Posts Tagged ‘racist
OK leftists. You got me. I am a racist. I can’t fool you. I’m a conservative, and it’s a well-known, indisputable fact that conservatives are racists. So I’m a racist.
When those “New Black Panthers” stood outside polling places during the 2008 and 2012 elections, holding those batons and threatening people if they did not vote for Obama, that wouldn’t have bothered me if only those Panthers had been white.
I would have stood up and cheered when Obama decided to eliminate the DC Schools initiative that gave opportunities for a superior education to underprivileged children (and vastly improved the future of each child who went through it) if only Obama had lighter skin.
I would absolutely support increasing taxes and fees on small business owners, and weighing them down with mind-numbingly punitive regulations, forcing many to close, some (who could) to move their companies overseas, and many to lay off workers. If only Obama was white.
I would be right there encouraging pregnant women to abort their babies, especially late in their term, and most especially if the abortion failed, refusing to help save those babies who survive. Killing babies would be no problem for me, if only Obama was caucasian.
I’d be excited, even eager, to pay twice as much to fill up my gas tank, and twice as much for groceries and other necessities. Happy to do it. If only Obama wasn’t otherly pigmented.
I would totally support the hiring of more than 40 unelected, unaccountable “czars” to work in the administration, not reporting to the American people, drawing large salaries and benefits from our tax dollars, and imposing their leftist agenda on American people who have no idea what is being done by these “czars”, and no say in their actions. But I don’t, because Obama is black.
And who could have any problem with a 2700+ page health care bill that was written by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, not read by, but voted in by, a liberal Congress. A bill that no one knew the contents of, and Nancy Pelosi told us we had to pass before we would find out what was in it. Not me! No need to know what is in a bill that we will all pay for. I have no problem with any of that. No, my problem is the color of Obama’s skin.
Telling the people of Israel they can’t build more apartments for their own citizens would absolutely make sense to me. I’d cheer our interference with the lives of citizens of the state of Israel, telling them how and where they CAN live. Fine with me if done by a white man. But not fine with me if done by a black man.
I would be all for the many back-room deals and executive orders, and all abuses of power that Obama has committed, bypassing Congress, going behind the back of the American people to pass cap-and-trade, making “recess appointments” even though Congress was NOT in recess, and gutting the work requirements of the welfare system by executive order…..and more. Yes, I’d totally have his back on all of it, if only his back was white.
The Justice Department’s gun-running program, in which at least two Americans and who knows how many Mexicans were killed with guns that were furnished by our own government in an attempt to lie about the prevalence of guns that cross the border…..I would have thought that was pure genius if Eric Holder and Obama didn’t have black skin.
Telling American entrepreneurs that they “didn’t build that”, referring to their small businesses, even though he himself had never worked one day in the private sector, would make perfect sense to me. I mean who would know more about building a business than someone who had never built one and never worked in one? If a white man made that declaration, I’d have stood up and clapped for him. But of course, Obama isn’t a white man. So I think it was disgraceful. Not because of the blatant untruth of all of this, but because of Obama’s skin color.
Playing more than 100 games of golf in 3 1/2 years while people are hurting, losing jobs, not able to pay their bills, standing in unemployment lines, and going on welfare would make perfect sense if Obama’s skin was the color of the golf ball.
Also, I would be beyond thrilled to be footing the bill for the Obamas to take many, many extravagant vacations (again, while people are hurting, losing jobs, not able to pay their bills, standing in unemployment lines, and going on welfare) and living the life of the rich and famous using our money for “rich” part…..if their skin was white.
And the administration leaking classified information about covert operations, particularly the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, even when specifically asked by the military NOT to leak it, would have been wonderful if we had a white President. Because the color of Obama’s skin is what really bothered me about the 30 Americans and 22 Navy SEALS who died when the helicopter they were in was shot down in Afghanistan. Clearly, the important part of that story is that Obama is a black man and thus, I am upset about this loss. It wouldn’t even be worth mentioning if we had a white President.
