Showing posts with label Liberal Racialists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Racialists. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Proud To Be a Democrat



Friday, July 01, 2016

Too many Bronzed Whit Guys



DEM RACISTS/RACIALISTS                                





Interior Secretary: More Diversity Needed In
National Monuments – ‘Bronze White Guy’ Too Prevalent



“If you drive around Washington, D.C., in every circle and every square you generally see a bronze white guy – sometimes on a horse, sometimes not - you have to work really hard – like in front of the Indian embassy you’ll find Mahatma Gandhi,” Jewell said. [Full]

Must I explain it to Ms. Jewell?
Of course not.
Waste of time.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Fury over a fury

And this is racist why?  Knee jerks are the new news

Saturday, May 14, 2016

Baltimore Trash

Liberal Racism                          

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie "Death Glare"Rawlings-Blake






In news that we can only assume will have Mississippi and North Carolina jumping for joy, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie "Death Glare" Rawlings-Blake (the worst Mayor ever) has declared that she won't authorize the travel of city officials to states which don't allow people wearing shoe-mirrors to flip a coin as their preferred method of deciding which bathroom to use.

Rawlings-Blake is, of course, most famous for her asinine policy decision to pull back police in order to give "space" to rioters and arsonists in Baltimore "who wish to destroy." Which workedgreat, by the way, assuming that you find smoldering rubble to be a tourist attraction.

Apparently, restrooms are the next sacrificial "space" that this bitter, self-important idiot wants to give away to placate those who "wish to destroy" - in this case, the innocence and privacy of others. [Full HOPE&CHANGE] (via skoonj)
*SPIT*
Here's the antidote, but alas ....

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Is America Racist?



Tuesday, January 06, 2015

The DC Bob

Liberal Racialism                         






Black Power
A Done Deal



[Black Power  ...]

It is curious that blacks,
the least educated thirteen percent of the population, the least productive, most criminal, and most dependent on governmental charity, should dominate national politics. Yet they do. Virtually everything revolves around what blacks want, demand, do, or can’t do. Their power seems without limit.

Courses of instruction in the schools, academic rigor, codes of dress, rules regarding unceasing obscenity, all must be set to suit them, as must be examinations for promotion in fire departments, the military, and police forces. Blacks must be admitted to universities for which they are not remotely qualified, where departments of Black Studies must be established to please them. Corporate work forces, federal departments, and elite high-schools must be judged not on whether they perform their functions but on whether they have the right number of blacks.
So extreme is the power to control speech and even thought that politicians have to avoid mentioning watermelons, that neighborhoods of high crime must delicately be called “sketchy” instead of “black,” though all understand what is meant.

Do laws requiring identification to vote threaten to end multiple voting? The laws must go. Do blacks not like Confederate flags? Adieu, flags. Does Huckleberry Finn go down the Mississippi with the Nigger Jim, or Conrad write The Nigger of the Narcissus? These must be banned or expurgated to please blacks who haven’t read them or, usually, heard of them. Do we want to prevent people coming from regions infested with Ebola from entering the United States? We cannot. It would offend blacks.

We must never, ever say or do anything that might upset them, as virtually  everything does. It is positively astonishing. One expects the rich and smart to have disproportionate power. But America is dominated from the slums.

One might think that a single set of laws should apply to all citizens, and that things should be done without regard to race, creed, color, sex, or national origin, and that all should have the same rights and responsibilities. It is not so.

Blacks now control the presidency and thus, most importantly, the Attorney Generalship. In this the staggering political power of blacks is most evident. Obama was elected because he was black: an equally unqualified and negligible white pol would have had no chance. He is now fiercely pushing the most profound transformation of America ever attempted, by opening the floodgates to immigration from the south. To effect this end he apparently will simply ignore Congress. The people will not be consulted.
The dominance of the media by blacks is impressive. If a white shoots a black to defend himself, it becomes national news for weeks, or months, and riots follow, but when blacks engage in their unending racial attacks on whites, the media demurely look the other way. The attackers are never black. They are “teens.” Reporters who say otherwise are likely to be fired. In effect, the thirteen percent censor the national press.

Much of their mastery has become so deeply engrained as no longer to be noticed. There is the DC Bob. In the bars and restaurants of Washington, a man weary of an incompetent affirmative-action hire in his office will, before commenting to a friend, lean forward, lower his voice, and look furtively over both shoulders to see whether anyone might overhear: The DC Bob. People don’t even know that they are doing this.

Defensive behavior by whites has become nearly universal. A sort of Masonic recognition-ritual occurs among white people recently introduced in social gatherings. Is the other person, for want of better terms, a liberal or a realist? Dare one speak?  One of them will say something mildly skeptical about, say, Jesse Jackson. The other rolls his eyes in shared disgust. The secret handshake.  Or, if the listener is politically correct, the bait is not taken. In either case, blacks dominate political conversation.

So extreme is the power to control speech and even thought that politicians have to avoid mentioning watermelons, that neighborhoods of high crime must delicately be called “sketchy” instead of “black,” though all understand what is meant.

The avoidance of racial reference is not an even-handed if despotic attempt to oppose racism since, as we all know, blacks freely apply any derogatory wording they choose to whites. In short, they rule. Which is amazing.

The dominance extends to children. When in junior high one of my daughters brought home a science handout with common chemical terms badly misspelled. “Is your teacher black?” I said without thinking. “Daaaaaaady!” she said in anguish, having made the connection but knowing that she shouldn’t have. Blacks control what you can say to your own children in your own home. And of course if I had gone to the school and demanded that the teacher be fired, it would have been evidence of my depravity and probable KKK membership.   [Read it all]


I found this Fred on Everything link at Gerard's. Unfortunately I was having the poorlies and wasn't of a mind to do other than bookmark it. This is just a great analysis.  Great.  Earlier, Ron Metzger sent me Confessions of a Public Defender, that I decided not to post.  Not that I thought it was a racist slur, but because Michael Smith was sharing drawn conclusions from his own experiences; e.g.

"Still liberal after all these years.

I am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 per cent of my clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are a few whites.

I have no explanation for why this is, but crime has racial patterns. Hispanics usually commit two kinds of crime: sexual assault on children and driving under the influence. Blacks commit many violent crimes but very few sex crimes. The handful of whites I see commit all kinds of crimes. In my many years as a public defender I have represented only three Asians, and one was half black.

As a young lawyer, I believed the official story that blacks are law abiding, intelligent, family-oriented people, but are so poor they must turn to crime to survive. Actual black behavior was a shock to me. ..."

What Fred Reed has done here is what maybe only he can do. He has concerns for the well being of this nation, and is able to speak plainly, cogently, and on point without sounding like a crusader.  His citations ring verifiably true, but lack any hint of personal animus.  I would love to see someone leftward debate him on the merits of this paper. 

Sunday, November 30, 2014

Gets Robbed by Michael Brown ...



Liberal Plantation News
                                                           







Monday, November 17, 2014

Ross meets Moe and Curly; hillariy ensues







                                                                                       
Ross, Moe, and Curly
who doesn't belong here?



Here's a clip from Ross Douthat's "The Great Immigration Betrayal" from Sunday's New York Times:
IN the months since President Obama first seem poised — as he now seems poised again — to issue a sweeping executive amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, we’ve learned two important things about how this administration approaches its constitutional obligations.

First, we now have a clear sense of the legal arguments that will be used to justify the kind of move Obama himself previously described as a betrayal of our political order. They are, as expected, lawyerly in the worst sense, persuasive only if abstracted from any sense of precedent or proportion or political normality.

This is where the administration has entered extraordinarily brazen territory, since part of its original case for taking these steps was that they supposedly serve the public will, which only yahoos and congressional Republicans oppose.

This argument was specious before; now it looks ridiculous .... there is no public will at work here. There is only the will to power of this White House.
Second, we now have a clearer sense of just how anti-democratically this president may be willing to proceed.
The legal issues first. The White House’s case is straightforward: It has “prosecutorial discretion” in which illegal immigrants it deports, it has precedent-grounded power to protect particular groups from deportation, and it has statutory authority to grant work permits to those protected. Therefore, there can be no legal bar to applying discretion, granting protections and issuing work permits to roughly half the illegal-immigrant population.

This argument’s logic, at once consistent and deliberately obtuse, raises one obvious question: Why stop at half? (Activists are already asking.) After all, under this theory of what counts as faithfully executing the law, all that matters is that somebody, somewhere, is being deported; anyone and everyone else can be allowed to work and stay. So the president could “temporarily” legalize 99.9 percent of illegal immigrants and direct the Border Patrol to hand out work visas to every subsequent border crosser, so long as a few thousand aliens were deported for felonies every year.

The reality is there is no agreed-upon limit to the scope of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law because no president has attempted anything remotely like what Obama is contemplating. In past cases, presidents used the powers he’s invoking to grant work permits to modest, clearly defined populations facing some obvious impediment (war, persecution, natural disaster) to returning home. None of those moves even approached this plan’s scale, none attempted to transform a major public policy debate, and none were deployed as blackmail against a Congress unwilling to work the president’s will. (continued)


Here's the lede from Thomas "Moe" Friedman's "Who Are We?"

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — THE 9/11 suicide attack, spearheaded by 19, mostly Saudi, young men in the name of Islam, ignited a debate in the Sunni Arab world about religion and how their societies could have produced such suicidal fanatics. But it was quickly choked off by denial, and by America’s failed invasion of Iraq. (Huh?)


Here's the lede from Nicholas "Curly" Kristof's When Whites Just Don’t Get It, Part 3

SOME white Americans may be surprised to hear Archbishop Desmond Tutu describe Bryan Stevenson, an African-American lawyer fighting for racial justice, as “America’s young Nelson Mandela.”

Huh? Why do we need a Mandela over here? We’ve made so much progress on race over 50 years! And who is this guy Stevenson, anyway?

Yet Archbishop Tutu is right. Even after remarkable gains in civil rights, including the election of a black president, the United States remains a profoundly unequal society — and nowhere is justice more elusive than in our justice system.

Must I explain anything?  I didn't think so. You're wel ... Whats that? Yes, Ross Douthat is the lone conservative. Is that it...  Jack from Anchorage, what's your question? ...  Okay; I can't begin  to explain Friedman's "America’s failed invasion of Iraq." Nobody can.  Anyone else? Yes, you, in the back.  Explain Kristof's blanket charge of white racism?  Who let you in?  Read this; then  write a 500 word synopsis.  And ditch the CHE tee-shirt.  Sheesh.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Baa-Baa BAH!

Liberal Racialists                                  



“Politically-correct liberals who see racism in everything -- including peanut butter and jelly sandwiches -- may celebrate the change. But, the Herald Sun added, many others called it "political correctness gone mad." “What ignorance," one reader told the Herald Sun. "The rhyme has nothing to do with race.”