Remember kiddies, opposition to Obama is racist. Eric Holder says so.

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

"I am not a crook!!"

Projecting

Man, this guy makes me ill:

Attorney General Eric Holder said Sunday he and President Obama have been targets of “a racial animus” by some of the administration’s political opponents.

“There’s a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that’s directed at me [and] directed at the president,” Holder told ABC. “You know, people talking about taking their country back. … There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.”
Holder said the nation is in “a fundamentally better place than we were 50 years ago.”

“We’ve made lots of progress,” he said. “I sit here as the first African-American attorney general, serving the first African-American president of the United States. And that has to show that we have made a great deal of progress.

“But there’s still more we have to travel along this road so we get to the place that is consistent with our founding ideals,” he said.

Eric Holder wouldn’t recognize our “founding ideals” even if they walked up to him and gave him a big wet kiss.

It’s gracious of him to admit we’ve made a lot of progress since the days of slavery and Jim Crow, both of which his party once fought to defend, but it would be nice if he would allow that administration opponents could themselves have good motives. And I’m not letting get away with that weaselly qualification “some,” as if he really believes that “just a few” are racist toward he and the president.

No, to a racialist ideologue like Eric Holder, that we may strongly disapprove of Obama’s policies and actions can’t be due to his and his administration’s leftist philosophy, redistributionist politics, rampant corruption, lack of respect for the American settlement, and overall incompetence. No, it has to be due to the fact that we don’t like a Black man in the White House.

I guess all those years in the late 90s when I backed Colin Powell for president was just a clever disguise on my part.

This, sadly, is what we can expect from the Left, who assume they have the course of History figured out and are therefore both smarter and morally superior to the rest of us. It’s an assumption of self-righteousness, a certainty that, since “we” know the right answers, strong opposition or serious difference of opinion is illegitimate. No principle, no reason, no empirical evidence could be behind it: it has to be racism.

Well, screw you, Mr. Attorney General. Take your racialist condescension and shove it.

PS: I really like being lectured by a guy whose underlings ran guns to violent drug cartels in Mexico, who ignores obvious voter intimidation when the victims are White, who refuses to enforce laws he dislikes and encourages state attorney generals to do the same, but does decide to investigate a satirical parade float, free speech be damned.

PPS: If you want to know more about the worst Attorney General since John Mitchell or even A. Mitchell Palmer, let me recommend two books: J. Christian Adams’ “Injustice,” and “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric holder’s Justice Department, by John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky. If these don’t leave steam coming out your ears, there’s something wrong.

via Rick Moran

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Shock: Democrats ramping up election-year race-baiting tactics

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Racism sign

Yep.

Not exactly a surprise, but The Hill reports this morning that Democrats are ramping up their despicable race-baiting tactics to try and emotionally manipulate one of their most crucial voting blocs during an election year because they badly need the votes:

[…] Democrats reject charges that the rhetoric is a concerted political calculation on their part as they try to retain their Senate majority and make gains in the House.

“You turn out voters by demonstrating your past performance and what you’re promising to do for a constituent in the future,” said Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “I don’t call that race-baiting. I call that a political platform.”

 Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.), the only African-American Republican in Congress and a leader in his party’s outreach to minority voters, slammed the perceived approach. 

“What alienates people is getting all of us stirred by the notion that we should be afraid of somebody else. [Democrats’] comments are designed to evoke fear from my perspective,” said Scott. “It’s unfortunate, and it should be shameful, frankly.”

[…]

Much like Democrats have highlighted their efforts to reform student loan rates to appeal to students, or their efforts to protect access to contraception to woo female voters, couching policy debates in racial terms allows the party to speak directly to another important portion of its base: minorities.

[…]

Georgia-based Democratic strategist Tharon Johnson, who worked on the 2012 Obama campaign, said Democrats — especially those in the South — needed to talk about the issues that matter to minorities and be open about the country’s inequality.

“We can never be afraid to talk about the issue of race while we still have racism in this country every single day, as far as economics, inclusion and with our justice system,” said Johnson. “Landrieu, Nunn and others have to be bold and direct when it comes to issues like public education and the justice system and economic equality that deals with race when they’re having conversations with voters. They have to be willing to talk about it.”

