Democrats racist judicial trail

Seven times Democrats were overtly racist on judges before Donald Trump

June 7, 2016 Biz Pac

By Casey Harper | Daily Caller News Foundation

Donald Trump has taken heavy fire for saying the judge presiding over his Trump University lawsuit is biased because of his Mexican heritage, but Democrats have a long history of invoking race on judicial issues.

Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in the case because of his Mexican heritage, calling him “a hater of Donald Trump.” In the case, former students of Trump University are suing Trump alleging the school, which was supposed to teach real estate, was a ripoff. Trump has firmly denied their allegations.

In an interview, CNN’s Jake Tapper repeatedly questioned Trump about invoking the judge’s race saying “is that not the definition of racism?”

“But I don’t care if you criticize him,” Tapper told Trump in the interview. “That’s fine. You can criticize every decision. What I’m saying is if you invoke his race as a reason why he can’t do his job …” The problem is, a judge’s race is often a major factor and is acknowledged as such by the media, especially in Supreme Court appointments.

The Daily Caller News Foundation has compiled a list of seven times liberals invoked a judge’s race.

1-Justice Sonia Sotomayor famously invoked her identity as a “wise Latina” who could outdo a white man. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” she said in an October, 2001 speech that became a point of criticism for Republicans.

2-When Donald Trump released his list of potential Supreme Court nominees, the left was quick to point out they were all white. Think Progress published an article titled “Your Ultimate Guide To The 11 White People Donald Trump Will Consider For The Supreme Court,” which pointed out that “Only three are women. All are white.”

3-George Takei, Star Trek actor and gay rights activist, called Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas a “clown in black face” after his vote against the recognition of same-sex marriage. “I mean, doesn’t he know that slaves were in chains?” Takei said. “That they were whipped on the back. If he saw the movie 12 Years a Slave, you know, they were raped.”

4-Liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson blasted Thomas for his stance against affirmative action. “I believe in affirmative action, but I have to acknowledge there are arguments against it,” Robinson wrote. “One of the more cogent is the presence of Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

5-Anna Quindlen, a liberal writer for Newsweek, clearly invoked Thomas’ race in her criticism of him, saying “His judicial resume was mediocre; he was chosen because he was conservative and black, an affirmative-action hire by an administration that eschewed affirmative action.”

6-Liberal writers and activists Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon wrote an article in the Seattle Times saying Thomas was unseemly as a “beneficiary of affirmative-action programs who climbs the ladder of success by attacking affirmative action.”

7-To defend itself from criticism over nominating a white Supreme Court  Justice, the White House was quick to invoke race. In a post titled, “White House Defends Diversity Record In Judicial Appointments,” the New York Times points out that Josh Earnest was eager to tell reporters that Obama had appointed a Hispanic justice to the Supreme Court and therefore, had previously embraced diversity. The defense came after attacks from the leftover nominee Merrick Garland, who is white.

Follow Casey on Twitter and like him on Facebook.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/06/07/seven-times-democrats-were-overtly-racist-on-judges-before-donald-trump-349340#ixzz4AxRcueLK

Back in style, fashion outliers

Call it a retro-post. It is back in style, again. Not bell-bottoms and paisley shirts, or nickers or platform shoes. No, racism. But the new wave movement says it never went away. It was just sitting in the closet waiting for a comeback.

Relax, you’ve just been exported back to the 60’s compliments of
Barry-I’m black- and I’m bitchin’.

Gateway Pundit

NYT reported:”Mr. Obama also argued that some of the scorn directed at him personally stems from the fact that he is the first African-American to hold the White House.”

Once again he throws out the old standby that his detractors and opponents are racists. Tell us something new. Straight to the race-card. He tells the reporter in an interview that its about who he is. Oh really? It’s about who you are all right, whether you are Kenyan, bi-racial, mulatto, white, black, Muslim or canned ham; it matters not. The Frank Marshall Davis apprentice is stuck on racism because it’s his best acceptable defense. Everything is as loony as his plans. So he has to rely on his old crutch, racism.

As usual, he mentions it in just the right calculated way to remind us all of racism. But it was never about Barry making the mundane case. No, it was for everyone else to jump on the bandwagon and do it for him — like most of his attacks and accusations. So the press and his Demonrat allies can run with his racism charge. Then he can stand back and play the victim. Let everyone else make that case. All he has to do is drop the hint.

So by the next day people are reading off the script saying “you cannot deny racism exists”. (which is not the issue) That’s step one. Then slither into you cannot deny some fraction of disagreement with him is based on racism. After the prove it does not exist routine, then you must prove Republicans’ disagreement and vitriol is not based on “who” he is — racism. The sixties called and they want their protests back, Bary the contrary.

“You cannot deny.” Oh, so the guy that routinely denies that ISIS is Islamic or Islamic terrorism can tell us we cannot deny the impact of racism? Tell us about denial, Obama. Is it good for you?

In James Traficant’s immortal words, “Beam me up!” Or like Texas Congressman, Ted Poe says: “and that’s just the way it is.” Funny I don’t remember any other President with a hyphenated nationality. I so look forward to a new fad stage when we can actually have a real conversation. (but then they are Democrats)

RightRing | Bullright

This just in from white pastor

In Chicago, a pastor “Leads Prayer of Repentance on Behalf of ‘White Brethren’“.

Mediaite — 12/1/15

A white Chicago pastor led a prayer of repentance last night in which he said he wanted to “confess on behalf of my white brothers and sisters” for how black lives have been systematically devalued.

Pastor Daniel Hill said, “We repent of the violent acts done in the name of racism. We repent of the apathy that has caused so many of us to sit on the sidelines.”

Read: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chicago-pastor-leads-prayer-of-repentance-on-behalf-of-white-brethren/

(the comments are always interesting to see)

On one side, a black pastor calls other black pastors prostitutes for meeting with Trump. Conservative blacks are routinely called all kinds of names like Uncle Toms or sell outs by other blacks. White people are frequently blamed for problems in black communities. Then, right on cue, along comes a white pastor to apologize and repent on behalf of white people — assuaging that white guilt.  I’ll look for him in the next black lives matter protest.

Double-minded standards

Incidentally, if you were also feeling a bit rainbowed out — and it has only been days so far — then check out this post on Sons of Liberty. It will certainly remind you that you are not alone in your feeling of overwhelming rainbow fanaticism — rainbowphilia.

It’s a list of businesses or organizations going gaga over the gay flag and same-sex cause. The list of examples is excruciatingly painful and incestuous in pandering to this sociosexual political agenda. And maybe it is just the beginning too.

But at the very same time we learned that a rebel flag harkening back to the confederate history is far too controversial, polarizing and racist to even display. So there was a frenzy to ban it and a competition who could be first to throw it under the bus. Even NASCAR has gotten in the fray by banning it.

The problem it seems is that anyone waving it, using it or endorsing it in any way is now de facto racist. If that were not bad enough, reports say two flag companies announced they would stop making it, and stores will stop selling it. If you are looking for hash brownies or pot granola you might have some luck, but some things are considered too rage inducing to make anymore.

And then when you see the Left buried neck-deep in both issues it sort of lights your hair on fire. On one hand anything related to the flag is racist. While on the other, the rainbow flag is the greatest thing. Should that mean that anyone endorsing the rainbow flag is gay? Under and by the Left’s orthodoxy you would think so.

