How Black Republicans Feel About What Reid Said
Jan 11, 2010 Political
From Frances Rice, NBRA:
Wielding a sharp racial sword, Democrats ruthlessly destroy the careers of Republicans on racial matters, accepting no apologies. Yet, using a glaring double standard, those same Democrats quickly give a pass to any Democrat, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who again displayed egregious racism.
Hardly a ripple of protest was made in 2004 when Reid shamelessly slurred Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as an incompetent Negro who could not write good English. “Slap at Thomas stinks of racism,” was the headline of the New York Daily News’ December 7, 2004 editorial.
Now, Reid has described then-Senator Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” With this racial slur, Reid denigrates not only Obama, but also the entire population of black Americans as being uneducated Negroes who cannot speak standard English, the same type of disgusting remark he made over five years ago about Justice Thomas, a graduate of Yale Law School. A tribute to Justice Thomas [link in original] that includes details about his stellar career is posted on the NBRA website. Read the rest
It strikes me that Al Sharpton said Reid’s comments disturbed him but that it was not the same as what Lott said. Lott was praising a 100 year old man and he made the comment that if Thurmond had been elected in 1948 we would not have these problems. It is only speculation as to what Lott meant but he apologized all over for offending people. Though Diane Feinstein says no Democrats jumped up and down about it she was actually one of those who did as did Barack Obama. How is it that Reid’s apology allows him a pass and Lott’s did not?
I remember Barack Obama saying that he could not be accountable for his association with a man who did despicable things when he (Barack) was only 8 years old. When Strom Thurmond ran for the presidency in 1948 Lott was 7 years old.
How can we hold him accountable for what he said about a guy who ran for president under segregation when Lott was only 7 unless we can now believe that Obama is guilty by association with Ayers?
What Lott said was wrong depending on what he meant. He never explained that. What Reid said was wrong unless he can tell us not what he meant, that has been explained, but whether he also holds those beliefs. If this had been Reid’s only foray into the world of racism then it might be excused but, as the NBRA piece points out, Reid made a racist remark about Justice Thomas.
The other thing that people miss in this is the implication of what Reid said and that is that Obama is attractive because he is not your typical black guy (before you lefties call that racist remember you gave Obama a pass on the typical white person remark).
The explanation is that Reid was saying that Obama was attractive to Americans because he is light skinned and does not speak negro. Does this not mean he believes that the racists in America will not vote for a dark skinned person who speaks negro, whatever that is.
Americans will vote for a person who can lead regardless of color (and as has been shown with Obama and Carter, they will vote for someone who can’t lead regardless of color). And since the left bashed Bush daily about his manner of speech we have to assume that speech is not a big issue with regard to getting elected.
I wish Reid were held to the same standards as a Republican but that is never going to happen as long as liberals continue to excuse racism from the left. So, since he will not be forced to step down, it will be just as much fun watching this brain damaged moron bumble his way through life and it will be even more fun watching him be removed by the voters.
Barack Obama said it would be up to Republicans to drive Lott out. They did but as Obama showed by accepting Reid’s apology, he does not hold Democrats to the same standard.
Maybe when it is all said and done Obama can have a beer summit with Reid and invite Robert Byrd to explain racism and the history of the Democrat organization known as the KKK.
Might be a bit much to ask since Reid and Byrd might expect Obama to serve the beer. After all, a few years ago he would have been getting Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy coffee…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Al Sharpton, frances rice, nbra, Obama, racism, Reid, trent lott
A couple Of Stories About Race And Cowards
Feb 20, 2009 Political
There are a few issues about race today and they involve a chimpanzee and an Attorney General who can best be described as an ass.
The first story is about a political cartoon that uses the horrible incident of the 200 pound chimp that attacked a woman. The police had to shoot the animal to put it out of the woman’s misery. The cartoon has a dead chimp with a few bullet holes in him and two cops stating that “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.” Of course this was immediately pounced on as racist. How dare this cartoonist call Obama a chimp. Why, that’s racist.
First of all Obama did not write the bill, Pelosi did. So if anyone was being called a chimp it was she. However, I don’t even think it was directed at any particular person. I think the chimp represented those who spent our money ridiculously. It was if the cartoonist said that the bill was so bad some non human primate must have written it.
Al Sharpton, the race baiter who was defanged when a black man became president, found a reason to protest. Honest to God this guy and his group of people are no different than the Muslims who protest over cartoons of their child molesting prophet. Sharpton stated that blacks had been equated to chimps and that this was a racist attack. Screw you Al.
