Archive for the ·


· Category...

Clinton and Obama’s Race Pandering

1 comment

It was entertaining to read and listen to the speeches given by Hillary Clinton and H. Barack Obama in Selma on the anniversary of “Bloody Sunday.” Obama toned down his usual “articulate” self in his speech. One has to wonder if he every pronounces “before” as “befo” when he isn’t trying to make himself sound like a “real black person.” Clinton, who typically eschews talk of religion, and whose mid-west accent is very prominent, turned on her black evangelist tone when addressing the crowd. Being the wife of “America’s First Black President” must give her some credit on its own, but she had to go and make herself sound like an illiterate former slave when she quoted hymns and paraphrased biblical quotes in yet another attempt to fool America into thinking she’s something she is not.
Offensive? Yes. Yes she is.
It is amusing, though, to watch the white yankee woman and the black man that many in the African-American community think isn’t white enough, trying to battle for what they see as the rightful heir in the next big election to the black legacy. Neither of them is qualified for this heir-esy, and yet they think they can just show up and paint on the blackface and fool the community into accepting them as their own.
It’s also quite funny to see how they push government as the solution to race problems in America. It was government, in the hands of white Democrats, that prevented blacks from voting. It was white Democrats that formed the Ku Klux Klan and lynched black men, burned black towns, and terrorized black communities. It was a white Democrat that blocked the schoolhouse door against integration. White Democrats fought to keep slavery. White Democrats fought to keep blacks on the back of the bus. It was even a white Democrat that stole Obama’s chances of ever being the first “black president” in America.
Oh yeah, it’s offensive.
Today’s white Democrats fight to keep blacks in America’s failed public school systems. It’s white Democrats who fight attempts to better our education system, saying it will have negative impacts on “minority students” (black students are, in their eyes, incapable of keeping up with higher standards) It’s white Democrats that fight any attempt to reduce the role of welfare in America. White Democrats fight for racial quotas.
Based on their policies, you’d have to conclude that white Democrats think that blacks in America are too stupid for a better education system, too incompetent to get a good job, and too useless to take care of themselves.
Oh yeah. It’s very much offensive.
There they are, though, down in Selma. They’re down there trying to fool the black community into more of their horrible policies. These are policies designed to hold back, dehumanize, and keep black America in it’s place.
The answer for black America is the same as it is for the rest of America. Work hard. Save your money. Get a good education (and take your kids out of public school). Look to those who do these things as your heroes, no matter their race, creed, religion, or sex.
And, above all, throw the Democrat bums out.