But no, everyone is suppose to embrace the rainbow LGBTQ flag, to be hip. That goes for businesses too. See the list, including the American Airlines picture. Even in this very WordPress program there was a rainbow banner installed on the edit page. I checked and Google had similar links to pro-LGBT pages celebrating their euphoric sexuality of the community. It obviously is not meant to be a personal statement but a gesture to identify with a broader culture.

No such allowance or tolerance should be made for the Confederate flag and those who rally around it. In that case: demonize it along with the people who associate themselves with it. Want an example? Reports condemn people who overlay the American Flag on their profile, after a successful campaign for people to put rainbow filters on FB profiles.

As that article points out about this fast-and-furious flurry of rainbow activity, does it all appear a little contrived, especially the White House lighting project? Was this roll out sporadic? It all shows how disingenuous the left is on anything. It’s all about the political cause. If it benefits that, great, but if not it is the problem. Now a sexual cause too.

RightRing | Bullright

Charleston dynamics and race agenda

As a reference, I made a list of inter-related issues after the Charleston shooting.
A little lengthy and in no specific order.

· Freedom of Religion
· Freedom of Speech
· 1st amendment
· Gun control – agenda and otherwise
· 2nd Amendment
· Location location location – Charleston
· Southern hospitality or Southern racism
· Racism issues
· Hate speech
· Hate crimes
· Legislation and hate legislation
· Flags and symbols
· Pride
· History
· Revisionism
· Civil Rights
· Civil war
· North South tensions
· Political Correctness
· States Rights (or 10th amendment issues)
· Crime culture
· Morality and values in community
· Politics – like it or not injected especially presidential campaigns.
· Christianity
· Terrorism
· Presidential pronouncements, actions, responses
· Dep of Justice
· Monuments and cultural heritage
· Media – biases and coverage.
· Protests
· Death penalty
· Constitution
· Bill of rights
· Legal processes
· Christian persecution throughout the world.
· Tenants of Christianity – i.e. forgiveness etc.
· Security of Churches or religious buildings.
· Social Justice – as in the current Leftist dialogue and definition.
· Moral relativism
· Hypocrisy
· Love and understanding
· Evil
· Mental illness, mental heath problems
· Structural racism — as in the lefts’ new buzzword and definition
· White Supremacy
· Black racism or prejudice
· Race-baiting — Al Sharpton, activists
· Academia and advocacy groups, southern poverty law center

I’ll skip commentary, except the shootings were disturbing. Having all this around the killing of 9 people seems an awful lot to have on the plate at one time.

Not to get the intended reaction is a little divine justice. But we have come to a surreal point where not to riot is a surprise, where rioting and civil unrest is the norm.

Look where they’ve taken it, from shootings to a flag and creeping racism. Those who use racism now have more in common with the shooter’s motives than with victims.

RightRing | Bullright

Time for a dialogue about national conversations

The Left often talks about “conversation” but the word is a euphemism for getting their way.

National Conversations Are Worthless

Column: Especially when Al Sharpton is talking
BY: Matthew Continetti | Washington Free Beacon
December 12, 2014

Activists outraged at the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner are not only causing traffic jams and disrupting holiday shopping. They have a new target: President Obama, who the radicals say isn’t doing enough to rectify injustice.

What about opening investigations into the white police officers who killed the unarmed Brown and Garner, what about inviting Al Sharpton and Bill De Blasio to the White House, condemning the decisions of grand juries not to indict the policemen, and calling the ensuing unrest, which has included looting and arson, “necessary” to prick “the country’s conscience”?

Meh. Those things do not appease the left, which never takes yes for an answer.

“Mr. Obama has not been the kind of champion for racial justice that many African-Americans say this moment demands,” reports a disappointed New York Times. For example, Obama “has not stood behind the protestors.” He has not “linked arms with civil rights leaders.” He hasn’t even posed in an “I Can’t Breathe” t-shirt.

The activists don’t want Obama in the Oval Office. They want him on the picket line. They want to bully the president “into seizing on the post-Ferguson anger.” And they might be winning: “White House advisers say addressing the nation’s racial conflicts is now an imperative for the president’s final years in office.”

Uh-oh. If the president has any sense, he’ll make sure this pledge is as worthless as his red lines in Syria. Sixty-seven percent of adults rate their local police good or excellent, according to a recent poll. A majority of the public already disapproves of Obama on race. As do 57 percent of whites. Does the unpopular Obama (or his potential Democratic successors) really want to see how high this president’s disapproval rating can go?

America does not need another “national conversation on race.” The previous one, which lasted from 1997 to 1998, was so utterly useless that hardly anyone remembers it. President Clinton delivered speeches, convened town hall meetings, empaneled an advisory board, and issued a report on race relations. It went nowhere.

Why? Because the public forums were characterized by self-indulgence, protest, confusion, miscommunication, and acrimony. The advisory board presented the view of race from Harvard Yard. Affirmative action was defended when it was not ignored, its critics muted. […/]

More: http://freebeacon.com/columns/national-conversations-are-worthless/

Funny how all the talk about “dialogue” and “conversation” is really cover for protests, arrogance and lawlessness. As I have said many times, it is now(if it ever was) almost impossible to have a true conversation with Liberals, especially in the collective. Progressives don’t discuss, they react. Their perception is to be considered fact.

Sure you can go through the motions. One can pretend, as Obama did, that he had some conversation with others who disagree.  When two or more parties are interested they can have a discussion. When the interest is not there, you have nothing but words.  Cut to the chase that with the Left, progressives, Liberals, Democrats, or whatever you want to call them, ideology rules.  They are not interested in conversation.  They are interested in getting their way.

When you put race or other issue into the mix, Liberals will dominate the issue to the point of browbeating anyone who disagrees in the same way. So they don’t want conversation. They want to make demands, such as what rules should be used with protestors. They want to limit their opposition in any way they can. And anything they take on is considered a “civil rights” matter, from abortion to cross-dressing or gay pride parades.

You only have to look at the trail of damage and victims to get the point. Michael Brown and the Ferguson protestors caused more victims than they ever prevented. Mike Brown was an excuse. But they call that social justice. We often chuckle at their tactics and strategies, when we aren’t crying at the damage they cause, namely because it is so predictable. The victims and damage they cause is justified as righteous. Think what they did in unison to the Tea Party rallies. Now they are back on the bandwagon, from OWS to anarchy in Seattle, now to Brown and ‘what can racism do for you?’

RightRing | Bullright

White people: get with the program

I’m starting a new thing and going to roll it out soon. This is a combination of things I have already seen done. It’s a proven formula. (slightly satire)

I want to find a select few people that speak for all whites. Now I know plenty will want to but you can only have a very few. It defeats the purpose if there are a lot of them. They will operate as the spokesmen and be entitled to raise money, promote, extort, or speak on behalf of the “white community”.

I know there may be some objections. Some may resent a few single individuals vested with the responsibility for white people at large. But I see it done with blacks and there is no problem. In fact, I think every race et al should do the same. Like Asians for instance. Look at the poo-bah of the Islamic State (ISIS) that speaks for Muslims.

I just think whites are way behind in this. So I want to start a National Association for the Advancement of White People. (NAAWP)

The idea is whenever there is an event like a crime involving a white person, the spokesmen will be dispatched. They will also have carte blanche to organize white people for protests or demonstrations, or fundraising. They will speak for the White victim or his/her family in all public events.You can’t expect dumb families or “victims” to speak for themselves. They also can inject themselves between families and the attorneys. Look, this is how it works. I’m not making this up, you know.

