Racism! Racism! Racism!

Pages: 1 2

This past February, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the late great Andrew Breitbart correctly predicted that this would be the year of the “dog whistle” election, that the media would hurl charges of racism at President Obama’s opponents at every opportunity. How right he was.

When the Republican National Convention got underway with great fanfare last week, the now-openly leftist media went all out to perpetuate their narrative that candidate Mitt Romney is “stoking the racial politics of yesteryear.” The ever-reliable propaganda organ known as The New York Times, for example, accused the Romney campaign of making the election about race, a case of psychological projection if there ever was one. It’s the progressive left that is doing their damnedest to make this election entirely about race. It’s the only weapon they have in their impotent arsenal.

In order to paint Republicans a whiter shade of pale, the media cut their RNC coverage of conservative speakers of color, and when they did acknowledge non-white conservatives, it was only to dismiss them as patronizing tokens. After all, to the left, non-white conservatives are white “on the inside” anyway – hence such derogatory labels as “Oreos” and “coconuts” – and are therefore just as racist as their white counterparts.

Even actor Clint Eastwood’s harmless and much-discussed performance art at the RNC was deemed racist by someone named Jay Fernandez at IndieWire. How was Eastwood racist? Fernandez doesn’t say, except to note that Eastwood’s public “criticism of a sitting president” was “disrespectful” and “crass.” (Since when is the public criticism of a sitting president not allowed? When he’s a black Democrat, that’s when. Or when totalitarians are in charge.) So where was the racism? Nowhere except from Fernandez himself, who, in a racist (as well as agist and sexist) spasm of his own, called Republicans “the party of old white men.”

And the (now former) Yahoo! News Chief David Chalian snidely remarked on a live mic that the Romneys “are happy to have a party while black people drown” – an insane and hateful reference to the New Orleans victims of Hurricane Isaac. As Newsbusters’ Matthew Sheffield noted, Chalian neglected to mention that “the Republican National Committee canceled the entirety of Monday’s program or that President Obama did not cancel any of his regularly scheduled campaign fund-raising parties that night.”

The media salivated over a suspicious incident in which two conventioneers tossed peanuts at a black camerawoman and made racist remarks, for which they were thrown out. (Seriously now, does anyone believe that those two were anything but progressive plants?)

Adding fuel to conservative momentum this election is Dinesh D’Souza’s remarkably successful documentary 2016: Obama’s America, which posits that Obama is driven by a deep-seated anti-colonialism. So of course, it was targeted as racist by the media. Entertainment Weekly’s avowed lefty movie reviewer Owen Gleiberman writes: “The basic thesis of 2016: Obama’s America makes almost no sense, to the point that a lot of viewers may be tempted to laugh it off.” (Actually, not only is the thesis very easy to comprehend, but D’Souza’s is an exceedingly well-crafted argument; perhaps Gleiberman is simply incapable of understanding it.) He goes on to say that:

By now, most of us understand that the “birther” theory — the preposterously unfactual notion that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States — is really a code for race. And what’s insidious about 2016: Obama’s America is that the whole movie, in a sense, is code for the birther theory.

It’s unclear how the “birther” theory could be “preposterously unfactual” if there is no factual evidence to disprove it, which is precisely why the birther theory persists. But what really “makes no sense” is how it’s a “code” for race. What does being born in or out of the United States have to do with race? Absolutely nothing, except in the race-obsessed minds of progressives who are fanatical about manufacturing racism where there is none – and they have seized upon the brilliant practice known as racial coding to do that.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://rau.3littlefoxes.com Lfox328

    Thank you – I'd not heard anyone else suggest that the peanut-throwers were provocateurs, plants of a Progressive agenda.

    I've been posting my suspicions on various web comment threads. Perhaps I also need to write a blog post about it.


      Those weren't peanuts. Those were Socialist brains.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        That is funny. It makes me think of Jimmy Carter and his family too for some reason.

  • MikeWood

    The Left really does have an issue with race, doesn't it. It's as if "Race" is there most important mental category; the first thing they see in any situation. They cannot bear this stain on their character so they repress it. But this only results in them projecting "race" and "racism" everywhere. it's a vicious circle, the classic psychology of the self-righteous bigot. The Left are the true heirs of the authors of the malleus maleficium, The Hammer of Witches. Perhaps they are also in some screwed up way trying to atone for their poor record with regard to slavery and black emancipation. Whatever it is, these political developments are macabre.