President Obama has only attended 38% of his daily intelligence briefings in the past year, and he skipped them for 5 days before the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. And on that anniversary, terrorists in Libya attacked our embassy there, murdered the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs working under the State Department, and information management officer Sean Smith. The White House, the director of the CIA, the Secretary of State, and countless others involved in decision-making and dissemination of the “story” of what happened in Libya, continue to lie, obfuscate, change their story, point fingers, and cover their own backs in order to shirk responsibility for this terrorist attack. They also continue to avoid using the words “terrorist attack”. This attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya is an attack on the United States of America, as all U.S. Consulates are considered sovereign U.S. territory. However, the color of Barack Obama’s skin is what makes a terrorist attack on the United States of America an abomination for me. Not the murder of innocent Americans who served our country, not the fact that their requests for protection went unheeded, not the lying by the president, not the lying to the American people by the media, and not the scrambling by everyone involved to cover their own backsides. No, none of that would be worth mentioning, if our president was a white man. Because never in our history have we ever been bothered by an attack on American soil as long as our president was a white man. This is the first time in recorded history that anyone objected to such violence, and so naturally the reason for objection is the color of Barack Obama’s skin. What else could it be?
During the 2008 campaign, Obama told us much of what he intended to do “for” (actually, TO) our country. “I think when you spread the wealth around, everybody benefits”, “under my plan for cap and trade, electricity will necessarily skyrocket”. He told us he was against drilling for oil in the United States, meaning we would continue our dependence on foreign oil. He told us the rich were “not paying their fair share”, and even though his definition of “the rich” changed from speech to speech, and no one has ever defined “fair share” to be paid by those who already pay the lion’s share of taxes in America, his plans for increasing taxes were clear. All of this and more is completely against everything I believe. Despite this, I would have been an enthusiastic supporter of Obama but for the color of his skin.
Barack Obama was raised by a white mother, and later by his white grandparents, who financed his education in an exclusive private school in Hawaii. After that childhood of nurturing, support, and love from his white mother and his white grandparents, he chose to be identified as only black, and foment hatred and discontent against white people. After all, given this horrible mistreatment and deprivation by his white family, one can understand why he would feel hatred and resentment toward whites. You know the old saying: “No good deed goes unpunished.”
I think all of us conservative racists would agree that we would be 100% behind a white guy who had been a state senator for one term, [having won that election by exposing private divorce records (illegal?) on his opponent;], resigning that seat to serve one term as a U.S. Senator, had no experience running a business or a payroll, never worked in the private sector, refused to release his education records, and voted “present” more than 100 times during his time in the Illinois state senate. This would seem the perfect qualifications to become the leader of the free world, if this candidate had white skin. Of course, being a the racist that I am, I felt Obama was totally unqualified for the job based on …… his skin color.
I heard many “man in the street” types of interviews during the course of the 2008 and 2012 campaigns. In most of those, interviewees were asked who they were voting for, and what issues most concerned them. Most of them had absolutely no idea where Obama stood on the issues. So when asked why they were voting for Obama, a large percentage of them replied “because he’s not white”. That isn’t racist, however. Voting FOR a man because he is black is not racism. Voting against a black man whose plans are to destroy America is clearly racism. It’s important that we all understand that and admit that we conservatives are nothing but racists.
(h/t Atlas Shrugs)
The annual MLK observance at the state house in Columbia SC had an interesting twist this year. The event is held on the north side steps of the statehouse. Prominent at that location is a large bronze statue of George Washington. This year, the NAACP constructed a “box” to conceal the Father of His Country from view so that participants would not be offended by his presence.
I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw this picture of the MLK Day rally in Columbia, South Carolina yesterday. This rally was sponsored by the NAACP and they said that they covered the statue because they “didn’t want to offend anyone”. Really? George Washington is the father of this nation. How is he offensive to anyone? Can you imagine what would happen if we covered the statue of Dr. King on President’s Day? Of course, this disgusting display of anti-Americanism wasn’t covered at all by the national media and only the local paper in Columbia had a little piece on it. It has been covered a little by the blog-world and I think the word needs to get out to the general public that this is what the NAACP is all about…..militant, hateful and racist. In doing this, they disrespected Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I bet he would be equally disgusted. Awful.
Anyone supporting Rahm Emanuel for Mayor over Carol Moseley Braun is racist because they just don't want a nice black woman to be Mayor of Chicago.
Do you see how fun it is going to be to use Rahm Emanuel’s own scripts and tactics against him?
Anyone opposing Obama in Chicago is called racist because Obama is part black.
Rahm Emanuel is now trying to keep the first black woman from being elected Mayor of Chicago.
That’s racist AND sexist by recent Democrat thinking…though, let’s not kid ourselves thinking about Democrats caring about sexism.
Anyone supporting Rahm Emanuel over a black candidate is racist, though.