See it is much simpler if a couple Whites are designated to speak for all. Don’t make it complicated, so people can understand it, keep it simple. Press will be glad to deal with and speak only to those people. See how simple that is?

Now it is a lifetime appointment. No one can revoke that authority and you cannot lose it by, ah, misbehaving. Everyone must bestow their faith and trust in them, no questions asked. Again, this just how it works. Members of the NAAWP will have the ability to choose their president and spokesman, who will speak for the organization. But the speakers’, let’s call them “organizers”, authority trumps all.

In a rare conflict, the NAAWP shall line up to stand behind the spokesperson. Whites cannot speak for themselves, you know. That only creates chaos and division, and white people do not need that! Trust me. Well, there should be “consequences” if they do not line up behind the leaders. Let’s call them “leaders of the White community.”

Even if a leader does something underhanded or illegal, they remain a de facto “leader”. Actually that is considered a good thing. (ha ha — fringe benefits) Obviously, they will be designated — but not by a democratic process. We’ll let everyone know who they are.

You get the idea. Anytime something happens, call in the pros to handle the details. If there is any negotiation, call them. When he puts out the word, just fall in line and repeat what he says. No, it doesn’t have to be true. No one cares about that, just repeat it — loudly and often. Don’t think outside the box.

Along those lines, we push the narrative: blame black privilege for all the problems. Talk about “fair” or “unfairness” of the system a lot. Say you are being discriminated against for living while white. From now on, everything is the Black man’s fault. (Or others, if need be. Defer to the leader’s script) Say you want a fair dialogue then turn it into an argument. Claim you want fairness and blame them for discriminating.

In Congress we need a “White Caucus,” which all whites will be obligated to support and stand with. One message, in lockstep, don’t confuse the system. It would defeat the purpose if we all stand up individually. This is the way it works. Get with the program.

There are still a few minor wrinkles to iron out, like what names to call those who don’t fall in line. There has to be a punishment for that. The Spokesmen can single them out, too.

I would ask for your opinions, suggestions, and approval except it is not necessary. Once this system is in place, your opinions are irrelevant anyway. Disagreement will earn you the label of traitor and a disgrace to your race. You have no veto power, that’s part of the genius. I hope you will like it, just don’t get in the way if you don’t.

RightRing | Bullright

Forewarnings of midterms

Shall we look back to see if there may have been indications of 2014 midterms landslide?

Even as far back as 2012 primaries there were stunning warnings — which might have shaken libs’ status quo even then. No, they were busy whistling past the graveyard. Townhall had a piece in May, 2012 that Pepperhawk forwarded me then. “(H/T)

Remember this is early 2012:

Little attention is being paid by the national news media to the Democrats’ presidential primaries because Obama is assured of his nomination. But the large size of the anti-Obama vote — exposing deep unrest in his party’s political base — has shaken his campaign’s high command.

The latest explosions came in Tuesday’s Kentucky and Arkansas primaries which of course he won easily. But a stunning 42 percent of Kentucky Democrats voted for “uncommitted” on their ballot.

In yellow-dog Democrat Arkansas, 42 percent voted for a little- known Tennessee lawyer, John Wolfe, over the president of the United States.

And two weeks ago in the West Virginia primary, Keith Judd, a convicted felon and now Texas prison inmate got 41 percent of the vote.

Some smarty-pants political pundits who think they know everything say some of this is about race and that these states are firmly in the GOP column anyway.

It went on to say, and quote, what the Washington Post had said:

Such strong antipathy toward Obama at this end point in his trouble-plagued presidency is “an indicator of not-insignificant pockets of unrest within his party,” writes The Washington Post’s campaign trackers Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake.

Racial factors “may be less of a problem for Obama than the broader cultural disconnect that many of these voters feel with the Democratic Party.” And they quote Democrats who point to growing grievances that many in their party have over the political direction Obama is taking the country.

“The most significant factor is the perception/reality the Obama administration has leaned toward the ultra-left,” says former Democratic Congressman Charles Stenholm of Texas.

http://townhall.com/columnists/donaldlambro/2012/05/25/are_democrats_deserting_obama/page/full

With all they have done since, this should have told them not to take support for granted. But the institutionalized Left ignored all that and doubled down on race-baiting, claiming opposition to Obama’s agenda was due to racism. Well, they wore out that excuse. But it didn’t reflect the rising narrative or reality.  And it didn’t fit the reality in 2014. The meme was racism, women, Hispanics, oh my. (Dems refer to as their ‘core’ constituents)

Sure they can always make that claim, as overused as it is, but sooner or later it loses its sting. Just as the ‘war on women’ narrative lost its sting in the 2014 elections. And the ideal of hope and change was lost as well — proving you can overuse a term even if it is vague. Hope and change was redefined as failure. War on women drew yawns and boos at debates. Racism is still a euphemism for disagreement with Obama, but believable? Hardly. Racism is used for an excuse for losing, as an excuse for violent protests, and as an  excuse to oppose election integrity.

So “these are states with large populations of low income, blue collar, “working class” Americans who have been hit hardest by Obama’s economic policies” were instrumental in 2014, too. It seems working class Americans overall are disenchanted with Democrats as revealed in 2014 results. But want more proof? Dems rushed to have a pow wow over the midterm results. They emerged with the message they have to do a better job relating to “middle-class” working people. Well, duh. Their policies have been a thumb in the eye to the so-called middle class.

They don’t want to do anything to actually help the middle class, they just want to talk about it, while trudging on with their elitist policies. But talk about it they will, which rings as hollow as all their other talking point messages of late. We can count on that because it was the consensus of their 2014 autopsy.

When you can’t blame yourselves, then blame the middle class for not quite understanding your message. In effect, they blamed all their special interests. But they dare not blame the teachers’ unions, who dumped record amounts of cash into their coffers.

More insight, another article from Forbes, they analyzed 2014 results:

Perhaps the biggest attrition for the Democrats has been among middle-class voters employed in the private sector, particularly small property and business owners.

Rather than the promise of “hope and change,” according to exit polls, 50% of voters said they lack confidence that their children will do better than they have, 10 points higher than in 2010. This is not surprisingly given that nearly 80% state that the recession has not ended, at least for them.

The effectiveness of the Democrats’ class warfare message has been further undermined by the nature of the recovery; while failing most Americans, the Obama era has been very kind to plutocrats of all kinds.

What’s it mean? “Middle class” will be the most used words in Dem’s vocabulary.

RightRing | Bullright

Saul move on over, reformation is coming

In 2008, the conversation was about a post-racial America. Now all anyone can hope for is a post-racial Obama. But that ain’t going to happen. We know that.

Roger Simon, co-founder of PJ media, wrote a piece on just that with just that conclusion. Racism has become the Holy Grail to Democrats — with their fictitious war on women coming in a close second. As he says, next up it is Hispanics.

Liberal Racism: Hispanics Are Next

Roughly ninety-five percent of racism in America today now either emanates from liberals or is generated by them. The Democratic Party relies on racism because, without the perception of serious ongoing racism in our culture, the identity politics on which the party depends would disintegrate. As presently constituted, they wouldn’t win another national or statewide election. This makes the Democratic Party by necessity a virtual racism-manufacturing machine.

The Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons are not anomalies. They are the motor that drives the car. Barack Obama could in no way be a post-racial president as promised, even if he wanted to be (doubtful). He wouldn’t have had a party anymore.

The idea that the chief executive of our country would want to give special privileges to Latinos above and beyond the wishes of their future fellow citizens is not only morally repugnant, it is highly socially damaging. It drives us apart — and apparently deliberately.

My only question is: isn’t all this getting a bit old, even for Libs? So this is where we are.

Their tactics and arguments have become stale — to be kind — and that is what voters are now seeing. Senator Uterus has learned that lesson. Senator Mark Pryor said Obama was a drag on his campaign. Grimes couldn’t endorse Obama. How long can you push phony arguments until they get old, even laughable? (ridicule can be a positive thing)

Alinsky’s RULE #7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

Liberals can be counted on to do what they always do, when they decide to move on they do so in lockstep. The new thing will be the rage, sucking up all the energy in the room, which backwashes old ideas that are no longer effective. “Don’t become old news.”

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

Of course, the new ideas will be just as specious as the old but that doesn’t matter because they are new. Leftists will tweak them along the way, the same way Obama revises his statements or the way they tweaked Obamacare. When everything is part of an evolving argument, a lot tends to get lost in the shuffle.

Remember the rules for radicals is geared to opposing typical activists or activism, and overwhelming them. If anything, the rules are about breaking rules, and it is always about what works — the ends justify the means. Hispanics beware.

RightRing | Bullright

Blacks are being used

“You are just a vote” is right. Sadly, and they’ll say anything for it. For years we’ve been trying to make the Dems own Barack Obama and his policies.

But the reality is Barack Obama owns them, lock and stock. They were bought in the “change you can believe in” auction. He’s their master whether they admit it or not.

See the Democrats run away from him? But he arrogantly says the Dems are his voters, too. And he’s right, lockstep they are his along with the Democrats in Congress.

[Roll Call] “I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them,” Obama said in prepared remarks at Northwestern University.

“This isn’t a political speech, and I’m not going to tell you who to vote for — even though I suppose it is kind of implied,” Obama said, in a sentence that became an immediate head-scratcher as the president launched into a litany of attacks on the GOP.

Obama said these are the folks who voted with him, and he is going to get that vote out.

“The bottom line is, though, these are all folks who vote with me. They have supported my agenda in Congress,” Obama said on Al Sharpton’s radio show….

“So, this isn’t about my feelings being hurt,” he said. “These are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me. And I tell them, I said, ‘You know what, you do what you need to win. I will be responsible for making sure that our voters turn up.'” — CNN

Josh Earnest explained:

“Here’s the other thing: the Democrats are going to be counting on Hispanics, African-Americans, young people, young women in particular to turn out [in the midterm] elections. The president got them to turn out in 2008 and 2012.

Why not tell Obama, ‘you didn’t build that’…nor did Democrats, the overseers?

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s pass being revoked by card-carrying Leftists

…its sort of looking that way.

NPR Admits Opposition To Obama May Not Be Due To Racism But Because He’s Terrible

By Brian Anderson on May 13, 2014

We’ve been told over and over that opposing President Obama’s socialist anti-American agenda is due to deep-seated racism and not any conservative values one might hold. Now, the National Public Radio (NPR), of all media outlets, has posted a piece on their blog saying that there might be something more to disliking Obama than just racism. I know, I’m shocked too.

This refreshing revelation from a decidedly left-leaning news source starts out with a great premise:

There’s no question we’re living in a time of divisive politics, when roughly half the country is likely to hate the president, no matter whom he or she might be.

And back it up with a good quote:

“If any white Democrat had pushed through a billion-dollar stimulus plan and a takeover of the health care industry, he would have been equally detested by conservatives and Republicans,” says Whit Ayres, a GOP pollster and consultant.

Continuing with this line of thought, the writer puts in a little historical context. Obama doesn’t have a trademark on being hated:

But modern presidents have all triggered strong negative reactions. John F. Kennedy met with rhetoric from the John Birch Society that in some ways mirrors Tea Party responses to Obama. Militia movements expanded and grew during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, while George W. Bush’s presidency inspired hatred on the left and a novel fantasizing about his assassination.

“Bill Clinton was vilified and hated more, with more passion,” says David Carney, a Republican consultant. “It was much more personal and negative than anything about Obama.”

This is actually true. Clinton was impeached and Obama has not been even though he deserves it more.

More:  Downtrend.com

Now maybe they are finally catching on, after 5 and a half years. That’s something I questioned about Obama for years. First, why was he so passionate about running when he knew the consequences of being president? He wasted no time either, starting in ’06 right after getting elected Senator.

And why he expected he would be different from any of those, Democrats or Republicans? Right off the bat were his ties with Wright and a slew of other radicals, achem terrorists. That’s always an icebreaker with any crowd. Yea, the speech where he said “we are not a red America, we are not a blue America” to plead his case. Yea, a speech changes all that “history”– is that a derogatory word now? Then again in his “race speech” saying “words, just words?” Those were just words, to Obama anyway.

But no other president has been afforded the privilege of a built-in excuse he (or those around him) flaunted by playing the race card to explain any opposition to him. I predict no future president will have that same opportunity, given how Obama overused and abused it. He kept it in front of him as a shield ready to hoist against any critics. That is a shallow character who does that.

The main point was always: “Obama, have you noticed how just the last few presidents were treated?”

It wouldn’t even be as much of a contradiction or hypocrisy if Obama was not leading the charge in attacking the last president. He assumed the role in the Senate in ’05 . Then he ran against an outgoing president, not McCain, when Bush wasn’t even on the ballot. How none of this ever occurred to the minds of the Left is baffling. If he were anyone else, he would not have gotten that far. He would have been voted out of American Idol based on performance. And this guy who was granted such wide berth hasn’t even appreciated all that effort, including from the media. The media did not lock horns, it lock-stepped right down Obama’s path. Show me the precedent for that.

His disconnect with most of America is because of his own radical ideology and actions. What others think never was Obama’s real problem. No, he believed he was guaranteed the prize for being “present”, like his record in Illinois, despite any facts. Let’s not even mention the records, and zero experience at anything even in the Senate. Pitiful that only now some in the left media admit the “racism” charade. Now if they could find a way to justify what they’ve done for the last five years.

It may be just a start, as they didn’t throw “racism” completely out the window. Well, who wants to throw a perfectly good race card away? But the possibility of the race card as the sole explanation for opposition might be on life support.

RightRing | Bullright

Race-baiting White Elitists to the Rescue?

…or just more pandering? You decide.

Jay Rockefeller plays the race card. Blame racist white people, voters.

Jay Rockefeller“It’s an American characteristic that you don’t do anything which displeases the voters, because you always have to get reelected here,” he added. “I understand part of it. It has to do with — for some, it’s just we don’t want anything good to happen under this president, because he’s the wrong color.”

The five-term senator said ideological barriers and lawmakers’ own narrow self-interests were preventing them making tough political decisions.

“For some it’s the tea party. For some it’s just a fear of their own reelection prospects,” said Rockefeller.