    • Omar

      The left performs witch-hunts and race-baiting all the time, yet accuse conservatives of the same things when conservative pundits like Ann Coulter were defending minorities like Herman Cain from falsely charged accusations of "sexual harassment". Those charges against Cain were racially motivated, since he was ahead in the polls in the GOP presidential race last year. The left couldn't stand seeing a black conservative (with increasing popularity from voters) challenge the Democrats and potentially winning the presidential election (as well as disprove the myths and lies that the GOP is "racist"). So the left and the MSM had to take Cain down and out of the race and they did it by resorting to one of the worst racial stereotypes in American history. By falsely accusing Cain of sexual harassment, the left was able to discredit and embarrass him in public (and eventually led to Cain's exit from the GOP presidential race, thus securing the Democrats' dominance over black voters). The left has the help of leftist liars like Karen Kraushaar (who helped deport Elian Gonzalez to the Castro regime in Cuba, thus insulting both Black Americans and Cuban Americans) to do their dirty work for them. The left should be ashamed of itself for its racist and bigoted smear campaign against Herman Cain (as well as other minority conservatives in other issues). Another example of the left's (and the MSM's) double standards was its attitude at the GOP convention last week. The left and the MSM focused on an isolated incident involving a CNN camerawoman and two lunatics throwing peanuts at the camerawoman, yet the left and the MSM ignored an incident on the internet, when so-called"editors" tried to defame Mia Love by editing her Wikipedia page, deriding the Saratoga Springs, Utah mayor as a "dirty whore" where's the outrage over that? Conservatives need to expose the left and the MSM's bias and double standards.

    • Michael Durham

      The neo-Soviet DemonRATs are expert at the Leninist tactic of false projection and false accusation.Their nauseating, mindless, and incessant use of the "racist" and "racism" canards are Stalinism in action: "Repeat a lie often enough, and it will be believed".

      In practical terms, "racism" or "racist", to Leftists, simply means anything, or anyone who opposes their Marxist tyrannical policies and subversion. Which leads to the question: Since when does Marxism constitute a race?

      Let's see, for races, we have Asian, Latino, white/ anglo-saxon, African American, and *Marxist*?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The Left really does have an issue with race, doesn't it. It's as if "Race" is there most important mental category; the first thing they see in any situation. They cannot bear this stain on their character so they repress it. But this only results in them projecting "race" and "racism" everywhere."

      Classism and racism are closely correlated. Collectivism obviously assumes there are classes that need to have judges to work out justice between them. You can't let individuals work things out. That is unrealistic if you assume racism is a permanent human condition. Who believes this? Racists.

      Collectivists are racists and bigots, otherwise they'd have no class enemies and no theory to support their collectivism.

      Islam is all about collectivism to the point of annihilation of the individual (hence the proud use of suicide bombers and bragging about how they love death). Socialists and Islamic supremacists are natural allies until the socialists realize that they will be destroyed too if they don't work out a strategy for getting rid of the Muslims. Socialists never have a clear endgame while the Islamic supremacists do. The racist socialists consider themselves so superior to Muslims and everyone else that they don't need and endgame strategy.

      I could go on for hours.

      "Perhaps they are also in some screwed up way trying to atone for their poor record with regard to slavery and black emancipation"

      Maybe, but I think the slavery was just a side-effect of their racism. They don't actually have empathy, being superior to all of the other classes. When they feel free to speak openly, their hate can be so blatant.

      "Whatever it is, these political developments are macabre."

      Turning points include slamming Joe McCarthy when he was right the whole time. We then allowed the stealth socialists to recruit entire generations from the start of public schooling. Calling them out was "bigotry" from that point on. What do we call it pejoratively? McCarthyism.

      Yikes, I need a drink.

  • dwpack

    I know that it will be seen as a racist statement but I genuinely feel sorry for Obama. He has mommy issues, as any boy raised by an irresponsible woman might. He has daddy issues, as any man who was twice left by father figures might. He has racial issues, as any man who grew up as a mixed race son of a foreign African man in the 1960s might. He has ambiguous feelings toward America, as a high percentage of those children raised in anti-American social contexts (i.e. a madrassa in Indonesia etc.). And now he is trying to represent and lead an America he doesn't understand or empathize with while carrying this emotional and psychological baggage.

    • dmw

      Hmmm. I am reminded of so many biographies of performers who's child and young adulthood were scarred, but found therapy and a solace in being on stage and becoming someone else. Funny that there was so much humor about Ronald Reagan being an actor, when in reality he used the skills of an actor in so many substantive venues or real roles before becoming President (SAG union president, conservative spokesman for GE, Governor of California, and candidate). Then there's Obama who seems to have a proclivity to jet to (and seemingly race to) as many stages (to perform as a speaker) as he can; a propensity even after being elected. That's why there's so many "czars" and front men/women; to cover up for his lack of skill in anything else other than his public performance art of Presidential simulation.

