nation was founded on liberty and freedom. Marxism, offers none. The course of action the Obama regime promises is comprised of nothing but tyranny, oppression, and enslavement.
George Bernard Shaw one said:
“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.”
Are we willing to abandon self-respect for a handout? Are we willing to surrender risk and reward for indentured servitude to the government? Are we willing to exchange freedom and opportunity for a welfare state? Are you ready to shirk you responsibilities to yourself?
This is you choice folks: Retain your liberty and freedom, or submit to a life of slavery under an ever expanding, and oppressive, command and control government. A government that determines what’s “good for you” and what you “deserve.”
Or…
You can fight to retain the right to make your own decisions, chart your own path, and retain the fruits of your own labor.
If you choose liberty, one of the responsibilities you will have is to take on these communists and remove them from office. We must work with maximum effort to defeat each and every one of these un-American Marxists at the ballot box.
But what then? Once we regain control of Congress this fall, sanity must be restored. We need to make sure those we put in place will actually listen to the people. We also need to make sure those we elect will have the moral courage to do the hard work. We must de-fund out of control agencies, like the EPA, until order can be restored.
“They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” -Ronald Reagan
This will not be easy, in fact, it will be hard, anything worth having is generally hard to attain. But if liberty and freedom from tyranny aren’t worth the effort, then what is?
Just when you think the most corrupt administration in history can sink no lower, here they go. This is an incredible over-reach by Barack Obama’s “Department of Justice”
From the Washington Times:
KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.
You read that right. Without the all loving, all caring, all benevolent plantation owners of the democrat party, blacks cannot have equal rights. Blacks obviously, according to Barack Obama, are simply not capable of making these tough decisions.
More from the Times:
The Justice Department’s ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” – identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.
The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.
Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters’ election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here.
Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department’s decision “racial as well as partisan.”
“On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election,” he said. “That is un-American.”
The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.
In interviews in sleepy downtown Kinston – a place best known as a road sign on the way to the Carolina beaches – residents said partisan voting is largely unimportant because people are personally acquainted with their elected officials and are familiar with their views.
“To begin with, ‘nonpartisan elections’ is a misconceived and deceiving statement because even though no party affiliation shows up on a ballot form, candidates still adhere to certain ideologies and people understand that, and are going to identify with who they feel has their best interest at heart,” said William Cooke, president of the Kinston/Lenoir County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Mr. Cooke said his group does not take a position on this issue and would not disclose his personal stance, but expressed skepticism about the Justice Department’s involvement.
Let me get this straight, you have a typical small town, where just about everybody either knows everybody else, or at least knows of them, a town that is most made up of black residents, and yet, Barack Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, are telling them they are too stupid to know who to vote for without a big (D) beside the candidate’s name?
What next from our Dear Leader and his “Ministry of Justice,” will it be simply illegal to BE anything but a democrat?
The Times goes on to say:
Others noted the absurdity of partisan elections since Kinston is essentially a one-party city anyway; no one among more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was able to recall a Republican winning office here.
Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on “what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction” and how it affects blacks’ ability to elect the candidates they favor.
“The determination of who is a ‘candidate of choice’ for any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a particular jurisdiction,” he said.
Critics on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are not so sure. “The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism,” said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. “There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates.”
Kinston is one of the areas subject to provisions of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires the city to receive Justice Department approval before making any changes to voting procedures. Kinston is one of 12,000 voting districts in areas of 16 states, almost exclusively in the South, that the Voting Rights Act declared to have had a history of racial discrimination.
In a letter dated Aug. 17, the city received the Justice Department’s answer: Elections must remain partisan because the change’s “effect will be strictly racial.”
“Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office,” Loretta King, who at the time was the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, wrote in a letter to the city.
Ms. King wrote that voters in Kinston vote more along racial than party lines and without the potential for voting a straight Democratic ticket, “the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more.”
Ms. King is the same official who put a stop to the New Black Panther Party case. In that case, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia after two members of the black revolutionary group dressed in quasi-military garb stood outside a polling place on election last year and purportedly intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick.
After a judge ordered a default judgments against the Panthers, who refused to answer the charges or appear in court, the Justice Department dropped the charges against all but one of the defendants, saying “the facts and the law did not support pursuing” them.
This is more than a simple insult to blacks everywhere, this is a usurpation of our Constitution and a very dangerous development. This sets up a precedent that allows serious manipulation and intimidation by the federal government. And as we are witnessing on a daily basis, Barack Obama and his people only know how to function through threats and intimidation.
I know most of you have heard about the case against the New Black Panthers In Philadelphia, but just in case, let me refresh your memory:
Don’t know about you, but seeing a couple of big guys dressed in paramilitary outfits, silly looking berets and all, and carrying weapons would be rather intimidating to many people, and yet, Barack Obama’s “Justice Department” simply dismissed a the cases against these thugs.
Now the Panthers never showed up for court, so they were convicted in absentia, which is nothing out of the ordinary. The evidence is overwhelming that they were attempting to intimidate voters, and yet, for Obama’s team, all is well.
