November 27, 2012

Democrats revive their Jim Crow roots [Darleen Click]

Once a racist, always a racist

“Everytime [sic] I think the Democratic race card players could not get more vile, more deranged, more patronizingly demeaning to blacks, someone manages to defy even my vivid imagination,” thunders blogger William Jacobson. He’s referring to a passage in a Washington Post editorial about critics of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice–a passage that in our view is useful for its clarity. [...]

The Post focuses on the critics rather than their choice of words. Here’s the passage that outrages Jacobson: “Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can’t know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy.”

Let’s examine this argument carefully. The Post acknowledges that “we can’t know their hearts.” But it finds a (literally) prima facie reason to suspect them of invidious motives: Almost all of them are persons of pallor. The Post is casting aspersions on Duncan and his colleagues based explicitly on the color of their skin. And it is accusing them of racism!

What was implicit during Obama’s first term, that whites and conservatives have nothing to bring to the national table because of the RAAAAACISM, is now explicit.

How is it that people can openly dismiss the Founding Fathers and anyone that refers to their ideals respectfully still call themselves “American”?

We’re here in the 21st century with a group of Americans that still rally to the thinking of the Founding Fathers. The caveats, the exceptions to the equality, the very limited notion of who is to be included in the ruling of the country, white men of property. I don’t know how many people say this or openly think about it this way anymore, but why do, why did the Romney folks feel that this is their country to rule?

Once the hysterical How dare you! Your obvious racist code words offend me! rhetoric that is the first (and many times only) response to any non-Progressive speech is scraped away, the cynicism behind the Balkanization of this country is astounding. Taranto says

The trouble with a diverse coalition based on ethnic or racial identity is that solidarity within each group can easily produce conflicts among the groups. Permissive immigration policies, for example, may be good for Hispanics and Asians but bad for blacks. Racial preferences in college admissions help blacks and Hispanics at the expense of Asians.

One way of holding together such a disparate coalition is by delivering prosperity, so that everyone can feel he’s doing well. Failing that, another way is by identifying a common adversary–such as the “white male.” During Obama’s first term, the demonization of the “white male” was common among left-liberal commentators, especially MSNBC types. The Post has now lent its considerably more mainstream institutional voice to this form of bigotry.

Now more than ever, it isn’t the Democrats that have moved Forward! so much as returned to LBJ’s era of the 1960’s where the myth of the Republican Southern Strategy was born. At the time, LBJ continually rejected Republican only civil rights bills until he could get some nominal Democrat support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (and even up through 1989, Democrats continued to win handily in in former segregationist states). LBJ’s so-called “Great Society” then went on to boost the destruction of the African American family while, in the words of LBJ

A source for information about LBJ who is not a partisan hack, dirty trickster and MLK-adultery publicist is Robert M. MacMillan, Air Force One steward during the Johnson administration. Macmillan reports that when LBJ was flying on Air Force One with two governors once, he boasted, “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.”

With Obama now as our Lord and Savior, any criticism of Him is not merely racist, it’s blasphemous.

Posted by Darleen @ 8:03am
20 comments | Trackback

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments (20)

  1. From a man governing with the consent of the governed, we have devolved to the god-king model in less than a generation.

    It doesn’t always work well for the king, though.

  2. “why did the Romney folks feel that this is their country to rule?”

    Matthews, in his stupidity, once again tips his hand. The question in his mind, as in the minds of his fellow travelers, is always and only “Who is to rule?” He is so far gone that he cannot even recognize a good-faith argument that we wish neither to rule nor to be ruled, but only to live our lives as free men, with dignity and reliance on ourselves, with respect for our neighbors, and with a minimum of interference from the State.

    But Chrissie Tingles can’t think in terms outside of The Rulers and The Ruled. The idea that people could live in peaceful cooperation with one another, without an overlord controlling their lives, is so foreign to him that he can’t even understand the terms of the argument. I’d feel sorry for him if he weren’t so high-profile and dangerous.

    In unrelated news: I found myself playing a lot of Skyrim and Fallout 3 over the holiday weekend. Between the civil war in Skyrim, and scavenging through the ruins of the Capitol Wasteland, I’m starting to think the boys at Bethesda Softworks are doing yeoman’s work at getting people in the right frame of mind. If they come out with a Hunger Games release in 2013, I’ll know for sure that it’s time to go.

  3. From a man governing with the consent of the governed, we have devolved to the god-king model in less than a generation.

    No comment. Just a link to prove the point.

  4. Susan Rice evidently was not terribly persuasive during her dialogue with skeptical Republican Senators today. Radio news has them emerging from the private talks with more concern than they had when they went in, though details are scarce just yet.

  5. By the way, when there are so many good works yet to be done and grace on the cheap still to be had, what kind of ungrateful nation turns a lord and savior out of office because of a trifling formality like the 22nd Amendment?

    Food for thought.

  6. I suppose white males will now be like the jews in Nazi germany – although it’ll be helpful that they are white and therefore don’t need armbands.
    White males are shutting down their own businesses on their own, though, which is helpful so now we don’t have to burn down their shops or anything.

    the only conflict that is going to arise is when people of other minority groups have skin that is a little too pale, which will mean they get unfair treatment on accident sometimes. right? Like that Zimmerman fellow – sounds white, looks kinda white – string him up!

  7. No comment. Just a link to prove the point.

    Likewise.

    The caveats, the exceptions to the equality, the very limited notion of who is to be included in the ruling of the country, white men of property.

    Where did it ever say that the franchise was limited to white men? (Hint: It didn’t, ever.)

  8. Let’s forget Condeleeza Rice ever existed.

  9. Let’s forget Condeleeza Rice ever existed.

    She seems determined to prevent that happening.

  10. More laughable racist stuff from a lefty.

  11. I’m not sure if there is a point to paying attention to them any more.

  12. McCain, Ayotte and Graham post-meeting presser quickie.

  13. By the way, when there are so many good works yet to be done and grace on the cheap still to be had, what kind of ungrateful nation turns a lord and savior out of office because of a trifling formality like the 22nd Amendment?

    So, my question is: realistically, what would happen if this came to pass. Say that they try to keep him in office. What then?

    Do people take up arms and march on Washington? I think a lot of us like to believe that would be the case. Maybe, though, four more years of being beaten down and it would be ‘meh, what can you do?’.

    Personally, I don’t know.

  14. Do people take up arms and march on Washington? I think a lot of us like to believe that would be the case.

    I doubt we’d see all of PA’s deer hunters heading toward the District. More likely, we’d see a lot of people realizing that when the head of government doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the laws that restrict him, there’s no reason for them to live under such strictures, either. I’m not sure if we’d see an actual descent into anarchy, but we’d sure as hell see a lot fewer people playing by the rules. I hope you like the clothes at Banana Republic, because we’d all be living there.

    Or, if you prefer a brighter note, we might see some red states looking for a more perfect union. One that doesn’t involve an illegitimate god-king in a faraway fantasy world.

  15. Pingback: Isn't This Racism ??

  16. I like when Squid comments. “illegitimate god-king in a faraway fantasy world”. That was awesome.

  17. There was a spontaneous march on Washington, albeit without any guns, back in 2010 in response to the series of unwanted spending and Constitutionally suspect power-grabbing bills like the $800+ B “stimulus” and ObamaCare. For their troubles, the protestors were branded racist extremists and assiduously marginalized where not simply ignored, not only by their nominal leftist political opposition, but by their own nominal allies in the Republican party. If such a high-minded approach has already been proven to be ineffective and so easily dismissed, then such a path may not be resorted to again anytime soon. Wasn’t that the point of the exercise of power on the part of the establishment and press?

  18. “There was a spontaneous march on Washington, albeit without any guns, back in 2010 in response to the series of unwanted spending and Constitutionally suspect power-grabbing bills like the $800+ B “stimulus” and ObamaCare.”

    I think I see the problem.

  19. That was awesome.

    I didn’t used to write stuff like that. I think you guys are a bad influence on me.

  20. Pingback: Leftist America: Wild Kingdom « The Camp Of The Saints

Leave a Reply