      • dwpack

        Wow. I hope you write for a living. You hit the nail hard on the head, "his public performance art of Presidential simulation." Tell more people!

  • Omar

    Where was the media when Janeane Garofalo falsely insisted that Herman Cain was "suffering from Stockholm Syndrome"? What Garofalo said was totally racist, yet the left did nothing to make the lunatic actress a pariah, nor denounced her for her racist and bigoted comments. Why didn't the left condemn Lawrence O'Donnell when he was being disrespectful to Herman Cain during an interview last year? O'Donnell was being totally rude to Cain, yet O'Donnell was praised by Al Sharpton (a race-baiter no less) and other MS Herman Cain.NBC crew and contributors for his behavior towards. Why did the media ignore Bill Maher's ignorant comments regarding Allen West. Maher said that Allen West belongs to the "party of apes", yet there was no outcry from the NAACP the Southern Poverty Law Center or other civil rights organizations. Why did the MSM ignore what bigoted "editors" tried doing to Mia Love's Wikipedia page? So-called editors insulted Mia Love and called her a "dirty whore". Yet, the MSM gave more attention to what had happened to a CNN camerawoman in an isolated incident and ignored the defamation of a prominent Republican politician. Why do all of these incidents involving minority conservatives get ignored by the left and the MSM? It is because the left and the MSM cannot stand minority conservatives because they destroy every myth and lie about the Republican Party and the conservative movement. The left can't face the fact that there are minorities who are prominent members of the GOP and the conservative movement. This shows that the left is not against racism, but rather the left smears its opponents with race-baiting. The left should be ashamed of itself.

    • Questions

      When we hurl the charge of "racism" at liberals, we unwittingly ratify their main premise that somehow racial pride is bad. Don't take the bait. We'll never out-Left the Left. Whether or not Ms. Garofalo's comment was "racist" is irrelevant (and exactly how is criticizing Herman Cain — a man clearly unqualified to be U.S. president — "racist?). It's enough simply to say we're realistic about human nature.

      • Ghostwriter

        That's rich,Questions,coming from someone who seems to have an affinity for those like the KKK.

      • Omar

        Last year, the left and the MSM launched a racist smear campaign against Herman Cain. The so-called "sexual harassment" case was done all of the sudden- when Cain was in the lead in the GOP presidential race. From the moment he started running for the presidency, the left was determined to discredit Cain at all costs. Janeane Garofalo derided Cain as a "victim" of "Stockholm Syndrome" despite lack of evidence. Harry Belafonte insulted Cain as a "bad apple". Lawrence O'Donnell behaved very disrespectful towards Cain. Then, when Cain was leading in the polls for the GOP presidential nomination, the left had to take him down and out of the race. in order to secure the black vote for the Democrats. And unlike the left and the MSM who often demonize their opponents with race-baiting and paranoia, conservatives were right in defending Herman Cain because of the left's long history of bigotry directed against minority conservatives. That's the truth.


    The correct response to charges of racism is "Zombie!" http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/interview-with-a-zom

  • fiddler

    The crux of the whole issue is a compromised media. There should be more of a movement to take the likes of Chris Matthews (race-baiter par excellence) and others can call them compromised political hacks, not worthy of anyone's time to tune in to.

  • judahlevi

    Who cares what the skin color is of people or how many people there are of one color or another? When will we get beyond this obsession with skin pigmentation?

    Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated that he wanted his children judged, not by the color of their skin, but by their “character.” Character is an individual trait, not a group trait. Grouping people by skin color is what racists do, not individualists.

    Start treating everyone, including those who happen to have white skin, as individuals not collective groups. Anything else is racism where people are judged and valued by something as ridiculous as the what skin color they have.

    • Questions

      Race is a lot more complex than simply "skin color." And believe it, blacks have a far more powerful sense of race-consciousness than whites do. Maybe it's time we whites woke up: Race DOES matter. Families, communities and nations are founded on this principle. Time for realism to take over.

      • judahlevi

        The exterior appearance of ANY individual does not define them. There is no such thing as the monolithic group you describe as "whites." The same applies to every skin color or gender. Only racists believe that race defines someone. Only sexists believe that gender defines someone.