The New Black Panthers, just like the old Black Panthers, have a long history of racism, hatred, and violence. In fact, it was Obama neighbors and best buddies, the Ayers family, who have direct ties to the Black panthers. The Panthers and Weather Underground teamed up for more than a few “adventures” in their day.
It was the failed Brinks truck robbery carried out by the Black Panthers as well as Bill Ayers’ wife, Bernardine Dohrn, that landed her on the FBI’s most wanted list, and eventually got her a felony conviction. Two security guards and a policeman died in the shootout that occurred between the Panthers and authorities.
Michelle Malkin has more on the Philly case against the Panthers here.
To learn more about this racist group, check out their website here.
What is it about Barack Obama and the fact that he can only surround himself with the most radical and violent elements of our society?
While you think about that, I’d like to pose a bigger question that has bothered me for much of my life. Why do black people vote almost exclusively for democrats? The democrat party since it’s inception has had a history of racism towards blacks and really, outright hatred.
It’s plenty obvious from all of the programs and actions that democrats simply think blacks are incapable of functioning on their own, and thus must be “protected” from making wrong decisions in their lives. This now includes, according to Barack Obama, making the “wrong” decision to vote for someone besides a democrat!
Most of the black people I know are conservative. They live their lives as conservatives. They have strong families, they attend church, and they are active in helping others. Most blacks are against abortion, and gay marriage. In fact, it was the larger than normal black turnout in California, because of Obama, that saw the amendment banning gay marriage pass!
And yet, blacks will always vote against their interests, and go for whatever person has a (D) beside their name.
I blame the Republican party, a lot, for this. Somehow, the party of Lincoln, the party of Eisenhower, who sent troops into Little Rock so black kids could go to school, and the party who worked with LBJ to pass the Civil Rights bill, while Johnson’s own party was fighting him all the way, allowed the democrats to paint THEM as racists, and never fought back.
The democrat party is the party that created the Klu Klux Klan, Jim Crow, and other discriminatory groups and programs. In fact, it’s the democrat party who still has a former member of the Klan in the Senate, Robert Byrd, of West Virginia.
For much of history, most blacks indeed voted Republican. In fact, one of the nation’s greatest spiritual leaders of all time, Dr Martin Luther King, was a Republican. Francis Rice, chairman of the National Black Republican Association, has penned a great piece for Human Events:
Why Martin Luther King Was A Republican
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.
It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.
During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.
In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s first goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.
Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.
Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.
Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King’s protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as “that Nigger preacher.”
Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist “Dixiecrats” did not all migrate to the Republican Party. “Dixiecrats” declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those “Dixiecrats” continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a “Keagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.
Another former “Dixiecrat” is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been “a great senator for any moment,” including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.
The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.
Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.
After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).
Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.
In order to break the Democrats’ stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party’s economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.
Some parting thoughts here:
First, it’s pretty obvious that the plantation mentality of the democrat party is alive and well and being practiced in Kinston, NC. This is the soft racism of low expectations. Obama’s “Ministry of Justice” has declared blacks too stupid to think for themselves, thus needing the loving hand of a tyrannical government to “guide them” to the right choices.
I’m white, and this insults me to no end. I can only imagine how blacks feel.
The other very troubling question, of course, is the incredible overreaching by the Obama administration. While Obama can’t seem to make the life and death decisions on grave matters, like Afghanistan, he and his cronies have all of the time in the world, and worse, the inclination, to delve into the minutia of such things as local elections, and overturn with overwhelming will of the people.
This is the very danger of centralized government our founding fathers feared, and designed our Constitution, and republican form of government to prevent. Barack Obama isn’t the first person to usurp states rights, not by a long shot, but he is the most prolific and radical one.
Barack Obama was elected by saying he would “fundamentally change America.” I just find it hard to believe that those lulled into a trance by the promise of rainbows and unicorns had these dangerous “fundamental changes” in mind.
What Barack Obama envisions, like all communists envision, is a strong centrally planned life for all Americans. They want the federal government to have a say in absolutely every area of your life. It’s how they think, how they function.
The democrat (nee communist) party sees itself as the benevolent, all knowing, all caring, all loving party that is just doing this “for your own good.” The same plantation mentality that has enslaved blacks for generations is now expanding it’s reach to all of mankind.
It’s wrong that they do this to blacks, it’s wrong that they are trying to do this to everyone else. I’ll go farther than that, it is evil what they have done to blacks. The democrat/communist policies have destroyed many black families, and turned many inner cities into wastelands. Democrat/communist policies have turned schools, once looked to for quality education, into nothing more than social engineering centers incapable of graduating students who have the basic skills required to function in society.
And now these people want to take over our health care? These people want to control one sixth of our economy? These people want to further worm their way into our personal lives?
Are we going to let them get away with this?
I ran this a while back, because I thought it was a perfect illustration of how America works, and how communism will destroy her. It think it bears repeating:
RT @AM_Hoffman: When need more tough and assertive people who abide by the Constitution in office. These career politicians are killing our… 40 minutes ago