[…]

Democratic National Committee spokesman Mo Elleithee said the party often discusses these issues in racial terms because it’s important for Democrats to point out Republican hypocrisy.

“The problem is, the message does matter, and the agenda matters, and they have fallen even further behind with an agenda, and actions that I think continue to poke these communities that they claim they want to reach out to in the eye,” he said.

“And so, yeah, we’re gonna call them out on that.”

Don’t you love the contortions Democrats put themselves through in order to justify one of the ugliest cards they have in their deck to play?  The fact of the matter is they never stop using the race card in order to sway voters to their side, and it’s also common knowledge that they play the race card in an attempt to stifle debate from the opposition – because disagreement on this issue is so unhealthy for America, or whatever. But in election years, especially critical ones like this one where President Obama is in full-scale legacy mode, they ramp up the racial politics in the extreme because they know it’s very difficult to win unless they can convince people, especially so-called “minorities” like women and black people, that they are ‘victims’ who need ‘protection’ and ‘saving’ by Uncle Sam.

I hope I’m alive when a majority of minorities finally start rejecting this offensive claptrap in significant numbers. Once they do, the left’s blatant and deliberate demagoguery on hot button issues like race and “women’s rights” will only be viewed by most people as a desperate sideshow, while their domination of those voting blocs will finally be over to the point where, at the very least, they become competitive.  Hey, a girl can dream, right?

Raging Rangel: Most Obama critics are from “Confederate states”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Rangel relaxes

Rangel relaxes at one of his tax free ”retreats.”
Photo via Splash News/Daily Beast

Sigh. Via The Politico:

New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, locked in a contentious primary battle, suggested in an interview that aired Monday that the level of Republican opposition to President Barack Obama is partly due to race.

When asked by MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt whether GOP opposition to the president is “based on race,” Rangel paused and said, “You know, that’s a subjective question. But, let me say this: Are most of the states that they represent, are they in the Confederate states that fought the Union? Were they slaveholder states? And when they come to Washington, do you see more Confederate flags than American flags?”

Rangel, an 84-year-old, African-American congressman who has served in Congress for more than four decades, added that he thought some Republicans were willing to hurt themselves politically by opposing the Obama administration’s domestic agenda just to attack him.

“Who would hurt their own people — in terms of cutting off health, job opportunity, food stamps — to get after this president? It takes a lot of hatred to hurt yourself just to embarrass the president. So, I’m trying to think with the tea party — and basically what they have said and what their spokespeople have said — this would not be the same if the president was not of color,” he said.

I’m beginning to suspect that the only deck of cards Rangel owns is the deck that is full of nothing but race cards. The guy really has no other card left to play at this point in his political career – and why not? It’s helped him often in the past.  Predictable yet sad, really, when you think about it.

By the way, I wonder if race is what continually motivates President Obama to refrain from endorsing Rangel in his NY-13  Democrat primaries year after year? It’s not, of course, but it’s amusing to use Rangel’s own card against him sometimes. Heh. ;)

Opposition to #Obamacare is racist, and why Democrats love the race card

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Liberal tolerance racist

Oh, brother. If we needed any more convincing that it was well-past time for Senator Jay Rockfeller (D-WV) to retire and never be heard from again, this clip of him not just playing the race card, but slamming it on the table and dancing around it should do the trick:

(h/t David Freddoso)

Apparently the senator’s “analysis” was aimed at Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), who was at the hearing. Naturally, Johnson took offense:

“My opposition to health care has nothing to do with the race of President Obama,” Johnson said. “I objected to this because it’s an assault on our freedom. … I found it very offensive that you would basically imply that I’m a racist because I oppose this health care law.”

“You’re evidently satisfied with a lot of people not having health insurance,” Rockefeller responded.

“I am not. Quit making those assumptions. Quit saying I’m satisfied with that. I’m not. There’s another way of doing this,” Johnson said. “Please, don’t assume, don’t make implications of what I’m thinking and what I would really support. You have no idea.”

“I actually do,” Rockefeller said. “God help you.”

“No senator, God help you for implying I’m a racist,” Johnson replied.