        It is not your body that defines you, it is your mind.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Race is a lot more complex than simply "skin color." And believe it, blacks have a far more powerful sense of race-consciousness than whites do."

        Yes, for social psychological reasons, not genetic ones.

        "Maybe it's time we whites woke up: Race DOES matter."

        As long as collectivism has adherents, racism will "matter" because racists make it matter.

        "Families, communities and nations are founded on this principle."

        Nope, these social constructs are founded on…culture! Ever hear of adoption? No genetic relationships are necessary unless your mind decides you need it.

        Race matters to racists.

    • Ghostwriter

      I agree with judahlevi. You should listen to this person,Questions. You might learn something.

  • Drakken

    This toxic stew of racism the progressives keep throwing at us will eventually make the melting pot of America, a boiling pot and the left is completely unaware of the consequences of letting the ethnic backlash out of the bag and no way to put it back again.

  • GUESSEDworker


    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

    • Ghostwriter

      No,GUESSEDworker. You and Questions sound like neanderthals who are fans of David Duke.


        david puke is a Socialist.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          And therefore a collectivist. Now we understand why he is a racist.

      • Western Spirit

        No Ghostwriter Guestworker is correct not bigoted. You've got your head where you can't use it. Pull it out and you'll be able to see that anti-white is a valid point and an ongoing fact of life these days.

      • ffortnightly

        Now that's an interesting reaction. I read it twice and didn't see anything about David Duke or the KKK in there. Please explain what links this because I fail to see it. The argument being made is quite logical. I think the choice to use Africa as an example might sway opinion. If the suggestion was made that we should add more white people to India, would it have the same effect? It could be they chose a black/white example because that is the kind oif politics being utilized in America these days.

      • Drakken

        Well then I really wish that you would tell all the other races that, why is it only us whites are racist and the others are not? As far as I am concerned, we whites don't have a damn thing to opologize for, we brought about the greatest civilization known to man kind and brought about every technilogical wonder.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Explain to me why in the wake of Civil Rights legislation it was called "Affirmative Action" and now after decades of progress such that allowed a black president (or half black, whatever) that we now call it "anti-racism" as if we've gone backwards?

        Could it be that some of those who were empowered by affirmative action seek more power in spite of the progress and diminished needs? Could it be that many racists are not in fact white? Could it be that whites as a class are often targeted out of practicality rather than justice?

        As I've said many times, collectivism leads to racism or is based on racism. Socialism is collectivism. Wake up and accept this. Whites are merely the most pragmatic target. Even white socialist racists attack whites collectively. What is up with that? That is the insanity of socialism and collectivism.

  • drconspiracy

    This is an issue that I pay a lot of attention to. What I have seen over the past 4 years is that the left is indeed ready to play the race card, and sometimes unfairly. However, the right is equally ready to make the straw man argument that the left is playing the race card when they sometimes aren't. I don't think either side advances the public discourse.

    The right should be willing to admit that they have a number of racist adherents and some of the things they are are racist, and the left should acknowledge that not all criticism of Barack Obama is racist. Until that happens, there is just shouting.

    • judahlevi

      And then there is always the moral relativist. Both sides are wrong therefore no one is right. There is no truth.

      Sorry, but I disagree. It is the left that is playing the race card and, no, the right is not racist for saying the words "golf" or "Chicago." In this election, the left is over-the-top with their projection of their own values on the right. They see and classify people by skin color, we don't. We see people as individuals, not as skin colors.

      We criticize Obama because he is doing a poor job and because of his failed ideology, not because of his skin color.

      • https://www.facebook.com/joeshittherag Carl Smith

        The left should be willing to admit they have a number of racist adherents also. The NAACP and the Black Caucus for starters.


      The Democrats should be willing to admit that the Democrat party has been hijacked by socialists, "progressives", neo-commies.

      A hijacking identical to the hijacking of departments in Universities.

      These hijacked universities need to ELIMINATE TENURE for all professors and teachers. These elitist employees need to subject to recall and termination just like any other worker.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "What I have seen over the past 4 years is that the left is indeed ready to play the race card, and sometimes unfairly."

      But almost always cynically.

      "However, the right is equally ready to make the straw man argument that the left is playing the race card when they sometimes aren't. I don't think either side advances the public discourse. "

      Please be more specific. Are you criticizing this thread? Can you offer something more constructive yourself?

      "The right should be willing to admit that they have a number of racist adherents and some of the things they are are racist"

      Indeed, racists can show up anywhere. No denying that. Did you hear anyone denying that, or is this the start of a lame "moral equivalence" argument that ends with 'nobody can criticize anyone who is not perfect'?

      "and the left should acknowledge that not all criticism of Barack Obama is racist."

      Talk about understatement. You sound like a liberal in damage control mode. Perhaps a confession will help if we grant them that our messiah may not always appear perfect?

      "Until that happens, there is just shouting"

      Talk about a simplistic attitude. Ever hear of a nuanced discussion? If there is no hope it's because you are so negative and simple in your attitude.

  • RUI

    The GOP is the "Israel" of American politics: no matter what it does, it will be attacked and villified in the media by its enemies.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ JasonPappas

    Just saw 2016 … D'Souza did an excellent job. I was afraid he'd overplay his hand but he remained focused on the main theme of Obama's radical upbringing. And it shows in Obama's policies today. Go see it … and take a friend.

  • Western Spirit

    If you squeeze a lemon enough it will become juiceless. The same holds true of a word after a while, when over used a word becomes trite and means nothing to the listener.

  • Western Spirit

    Race is fast becoming a juiceless word.

    • ffortnightly

      Not at all. It's still very prevalent and if you shout it loud enough, the discussion ends. So it still serves the same purpose it always has; to instill shame into an otherwise shameless discussion in an effort to "win" the debate by shutting the other side down. This is exactly why we have the problems we have with racial relations in America. For too long this kind of tactic has hidden the reality of the situation. Basically; screaming "Racist" about everything has kicked the can down the road and now we're dealing with race in America as if for the first time. Why? Because we artificially enabled the race discussion to become a matter of social dominance instead of equality. And, like it or not, a minority cannot dominate unless it is actually superior to the majority. We don't have that in America. We desire it apparently, but it's not reality.

  • Jason

    Again ,people overlook the enormous elephant in the world.

    What is race and who determined the qualifications ?

    Is there a flesh tone,melanin content,blood or DNA test that defines “races” ?

    How much of a % defines black,Asian ,white,Indian etc ?

    Ethnicity ,Religion ,nationality and cultures do not define race.

    The use of the term race originated in forensic anthropology .There are 3 “races” that can be distinguished from bone structure alone. Caucasoid – a reference to white bone structures . Negroid – a reference to African ibone structures .Mongoloid – a reference to Asian bone structures.

    The United States Census Bureau defines White people as those “having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, and within the Middle East, or North Africa”.”White” has a “Not Hispanic or Latino” and a “Hispanic or Latino” component, the latter consisting mostly of White Mexican Americans and white Cuban Americans. The term “Caucasian” is often used interchangeably with “White”.

    The US Census considers the write-in response of “Caucasian” or “Aryan” to be a synonym for white in their ancestry code listing.

    But other countries use different definitions .

    Race does not exist as a measurable ,defined fact. It is a political tool,label and ideology that represents …..nothing.

    You can go get a spray on tan and claim victimhood,affirmative action rights and a never ending supply of aid,sympathy and inequality on a heritage that does not exist.

    Black and white has never been simply black and white.

    Good ideas and intentions don’t repay debts or create jobs.They pave the road to hell.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Again ,people overlook the enormous elephant in the world.
      What is race and who determined the qualifications ?
      Is there a flesh tone,melanin content,blood or DNA test that defines "races" ?
      How much of a % defines black,Asian ,white,Indian etc ? "

      The human race is artificially subdivided by many theories, none of them really valid or helpful. Does that answer your question?

      The government is obligated to track true victims of racism, but I think the time of doing it collectively must end. That is the problem. Racial justice has been replaced by collectivism and class warfare by socialists.

  • kbs55

    Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as "racists." Dr. Thomas Sowell

  • Hank Rearden

    The Dems have to keep this up to deflect attention from their deplorable record on race. They are, after all, the party of slavery, segregation, lynching, the Klan and welfare. Why did it take until the mid-60's for the Dems to come around on race? There was, after all, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 that they wrecked. There was Harding's Anti-Lynching law in the early 20's that they stopped. They came around on race not out of principle. but out of expediency. African-Americans had gotten sufficiently politically potent by the '60's that the Dems could not ignore them any more.

    And then they introduced the Great Society which was all too effective in sidetracking America, but particularly a disproportionate amount of the black community, into welfare – meaning into being clients of the Dems. This at a time when African Americans had been making huge strides in income and education during the 40's and 50's. The black family survived 350 years of slavery and Jim Crow in America but was in significant part destroyed by 50 years of liberalism, by the policies of the Dems.

    The impact of the Dems on African Americans since the beginning of America has been devastating. That is what they need to keep out of public consciousness.