Racism Pays Off for Democrats Again


It hasn’t been hard to notice that the Democrats have been pushing hard against the Dubai Ports deal. Now that they think it can be used as a hammer against President Bush, the Democrats have begun arguing that the UAE cannot be trusted to own a company that runs part of our country’s import/export infrastructure. Apparently, they noticed that the UAE is a middle-eastern country full of arabs and muslims, and have reached another point where it is politically advantageous to play racism for votes.
This may be a great move for the Democrats. They have seen some of their best support when they’ve used racism as the basis for their policies. They have a long history of success in this area.
In the pre-Civil War days, the Democrats fought long and hard to ensure that blacks in this country did not receive recognition as full citizens, or indeed as full human beings. They and the Whigs were united in one regard. They both believed that slavery was an institution worth saving, and that black people should be kept in their place. That place was on the plantation. It wasn’t until the rise of the Republican Party that real opposition to slavery began to take hold. The Republicans knew that the abolition of slavery would hurt them politically, primarily in the Southern states. Abolition turned the South into a major Democrat stronghold for decades, where laws continued to be passed by Democrats to limit the ability of blacks to take part in society as equals.
Over the next few decades, Democrats spent a lot of effort on keeping blacks in their places. This meant a multitude of laws requiring that they be restricted from eating near white people, using white-only bathrooms, drink from white-only water fountains, riding in the front of the bus, or generally having the same rights as white people. This was the norm in the Democrat-controlled Southern states for a long time.
In the 1960s, something changed. Although the Democrats were firmly in control of the federal government, a groundswell of popular support in the country began to see where Democrat racist policies were not such a good idea. The idea that black people should be seen as equals across the country began to gain ground. Although blacks still couldn’t vote in the Democrat-controlled Southern states, other areas of the country were beginning to see the light. In 1959, President Eisenhower had introduced what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After years of work, the bill eventually became law. This could not occur, however, until legislative maneuvers were used to get past Democrat Representative Howard Smith of Virginia, chair of the House Rules Committee, and Democrat Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 1960, Democrats actually filibustered the bill, succeeding in defeating the measure.
In more recent history, we’ve seen great advancement in the plight of blacks in America. Blacks have advanced in the arenas of education (Where Democrats once blocked the doors of the school to them), business, sports, and entertainment. Today, some of the highest paid entertainers and athletes in America are black, an indication that the PEOPLE of this country don’t care about race. Democrats, though, still play the race card, often arguing that standards in education, admissions, and hiring must be lowered in order to allow the supposedly inferior race to have a chance. Fact is, standards don’t need to be lowered. One day, the Democrats will realize that being black doesn’t mean being stupid, and stop treating them like they are.
Back to today, we’re seeing the Democrats up in arms, having finally decided that race, religion, and national origin are good reasons to oppose a business deal. They’ve gotten pretty adamant about it. Pretty soon, they’ll be standing in the doors of the shipping terminals, blocking arab access. It’s their way. They’re just standing up for the white people.
Previous Dubai Ports Deal coverage

Segregated Schools on Al Franken

no comments

The past couple days, I’ve been at home in bed sick. Daytime TV being what it is, I checked through the movie channels. Going past the Sundance Channel, I noticed that Al Franken’s show was on. On a lark, I decided to actually watch a little. He had a guest on talking about segregation in schools. His contension was that we have school segregation today that is WORSE than was found in the 1960s. Sure, back in the 1960s, we had Democrat-run southern schools separated into black and white, but he pointed out that we have many schools in today’s society that are 99% or more black-only. When asked where these schools were located, he named four states.
New York, Illinois, Michigan, California.
Hmmmm. I wonder what else these states have in common. Maybe the answer can be found in the electoral maps.

Blanco Ignores Non-Blancos Making LA Mas Blanco

1 comment

Why is it that George Bush gets called a racist for heading up the federal government that came to the rescue in Louisiana almost immediately? It seems to me that the local governments managed to do a poor job of taking care of their own. In fact, many of the poorest citizens have now been shipped out of the state under conditions that has them saying they will not return. Since Louisiana is one of those states in which the poorest are more likely to be black, we have an end result of Louisiana having fewer black people.
So, Governor Blanco doesn’t let the non-blancos out of the area until conditions are so bad that evacuation turns into escape. These non-blancos are then loaded onto the busses and shipped out of state, where someone else can worry about them. Will the end result be that there are fewer non-blancos in Louisiana? Will Louisiana finally be more blanco? (mas blanco)
The big question, though, is was all of this an accident, or a plan?
What are your goals, Governor Whitey?

Sean Haugh on Politics, Education and Race in Durham, NC

1 comment

My old friend Sean Haugh has a blog. Sean is a really great guy, and it looks like his blog is getting off to a great start. His latest post is entitled Burning Crosses Aren’t Our Only Problem and is well worth a read. Sean talks about race issues in Durham, and how they affect politics as well as government-run education. I think you’ll find it interesting. Here’s an excerpt:

My point is we must recognize that our racial divide in Durham is far deeper and more subtle than simply a few burning crosses. We just don’t listen to each other at all. My own recognition of this came when a few years back I got involved with a group of folks seeking justice for Catherine Capps, an elderly black woman who was the victim of an errant police raid in the insane war on drugs. Long story short, I and other local Libertarians saw this as simple matter of justice. We didn’t think about the race of the victim. I appealed to several white-dominated political groups who agree at least in theory that the war on drugs automatically leads to such dramatic infringements on liberty. But when it came time to act, I looked around and the only white faces I saw were ours.
I tried the line of, “how would you feel if it were your grandmother?” But I discovered this appeal had no resonance, because this kind of thing simply doesn’t happen in white neighborhoods. People have a strong tendency to only see what happens to them, to their own, or in their own neighborhood.