That’s what Obama supporters have been saying since 2008.
Don’t let them stop saying it now because that Alinsky crap is inconvenient all of a sudden.
We have less than two years to eliminate the use of the word “polarizing” as an attack against female candidates.
This has been the primary MSM-approved first attack against Hillary Clinton for almost 20 years now. It was the first thing out of people’s mouths when we campaigned for Clinton in Iowa in 2007, leading up to the Caucus. ”She’s so polarizing”, people would parrot. When pressed as to what they meant, they’d hem and haw, drool a little, and occasionally admit, with the candor of children, “Well, the TV said it, and I listen to the TV”.
Honestly — a man in Clinton, Iowa, of all places, ironically enough, really did say that. It was stunning. ”The TV said it” is a lot more common than you’d think. Especially in Iowa. Just wait for the HillBuzz book — there’s a whole chapter on Iowa and all the inane things that we encountered there. The “polarizing MSM-propaganda regurgitations” are just the tip of the iceberg…where “iceberg” is a stand in for “colossal pile of nonsense”.
Sarah Palin is running for president, people. If there’s any luck in the world, Hillary Clinton will be running in 2012 as well. The same “polarizing” garbage will be used against both of them. In the worst, and most bizarre, scenario, where neither runs in 2012, the “polarizing” garbage will be used against the next woman to run for president — whether that’s Michelle Bachmann, Liz Cheney, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Condoleezza Rice, or whomever else you can imagine.
“Polarizing” should be as unacceptable an adjective to use against a female candidate as “faggy” is to use against a gay man, or “negro” is against a black candidate.
We need to think of a way to take this word away from the MSM, so it becomes a fireable offense at the networks and newsrooms whenever it is used…just as “faggy” and “negro” would be.
One of the things we try to communicate to all of you is just how important words are to branding. Words have great power. The MSM has invested heavily in the term “polarizing”…it is the billion dollar stealth bomber in an arsenal, used whenever a woman needs to be taken down and “taught her place”. It is employed against Democrats and Republicans alike, but only against the people the Left doesn’t like (such as Hillary and Sarah Palin). It is never, ever used against Leftist figures. Just try to find an instance where someone like Michelle Obama, Bernadine Dohrn, Cindy Sheehan, Janeane Garafolo, and other Leftists are called “polarizing”. If it’s happened, we’ve never seen it.
Similar to what we tried to do for Scott Brown in removing the Cosmo pics as a weapon the Left could use against him, we’d like to take the word “polarizing” from them, so that it can’t be used against Sarah Palin’s 2012 presidential run.
We have two ideas on how we can achieve this:
(1) Start calling every Leftist female “polarizing”, every day, so that the word is over-saturated in the public’s mind, and it loses all meaning…since the lines between conservatives, moderates, and leftists will have been blurred to the extent that every female is “polarizing”
(2) Extend the use of the word “polarizing” to men, animals, inanimate objects, cities, tissue paper, and various vegetables too. Call everything under the sun “polarizing”. Just like the word “genius”, which lost all meaning in the 80s when everyone’s child was declared a genius in some way, calling everything on Earth “polarizing” for the next two years will mean that by 2012, nothing will be polarizing any more.
We’re trying to think of a third scenario where Sarah Palin just comes out and embraces the word “polarizing” and turns it into a good thing. Maybe you can help with that.
What we want to achieve is this: in December of 2011, when we are on the ground in Iowa campaigning for Palin in Dubuque, Des Moines, or wherever, we want to knock on doors and NOT have the residents say, “Oh, she’s too polarizing, I can’t vote for her” and close the door in our faces. It would be ideal if we could somehow turn this whole thing around and have them say, “Oh, I can’t wait to vote for that polarizing woman. You look cold dear, have some of these polarizing cookies I just baked, with a steaming hot cup of polarizing tea to go with it. And don’t mind that polarizing dog of ours, God love her, she’s just so polarizing, but doesn’t mean any harm. Scratch her polarizing ears and you’ll be her polarizing friend for life. Polarizing”.
There’s enough time to achieve this, but we need a game plan. We want to do the same thing to the word “racist” as well…to permanently take that away from the Left as its favorite weapon of choice to hit anyone who does not agree with them.
There is a way to take both of these words away from them, and it’s our job to find it.
What think you?
According to Malkin, Bobby Rush has told FOX News that not seating Senator Burris was RACIST!, and that if Burris wasn’t black, he would have been seated.