At his first press conference, Obama stated:
And let me give you a prime example — when it comes to how we approach the issue of fiscal responsibility. Again, it’s a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they presided over a doubling of the national debt. I’m not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility. NPR [emphasis mine]
For the last eight years the left has called George Bush a chimp. There are websites dedicated to this very thing. He was chimpy McBush, chimpy, and a number of other combinations of Bush and Chimp. There were even pictures of his face on a chimp’s body. I never heard the left go nuts over this and Al Sharpton did not protest this attack on the president.
So, to paraphrase Obama, It’s a little hard for me to take criticism from folks who called George Bush a chimp for the last eight years. I’m not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to the chimp issue.
Call Obama what you want. Chimp is as good as anything else and it does not matter what you say because if someone does not like it then it will be labeled racist. So have fun because they will say it anyway.
For the record, I think he looks like Curious George.
The second issue involves the half baked, liberal twit of a gun grabber and terrorist appeaser, Eric Holder. Holder gave a little speech and he was discussing race in America. Holder discussed race and said that while we were integrated at work, during our off time we segregated into our groups and that no one wants to talk about race in America. He called us a bunch of cowards. While I don’t accept the statement that we do not discuss race I certainly could not blame people for avoiding the subject. Each time someone breaks wind around a black person he is labeled a racist and protested by Al Sharpton. See above story for what over reaction and race baiting is all about.
Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial, we have always been, and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, a nation of cowards,” Holder said in remarks to his staff in honor of Black History Month. His comments appear on a transcript provided by the Justice Department.
Even as we fight a war against terrorism; deal with the reality of electing an African-American, for the first time, as the president of the United States; and deal with other significant issues of the day, the need to confront our racial past and to understand our racial present, and to understand the history of African people in this country — that all endures,” the attorney general added. Commentary Magazine
Yes Eric, we tend to hang with people who are like us. We are tribal and it is human nature to hang in groups of people who are like us. However, if he wants to discuss the idea that we segregate then let us look at the culprits. The black community is the most segregated community and other ethnic groups are not far behind. And they do this on purpose by setting up segregated organizations. After all, what are the NAACP, the UNCF, and the Congressional Black Caucus? They are nothing more than groups of blacks who segregate themselves. The real difference is that they do it at work as well as during their down time.
We certainly talk enough about race. NRO has a list of discussions that have taken place. I am not sure where Holder gets his information but he is definitely looking at different sheet music than I am.
I take great issue with the assertion of being cowards. First of all, since we talk about race his argument is negated. Second of all, it is not cowardly to associate, on one’s own time, with people that are alike. I have plenty of black friends but my bigger social circle is white. Most of the blacks I know have a larger social circle that is mostly black people. This is human nature. We tend to have tribes that are filled with people who are like us. However, Holder seems to ignore the fact that we belong to outside organizations and they are generally diverse. The Gathering of Eagles has members of all colors and when we get together our tribe consist of veterans. That, not color, is the main focus. People hang with those like them. Color is not the only thing with which tribes identify.
The American Civil War was a war about state’s rights and one of the issues was slavery. I might be wrong here but it seems to me that about 600,000 people died during that war having a pretty heated discussion about many topics, one of which dealt with race.
I doubt any sane person would call them cowards.
I think Holder is way off base here. How dare this metrosexual puke call Americans cowards. For generations Americans have shown great bravery and have overcome tremendous odds. We have dealt with race and many other subjects with bravery and for this puke to suggest otherwise is a slap to greater men than he.
Yes, his subject was race but his assertions only alluded to race as being what we were cowards about. Even if he meant only wih regard to race, he is wrong.
This thumb sucking bed wetter needs to concern himself with the laws of the land and leave the talk of race to others.
This is the guy who is afraid of guns so perhaps this talk of cowardice is nothing more than projection about himself…
Twit.
And will someone tell him the Grecian Formula is for his head and not just for his mustache?
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Al Sharpton, chimpanzee, cowards, eric holder, race, race baiting, race relations, segregation
Burn a Flag, Get Extra Credit
Nov 3, 2007 General
A University of Maine student has dropped a course and filed a complaint because the professor offered extra credit for students who burned an American Flag or the US Constitution (a copy, of course). Rebekah McDade said she has a strong family background of military service and stated the Flag and Constitution are important symbols to her. She decided to drop the class and take it next semester with a different professor. The Professor, Paul Grosswiler, said that he never intended for students to actually burn anything and that hundreds of past students understood that this was designed to spark debate about free speech. This is like Al Sharpton threatening violence and then claiming he never actually meant for people to be violent when one of his supporters kills someone.
I would not have dropped the class because it would have been too much fun to harass this professor for the entire semester. Imagine how he would react to me referring to him as an idiot or as a liberal twit, all under the guise of free speech. Now I would never burn a Flag or the Constitution (though Congress figuratively burns the Constitution when it passes bills not authorized by the document) but I would participate in the extra credit exercise. I would get to class early and hang a noose up front. Then when the class and Grosswiler arrived and started the wheels of the hate crime machine turning I would say that the noose was mine and that I wanted my extra credit.