Thankfully, Senator Rockefeller (D-RaceBaiter) will retire in January, hopefully to be replaced by Republican Shelley Moore Capito.

But the senator from West Virginia didn’t just slam his colleague from Wisconsin; he cavalierly insulted all of us who oppose the Affordable Care Act. While I can’t speak for others, let me recapitulate the reasons I oppose it:

Political Philosophy: By placing the State in charge of people’s healthcare, you fundamentally alter the relationship between citizen and State, turning free people into dependent wards of a Leviathan-like government and taking away their control over a crucial part of their own lives. To a conservative/classical liberal like me, this is a bad thing.

Constitutionalism: Congress has no authority —none!— to force a citizen to buy a private product under penalty of law. This is an abominable legislative usurpation and a trammeling of individual liberty. It tortures the Commerce Clause until it begs for mercy. It goes against the spirit and intent of our founding documents, and the Supreme Court, in the worst decision since Korematsu, was wrong to uphold the law.

Bad Law: I’ll be more charitable than Senator Rockefeller and stipulate that most voting for this law thought they were doing good and helping people. But that doesn’t justify defending a law that just isn’t working. It’s not even meeting its basic goals: healthcare premiums are still skyrocketing; millions have lost the insurance they liked; millions have lost access to the doctors they liked; and, even when you have insurance, you may not be able to find a physician who will take you. (Really. Watch that one.) When a law performs as poorly as this, is it any wonder people hate it? Are they all racists, Jay?

Somehow, looking over those reasons, I think it’s safe to say the President’s ancestry doesn’t matter to me and my opposition to his miserable law. In fact, I can quite honestly say I couldn’t give a rat’s rear end about President Obama’s race.

But I don’t expect you to get that, Senator.

PS: On a lighter note, I’m happy to say Andrew Klavan is back at last making satirical political videos. Longtime readers will recall my love for his “Klavan on the Culture” series. Now he’s returned, producing them for Truth Revolt. (He also still works with PJMedia and PJTV) In this video, he explains what we’ve all wondered: Just why do Democrats call us racist? Enjoy.

Welcome back, Andrew! smiley dance

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

The racist origins of the minimum wage

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Chattanooga VW workers, per MSNBC

Also supported a minimum wage

I came across an interesting blog post from a few weeks ago while trolling the news this morning for something interesting. Now, we all know about the racist history of the Democratic Party: the defense of slavery, even inciting a civil war to preserve it; the creation of terrorist organizations, such as the KKK, in order to keep Blacks from exercising their rights as free citizens; and the creation of Jim Crow, which created a legal framework for Blacks’ oppression that lasted into the 1960s.

But did you know the minimum wage, the distraction du jour for Democrats anxious to talk about anything other than Obamacare’s failures, itself had its roots in minority oppression? Here’s an excerpt from a short piece in Forbes by Carrie Sheffield:

The business-friendly National Center for Policy Analysis points out “the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act, requiring ‘prevailing’ wages on federally assisted construction projects, was supported by the idea that it would keep contractors from using ‘cheap colored labor’ to underbid contractors using white labor.”

African-American economist Thomas Sowell with Stanford University‘s Hoover Institution gives an uncomfortable historical primer behind minimum wage laws:

“In 1925, a minimum-wage law was passed in the Canadian province of British Columbia, with the intent and effect of pricing Japanese immigrants out of jobs in the lumbering industry.

A Harvard professor of that era referred approvingly to Australia’s minimum wage law as a means to “protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese” who were willing to work for less.

In South Africa during the era of apartheid, white labor unions urged that a minimum-wage law be applied to all races, to keep black workers from taking jobs away from white unionized workers by working for less than the union pay scale.”

It is a plain-as-day fact that raising the cost of labor will force a business to do one of four things:

  • Go out of business
  • Accept lower profits
  • Raise prices for the consumer
  • Or cut employee hours or reduce the number of jobs to compensate for higher costs.

The first two are very unlikely to happen, which leaves passing on the cost to the consumer or cutting back on labor. And if the owners decide to cut back on labor, guess whose hours get the ax first? That’s right, it’s most likely the lower or unskilled employee, because it makes less sense to pay them the higher wage when you have more skilled employees who give more value in return for their wages. Now, just who makes up a large percentage of that at-risk labor force? That’s right: young Blacks.

The next time you encounter some Lefty blathering about raising the minimum wage, ask them why they have it in for young people and Blacks.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Rep. Bennie Thompson channels Holder on “racist” criticism of Obama

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Racism sign

Yep.

Remember a few weeks ago when US Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking at a National Action Network (Sharpton) gathering,  strongly implied racism was behind opposition to both him and his boss – our celebrity President?  Here’s a refresher, via PJ Tatler’s Bryan Preston:

Holder said, “I am pleased to note that the last five years have been defined by significant strides, and by lasting reforms. Even in the face…even in the face…of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity.”

The audience applauded.

Holder continued: “Forget about me. You look at the way the Attorney General of the United States was treated yesterday by a House committee. Had nothing to do with me. Forget that. What attorney general has ever had that kind of treatment?”

Holder is referring to his exchange with Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). Gohmert and other Republicans were trying to pin down when Holder’s Department of Justice would fulfill a promise that Holder had made to deliver documents. Holder refused to answer forthrightly. Gohmert called him out, to which Holder replied “You don’t want to go there, buddy!”

Holder continued: “What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”

Translation: No President nor his AG have ever had to deal with nasty partisanship on the level we have! Can only be one reason, wink wink!

Fast forward to this week, and we have Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) essentially echoing Holder – but taking it further:

(CNN) – In an exclusive interview with CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash, Rep. Bennie Thompson doubled down on controversial remarks he made about race over the weekend.

The Mississippi Democrat had argued Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a black conservative, is an “Uncle Tom” who doesn’t stand up for African Americans.

In his interview with the New Nation of Islam webcast on Sunday, which was first reported by BuzzFeed, the eleven-term African American argued President Barack Obama has been mistreated by other politicians, including Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, because he is black.

[…]

Bash: The other thing you were talking about is the fact that you believe some of the opposition, maybe even much of the opposition, to the president is because of the color of his skin.

Thompson: “Well, I’ve been here a long time. I’ve seen a lot of issues come before Congress. I’ve never seen the venom put forth on another candidate or a president like I’ve seen with this president and that’s my opinion.”

Bash: Are there specific things that people have said that are racially tinged that make you say that, or are you reading the tea leaves of what’s going on?

Thompson: “I’ve seen quite a few State of the Union messages, I’ve never heard a president called a liar in a State of the Union message.”

Bash: You think Congressman Joe Wilson was race based?

Thompson: “Well, I’ve never heard it before, it was a stupid decision…statement, but it has no real bearing.”

[…]

Bash: Were Mitch McConnell’s comments were racist?

Thompson: “It had nothing to with that. The comments are insensitive. To say to a president that you’re going to oppose anything that he puts out there is just totally…”

Bash: You think it was race based?

Thompson: “Well I’ve never heard him say it to any other president.”

Keep in mind that we’ve known since before President Obama was elected to his first term that the opposition was automatically going to be conveniently painted as “racist” because it happened all during his candidacy – starting in the 2007-2008 Democrat primary where his campaign tried to insinuate Hillary Clinton and her husband and former Prez. Bill Clinton (the original “first black President“) were closet racists.  It then went on to the general election campaign season, where the candidate himself – then-Senator Barack Obama – played the race card against the GOP, which his then-chief strategist David Axelrod even acknowledged later.  And it’s continued on since his first election and his re-election on a regular basis on any number of issues, from the economy to healthcare to voter ID and other issues.

But this is the first time I can recall a prominent Congressional Democrat try to explain the “rationale” used to determine when the race card should be played. What Holder said above, and Thompson expanded on in detail is this:   If you falsely believe (or in Thompson’s and Holder’s cases, pretend) that there have never been any other senior administration officials (including the President)  in history that were treated so “nastily” by the opposition , well – it must be racism, then, even if the criticisms themselves don’t have anything whatsoever to do with race.  You don’t even have to prove it to be racism. You just slide the insinuation onto the table and hope that it sticks. And sometimes it does.