He acknowledged his own relative freedom to speak his mind now, saying he has “the ease of the fact that I’m not running again.” – Politico

Mind you he is doing it on the way out the Senate door as he retires. So what’s that tell us? He’s being called courageous. But look at his statement. He said you don’t do something that disagrees with voters. (read pander) But now he can say it leaving.

Blame those nasty voters.

So he’s telling us he can be honest leaving the way he couldn’t as Senator? Yes, that is the message. Believe him now because he couldn’t tell the truth before because of reelection. But take it seriously, as the left stream media does.

Funny he does not mention the race-baiters in Congress playing politics and the race card to get and stay elected.

Another statement comes from that dysfunctional Charlie Crist of Florida. He makes no bones about playing the race card. But he’s allowed to because he’s now a Democrat.
In an interview with Fusion:

Crist: Race Motivates GOP Opposition to Obama

Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (D) said Tuesday that a “big reason” why he left the Republican Party was because many in the GOP were hostile to President Obama due to his race.

Crist, who is running for his old office against Gov. Rick Scott (R), said in an interview with Fusion’s Jorge Ramos that he felt uncomfortable with his previous party affiliation. Republicans are perceived as “anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-minority, [and] anti-gay,” he said, and they refuse to compromise with Obama. The ex-governor said he feels, “liberated as a Democrat.”

“I couldn’t be consistent with myself and my core beliefs, and stay with a party that was so unfriendly toward the African-American president, I’ll just go there,” he said. “I was a Republican and I saw the activists and what they were doing, it was intolerable to me.”

Crist left the GOP to run as an independent during his failed 2010 Senate bid, when he lost in a GOP primary to Marco Rubio. He officially joined the Democratic Party soon after the 2012 elections, and before that, he supported Obama’s reelection bid.

“I am liberated as a Democrat, my true soul is able to be seen, and I couldn’t be happier about it,” Crist said.

He holds a double-digit lead in at least one poll over Scott, who suffers from poor approval ratings.

Ramos challenged Crist on his motivation for leaving the party, questioning whether his loss to Rubio played a bigger role. Crist responded it was because Republicans had become too radical.

“No, I left the Republican Party because the leadership went off the cliff,” Crist said.

Republicans pushed back against Crist’s claims of racially motivated hostility toward Obama.

“Being a flip-flopper is bad enough, but playing the race card to win over voters is pitiful,” Izzy Santa, a Republican National Committee spokeswoman, wrote in an email to Fusion. […/] – Fusion

The real question in both of these is does playing the race card work for a white elitist politician? They both seem to think it does.

On one hand is Rockefeller leaving and the other Crist is running for election. Both liberal Democrats. The motivations of each seems clear. Good to see Crist is now liberated.
But there is an admission: both are saying they haven’t been honest. Crist wants the job back so he can be honest, the way he wasn’t before.

RightRing | Bullright

Gonzales’ racist treatment from Senate

[See previous post]
Now this isn’t ancient history. But for Holder to act as if he was the only person scrutinized with tough questions by an agitated Congress, doesn’t even pass the smell test.

Once the government shows the disregard for the independence of the justice system and the rule of law, it’s very hard to restore the people’s faith.” — Senator Leahy to AG Gonzales.

 

Pat Leahy said in 2007:

“The dep of Justice is experiencing a crisis in leadership perhaps unrivaled in its history. Unfortunately, the crisis is not abated. Until there is independence, transparency, and accountability, the crisis will continue.

The attorney General’s lost the confidence of Congress and the American people. Through oversight we hope to restore balance and accountability to the Executive branch. The Dep of Justice must be restored to being worthy of its name. It should not be reduced to another political arm of the White House, it was never intended to be that. Trust and confidence of the American people in Federal law enforcement must be restored.”

“Investigation into the firing for partisan purposes of United States Attorneys who’ve been appointed by this president, along with an ever-growing series of controversies and scandals, have [revealed] an administration driven by a vision of an all-powerful Executive over our Constitutional system of checks and balances, one that values loyalty over judgment, secrecy over openness, and ideology over competence. The accumulated and essentially uncontroverted evidence is that the political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least 9 Unites States attorneys last year.

The stonewalling by the White House raises the question: what is it that the White House is so desperate to hide?

The justice dep has been reduced to the role of enabler of this administration. What we need instead is genuine accountability and real independence.

His[Gonzales’] lack of independence and tendency to act as if he were the president’s lawyer, rather than the attorney general of the United States, makes that doubtful.”…

“Once the government shows the disregard for the independence of the justice system and the rule of law, its very hard to restore the people’s faith.”

And those are only Leahy’s opening remarks. Leahy told Gonzales “I don’t trust you.

It’s clear that was a blatant racist slur toward Gonzales because he’s Hispanic. Who can deny that? Did anyone say “you just “don’t trust” him because he’s a Hispanic”, that it was racism? I never heard it. Think about how this administration “deals with” any criticism or those kinds of remarks.

When asked about a “Senate trial for contempt,” Leahy told a reporter that there have been subpoenas etc, “but if they don’t respond there will be contempt citations”. And again, clearly because of racism.

Schumer: “Sir, how can you say that you should stay on as attorney general when we go through these exercises like this where you’re bobbing and weaving and ducking to avoid admitting that you deceived the committee.”

“Stay on”??? Sure, try to force the Hispanic out. “Bobbing and weaving and ducking??” I never heard such racist tripe.

Feingold: “When you look at all these statements together, it’s hard to see anything but a pattern of intentionally misleading Congress again and again. Shouldn’t the attorney general of the United States meet a higher standard??”

“Higher standard?” More racist rhetoric, we know what those “dog whistle”-words mean.

And that’s all besides what they said about Gonzales and Bush on the Sunday talk shows or media blurbs. It’s clear the Dems see racism everywhere they want to see it. Great excuse.

Unfortunately, Gonzales didn’t think of calling it racism because he was a Hispanic.
It wouldn’t have mattered anyway.

RightRing | Bullright

Thoughts : MLK Day, content of their character

 

THOUGHTS
by
JUST GENE
on
MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY
and
THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER

 
From Michelle Malkin’s column: “Tamera Mowry Is Not Alone

This made my heart ache and my blood pressure spike: Actress Tamera Mowry, who is black, wept in an interview with Oprah Winfrey over the vile bigotry she has encountered because of her marriage to Fox News reporter Adam Housley, who is white. Misogynist haters called Mowry a sellout and a “white man’s whore.” International news outlets labeled the Internet epithets she endured “horrific” and “shocking.”
Horrific? Yes. Shocking? Not at all. What Mowry experienced is just a small taste of what the intolerance mob dishes out against people “of color” who love, think and live the “wrong” way. I’ve grown so used to it that I often forget how hurtful it can be. Mowry’s candor was moving and admirable. It’s also a valuable teachable moment about how dehumanizing it can be to work in the public eye. Have we really sunk to this?
Young actresses in the 21st century forced to defend their love lives because their marital choices are politically incorrect? We’re leaning backward in the regressive Age of Hope and Change.
Let’s face it: Mowry’s sin, in the view of her feckless detractors, is not merely that she married outside her race. It’s also that she is so open about her love for a white man who — gasp! — works for reviled Fox News. Neither of them is political, but the mere association with Bad Things (Fox, conservatives, capitalism, the tea party, Christian activism, traditional values) is an invitation for unabashed hate.
The dirty open secret is that a certain category of public figures has been routinely mocked, savaged and reviled for being partners in interracial marriages or part of loving interracial families (for a refresher, see the video clip of MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry and friends cackling at the holiday photo of Mitt Romney holding his black adopted grandson in his lap).
And the dirty double standard is that selectively compassionate journalists and pundits have routinely looked the other way — or participate directly in heaping on the hate.
Have you forgotten? Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was excoriated by black liberals for being married to wife Virginia, who happens to be white. The critics weren’t anonymous trolls on the Internet. They worked for major media outlets and institutions of higher learning. USA Today columnist Barbara Reynolds slammed Thomas and his wife for their colorblind union: “It may sound bigoted; well, this is a bigoted world and why can’t black people be allowed a little Archie Bunker mentality? … Here’s a man who’s going to decide crucial issues for the country and he has already said no to blacks; he has already said if he can’t paint himself white he’ll think white and marry a white woman.”
Howard University’s Afro-American Studies Chair Russell Adams accused Thomas of racism against all blacks for falling in love with someone outside his race. “His marrying a white woman is a sign of his rejection of the black community,” Adams told The Washington Post. “Great justices have had community roots that served as a basis for understanding the Constitution. Clarence’s lack of a sense of community makes his nomination troubling.”
California state Senate Democrat Diane Watson taunted former University of California regent Ward Connerly after a public hearing, spitting: “He’s married a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn’t want to be black.”
Mowry is not alone. The Thomases and the Connerlys are not alone. Poisonous attempts to shame are an old, endless schoolyard game played by bullies who never grow up and can’t stand other people’s happiness or success.
Time doesn’t lessen the vitriol or hostility. Take it from someone who knows. “Oriental Auntie-Tom,” “yellow woman doing the white man’s job,” “white man’s puppet,” “Manila whore” and “Subic Bay bar girl” are just a few of the printable slurs I’ve amassed over the past quarter-century. You wouldn’t believe how many Neanderthals still think they can break you by sneering “me love you long time” or “holla for a dolla.” My IQ, free will, skin color, eye shape, productivity, sincerity, maiden name and integrity have all been ridiculed or questioned because I happen to be a minority conservative woman happily married to a white man and the mother of two interracial children who see Mom and Dad — not Brown Mom and White Dad.
Mowry’s got the right attitude. She wiped away her tears and told Oprah that haters wouldn’t drag her down. Brava. Live, laugh, think and love without regrets. It’s the best revenge and the most effective antidote to crab-in-the-bucket syndrome.

 

**Tamera Mowry is not alone by Michelle Malkin – Creators Syndicate – Copyright 2013

Profiling Fauxfiling

 
Well, one of the things you can count on is that progressives will ride a word or slogan into the ground, and that they reduce issues to a word or soundbite. Take profiling, for example, when so often profiling is not the whole issue at hand. It just replaces an entire argument. Presently “profiling” is used as a sword, and it’s a popular one.

Naturally, to hear the progressives use the term everywhere is sort of ironic, considering their stance on issues. When it comes to many of their programs, profiling is not only involved it is often the direct intention. They are all for profiling when it comes to affirmative action. But all they ever do is bemoan the evils of profiling.

When someone captures a criminal based on a description that is a good thing, or so you would think. But if it is a white guy they’re after, I sort of doubt they screen or profile every black guy they can find.

Just for one example, then Senator Obama in Illinois actually called for profiling to deal with crime. He brought along the law enforcement community, at their resistance, to the idea. Probably one of the only things he did push by himself. So he called for profiling to deal with profiling. He wanted to document and keep records on race in law enforcement. Only Liberals can interpret more profiling as leading the fight against profiling.

So the problem is not profiling, as the libs suggest, it is about the way it is used. If used the right way, their way, like affirmative action, it is celebrated as noble. When used in law enforcement it is condemned.

Just like with language, there is one standard for blacks and one for whites. There are words whites cannot use regardless of circumstance, while blacks can freely use them and even encourage their use — even as a compliment — but are condemned if used by someone else. Similar rules apply for profiling.

Profiling, very bad and not acceptable say the progressive police. But the same ‘social police’ will rail against any attempt to deny affirmative action.

When a Supreme jurist steps down, they have to replace her with a woman or a Latina. Profile for the right replacement. And, having found the right one for the seat, anyone arguing against that is promptly branded a woman-hater or a racist bigot. The same people skewered Clarence Thomas and Judge Bork.(creating a new term) They borked Bork by labeling him a bigot. That’s how profiling works for the left, justifiably.

How many whites are in the black caucus? I think its still zero. Speaking of profiling, this administration seems to be big on profiling for radicals. Obama fit the profile nicely, as does Hillary now. And they are constantly profiling for any conservatives.

 
Here’s what the ACLU says:

“Affirmative action is one of the most effective tools for redressing the injustices caused by our nation’s historic discrimination against people of color and women, and for leveling what has long been an uneven playing field.”

” Avenues of opportunity for those previously excluded remain far too narrow. We need affirmative action now more than ever.”

So they want to use profiling — i.e. affirmative action — as a means of social justice, just not as a means of law enforcement. They see the former as very good and necessary; the latter as very bad and should be eliminated everywhere.

Majority of Americans Oppose Affirmative Action in College Admissions

    Overall, respondents favored affirmative action more generally, but college admissions should be based on merit

    A clear majority of Americans, 67 percent, are opposed to considering race and ethnicity in college admissions, instead saying that students should be admitted solely based on merit, according to a recent Gallup poll.

Yet don’t anyone even talk about touching it, according to the social police on the Left.

Clarence Thomas compared affirmative action to Jim Crow: (US News)

“Clarence Thomas suggested affirmative action was comparable to the Jim Crow segregation laws enacted in the American South in the 1880s and in place until the 1960s.”
/…
While the court did not strike down affirmative action at the university, it punted the case back to a lower court, saying the admissions policy needed to be more strictly scrutinized.”

In his opinion, Thomas said that the “worst forms” of racism have “always been accompanied by straight-faced representations that discrimination helped minorities.”

“Slaveholders argued that slavery was a ‘positive good’ that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of life,” he said. “Segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks.”

 
SCOTUS failed to address it head on only that the policy needs more strict scrutiny. Compare that to the public scrutiny profiling gets, at every opportunity to do so.

Leftists claim they want equality while they clearly want deliberate, conscious preferences made for college admissions. Does that make sense?

Rev Al and the lefts’ P/C police

It has been simmering on the back burner since the Trayvon verdict They wanted a commentary on victimhood of blacks, with Sharpton and Jackson taking the stage as well as any other race hustlers. But as anyone made the wider case in the black community, and the Chicago connection, they turned the anti-Zimmerman wrath on them.

They skewed any white people for talking about the black community. Almost in unison they said white people have no right to tell us who our black leaders should be. As the Chicago case got any attention, they got viscous. Why is that? They didn’t actually want to talk about the black community.

Is it the terrible statistics? Is it the talk about the black family and communities, and unemployment, and violence stats, or the black on black crimes, or the unreported incidents and numbers of murders — known only as statistics? Pundit after pundit was asked, and they could not name one of those victims.

Not really; its about color and race. It is just that white people cannot say anything related to the black community. They must shut up, they have no business even talking about the black community. That is the message and what is driving it.