Go on over and read the whole thing. You might learn something about Durham, and see some similarities where you live.

Hamilton Naki – Heart Surgeon/Gardener RIP


Hamilton Naki was one of the pioneers of transplant surgery. He performed, or assisted in, many organ transplants. He instructed thousands of doctors in the procedures, and was considered by those he worked with as one of the best in the field. Officially, however, his actions were against the law. His hospital listed him as a gardener or cleaner. Hamilton Naki, you see, was a black man in Apartheid-era South Africa, and many of his patients were white.
South African law would not allow a black man to operate on a white person. Doctors who knew Naki, though, knew he was the best man to be in the operating room when organ transplant surgery was being performed. As a result, Naki secretly performed many surgical procedures, and appeared in press photos listed as a cleaner.
Hamilton Naki passed away at 78 on May 29th. Recognition of his actions came only recently, years after the end of white-only rule in South Africa.
His story is significant because it is so similar to the situation in America before the civil rights changes in the 1960s and later. When the laws in Democrat-controlled southern states of the US wouldn’t allow blacks to do so many things, it was people who made the difference. People changed, and they forced the laws to follow. It wasn’t the other way around. The same thing was going on in South Africa, and Hamilton Naki is a fine example of that.

Race and Academics – The High Cost of Acting White


Marginal Revolution points to this study entitled “An Empirical Analysis of ‘Acting White’” by Roland G. Fryer, Jr. and Paul Torelli. The paper reports on the high social costs among minorities should they “act white” by achieving high scores in school.

“Among whites, higher grades yield higher popularity. For Blacks, higher achievement is associated with modestly higher popularity until a grade point average of 3.5, when the slope turns negative. A black student with a 4.0 has, on average, 1.5 fewer same-race friends than a white student with a 4.0. Among Hispanics, there is little change in popularity from a grade point average of 1 through 2.5. After 2.5, the gradient turns sharply negative. A Hispanic student with a 4.0 grade point average is the least popular of all Hispanic students, and has 3 fewer friends than a typical white student with a 4.0 grade point average.”

Couple this with another tidbit from the abstract.

“Using a newly available data set (the National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health), which allows one to construct an objective measure of a student’s popularity, we demonstrate that there are large racial differences in the relationship between popularity and academic achievement; our (albeit narrow) definition of ‘acting white.’ The effect is intensified among high achievers and in schools with more interracial contact, but non-existent among students in predominantly black schools or private schools.”

What I read from this is an interesting set of contradictions to liberal dogma. First, minorities themselves contribute to members of their own social groups low performance academically. Second, voluntary educational segregation benefits minorities in this matter, as it has been proven to benefit girls in all-female schools. Third, private schools tend to eradicate this problem within their rolls, while public schools appear to contribute to the problem.

“Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.”
— Senator Barack Obama, 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address

Those who label themselves as “reality-based” instead of one of the other terms for “liberal” should probably read this paper, and get a dose of what reality is.

No More “Jim Crow” in Georgia

1 comment

While the Democrats were busy accusing Republicans of being racists, Republicans were busy repealing “Jim Crow” laws in Georgia.