This is all part and parcel of the modern Democrat party and their ongoing chilling efforts at shutuppery – whether it be by government force or trying to shame and intimidate others from publicly disagreeing with the President and other elected/appointed officials in his party.   The two main reasons they do this: 1) to stay in power (obviously) and 2) they think their ideas are just so wonderful and perfect that they just can’t fathom the possibility that people out there might have a legitimate issue with what they advocate, so naturally whoever stands in opposition is racist/sexist/homophobic/classist, etc.  It’s their world and you’re just living in it. They believe you must conform to their ideals … or else.

Raise your hand if you’re ready to fall in line.

Yeah, I didn’t think so. ;)

Western Washington University: “Help us be less White!”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Clueless

Here’s a thought experiment for you: Imagine a university that, through sheer chance, wound up with a mostly Black or Asian student body. Concerned faculty meet, their brows furrowed gravely. What can be done to fix this problem?

And then, a solution! Solicit advice from students and alumni on how the university can make itself  “more White.”

And now imagine the national furor that would erupt.

That’s what should happen to Western Washington University in Bellingham, which is worried that it is too White:

Western Washington University sent a questionnaire to students asking them for advice on how the administration could succeed at making sure that in future years, “we are not as white as we are today.”

The question notes that WWU’s racial make up does not perfectly reflect the nation at large, and asks students to consider strategies that other universities have used to focus on skin color as the paramount indicator of a student-applicant’s worth.

The president of WWU has stated that his explicit goal is to reduce the white population on campus, according to Campus Reform.

“I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, that we as a faculty and staff and student body, as an administration, if we 10 years from now are as white as we are today, we will have failed as a university,” said Bruce Shepard, president of WWU, in a 2012 address.

Maybe I’m just a parochial, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, supremacist White guy from a middle-class, suburban background, and so I’m too reactionary and by definition racist to comprehend the enlightened attitudes of our academic betters. Evidently I’m too stupid to see that nothing is more important than skin color. And I’m just crazy enough to still take seriously something once said by another noted reactionary:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

WWU President Bruce Shepard probably would like to tell Dr. King he had it backwards: he should have wanted his children judged not for the content of their character, for then they could have earned admittance to Western Washington University based solely on the color of their skin.

This is progressive racialist nonsense laid bare. Instead of looking for real diversity, such as an intellectual diversity ranging from Right to Left and a cultural diversity not inextricably tied to skin tone, the academic Left divides society into group identities, to which everyone is assigned regardless of individual belief (1). You can bet WWU’s struggle to be less White is informed by Critical Race Theory and is meant to battle the Leftist scapegoats, structural racism and White privilege.

The only factors that should ever be considered in admissions decisions are academic performance and, if you want to give aid, economic need. One of the few things California has done right in recent years is to ban “affirmative action” in college admissions, though that battle is never truly over.

If I were a student a WWU, I’d transfer. I wouldn’t want to be associated with such a race-obsessed institution. If I were a donor, I’d cancel my donation. And if I were a citizen of Washington, I’d demand to know why the state legislature is funding an institution that not only discriminates based on race, in contradiction to everything this nation is supposed to stand for, but asks for advice on how to do it better!

This is just bunk. (3)

Footnote:
(1) An example I came across years ago: a man of Black African ancestry, born in Francophone Africa but raised in France, identifies wholly with France — French culture, French history, the French language. His heart stirs when he sings La Marsellaise (2) or sees La Tricolore. Now, is he “French,” or (in American racial-cultural terms) “Black?” The gentleman himself would tell you he is French, and proudly so. The racialist, on the other hand, sees only the melanin in his skin. The rest just makes him a self-hating victim of “cultural imperialism.”
(2) Whatever else I might say about France, they do have the best national anthem on the planet.
(3) I’m sure you know what word I really meant. But, this is a family show.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Time for race hustler & Alabama state Rep. Holmes to pay up on $100k offer

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Alabama state Rep. Alvin Holmes

Alabama state Rep. Alvin Holmes (D)

I absolutely love it:

A Democratic Alabama state representative is under fire for a racially charged challenge he made last month that has backfired big time. TheBlaze reported that during a legislative session discussion on abortion rights, Rep. Alvin Holmes speculated his Republican counterparts would be in favor of abortion if black men impregnated their daughters. Rep. [Holmes] then offered to pay $100,000 cash to anyone who could show him a “bunch of whites” who have adopted black children in Alabama.

Well, the representative is now being asked to put his money where his mouth is after a Facebook group entitled Faces of Families in Alabama began posting photos of multi-racial families in the state. The Facebook page has already garnered more than 7,000 ‘likes,’ and on Wednesday, the group gathered on the steps of the State House to demonstrate just how many multi-racial, adoptive families reside in Alabama.

The Daily Mail has pictures of some of the beautiful families that were in attendance at the Wednesday rally. Time to put up or shut up on your offer, Rep. Holmes.  But he won’t, and here’s his “official” reason why. In shorter terms, he’s a shameless race-baiting welcher.

Holmes, you may recall, also sneered on the floor of the Alabama state House a couple of months ago that he didn’t like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas because Thomas is “married to a white woman.”  Guy sounds like a real winner, eh? Now just imagine for five seconds Holmes was a Republican …

“Progressive Racism: The Hidden Motive Driving Modern Politics”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

That’s the the bomb-throwing title of a take-no-prisoners article at PJ Media by “Zombie,” an anonymous San Francisco-area blogger who often skewers the Left in his/her neck of the woods. In the article, Zombie examines several common progressive policies. For each, he or she (1) first presents the position neutrally, in a flat statement. Then Zombie gives the progressive public reason for the policy, the conservative misunderstanding of it, and finally the real, racist motive at its heart.

Zombie writes:

What conservatives don’t (yet) know is that under the surface, most progressive positions are motivated by racist attitudes and assumptions felt by white progressives, usually against African-Americans. Progressive positions often seem inexplicable to outsiders because the proposals emanating from them usually manifest as colossal social engineering experiments, which the progressives have only devised as a distraction from the shameful racist motivations at the core.

This essay will likely be eye-opening for conservatives, and infuriating for progressives, who often don’t know their own history and never contemplated the origins of their own belief system. But it’s time to finally bring the uncomfortable truth out in the open.

He/she then gives eight examples. Below is one; I urge you to read the rest:

THE WELFARE STATE (2)

Progressive position:
“Maximize benefits and ease qualifications for all entitlement and social welfare programs; ultimately institute a “guaranteed income” for all U.S. residents.”

False public rationale offered by progressives to justify their position:
“No one should starve or go homeless in a wealthy nation such as ours; we should always give a helping hand to those in need.”

Conservatives’ inaccurate theory of progressives’ real intent:
The ever-escalating magnitude of unnecessary government handouts is just a backdoor route to socialism by confiscating more and more wealth from the productive class and “redistributing” it to the unproductive.

The actual racist origins of the progressive stance:
The true goal of progressive-style cradle-to-grave welfare is to enslave blacks in a culture of dependency and thereby keep them mollified and also a dependable Democratic voting bloc.

The toxic addictive effect of an ongoing welfare system has been debated for centuries; as far back as the 1700s in England it was pointed out that giving free food to the lower classes both removed their motivation to work and also increased their numbers; abusing these sociological trends for cynical political advantage dates back even further, when Roman emperors handed out free bread to curry favor with the masses. In modern America, African-Americans disproportionally comprise the lower class, so progressives have devised a racist strategy of lifelong government dependency to not only permanently keep blacks at the bottom of the economic scale but also corrode their sense of self-sufficiency so that they always return to the Democratic Party just as the addict always returns to the pusher.

According to Ronald Kessler’s book Inside the White House, President Johnson explained the rationale behind his “Great Society” welfare programs thus: “I’ll have those n****rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” As there is no audio recording of this quote (which was reported second-hand), progressives have spent years trying to cast doubt on its existence, because it confirms the worst assumptions behind the justification for welfare. However, there are other audio recordings from the same era of Johnson obsessing over maximizing black votes and referring to them as “n****rs” — for example, listen to this tape of Johnson complaining that he can’t prove black voters are being suppressed because “More niggers vote than white folks.” While this doesn’t conclusively prove he also said the disputed “200 years” quote, it does prove that he spoke in those terms, referred to blacks insultingly, and schemed about ways to maximize the black vote for the Democratic Party — all of which lend credence to the disputed quote’s likely veracity.

What can’t be disputed is that since the institutionalization of welfare, Johnson’s cynical racist vision has come true: generation after generation of inner-city African-Americans have indeed become completely dependent upon welfare, and consequently reliably vote Democratic because the Democrats vow to keep the handouts flowing.

While the motivations for progressivism are more complex than simply “racism” –including for many a genuine, if misguided, desire to help people because society is too difficult for the average person to manage on their own–there’s no doubting that a perception of non-White inferiority underlies a lot of progressive politics, including the cynical use of public money to turn Blacks into dependent voters. Something they’re now trying to do to all through Obamacare and the push to expand dependency on food stamps.

Be sure to read the whole thing. It’s controversial and inflammatory, no doubt, but perhaps also illuminating.

And, besides, it’s fun to throw the Left’s own tactics in their face for once.

Footnotes:
(1) I really wish English had a third-person, gender neutral personal pronoun. “He/She” is so clunky.
(2) For a good short booklet on this topic, check out Kevin Williamson’s “The Dependency Agenda.”

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

QOTD: SCOTUS Justice Thomas on where he’s faced the most discrimination

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas

SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas

Hint – You will not be surprised:

Americans today are too sensitive about race, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told a gathering of college students in Florida on Tuesday.

Speaking at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Fla., Thomasthe second black justice to serve on the court, lamented what he considers a society that is more “conscious” of racial differences than it was when he grew up in segregated Georgia in the days before — and during — the civil rights era.

[…]

Thomas moved north from Georgia and graduated from Yale Law School in 1974. He went on to a successful judicial career that took him all the way to the Supreme Court. Thomas’ views on constitutional issues usually put him on the conservative side of the court, where he has penned opinions intended to rein in affirmative-action laws and overhaul a section of the Civil Rights Act that requires states with histories of discrimination to seek approval from the federal government before altering voting policies.

Throughout his career, Thomas said, he has experienced more instances of discrimination and poor treatment in the North than the South.

“The worst I have been treated was by northern liberal elites. The absolute worst I have ever been treated,” Thomas said. “The worst things that have been done to me, the worst things that have been said about me, by northern liberal elites, not by the people of Savannah, Georgia.”

It’s fascinating, really, when you think about how long we’ve gone on now – half a century? – with the  phony myth that persists about “liberal tolerance.”   Black conservatives, especially high profile conservatives like Justice Thomas, are routinely on the receiving end of some especially hateful rhetoric from leftists about how how they have “sold out” to the “white establishment”,  are “Uncle Toms”, “Oreos”, etc. And this despicable bigotry from so-called “open-minded” liberals doesn’t come from just the rank and file Joe and Jane Smiths out there.  Prominent academic and “philosopher” Dr. Cornel West, for example, is an important figure in left wing activist circles and he has been particularly vicious towards Thomas and other black conservatives for, in so many words, ‘not being black enough.’  He is not alone, by far.

While elements of racism and racial bigotry still unfortunately persist in many parts of our society decades since the 1964 CRA was passed, the way it has manifested itself into the higher echelons of Democrats and like-minded individuals in their philosophical circles is no less disgraceful and unacceptable than it is when it comes from the far right fringe.   The biggest differences, of course, are how they are viewed by the public: We rightly condemn it in its most obviously overt and classic forms when it comes from the far right but it is ignored when it comes in “lecture” form by elitist left wing types who are supposed to be our moral and societal “betters” on such matters.  This is why it’s so important that Justice Thomas and others in his position of power and influence continue to speak out about it.

And although we may never change the way free conservative thinkers like Thomas are treated by liberals and their allies in the mainstream and opinion press – because bursting that narrative wide open means Dems lose their stranglehold o the “minority” vote, sunlight is the best disinfectant and we need to continue to shine a bright light on stories like the one Justice Thomas shared.  As a famous civil rights leader once said so simply, paraphrasing from the Bible: “I still believe that freedom is the bonus you receive for telling the truth. Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”

Update – 11:20 AM: I’m sure the national press will be all over this reprehensible bile spewed by Alabama state legislator Rep. Alvin Holmes (D):


and


(Via Quin Hillyer)