There is one other thing: all that talk about statistics, the black community, and Chicago murders diverts from their theme to keep it about Trayvon and the chosen black issues — and “defend your ground” law — all the time. In other words, that is where they want ALL the attention focused. Too bad, you lose Chicago.

After all, they were on a roll with protests and vindicated by Obama talking about Trayvon from the White House press room. What Chicago victim would not love to have that voice?

How dare whites talk about the black community or anything related to race. That cannot be. Who in the hell are they? But blacks talk about whites and communities with impunity. Who would reject their comments about that? And they would say they have every right to talk about it as much as anyone. Who would argue? No one.

But now here we have a divisive issue raised and the white people have to just shut up. Its their show. That is the message of the race police(hustlers) like Sharpton and Jackson, et al. Or our illustrious president of all things race, or attorney general. Who are you to inject white comments? But hypocrisy is always a problem for the left, and this debate is driven by the left and its activists.

Oops how did this happen?

So what happens when Rev. Michael Pfleger talks about race and organizes black rallies and protests? Remember he’s a white priest in Chicago. So what business does he have speaking on behalf of blacks? Who does he think he is? How can he be a leader in the black community? Oh, they don’t ask those questions. Of course no one said to him, “Reverend, you have no business speaking for blacks on these issues.” That would be news.

This is an oldy but goody. Its illustrative of Al Sharpton and his “leadership”.
(Just forward to 5 minutes)

Literal example. Hey, wouldn’t you like to see Sharpton sit down and shut up for a change, and let someone else speak?

And Pelosi, SHE IS A WHITE B**CH, ISN”T SHE? Well she scheduled hearing last week for today:
Washington Examiner:

House Democrats will hold a hearing next week to weigh in on the controversy swirling around the recent verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced “A Conversation on Race and Justice” on July 30 on Capitol Hill.
According to a Pelosi aide, the hearing will not focus solely on the trial, which acquitted Zimmerman of murder charges in the shooting death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, but will be a “broader conversation.”
Pelosi will preside over the hearing, which will include Democrats from the party’s Steering and Policy Committee.
The scheduled panelists are Southern Poverty Law Center founder Morris Dees, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and civil rights lawyer Maya Wiley, president of the Center for Social Inclusion.

So now if you are chosen white or a Democrat pol, you can talk about race or speak on black communities — and don’t make waves or interrupt black leaders. I think I got it.

Obama adopted, then became Trayvon

‘Travon Obama’ gives race lecture from White House

Black and white ain’t so Black and White

And the race-baiting continues.

There is absolutely zero reason to believe anything said here is being politically correct. So if you cannot stomach that, you may not want to read this, it may offend your sensitivities.

My Bullshit Meter has exploded. I knew it would at some point about this Zimmerman verdict — since the verdict is the real source of the problem now. Everyone has followed it or at least heard the story of the “child” who goes to the store to buy some candy and a drink and is shot in cold blood on the way home, just for his innocent efforts.

I wonder how many parents and friends can truly say that about someone they knew in Chicago? Just walking along and gunned down, and they don’t even know by who. There have to be hundreds if not thousands of those — through no fault of their own — murders. This one case, in Florida, does not happen to be one of those. Maybe it is fortunate for Trayvon’s parents that they have someone to blame and had their day in court. How many kids or surviving families in Chicago never had either of those?

Now, flash forward nearly a week after the “verdict”. We all heard clips and coverage, even since, about the case and the outcome. One important thing they want to ignore is where Trayvon attacked and was beating Zimmerman. (for whatever reason they do) They made it a national case way before trial, and had their storyline framed in the media.

The President even gave a remark at the onset that if he had a son he would look just like Trayvon. Now, I don’t claim to know exactly what he intended saying that, but I do know he personalized it. He also intervened in an arrest of a black Harvard professor. That was biased too – before knowing the details, he said police acted stupidly. Beer summit?

The family did post-verdict interviews and pleaded with the President to step in or intervene in some way, as well as countless others. They demanded Eric Holder and the DOJ to investigate, again, and press a civil rights case. We all know.

So the President does come out and give a 20 minute speech about it. (no questions — something Carney claimed Obama waited for all week and expected, but hadn’t received) Now he talks about it, and said his earlier remarks should also mean that could have been him 30 years ago. He upped the personalization to himself. Well, at the risk of Obama making this about himself, it is in effect what he did. Putting his DNA on it. I knew that was the intent of his first remark but he wanted to clarify it unless people didn’t get it.

In his latest rambling lecture on race in America, he rattles off a list of grievances of African-Americans regarding race. Feelings were a big part of his message. He spoke of being profiled in a store, crossing the street with locks clicking on cars, or standing next to a white woman clutching her purse. It was not lacking in typical examples.

And while rattling all these grievances off is where my bullshit meter exploded, (not fizzled… it exploded) because, as he said, we needed to add context to the issue. I can appreciate that. So I’d like to add a little bit of context — not an exhaustive one — of an average white guy. And yes, there is a context for that, too.

First though, by “context being denied “, as Obama puts it, I presume he meant denying the justifiable excuses for behavior, or denying that “experience” is causal.
Here is what Obama said in part:

Now, this isn’t to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact — although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context.

They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration.

So Trayvon is a product of a violent history and poverty? There’s the unacknowledged context for it. So racism and others are to blame?

So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied.

But to start with, he repeats claims, like the commentators did, about conversations they must have with their children and those societal lessons they must learn. Educationally of course. Yes, white people have had to have and deal with some difficult conversations too. And knowing that these situations do not go away, they remain there like a scab that just won’t heal. We don’t appreciate having to talk about such issues but they are there.

So let’s put a geographic picture on it for openers. The small city or town, in rural America, where one cannot travel in a section after dark. You may walk though in the daytime, but even then it is risky. A likely scenario is someone says, “boy you in the wrong hood, what’cha doing here? Are you lost?” The message is clear this is their turf. It may not be the bloods and crypts but their turf, no doubt about it. God help you if you did break down in that section at night, you are at their mercy. (“they” meaning any opportunist)

Just crossing a main street in one section puts you on the black side. Blacks freely walk in other sections but everyone knows everything across that street is basically off limits. You have to let your kids know that. You wouldn’t send them over there unaware of the circumstances. While at the same time, avoiding that section does not make you immune to a bad encounter in the other parts of the city. (but your chances are better.)

I am not just referring to gang related problems. At night, ambulances run back and forth across that section. It’s a part of life, something you must live with. It doesn’t change. How does that make people feel? Those neighborhoods are off bounds to whites and might as well have signs on them. Anyone venturing in them would be at their mercy. Frequent shootings. I lived in a sprawling town like that at school. A block from the action as we called it. What happened there would not surprise you. Someone was stabbed while standing in front of a bar on the demarcation street. Fortunately he had a legal handgun. (he did not kill him) It was a message of the unfortunate truth.

But you never hear their concerns about that, those problems, tensions and feelings, or that history. They never mention the social problems whites deal with. You can be considered prey in the wrong part of town. How would any woman feel? The hospital borders that section and nurses had to travel back and forth at all hours. No, we did not have cell phones or GPS then. I’m thinking e GPS will catch up to say “Safety alert: you should know what part of town you are in, lock your doors, roll up your windows….and do not get out of the vehicle.”

So, let me tell you about some typical scenarios for white people. How about the life of white people and how they are forced to “feel”? How about when going into a gas station and there is a crowd of young black guys in front of the door with 40’s? Or maybe you have the pleasure of being offended hearing all the expletives they yell. And you have to explain to your children waiting in the car what is going on or why they were saying that? Or the playground being off-limits due to crack dealers. Or the unavoidable sight of men with their pants around their thighs with the entire underwear showing, groping their crotches every few minutes. Or the rap blaring expletives at deafening levels. Conversation starters for kids, or a conversation waiting to happen? Yep. I can hear the kids now, why is that?

Now maybe that doesn’t equate to walking across the street and hearing the locks click on all the cars. But I think I could handle that precaution pretty well, in context. Anyway, we are lectured by Obama to do some soul-searching. What about where whites are not dealt justice, and receive biases in courts and family courts? (Nichol and Ron Goldman) Yes it is there too. Where is that context?

Oddly enough — OR NOT — not a word from Obama about the race-baiters like Sharpton and Jackson. Not that we’d expect it. Or little about race riots spawned in California. And nothing about Black Panthers issuing a 10 thousand dollar reward for Zimmerman. Nor anything of substance about his own hometown, Chicago, where murders are practically hourly. Only a vague reference to violence over the verdict and protests.

Obama sounded like he was warning school children about violence. This isn’t a schoolyard and he is not a referee. It’s dangerous to make such casual remarks about it.

I think it’s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do.

Wow, tough ultimatum. “I will remind them.” (I may have to lecture…)
Their rhetoric is: “What are we going to do about it?”, and “No justice no peace!”

And then, finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching.

How about store owners with thousands of dollars to replace signs and windows, only to wonder if it will happen again? Soul searching?

Then Obama says we ought to ask if we are “wringing as much bias out of” ourselves as we can? Give me a break. Is he? He believes that dividing us somehow unites us. Or maybe he really doesn’t believe it but that’s his formula.

If he sees any violence he will remind them? We’ve already seen acts. “Remind” who?

Speaking of “wringing out biases,” from the same guy who blamed an internet video for a terrorist attack in Benghazi, and months later says it was a long time ago. He won’t confront the unfortunate context of why those heroes died, but he’ll jump because a teenager was shot in self-defense to say, “that could have been me.”

He had no soul-searching, identity bonding to Benghazi or Fort Hood victims. No problem labeling an act of jihad work place violence. Benghazi was a long time ago.

Here’s an inconvenient racist reality for you. The Congress can’t even get basic accountability from the Attorney General on Fast and Furious without the Black Caucus crying racism and staging a walkout. Where’s the context and history for that? Better to worry about car locks clicking.

Soul searching anyone?

Obama being One with Trayvon

Let me get this picture: the guy who just comes off a trip to Africa, Ireland and prior to a planned vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, now says Trayvon Martin could have been him 30 years ago. I know full well what the scandal-plagued president meant and virtually intended by that remark. He calculated it all along, starting with Trayvon as his son and then upping his personalization to himself.

But really what does it say about this narcissist in the White House? Not what he intended to mean, but what it really says? In the context of his tenure now, hobnobbing with celebs, doing tee time rituals in spite of what is going on in the country, taking elaborate vacations, what it really says? Having his kids in posh private schools and secret service protection for a lifetime; when planning his next vacation is the priority.

In that context, what does it really say? He is as disconnected from reality as anyone can be, and has been for some time. Then he quips that Trayvon could have been him. Maybe someone can help me see the real relevance of that remark, because my stomach cannot digest it all.

Okay, maybe this is a good time for the radical, condescending, narcissist-in-chief to have a microsecond of clarity and see how much America has done and given him. Sure, all he did was make a big speech and ride the coattails of popularity. But how much has the nation benefited him- not the other way around. Especially given what his background was and with his utter lack of experience running anything. He lost to Bobby Rush.

That is not the message he wants to convey to everyone else. Yet he lectures us to not deny “context” to the picture. I have seen quite enough context, specifically his.

It is probably just more fodder for a diversion from Obama’s real problems, our country, his record, and the truth. The race card never gets old – there’s context for you.

Sorry Obama, your translation loses something …a lot in the “context”.

Profiler- in-Chief is against profiling

So all the hooplah over profiling is just great, if you are a minority, or fit one of the key demographics, or you’re just looking for a cause celeb to hang your hat on. But we know they’ve been profiling right along. And some of the biggest offenders are the very people who are against profiling.

4. A biographical essay presenting the subject’s most noteworthy characteristics and achievements.
5. A formal summary or analysis of data, often in the form of a graph or table, representing distinctive features or characteristics

Profiling has been very good for politics.

Obama sees everything through the eyes of race, ethnicity, union label, income status, etc. etc. And worse yet, he talks to people the same way, by stereotyping them by demographic and group. Look at his campaigns where he had a drop-down menu on his campaign site, Latinos or Hispanics, African Americans, immigrants and on and on. You name it. It was amazing. That is his way of organizing, which is largely credited with taking him to the White House.

So yes, if you are a profiler, you can make people swoon you into office. Just don’t call it profiling, call it…ah, “organizing”. Call it campaigning, even pandering – not “pofiling”.

In his book, he made no bones about seeking out Marxist professors — radicals as I call them. Now we have an administration chock full of radicals. Obama the profiler? You bet. How did Eric Holder, Chu, or Van Jones get their jobs? Profiler-in-Chief.

Even when Congress holds Holder in contempt, they call it racism and stage a walk out. They make a science of it.

Beyond that they even profile what laws to enforce and which not to. And don’t be surprised when it’s in ObamaCare too. He cuts breaks for his union buddies but throws Catholic institutions to the wolves. Notice he holds rallies and makes his speeches on college campuses. Or he goes to speak at Planned Parenthood’s convention. No profiling there.

His allies in the Democrat party are profilers. They literally make a living at it, it’s their bread and butter. It is what they do. Now they are offended by the idea of profiling. Profiling has been very good for them. How else can one pander so effectively? It’s a way of life for career politicians.

The very same people who have problems with voter ID laws are habitual profiling panderers.

In the illinois senate, Obama pushed a bill to profile. He actually claimed that profiling was the answer. Theirs has not been a “profile in courage”. Today, our profiling comes straight from the top. ‘Shhh, we don’t want anyone to profile.’

As far as I’m concerned, we could do a little more profiling of Congress. Maybe if we the people did a little better job profiling in elections, we wouldn’t be in the state we are in? So don’t be surprised any solutions they propose to profiling involve profiling.

Lemon question to Zimmerman

After the Zimmerman “not guilty” verdict, Piers Morgan interviewed his brother Robert Zimmerman on CNN. Don Lemon cut in at the end with a question for him and his brother.

Lemon asked:

“You said you want to start some sort of dialogue, and much has been made about race in this particular case. And you, your brother, your family—you have a unique opportunity in this country to address that. What would you like to see happen when it comes to race, healing the divide, and do you plan to do anything about that, and will you ask your brother to do anything about that?”

Well, talk about gall. So how can George Zimmerman heal the divisions? Like they would listen to anything he says, for one. And like they wouldn’t just mock him — maybe that’s their idea of healing.

I guess it was just another landmine they laid for Zimmerman:
Please, Geaorge Zimmerman, we’re waiting for you to help us heal.”

But he would never be able to keep up with the race-baiting Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. With an Attorney General perpetuating and extorting it, and a prez playing politics with it.