The Politics Of Race And Deceit
by Big Dog on Mar 27, 2010 at 06:53 Political
This past weekend thousands of Americans descended on Capitol Hill to oppose the health care takeover. They were peaceful and conducted themselves properly. There were, however, accusations of racial and homophobic slurs directed at certain players in the health care game.
Several black members locked arms and walked to the Capitol. It appeared as if they were trying to give the impression that this was like the Civil Rights fight where blacks walked arm in arm through a sea of white people on the way to the promised land. That is a false impression and the people there were not there because of anything that had to do with race.
Several of the black members then claimed to have been spit upon and called the N word. As Andrew Breitbart points out, no video and audio evidence of this has been presented and no one in the area turned their heads in the direction of the alleged slurs. One would think that shouting the N word would get some reaction.
It would appear as if the situation was fabricated. What? Honest politicians (an oxymoron) telling lies about what was said. Yes. The Democrats will say, do and allege anything in order to marginalize the TEA Party movement and others opposed to the health care takeover. Until some type of real evidence appears, this is a fabricated story.
Breitbart is offering $10,000 for such evidence. Since some folks in the group of black politicians walking arm in arm were filming, the evidence should be readily available.
After the vote took place and Obama signed the bill into law, some lawmakers received voice mails and emails laced with profanity. Only a few were what could be classified as threats. Most were people cussing out their elected officials. Given the pass potty mouth Joe Biden was given, no one should get in trouble if their only “offense” was using bad language. Those who communicated threats should be dealt with appropriately.
The funny thing, which Evan Coyne Maloney points out, is that the Democrats were the ones using such methods and openly called for them. It was the left that organized a bus trip to the homes of AIG employees to harass and threaten them for receiving bonuses. It was Obama who claimed to be the only one between them and pitchforks.
In the past, it was Obama who told his followers to get in “their faces” and that if they brought a knife he would bring a gun.
The left has used intimidation and threats to get its way and Obama has led the way in this effort. It is the Chicago way and Obama is a thug politician from Chicago.
Now these poor Democrats are crying because they have been cussed out.
Make no mistake. This is all part of a plan to marginalize the people opposed to the radical agenda of the left. This is pure Saul Alinsky and it is designed to ensure the left can continue to run roughshod over the country.
So here is some advice to the left. Buck up and put on a cup. Grow a set and man up a bit. So some people cussed at you, big deal. So people are threatening to run you out of office on a rail, big deal. Unless you have a real threat then crawl back under your rocks because we do not want to hear you whine about your employers exercising their First Amendment rights.
Folks, it is time to take the fight to them. Ignore their whining and ignore their games. They are trying to marginalize the opposition and they are trying to provoke us to violence so they can come down hard on us.
Don’t let the junior Alinskys have their way.
Fight back and fight back hard. Work to get them out of office.
Make the bastards pay.
Oops, was that a threat? Screw them if it was.
Never surrender, never submit.
[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: breitbart, lies, Obama, pitchforks, race baiting, threats
But of course. Leftists can hardly say anything to (or about) conservatives without screaming RACIST!! at the top of their lungs. It’s a conditioned-in response, reinforced by decades of success at cowing us into silence.
However, things are changing. The use of the “racist, sexist, homophobic” triad is accelerating for several reasons, most important of which is that the facts of every recent controversy are against them. They must vilify us or fall silent — and they have to use their weapons of vilification while some potency remains to them.
It’s actually a harbinger of improvements to come, as long as we don’t allow them to intimidate us into silence again. Their “logical” arguments are uniformly foolish and counterfactual. Their claim to the moral high ground exploded long ago. Nor can they claim superior understanding of American socio-economic-dynamics, with such a record of failure trailing behind them.
Be not afraid.
FRAN: “The use of the “racist, sexist, homophobic” triad is accelerating… the facts of every recent controversy are against them.”>>
DAR
Francis likes to make assertions but he doesn’t like to even try to back anything up. I think it’s a bad habit he developed while hanging around in carefully controlled, censoring, circle jerk environments. Too bad.
If indeed the “facts of every recent controversy are against them,” (and thus for him) you would think he might have the testes to treat us to a single, shiny, example.
D.
Gee, hamster-dick, you’re funny. Try these Leftist positions on for size:
“We can tax and spend our way back to prosperity.”
“The way to restore the housing market is to give sub-prime mortgages to people who have no assets and no credit.”
“Being nice to people who want to kill us and say so openly is the way to get them to like us.”
“A majority of Americans want this health-care bill” — at a time when it was unavailable and not even the legislators who were supposed to approve it knew what was in it.
The above are all capsule summaries of Democrat / Leftist / Socialist positions taken in the past few years, hamster-dick. Find me a success in the mix.
Oh, in case you’re wondering, you’ll remain “hamster-dick” to me until you work up the courage to sign your libels by your full public name. I doubt you have the cojones for that.
FRAN: “Try these [insults] on for size:”>>
DAR
Poor Francis, he mistakes his strawmen for arguments. He doesn’t even know how to begin.
FRAN: “The above are all capsule summaries of Democrat / Leftist / Socialist positions”>>
DAR
No, they are unreferenced strawman caricatures you pulled from your bum.
FRAN: “work up the courage to sign your libels by your full public name”>>
DAR
I have already provided Francis, upon request, with my full name on this forum, in private email and on his forum. Apparently in addition to his problems with defending his positions and tolerating informed dissent, he is also senile.
D.
These assertions are so self evident that you would have to be either a progressive, or a complete brain-dead moron, (same thing) to not see it- but then Darrel, you have been both for quite awhile, so there is no hope for you- sorry.
BLK: “These assertions are so self evident…”>>
DAR
Ah yes, when you can’t make your case with references and evidence (truth is in the details) just say it’s “self evident.” Then run.
D.
Good thing no one ever did that at an important time in history:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. [emphasis mine]
Bigd: “Good thing no one ever did that at an important time in history:”>>
DAR
Why is that a “good thing?” It’s always better to provide good evidence for believing something. Those fellows were making metaphysical morals claim for they couldn’t provide straightforward evidence. This differs entirely from the claim Porretto made, and I asked him to back up.
Bigd: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,…”>>
DAR
Excellent example. A statement made by men who at the same time owned slaves which flatly contradicts their claim.
Actions speak louder than words, talk is cheap.
D.
—————-
Porretto likes to link to his website and encourage people to visit but don’t try to post a comment that isn’t completely adoring. He’ll censor it. This is because he is a coward.
And taken in context it meant everything. Unfortunately, slaves were not considered men. We have to look at these things in the context of their time.
They were opposed to slavery and the smartest thing they did was make slaves a fraction of a person to prevent the south from having to much representation in Congress. Then we were able to eventually abolish the horrible practice. But let us not forget that history of mankind is full of stories of people enslaved.
Not all of them owned slaves, many freed the slaves they had and nearly all of them were opposed to slavery. Some prominent Democrats were flaming racists like Woodrow Wilson who allowed racism and segregation within the federal government.
Unfortunately, the negro was not considered a man but a savage and the people of the time owned them (bought from other blacks in Africa no less). It is not right but you like to discuss us and our peer nations. Those peers had slaves. The practice was phasing out and we likely could have done so peacefull and not as the result of a Civil War that started over issues that did not involve slavery and some that were indirectly involved with it.
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 3/27/2010, at The Unreligious Right
“Now these poor Democrats are crying because they have been cussed out.”
You’re kidding right? You’re actually going to write off the violence and threats against the Democrats as simply them getting cussed out? Where the hell have you been lately?
There have been five instances of bricks or rocks thrown through windows of campaign buildings or offices. There has been one intentionally damaged gas grill at the home of the brother of a Rep. who’s address was posted online encouraging readers to “drop by”.
Rep. Slaughter (D-NY) was threatened with “snipers” that would “kill the children of the members who voted yes.”
Rep. Weiner (D-NY) had a package of white powder mailed to his office and a note telling him to “drop dead.”
Rep. Mitchell’s (D-AZ) family has been threatened by phone calls telling Mitchell to “watch his back” and one called for a bomber to blow up his Scottsdale office.
Rep. Snyder (D-AR) was sent a note that said, “Militia central has selected you for assassination. If we cannot stalk and find you in Washington, D.C., we will get you in Little Rock.”
Rep. Driehaus (D-OH) had his address published online and received death threats at his office.
But clearly…clearly this is just blown out of proportion, right? Right.
How about you read the part that says: Most were people cussing out their elected officials. Those who communicated threats should be dealt with appropriately. as for your examples .. these people need to be addressed for the threats they made.
I am pretty sure, let me check, yep that I wrote:
Those who communicated threats should be dealt with appropriately.
I fail to see how this is ignoring them.
But it is also true that we do not know who is doing this but that they have been labeled as the right wing. I remind you that you all have jumped to conclusions about this kind of stuff in the past only to find out it was people from your side. The issues were then ignored by the MSM.
I think it would be wise to differentiate between making a real threat and cussing someone out and then finding those making the threats. Once we know who they are we can point fingers.
I have no doubt some comes from the left and the plan is to marginalize opposition.
This is Obama Chicago thuggery and Alinsky at its best.
Not buying it.
And keep in mind, people are threatened all the time. It is not usually made public as a political ploy. Law Enforcement works behind the scenes to find the people doing it.
So this is where the hell I have been lately. I acknowledged the threats, said that those who made them should be dealt with appropriately and that we should not bother with those who merely cussed someone out.
We should also determine who is doing it before you all point fingers.
Or do you reserve that only for Muslims involved in terror?
“I acknowledged the threats, said that those who made them should be dealt with appropriately and …”
And you spent the rest of the post saying it was all just a bunch of cussing and trumped up Alinsky tactics. That’s acknowledgment, alright…
Yet, what is your response when you do acknowledge some threats? You said we Democrats brought this on ourselves. Right. The GOP always finds a way to blame the victims somehow…
But maybe you have a point? What did the Democrats expect would happen when the vast majority of half the country opposes the legislation the Democrats campaigned for office on passing? Did the Donks think that the opposition would merely mount strong campaigns against them in 2010 and try to repeal the changes in the future? HELL NO! They should have expected violence and assault. They’re just too dense to see it…
“We should also determine who is doing it before you all point fingers.”
I haven’t pointed blame at one specific person or movement but it’s clearly opposition to healhcare which given the huge amount of support for the legislation coming from your side we’re really left with few clues as to who might be carrying out such violence.
“I have no doubt some comes from the left and the plan is to marginalize opposition.”
No doubt and no facts to back it up. That’s an all too common combination for you lately. But why should be able to prove something before you say it? Free speech!
I have as much proof it is some from the left as you do that it is opponents of health care. Maybe it is the part of the left upset there is no public option. Maybe it is the Soros crowd trying to disparage an entire group.
Yes, you broad brushed it to the TEA Party and right wingers.
You have no proof and you ignored it when your leader did it.
I did not say they brought it on themselves. I say that you guys started the violence and threats, led by Obama, and now are finally getting around to condemning such acts.
However, you are condemning a group of people who might not have anything to do with it.
You guys always claim that the right broad brushes all Muslims with terrorists but then you broad brush all of the right with the threats of a few even though you have no idea which side made them.
“I have as much proof it is some from the left as you do that it is opponents of health care.”
That’s a silly thing to say. Let me present:
1. Brick through window at Sedgwick County Democratic HQ. Note said “No to Obama” and “No Obamycare.”
2. Rep. Louise M. Slaughter threatened by “snipers” who “kill the children of the members who voted yes.”
3. Rep. Vic Snyder threatened with letter reading, “It is apparent that it will take a few assassinations to stop Obamacare. Militia central has selected you for assassination.”
Now let’s see your evidence this is liberals carrying out the violence to “marginalize opposition.”
“However, you are condemning a group of people who might not have anything to do with it.”
I am condemning the radical opponents of health care reform that are clearly doing this. Unless you have evidence to suggest any one of the items I list above are faked by liberals and are not opponents of reform then I’d say you have nothing to go on.
“…you broad brush all of the right with the threats of a few even though you have no idea which side made them.”
We know this is opposition to health care reform. The left overwhelmingly supports health care reform. Clearly, to you that means it might be liberals doing it?
“You guys always claim that the right broad brushes all Muslims with terrorists…”
Because you do.
But did the left do this to marginalize opposition? Look at Colorado…
You’ll have to go into detail on Colorado. It doesn’t ring a bell yet.
I knew that opponents of health care reform would respond like small children once the bill finally passed but I didn’t expect so many of the temper tantrums to include death threats or petty vandalism. It’s a shame really that you’re putting so much energy into arguing that we have no proof it’s not liberals just doing it to quote “marginalize opposition.”
I have this other theory I’ve been working on. I think it was all done by bitter Amish people who are breaking windows, writing nasty letters, and stealing pre-paid cell phones in order call and threaten Democrats all over the country. My theory is about as based in verifiable information as your theory is so I say it could be true.
Progressives represent the future, Tea Party represents the past:
“A Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday took a look at the Tea Party members and found them to be just as anachronistic to the direction of the country’s demographics as the Republican Party. For instance, they were disproportionately white, evangelical Christian and “less educated … than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack.” This at a time when the country is becoming more diverse (some demographers believe that 2010 could be the first year that most children born in the country will be nonwhite), less doctrinally dogmatic, and college enrollment is through the roof. The Tea Party, my friends, is not the future.
You may want “your country back,” but you can’t have it. That sound you hear is the relentless, irrepressible march of change. Welcome to America: The Remix.”
NY Times.
I am pretty sure the Amish are exempt from the plan.
Colorado, the window of a Dem office is smashed. The MSM and liberal bloggers go after the right for the violence.
Turns out it was a liberal who did it.
There has yet to be proof of who is doing it (the current things). The left is manufacturing another “crisis”.
Technically Darrel, we will all be senile and not necessarily lose our cognitive abilities.
So he could be senile and not out of his mind…