You see, Grosswiler has defended his position by claiming that refers to provocative examples to demonstrate the courage necessary to support free expression. He stated that “If they don’t tolerate thought that they hate, they don’t believe in the First Amendment.” I would be there to test the limits of how much he would tolerate. I might wear a swastika or Abortion is Murder shirt or perhaps one that reads “Their symbol is a Jackass, any questions?” just to see if he would be as accepting as he expects others to be.
A spokesman for the University said that Grosswiler’s classroom statements were not meant to be taken seriously and that no one would get extra credit for burning the items in question. So how much of the professor’s classroom comments are not to be taken seriously? Should they just ignore him or are they supposed to decipher when he is serious and when he is not?
All of this is pretty basic liberal double speak. The liberal professor gets taken to task for his words so he decides to say he never really meant it. That did not work for Imus nor has it worked for any conservative who has been accused of the wrong kind of free speech.
I just wonder why this professor felt it necessary to duck the issue. If he truly believes what he says why not exercise his free speech and say so?
Perhaps it is because he knows that words, protected or not, have consequences. Or maybe he lacks the spine to actually defend his position. In any event, this guy is what is wrong with the American educational system.
Source:
Bangor Daily News
Big Dog Salute to:
Liberty Pundit
Stop the ACLU
Tags: Al Sharpton, american flag, free expression, hate crime, noose, strong family, swastika, university of maine, us constitution
Whoopi, Sharpton is Back in the News…
Oct 10, 2007 Uncategorized
I don’t usually agree with Whoopi Goldberg because her views run counter to mine. She usually takes the wrong position on issues (she would think the same of me) and I find it difficult to listen to her most times. I think she is a talented actress and has done some good work but her antics with regard to our elected leaders has overshadowed her talent.
Having said that, I agree with what she said on the daily gab fest known as The View. She was discussing Al Sharpton and his demand that Isiah Thomas apologize to the woman that Thomas was recently found guilty of sexually harassing. Sharpton gave Thomas until Friday to apologize of the master race baiter will be out with his minions protesting. I find it interesting that Sharpton is taking a black man to task but that is beside the point here. It is none of Sharpton’s business. This was a matter between Thomas and the woman and the court that decided the issue. Sharpton has no say in the matter and should keep his mouth shut.
Goldberg, to her credit, discussed this and then said that Sharpton needed to apologize to the Duke lacrosse players. Goldberg indicated that she would take up the sign of protest once Sharpton made things right with the Duke players. She should not hold her breath because Sharpton has a history of running his mouth, accusing people, and inciting riots and then walking away as if he did something good. Sharpton is responsible for the deaths of people (coincidentally, all eight were Jewish) and he has never apologized. He refused to apologize to the guy who caught up in his support of Tawana Brawley and her admitted lies about being raped. The court ruled against him in the lawsuit and he paid the man a settlement decided by the court but he refused to apologize.
Sharpton never went to Duke but he was interviewed about the case and he made it clear that the woman deserved justice. He made it clear that the prosecutor must have a good case or he would not prosecute it. Sharpton did not presume innocence, he took the side of the woman even though there were gaping holes in her story. This transcript of his conversation with Bill O’Reilly makes it clear.
Al Sharpton sent Whoopi a letter stating that he owed no apology because he did not go to Duke and he took no position in the case. This is refuted by his interview with O’Reilly where Sharpton says he is on touch with the local NAACP and that they are advising people what happened. Sharpton says that we do not know what other evidence there is so we should wait before we try to discredit her. He dismissed the evidence that showed the boys could not have done it (DNA) and said we should proceed and let the court do its thing. We are supposed to discredit witnesses if they are lying so that cases get dropped quickly and lives do not get ruined.
Sharpton also indicated that he had apologized already. He told Whoopi he did not take a position and that there was no need to apologize and yet, he got all over Chris Wallace for asking if he would apologize and he told Wallace that he already had on his radio show. He either lied or wanted to make people think he apologized but his admission that he did leads me to believe he thought it necessary at the time.
Now it is not? Why did he not say that he had already apologized like he did to Wallace?
Once again, this guy is a waste of flesh and oxygen and he needs to keep his nose out of other people’s business. It is amazing to me that someone has not popped him by now. God knows if he can incite people to kill for him he can anger some to go against him.
UPDATE: I read this in the comments at Breitbart (linked above):
Duke Case (black victim, white defendants):
“We have to assume the DA knows what he’s doing.â€
Jena 6 Case (white victim, black defendants):
The DA is a racist.
Hmmmmm………
That is all we need to read…
Tags: Al Sharpton, Commentary, Duke, race, Whoopi