Howard Dean Race Baiting Again

no comments

One major fear that the Democrats have is that they lose the ability to fool the black community in coming election cycles. With vote percentages among blacks falling for Democrats, Republicans have found their messages to be received more often in the black community. Howard Dean, though, is trying to fight back in an
“I think most black Americans understand the Democratic Party stands for civil rights and economic justice,” Dean said in an interview with Monday. “The Republicans have nothing to offer black Americans. What have they offered in the last 40 years? You can put lipstick on a pig, but it doesn’t make the pig a pretty girl.”
Method #1 – Restate that Democrats are the party that stands for “civil rights.”
Method #2 – Follow up with insult of Republicans that really says nothing of substance that can be disproven.
“Imagine trying to convince black ministers that cutting Social Security is a good idea,” he said.
Method #3 – Accuse Republicans of doing something negative that they really aren’t doing, but word it in such a way that it really isn’t an accusation. Republicans aren’t trying to cut Social Security, but Dean didn’t really say they were. He just said that blacks should “imagine” that they are trying to convince black ministers that cutting would be a good idea.
When asked if Democrats are taking blacks for granted:
”Absolutely not,” Dean said. “We have to keep the promises we’ve made over the years. We’ve invested in African-American radio ads, we’ve invested in national print ads. We want to make our message very clear that we’re the party for equal rights. We’re the party for economic justice. The Republicans are the reverse Robin Hood party — steal from the poor and give to the rich — and that is not good for black Americans.”
Method #4 – State that Democrats need to keep the promises they’ve made, but without pointing out that they haven’t actually been keeping the promises.
Method #5 – Say a lot. Dean says they’ve bought radio ads. They’ve bought print ads. They’ve said they’re the party for equal rights and “economic justice.”
Method #2 revisited – Insults again, this time by misstating the Robin Hood myth. Robin Hood, you’ll remember, stole from the corrupt government and gave back to the citizens, the exact opposite of what the Democrats want to do.
On the other hand, Danny Diaz, spokesman for the GOP, had the following to say.
”While Howard Dean’s Democratic Party is taking African-American voters for granted, the GOP is reaching out and engaging in an honest dialogue with black voters,” Diaz told “African-Americans are realizing that President Bush’s leadership is benefitting their community, enabling a majority of minority families to become homeowners for the first time in our nation’s history.”
According to Diaz, the GOP is talking TO black voters and not AT them. Diaz says that President Bush’s policies ARE helping black Americans, not just promising to.
“President Bush’s agenda of hope and opportunity stands in stark contrast to the Democrats’ anger and pessimism, and enabled the president to increase his percentage of the African-American vote across the country last year,” Diaz added. “From creating jobs to holding our schools accountable, African-Americans are realizing that if they give the GOP a chance, we will give them a choice.”
Hope and opportunity -vs- anger and pessimism. That’s where the Republican -vs- Democrat argument is right now.
Back to Dean:
“They think if you have [former Secretary of State Colin] Powell or [Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice, this means equal rights,” Dean said, “but the Democratic Party knows equal rights is about hiring power, and we know it’s important that people who make decisions should also be people of color.”
Dean says black people should be in decision-making positions, but discounts Powell and Rice actually being put in those positions. This is why we can’t take the Democrats seriously on race any more.

More on Colin and Condi

no comments

The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal’s Best of the Web today put forth the opinion that the liberal angst over Condoleeza Rice becoming Secretary of State is actually a sign that race relations are improving in America.

The charge of racism carries a certain sting because America has a long history of real racism. But the progress the country has made on race, especially over the past 40 years, has been nothing short of stunning. Here we have a president whose detractors describe him as a “radical conservative” appointing a black woman to replace a black man as the most senior member of his cabinet.
Even the liberals who attack Rice on racial grounds don’t have anything against black people in positions of power per se. They’re just desperately upset because those on their side of the political fence no longer have a monopoly on the belief in racial equality. They’re lashing out in an ugly way because they’ve lost the moral high ground.
It’s good for the country that no one occupies that high ground anymore–or, more precisely, that virtually everyone does. Secretary of State Rice will stand as an example of the greatness of America, a country where, after much struggle, people are judged not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character. We’re confident that one day even liberals will appreciate this.

%d bloggers like this: