LIberalism is an Ideology for the racially obsessed

This is just sad

Western Washington University sent a questionnaire to students asking them for advice on how the administration could succeed at making sure that in future years, “we are not as white as we are today.”

The question notes that WWU’s racial make up does not perfectly reflect the nation at large, and asks students to consider strategies that other universities have used to focus on skin color as the paramount indicator of a student-applicant’s worth.

The president of WWU has stated that his explicit goal is to reduce the white population on campus, according to Campus Reform.

“I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, that we as a faculty and staff and student body, as an administration, if we 10 years from now are as white as we are today, we will have failed as a university,” said Bruce Shepard, president of WWU, in a 2012 address.

And the Left wonders why we cannot get past race? Maybe because that is all they focus on.

Racist Democrat’s $100,000 ‘Bunch Of Whites’ Challenge Backfires

Alabama Democrat’s $100,000 Challenge To A ‘Whole Bunch Of Whites’ Backfires Big Time – The Blaze

Last month, Alabama State Rep. Alvin Holmes (D) made some controversial and racially-charged statements that could cost him $100,000 if he is willing to put his money where his mouth is

.

.
During a legislative session discussion on abortion rights, Holmes speculated that members of the GOP would be supportive of abortion if their daughters were impregnated by black men. The elected official, who has served in the state house since 1974, then offered to pay $100,000 cash to anyone who could show him a “bunch of whites” who have adopted black children in Alabama.

Those comments sparked the formation of a group of families in Alabama who are easily able to disprove Holmes’ theory.

Faces of Families in Alabama is the name of the Facebook group dedicated to showing Holmes and the world that families – adoptive families – are not as racially divided as he believes. In less than a month, Faces of Families has earned more than 7000 “likes” on the social media outlet and photos are coming into the group daily, showing off the mosaic of families made up of all colors.

On Wednesday, Faces of Families in Alabama gathered on the steps of the State House to demonstrate just how many multi-racial, adoptive families were in the state. By all accounts, the rally was peaceful and positive.

After the group showed up, Holmes doubled down on his comments, telling a local television station, ”The majority of the white people in the state of Alabama are against adopting black children.” The group has asked for an apology from Holmes and some are calling for his resignation.

What about the $100,000 in cash that he offered to anyone who could show him a “bunch of whites” who have adopted black babies in Alabama?

It would appear that Faces of Families in Alabama met his challenge. One adoptive mom, Beverly Owings, who has a 13-year-old bi-racial daughter told the local ABC affiliate, “he should have to put his money where his mouth is.”

We did speak with Beverly Owings on Thursday afternoon and she confirmed that Holmes had been invited to attend the event, but did not appear. Beverly and her husband Jeromy, are parents to four adopted children, one is bi-racial children.

“This was not about money, but about changing Holmes opinion,” she told TheBlaze, “and about getting out the word about how many children are available for adoption in Alabama.”

A few hours after the rally, Holmes reportedly called into a local radio show where the Ownings were slated to be guests for 30 minutes to talk about the event. That appearance reportedly turned into a one-hour show with more call-ins than the station had seen in quite some time. We have requested a copy of the audio and will attach it when it comes available.

TheBlaze has made several calls to the offices and home of the representative. The state legislature is currently not in session and no voice mail messaging options were available on his home or district phone numbers. When we get a response from Holmes we will update this story.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Nancy Pelosi Redefining Despicable

The Gateway Pundit has it right, she is a horrible woman

What a horrible woman.
This is all they got, folks.
Their policies don’t work so they’ve resorted to racist attacks and lies.

Pelosi lied again and accused the Republicans of not passing immigration reform because of racism.

“I think race has something to do with the fact that they’re not bringing up an immigration bill. I’ve heard them say to the Irish if it were just you this would be easy.”

When did she hear this?
Where?

Who said this?

Did it not occur to any of the reporters in this room to follow up on her outrageous comments?
Instead, the lapdog media sat on their hands again and allowed this horrible woman to lie and slander the Republicans with another vile racist attack!

Of course no one challenged her, the media is pathetic.

President Obama Praises Racist Lyndon Johnson For Republican Civil Rights Act

President Obama Praises Lyndon Johnson For Civil Rights Act – In The Capital

.
….

.
In honor of President Lyndon Johnson and the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, President Barack Obama on Thursday honored Johnson, calling him a “master of politics and the legislative process” who paved the way for him to become the first African-American president.

“Because of the Civil Rights movement, because of the laws President Johnson signed, new doors of opportunity and education swung open for everybody,” Obama said. “Not just blacks and whites, but also women and Latinos; and Asians and Native Americans; and gay Americans and Americans with a disability. They swung open for you, and they swung open for me. And that’s why I’m standing here today – because of those efforts, because of that legacy.”

As the president faces a divided Congress and tries to recover from the rocky roll-out of the Affordable Care Act, Obama harkened back to Lyndon Johnson’s passage of significant pieces of legislation like the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act.

“Passing laws was what LBJ knew how to do,” Obama said. “No one knew politics and no one loved legislating more than President Johnson. He was charming when he needed to be, ruthless when required. He could wear you down with logic and argument. He could horse trade, and he could flatter.”

“What President Johnson understood was that equality required more than the absence of oppression,” Obama continued. “It required the presence of economic opportunity. He wouldn’t be as eloquent as Dr. King would be in describing that linkage… but he understood that connection because he had lived it. A decent job, decent wages, health care – those, too, were civil rights worth fighting for.”

Using Johnson’s legislative success as a backdrop, Obama made the case that government has a role to play in addressing economic inequality. “In a time when cynicism is too often passed off as wisdom,” Obama said, “it’s perhaps easy to conclude that there are limits to change; that we are trapped by our own history; and politics is a fool’s errand, and we’d be better off if we roll back big chunks of LBJ’s legacy, or at least if we don’t put too much of our hope, invest too much of our hope in our government.”

“I reject such thinking,” Obama added, emphatically.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related article:

.
The Party Of Civil Rights – Kevin D. Williamson

This magazine has long specialized in debunking pernicious political myths, and Jonah Goldberg has now provided an illuminating catalogue of tyrannical clichés, but worse than the myth and the cliché is the outright lie, the utter fabrication with malice aforethought, and my nominee for the worst of them is the popular but indefensible belief that the two major U.S. political parties somehow “switched places” vis-à-vis protecting the rights of black Americans, a development believed to be roughly concurrent with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the rise of Richard Nixon. That Republicans have let Democrats get away with this mountebankery is a symptom of their political fecklessness, and in letting them get away with it the GOP has allowed itself to be cut off rhetorically from a pantheon of Republican political heroes, from Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass to Susan B. Anthony, who represent an expression of conservative ideals as true and relevant today as it was in the 19th century. Perhaps even worse, the Democrats have been allowed to rhetorically bury their Bull Connors, their longstanding affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan, and their pitiless opposition to practically every major piece of civil-rights legislation for a century. Republicans may not be able to make significant inroads among black voters in the coming elections, but they would do well to demolish this myth nonetheless.

Even if the Republicans’ rise in the South had happened suddenly in the 1960s (it didn’t) and even if there were no competing explanation (there is), racism – or, more precisely, white southern resentment over the political successes of the civil-rights movement – would be an implausible explanation for the dissolution of the Democratic bloc in the old Confederacy and the emergence of a Republican stronghold there. That is because those southerners who defected from the Democratic party in the 1960s and thereafter did so to join a Republican party that was far more enlightened on racial issues than were the Democrats of the era, and had been for a century. There is no radical break in the Republicans’ civil-rights history: From abolition to Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, there exists a line that is by no means perfectly straight or unwavering but that nonetheless connects the politics of Lincoln with those of Dwight D. Eisenhower. And from slavery and secession to remorseless opposition to everything from Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, there exists a similarly identifiable line connecting John Calhoun and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Supporting civil-rights reform was not a radical turnaround for congressional Republicans in 1964, but it was a radical turnaround for Johnson and the Democrats.

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated. In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views. Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching. As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower. Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster. In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation. Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this – we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Johnson did not spring up from the Democratic soil ex nihilo. Not one Democrat in Congress voted for the Fourteenth Amendment. Not one Democrat in Congress voted for the Fifteenth Amendment. Not one voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Eisenhower as a general began the process of desegregating the military, and Truman as president formalized it, but the main reason either had to act was that President Wilson, the personification of Democratic progressivism, had resegregated previously integrated federal facilities. (“If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it,” he declared.) Klansmen from Senator Robert Byrd to Justice Hugo Black held prominent positions in the Democratic party – and President Wilson chose the Klan epic Birth of a Nation to be the first film ever shown at the White House.

Johnson himself denounced an earlier attempt at civil-rights reform as the “nigger bill.” So what happened in 1964 to change Democrats’ minds? In fact, nothing.

President Johnson was nothing if not shrewd, and he knew something that very few popular political commentators appreciate today: The Democrats began losing the “solid South” in the late 1930s – at the same time as they were picking up votes from northern blacks. The Civil War and the sting of Reconstruction had indeed produced a political monopoly for southern Democrats that lasted for decades, but the New Deal had been polarizing. It was very popular in much of the country, including much of the South – Johnson owed his election to the House to his New Deal platform and Roosevelt connections – but there was a conservative backlash against it, and that backlash eventually drove New Deal critics to the Republican party. Likewise, adherents of the isolationist tendency in American politics, which is never very far from the surface, looked askance at what Bob Dole would later famously call “Democrat wars” (a factor that would become especially relevant when the Democrats under Kennedy and Johnson committed the United States to a very divisive war in Vietnam). The tiniest cracks in the Democrats’ southern bloc began to appear with the backlash to FDR’s court-packing scheme and the recession of 1937. Republicans would pick up 81 House seats in the 1938 election, with West Virginia’s all-Democrat delegation ceasing to be so with the acquisition of its first Republican. Kentucky elected a Republican House member in 1934, as did Missouri, while Tennessee’s first Republican House member, elected in 1918, was joined by another in 1932. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the Republican party, though marginal, began to take hold in the South – but not very quickly: Dixie would not send its first Republican to the Senate until 1961, with Texas’s election of John Tower.

At the same time, Republicans went through a long dry spell on civil-rights progress. Many of them believed, wrongly, that the issue had been more or less resolved by the constitutional amendments that had been enacted to ensure the full citizenship of black Americans after the Civil War, and that the enduring marginalization of black citizens, particularly in the Democratic states, was a problem that would be healed by time, economic development, and organic social change rather than through a second political confrontation between North and South. (As late as 1964, the Republican platform argued that “the elimination of any such discrimination is a matter of heart, conscience, and education, as well as of equal rights under law.”) The conventional Republican wisdom of the day held that the South was backward because it was poor rather than poor because it was backward. And their strongest piece of evidence for that belief was that Republican support in the South was not among poor whites or the old elites – the two groups that tended to hold the most retrograde beliefs on race – but among the emerging southern middle class, a fact recently documented by professors Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston in The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South (Harvard University Press, 2006). Which is to say: The Republican rise in the South was contemporaneous with the decline of race as the most important political question and tracked the rise of middle-class voters moved mainly by economic considerations and anti-Communism.

The South had been in effect a Third World country within the United States, and that changed with the post-war economic boom. As Clay Risen put it in the New York Times: “The South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the GOP. Working-class whites, however – and here’s the surprise – even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.” The mythmakers would have you believe that it was the opposite: that your white-hooded hillbilly trailer-dwelling tornado-bait voters jumped ship because LBJ signed a civil-rights bill (passed on the strength of disproportionately Republican support in Congress). The facts suggest otherwise.

There is no question that Republicans in the 1960s and thereafter hoped to pick up the angry populists who had delivered several states to Wallace. That was Patrick J. Buchanan’s portfolio in the Nixon campaign. But in the main they did not do so by appeal to racial resentment, direct or indirect. The conservative ascendency of 1964 saw the nomination of Barry Goldwater, a western libertarian who had never been strongly identified with racial issues one way or the other, but who was a principled critic of the 1964 act and its extension of federal power. Goldwater had supported the 1957 and 1960 acts but believed that Title II and Title VII of the 1964 bill were unconstitutional, based in part on a 75-page brief from Robert Bork. But far from extending a welcoming hand to southern segregationists, he named as his running mate a New York representative, William E. Miller, who had been the co-author of Republican civil-rights legislation in the 1950s. The Republican platform in 1964 was hardly catnip for Klansmen: It spoke of the Johnson administration’s failure to help further the “just aspirations of the minority groups” and blasted the president for his refusal “to apply Republican-initiated retraining programs where most needed, particularly where they could afford new economic opportunities to Negro citizens.” Other planks in the platform included: “improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times; such additional administrative or legislative actions as may be required to end the denial, for whatever unlawful reason, of the right to vote; continued opposition to discrimination based on race, creed, national origin or sex.” And Goldwater’s fellow Republicans ran on a 1964 platform demanding “full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.” Some dog whistle.

Of course there were racists in the Republican party. There were racists in the Democratic party. The case of Johnson is well documented, while Nixon had his fantastical panoply of racial obsessions, touching blacks, Jews, Italians (“Don’t have their heads screwed on”), Irish (“They get mean when they drink”), and the Ivy League WASPs he hated so passionately (“Did one of those dirty bastards ever invite me to his f***ing men’s club or goddamn country club? Not once”). But the legislative record, the evolution of the electorate, the party platforms, the keynote speeches – none of them suggests a party-wide Republican about-face on civil rights.

Neither does the history of the black vote. While Republican affiliation was beginning to grow in the South in the late 1930s, the GOP also lost its lock on black voters in the North, among whom the New Deal was extraordinarily popular. By 1940, Democrats for the first time won a majority of black votes in the North. This development was not lost on Lyndon Johnson, who crafted his Great Society with the goal of exploiting widespread dependency for the benefit of the Democratic party. Unlike the New Deal, a flawed program that at least had the excuse of relying upon ideas that were at the time largely untested and enacted in the face of a worldwide economic emergency, Johnson’s Great Society was pure politics. Johnson’s War on Poverty was declared at a time when poverty had been declining for decades, and the first Job Corps office opened when the unemployment rate was less than 5 percent. Congressional Republicans had long supported a program to assist the indigent elderly, but the Democrats insisted that the program cover all of the elderly – even though they were, then as now, the most affluent demographic, with 85 percent of them in households of above-average wealth. Democrats such as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Anthony J. Celebrezze argued that the Great Society would end “dependency” among the elderly and the poor, but the programs were transparently designed merely to transfer dependency from private and local sources of support to federal agencies created and overseen by Johnson and his political heirs. In the context of the rest of his program, Johnson’s unexpected civil-rights conversion looks less like an attempt to empower blacks and more like an attempt to make clients of them.

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the South – but not that slow.

Republicans did begin to win some southern House seats, and in many cases segregationist Democrats were thrown out by southern voters in favor of civil-rights Republicans. One of the loudest Democratic segregationists in the House was Texas’s John Dowdy, a bitter and buffoonish opponent of the 1964 reforms, which he declared “would set up a despot in the attorney general’s office with a large corps of enforcers under him; and his will and his oppressive action would be brought to bear upon citizens, just as Hitler’s minions coerced and subjugated the German people. I would say this – I believe this would be agreed to by most people: that, if we had a Hitler in the United States, the first thing he would want would be a bill of this nature.” (Who says political rhetoric has been debased in the past 40 years?) Dowdy was thrown out in 1966 in favor of a Republican with a very respectable record on civil rights, a little-known figure by the name of George H. W. Bush.

It was in fact not until 1995 that Republicans represented a majority of the southern congressional delegation – and they had hardly spent the Reagan years campaigning on the resurrection of Jim Crow.

It was not the Civil War but the Cold War that shaped midcentury partisan politics. Eisenhower warned the country against the “military-industrial complex,” but in truth Ike’s ascent had represented the decisive victory of the interventionist, hawkish wing of the Republican party over what remained of the America First/Charles Lindbergh/Robert Taft tendency. The Republican party had long been staunchly anti-Communist, but the post-war era saw that anti-Communism energized and looking for monsters to slay, both abroad – in the form of the Soviet Union and its satellites – and at home, in the form of the growing welfare state, the “creeping socialism” conservatives dreaded. By the middle 1960s, the semi-revolutionary Left was the liveliest current in U.S. politics, and Republicans’ unapologetic anti-Communism – especially conservatives’ rhetoric connecting international socialism abroad with the welfare state at home – left the Left with nowhere to go but the Democratic party. Vietnam was Johnson’s war, but by 1968 the Democratic party was not his alone.

The schizophrenic presidential election of that year set the stage for the subsequent transformation of southern politics: Segregationist Democrat George Wallace, running as an independent, made a last stand in the old Confederacy but carried only five states, while Republican Richard Nixon, who had helped shepherd the 1957 Civil Rights Act through Congress, counted a number of Confederate states (North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Tennessee) among the 32 he carried. Democrat Hubert Humphrey was reduced to a northern fringe plus Texas. Mindful of the long-term realignment already under way in the South, Johnson informed Democrats worried about losing it after the 1964 act that “those states may be lost anyway.” Subsequent presidential elections bore him out: Nixon won a 49-state sweep in 1972, and, with the exception of the post-Watergate election of 1976, Republicans in the following presidential elections would more or less occupy the South like Sherman. Bill Clinton would pick up a handful of southern states in his two contests, and Barack Obama had some success in the post-southern South, notably Virginia and Florida.

The Republican ascendancy in Dixie is associated with the rise of the southern middle class, the increasingly trenchant conservative critique of Communism and the welfare state, the Vietnam controversy and the rise of the counterculture, law-and-order concerns rooted in the urban chaos that ran rampant from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, and the incorporation of the radical Left into the Democratic party. Individual events, especially the freak show that was the 1968 Democratic convention, helped solidify conservatives’ affiliation with the Republican party. Democrats might argue that some of these concerns – especially welfare and crime – are “dog whistles” or “code” for race and racism, but this criticism is shallow in light of the evidence and the real saliency of those issues among U.S. voters of all backgrounds and both parties for decades. Indeed, Democrats who argue that the best policies for black Americans are those that are soft on crime and generous with welfare are engaged in much the same sort of cynical racial calculation President Johnson was practicing when he informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” Johnson’s crude racism is, happily, largely a relic of the past, but his strategy endures.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Race Mongering Derby indeed!

The Other McCain notes that problem solving is not the goal of race pimps, problem creating is

It seems to me that Ta-Nehisi Coates, who offers himself as a progressive spokesman for black America, must make a similar choice:  Does he want to address racial problems with the idea of doing something about those problems, or does does he just want to continue invoking a sense of black grievance that is more or less permanent? Does he want the bill, or does he want the issue?

Many conservatives have observed that liberals thrive on the political exploitation of problems that their policies never solve. As Ronald Reagan quipped: “We had a War on Poverty. Poverty won.” Of course, liberals have never stopped claiming that poverty is a problem which always demands more liberal solutions. But if they ever got rid of poverty, liberals would be out of business, and so they are politically invested in policies that don’t actually work.

All of this discussion was originally provoked by Rep. Paul Ryan’s remarks about “inner-city” culture as a cause of poverty. Talk to any upwardly mobile middle-class black parent, and they will tell you that one of their greatest challenges is trying to prevent their children from adopting that “inner-city” attitude which is too often presented in popular culture as the only way to be “authentically” black.

Go read it all

You stay classy Jamilah Lemieux

Jamilah is a staffer for Ebony Magazine, and, apparently she has issues with White people, and diversity of opinion, and oh yeah, Black Republicans she thinks are White

Jamilah Lemieux, Senior Editor for Black Magazine EBONY became the latest liberal attacker on black republicans through the social medium Twitter by calling RNC Raffi Williams a “White Dude” and talking down to him as if were beneath her. I didn’t know that EBONY management tolerated this racist tone from their management team. As you will see in the exchange below, Lemieux throws out the racist language to shut down the conversation. ContactEbony offices and let them know you would expect more from their management staff. (212) 397-4500

unnamed

 

Tough words, but they need to be said

Hats off to one Bob Belvedere for telling the truth

White Supremacy is a thing of the past for the most part, with the only ones ironically in possession of the attitude being certain segments of the Left [the miniscule membership of the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups included].

What is ‘holding down The Black Man™’ is himself.

If Black people cannot advance in any area of Society, it is because the majority of them refuse to reject the Victim Mentality and of their continued advocacy for things like Affirmative Action, seeing Racism in every non-Black’s actions, and calling for Reparations.  Such actions breed resentment in non-Blacks, which is a natural Human response to the idiocy of fools possessed of the power to destroy reputations and lives.

Further, the majority of Black Americans allow themselves to be led around by the nose by scheming Leftists, who see their anger as means to their end — the Immanentizing Of The Eschaton.

AS I have said many times, Blacks need to reject the NAACP, Je$$e Jackson, Sharpton, and any other race pimp. They also need to see that the Democrats ONLY care about Blacks for their vote. There is an ideology Blacks should adopt, it is called Conservatism. It is a color-blind ideology that sees individuals, not skin color, or gender, or sexual orientation. It is an ideology that gets the government out-of-the-way, honors life, supports the right to self-defense, and the right to keep more of the money you earn.

Oscar-Winning Actor Robert Duvall Slams Movie ‘The Butler’: ‘Atrocities In South Committed By Democrats’

Robert Duvall Blasts ‘The Butler’: ‘Atrocities In South Committed By Democrats’ – Big Hollywood

In an interview with the Daily Beast, living legend and Oscar-winner Robert Duvall blasted the Civil Rights film “The Butler” as “very inaccurate.” The 83 year-old star added, “JFK had one of the worst Civil Rights voting records,” and “All the atrocities in the South were committed by the Democratic Party.”

.

.
Duvall, a well-known Republican, also spoke about his growing dissatisfaction with the Republican Party, which he called “a mess.” Duvall describes himself as pro-choice when it comes to abortion and says he’s ready to vote Independent in 2016.

Let me say it this way: my wife’s from Argentina, she’s been here for a while, and she’s very smart. She calls herself a “tree-hugging Republican,” but she might even vote Democrat next time because the Republican Party is a mess. I’ll probably vote Independent next time. I think it was Jack Kerouac who said something like, “Don’t run down my country. My people are immigrants, so I believe in this country with all its faults. To me, it’s a big country that’s made mistakes.” Some of the bleeding-heart left-wing, extreme left-wing, are actually different from liberals. That movie The Butler? It’s very inaccurate. JFK had one of the worst Civil Rights voting records. And the Rockefeller’s were much more liberal with the blacks. All the atrocities in the South were committed by the Democratic Party, but now, everything’s been turned around in a strange way. Some of these very conservative Republicans… I don’t know, man. I believe in a woman’s choice. I believe in certain things. I hear they booed Rick Perry last night on the Jimmy Kimmel show. But it’s a great country. We’ve done bad things. Slavery was terrible. One-third of all Freedmen in New Orleans fought for the South. I can’t figure that out. Those things aren’t told in the history books. There’ve been lots of contradictions and this and that. But I think the country’s okay, and hopefully it will survive.

The full interview is very good and well worth your time.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Leftist bigotry on display

Of all the lies the Left tells, the one about how they love diversity is the biggest. 

OLYMPIA, Wash. — An attempt to fight racism at a community college may have backfired.

A group of employees at South Puget Sound Community College sent out an invitation to all 300 staffers.

The “Staff, Faculty and Administrators of Color” encouraged employees to reply to the invitation to find out the confidential date and time of what was being called a “happy hour” to “build support and community” for people of color.

Ah yes, these nutcases were demonstrating how inclusive they are by excluding Whitey! 

The invite made it clear white people were not invited.

The email read: “If you want to create space for white folks to meet and work on racism, white supremacy, and white privilege to better our campus community and yourselves, please feel free to do just that.”

“It was obviously a mistake,” said SPSCC’s Dean of College Relations, Kellie Purce Braseth.
Braseth said the group that put out the email last week apologized the next day and canceled the event.

Oh of course, this is typical. Grievance mongers always whine for honest discussions about race. But their version of open and honest really equals them bashing America, Conservatives, and of course Western culture. And, no, this was not a “mistake”. It was deliberate, and hateful, and frankly, those behind it are no better than any other bigot, and should be treated accordingly.

I really love the idiot who wrote the Email trying to defend it. In the video she says that it is hard to  She is the last person that ought to be in charge of anything, unless the college has an angry, bitter, bigot department, she would be perfect there. The Daily Caller calls her out for what she is. A far Left bigot!

 

While the politics of all the employees in the Diversity and Equity Center aren’t clear, Blackhorn appears to be a fringe leftist.

Her Facebook page indicates that she graduated from The Evergreen State College in 2010 with a major in “women, gender and sexuality studies.”

Her Facebook “likes” include Occupy Seattle, Lez Occupy, Seattle Out & Proud, Planned Parenthood Action, United Farm Workers and Earth Day Network

The fact that anyone like her would be put in any position of  any authority is disturbing.

*VIDEO* Racist Democrat Claims 99% Of Pro-Life Whites Would Make Daughter Have Abortion If Father Was Black


.

Racist thug insults next Texas governor, Greg Abbott

By racist thug, I mean Lubbock, Texas City Councilman Victor Hernandez, who apparently is quite the ass hat

Texas politicians are recoiling after a prominent Lubbock Democrat accused Republican candidate for governor Greg Abbott of “piñata politics” in a bigoted tirade and allegedly disparaged Abbott’s Latina wife.

“Greg Abbott came into our house uninvited, wanting to somehow give the illusion that the Lubbock County Hispanic community is supportive,” Lubbock city councilman Victor Hernandez said after Abbott visited the West Texas town and held a campaign rally at a Mexican restaurant. “If you want to come into my house, the first thing you have to do is to see me — see me as a person, see me as a human being, see me as a fellow Texan.”

So people have to wait for Hernandez to invite them in order to visit Lubbock? Or does that only apply to Republicans? And please Mr. Hernandez should spare us all the “see me as a person” noise. Seriously, how pathetic!

Hernandez, who chairs the local chapter Tejano Democrats, is furious about Abbott’s appeal to Hispanic voters in his city. Even though Abbott was met by a crowd of supporters at Jimenez Bakery and Restaurant last week, Hernandez branded the stop as “offensive” to Hispanics and “beyond any sense of decency.”

So, it sounds like Hernandez is really put out that Abbott was well received. Is someone a wee bit jealous? Insecure? Looking for attention?

He criticized Abbott and Republican candidates for not clearing their visit with local Hispanic groups.

In other words he did not “clear” it with the thugocracy that demands that all Hispanics do as they say! Abbott bypassed the thugs and went to the people! Democrats HATE that!

Alabama Rep. Alvin Holmes is your race pimp of the day

What a truly despicable man

A debate Tuesday over a bill to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected turned to race after Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, R-Indian Springs, compared her bill to Brown vs. the Board of Education.

But during the debate, Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, said that his Republican colleagues would support abortion if their daughters were impregnated by black men. 

“Ninety-nine percent of the all of the white people in here are going to raise their hand that they are against abortion,” he said. “On the other hand, 99 percent of the whites who are sitting in here now, if their daughter got pregnant by a black man, they are going to make their daughter have an abortion.”

Whether he is just playing the Race Card, or whether he believes this racist nonsense really does not matter. Holmes is a deplorable man. More of his vile comments at the link

Noted MSNBS Race Hustler: Personal Responsibility? That is RAAAAACIST!!

Nothing is ever to blame for anything that happens to a Black person, except RAAAACISM!

Via Mediaite:

MSNBC host Touré tore into President Barack Obama over his announcement on Thursday of a program to address disproportional rates of poverty and crime among African-American youth. The MSNBC host insisted that Obama was misguided to focus on the family and “personal responsibility” as ways to address those issues. He insisted “structural racism” was to blame for crime and poverty in the African-American community.

Touré began by praising the president for speaking to black youths in a way “only a black president could.” However, he said he was “depressed” by Obama’s outreach because even he would be unable to address many of the problems facing the black community.

“But when the president speaks to the black community, there’s often a dive into the politics of personal responsibility,” he continued. “I cringe at that, as if effort and excuses have been the problem.”

“No,” Touré asserted. “It’s been structural racism.”

Yeah, sure Toure, we need to drop any personal responsibility and embrace Social justice right? I will say that people like Toure are a blight upon Black Americans. His message of total blame shifting and government dependence is racist, and poisonous. 

Just when you thought MSNBS had the most inane lineup of buffoons…..

They get more inane, adding another buffoon

Via Newsbusters:

In an interview with the black website TheRoot, incoming MSNBC host Joy Reid repeated the usual network mantra that “Everyone at MSNBC has a different, unique perspective,” and she hopes her new 2pm Eastern show will be a “table-setter for prime time.” Translation: whatever “War on Women” or Bridgegate segment I’m doing at 2 will be repeated at 5, 6, 7, 8, 9…..by one “unique perspective” after another.

Reid claimed to lament a political climate that she says has “just become really nasty” and made civilized disagreements few and far between. It’s thanks in part to what she calls a “very virulent strain that is sort of in the underbelly of society.” It’s racism, or the right wing’s horrid tendency to counter-accuse MSNBC of racism, like the accusation is a weapon:

He whines about how “nasty” discourse is, yet her entire message is nothing but negative, offensive attacks on Republicans, and especially Conservatives.

Related to that underbelly is another pet peeve of the soon-to-be-host:“There’s this new thing where people on the right revel in calling anyone black racist who mentions race. It’s like a weapon that they’ve attempted to take away from black people, and they call black people racist all the time for things that definitionally don’t even make sense”

Well, Joy I tend to call people like you and Toure, and Sharpton race pimps, and YES a LOT of your rhetoric IS racist. And one more thing Joy, what the Hell does definitionally even mean? Good Grief!

Of course, it is pretty easy to understand the stupid things Joy believes if you understand she suffers from acute Racial Obsession Syndrome!

“It’s hard not to view things as a black person. For African Americans, your racial identity is something that affects the way your life is lived out,”

Joy, do yourself a favor, get over your obsession with your skin color, It is sad to see someone so caught up in racializing everything!

*VIDEO* Al Sharpton Brings Up Race 314 Times In 2013


.
H/T The Washington Free Beacon

.

Racist Eugenicists Update: More Black Babies Killed By Abortion In New York Than Born

NYC: More Black Babies Killed By Abortion Than Born – CNS

In 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758), and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number of abortions in the Big Apple, according to a report by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

.

.
The report is entitled, Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, and was prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics. (See Pregnancy Outcomes NYC Health 2012.pdf)

Table 1 of the report presents the total number of live births, spontaneous terminations (miscarriages), and induced terminations (abortions) for women in different age brackets between 15 and 49 years of age. The table also breaks that data down by race – Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black – and also by borough of residence: Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island.

The numbers show that in 2012, there were 31,328 induced terminations (abortions) among non-Hispanic black women in New York City. That same year, there were 24,758 live births for non-Hispanic black women in New York City. There were 6,570 more abortions than live births of black children.

In total, there were 73,815 abortions, which means the 31,328 black babies aborted comprised 42.4% of the total abortions.

For Hispanic women, there were 22,917 abortions in New York City in 2012, which is 31% of the total abortions.

Black and Hispanic abortions combined, 54,245 babies, is 73% of the total abortions in the Big Apple in 2012.

The number of non-Hispanic white abortions was 9,704, and the number of Asian and Pacific Islander abortions was 4,493.

The total number of live births in New York City in 2012 for women ages 15-49 was 123,231. That is a rate of 14.8 live births per 1,000 women, which is the lowest rate since 1979, according to the report. In addition, the live birth rate (per 1,000 women) has declined 3.9% since 2003, when it was a 15.4 rate, states the report. (See Pregnancy Outcomes NYC Health 2012.pdf)

In addition, while there were 73,815 abortions in New York City in 2012, the rate of abortions per 1,000 women is down 8.6% since 2011, according to the report.

Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have not published their abortion statistics for 2011 or 2012 yet, they do have data for 2010. (See Table 12.) In the CDC’s numbers, there were 38,574 black babies killed by abortion in New York City in 2010; Hispanic babies aborted, 27,112; white babies killed by abortion, 9,220; and “other” aborted, 5,368. The total abortions in New York City in 2010 “reported by known race/ethnicity” were 80,274, according to the CDC.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Another front in the war of self-defense, making saints out of thugs

Donald Douglas links to a story that ought to make every person sick

Via Daily Caller:

The Providence College Black Studies Program e-mailed students, faculty, and administrators Tuesday to renew an award called the Trayvon Martin Award for Social Justice.

The award honors those who have shown leadership and commitment to “challenging and eliminating racism” and “empowering others to seek social justice,” said the e-mail obtained by The Daily Caller.

The award was created in 2012 to honor the 17-year-old African American who was shot by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, in Florida. Though Zimmerman was widely accused of racial profiling, the jury ultimately found him not guilty of murder.

When the award was first created, it was controversial because the trial had not even started yet. Now, despite the verdict, the department has decided to renew the award. “We won’t be silenced in recognizing those who work for social justice at Providence College, in the community or on a global level,” said Director of Black Studies Julia Jordan-Zachery in the e-mail.

So basically, they wish to grant sainthood to a thug who wanted to beat a “Cracker” to death, but was instead shot to death by his intended victim? Yep, sounds like the garbage taught in many Black Studies courses. Back in 1992, there was a girl in one of my debate classes, She was a flaming Liberal, and proud of it. She decided to take a Black Studies class, and after one class, she dropped the course. Why? Because she could not believe the racism taught there. She actually said she was afraid in that one class. She was stunned by the anti-White hatred, and the violent nature of much of the rhetoric. And again she was a die hard Lib!

Now we have an award, from a “Black Studies Program” at Providence that wishes to honor a Black kid who by their definition works for “social justice” and fought racism. Odd, from the evidence at the trial, it seems Martin was the one practicing, rather than fighting racism. But, then again, an essential part of the “Black Studies” mentality is that whatever a Black person does, it is justified because RAAAAACISM!

So, how would this tie into what I am calling the “war on self-defense”? Well it is clear that the new strategy from the self-appointed “civil rights leaders” is to march and demand and end to Stand Your Ground Laws any time a Black youth is shot, even if they are committing a crime, and even if the intended victim of that youth was justified in using deadly force, and yes, even if Stand Your Ground was not used in the trial.

So, I ask, what else shall we call this strategy? What shall we call a campaign that demonizes people who kill in self-defense while granting saintly stature to their violent attackers? What should we call a campaign that would take away the right to defend yourself under many circumstances?

*VIDEO* ZoNation: Conservative Blacks Are Mouth-Pieces According To William Barber


.

The Left sees Race as a tool and nothing more

For all their talk of tolerance and diversity, and being color blind, the Left sees skin color as a tool to divide people. They have been playing their identity politics game for a long time, and will continue to do so. The game is this, indoctrinate Blacks to identify solely with their skin color, then indoctrinate them that every negative experience is because of racism. Then indoctrinate them to believe that America is inherently racist must be changed. The only way to change America, of course, is to vote for “progressive” candidates seeking equality and social justice. Then indoctrinate them to blame Republicans/Conservatives. Race is thus used as a tool to gain electoral victories for the Left. Does this make Leftists racists? Not sure if they really care about race, or gender, or anything else, except dividing people to gain and keep power.

What of the Right though? What of the ideology that Individualists hold? Are we the racists the Left tries to paint us as? Or are we, in fact, color blind, seeing individuals, and character and not skin color? Well, I can only speak for myself when I say skin color is unimportant. I would wager that most, and by most I mean more than 95 % of Conservatives agree. Would I date a Black woman? Yes. Have I? Yes. I have dated Asian women, Hispanic women, and a girl from Egypt as well. I have loved and befriended people of all races. Skin color, to me is insignificant. And, some data I found at Fire Andrea Mitchell backs me up

Maybe MSNBC will hate this, but everyone else will go aww. More conservatives belong to biracial families than do progressive liberals according to left-wing biased Washington Post. Even more painful for the race hustling left is that it was revealed by the replacement of far left nutjob Ezra Klein who leftists adored so much while at the Post.

Indeed, among families with step-children or adopted children, 11 percent of conservatives were living in mixed race households compared to 10 percent of liberals living in mixed-race households.

Similarly, 9.4 percent of Republicans living in step- or adopted families were in mixed-race households, compared to only 8.8 percent of Democrats in such families. (Again, this small advantage for Republicans is not large enough to be statistically significant).

An even bigger gut punch to MSNBC and race hustling progressive liberals is that most biracial families are in red, conservative states. Leftist, Northeastern states are more likely to be have lower rates of interracial marriages. I guess that’s just progressive liberal Democrats keeping alive those old KKK days. Not all Democrats were KKK, but all KKK were/are Democrats you know.

Now, I am sure I will get the requisite emails telling me that racism is about power, and blah, blah, blah. I will respond to that specious claim with two words. BULL SHIT! Racism is about hating people of a specific race, and sadly, there will always be some folks of all races, that suffer from that malady. America is not inherently racist, America is inherently good. It is time people of all colors rejected the Left’s tactics of division and manufactured racism.

Melissa Harris-Perry and her “racial trigger”

Oh good grief, this woman has ESP for RAAAAACISM now

At the University’s 2014 Black History Month Keynote Lecture Thursday evening, Harris-Perry discussed ways to address racial issues on campus to about 500 students, faculty, staff and alumni who attended the lecture at Rackham Auditorium.

The hour-long lecture delved into a history of the collective efforts of the Black community, from the Civil Rights Movement to the continued institutional marginalization of Black bodies and experiences today. Harris-Perry said continuous struggle is an avoidable trait of a democracy, and stressed that one uncontested voice is more fitting of a totalitarian regime.

She said a problem with campus activism today is that allies have not experienced the same “corporeal body experiences” of the Black community, and misunderstandings often arise as a result.

“A problem with race talk on campus is how we know that we know something,” Harris-Perry said. “I know that this moment is racist because it trips my racial trigger, because it makes me feel nauseous. I’m not generally angry, but you just made me mad.”

Want to know what is  the REAL reason Harris-Perry, and others like her can “sense” racism where others cannot? Because they have been taught to see EVERYTHING negative as racially motivated. They have been taught to think like a victim, and they have been conditioned to put skin color, especially theirs, as the most important thing about them. And, yes, they have been taught to see America as “inherently racist”. I call it Racial Obsession Syndrome, and this woman has it bad!