Harry Reid and Senate Democrats are, thus, RACISTS!
Normally, we’d be all over Rush’s case for this, the way we were whenever the Obama campaign and its surrogates cried RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! as a weapon during the campaign, against the Clintons and McCain/Palin, at every available opportunity.
But, and it really is an Oprah-sized butt here, growing increasingly large every day (like its namesake), Rush is actually close to the truth with Reid — who is on Patrick Fitzgerald’s taped conversations with Rod Blagojevich telling the Governor of Illinois NOT to appoint a black replacement for Obama in the Senate. Reid claims this is because a black replacement won’t win re-election in Illinois when 2010 rolls around…so Reid’s not doing this out of any desire to lash out at the black community, but instead because strategically he wants to hold onto the Illinois seat and personally believes no black candidate can do that.
So, technically, Reid’s not a RACIST!, so much as he’s a bumbling idiot who runs his mouth, and who still has not addressed the directive he made to Blagojevich ordering him to not appoint a black replacement for Obama. In interviews, Reid and his surrogates NEVER explain what he REALLY meant…instead they just attack Blagojevich for allegedly trying to sell the Senate seat. That’s the oldest trick in the interview books: when asked a question, just ignore it and talk about something else instead. No one on TV will call you out on it. Try it the next time you are interviewed for something.
If you watch TV interviews, pay attention to the interviewer. She or he will ask a guest a question, concentrating on whatever was practiced in advance. Then, the interviewer pauses and lets the guest respond. Instead of listening to what that person is saying, the interviewer is focusing on getting the next question out. Especially in short segments, where the interviewer practiced three questions to ask, and wants to get to all three, without leaving room for a follow up question if the guest dodges whatever was asked originally.
We learned to do this about midway through the campaign this year. Whenever we went to an event where we knew media would be present, we had three prepared sound bites we practiced ahead of time, and no matter what we were asked, we said one of those three things. Sure enough, even though we dodged the original question, the sound bites always made it on the air or in print, and no one ever called us out for not answering whatever we were asked.
And Reid is not going ANYWHERE NEAR answering questions about his directive to not replace Obama with another black Senator.
Normally, we address race-baiting and cries of RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! with shots of hunky guys frolicking in their underwear, since ridiculous false charges of RACISM! can only be countered with equally ridiculous instances of gratuitous beefcake — but Rush has a point, so instead we’ll throw this bit of gratuitous fun at Reid (and the enabling media) for refusing to explain the seemingly bigoted conversation between Reid and Blagojevich.
So, take this, Harry Reid:
Maybe an apple a day can chase some of your stupid away (not that we think for a minute there’s enough apples to ever make you a competent, capable, sensible, pragmatic, or effective and functional member of the public, let alone a decent Majority Leader in the Senate).
Things are getting more and more interesting in the drama to replace Obama in the Senate.
Apparently, Harry Reid’s on tape in conversations with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich shortly before his arrest insisting no black replace Obama in the Senate. Reid wanted either Tammy Duckworth or Lisa Madigan, since Reid believed (correctly) that Jesse Jackson Jr., Emil Jones, Danny Davis, or other black politicians won’t be able to win election in their own right in 2010.
The other day when Congressman Bobby Rush whipped out the race card to pressure acceptance of Roland Burris as Obama’s Senate replacement, it seemed like Rush was just reading from the successful Obama playbook, and race-baiting without cause for political gain.
Now, it looks like Rush was really onto something, and Reid is doing everything he can to keep a black Senator off the table…because Reid wants to hold that seat in 2010 and does not believe a black Senator will hold it. Based purely on the color of that Senator’s skin.
Which makes Reid, in a sense, racist…and the parallel between him and George Wallace, as used by Rush, just got more credible. Threatening to bar Burris from the Senate with armed guards is indeed very similar to Wallace’s use of armed guards to bar black students from schools. Just because Burris is black, and does not fit into Reid’s 2010 plans.
Tammy Duckworth’s not guaranteed a Senate seat in 2010 if she ran after an appointment. The Democrats in Illinois tried to force Duckworth into Congress in 2006, and that failed. She’s a very nice woman who served her country bravely in Iraq, but she’s never going to set the world on fire. She’s a mediocre speaker at best, has trouble revving up crowds, does not command a large political following, and would be something of a joke in Illinois if people weren’t so afraid of being accused of making fun of her disabilities. When most people here hear her name, they say, “Oh, that poor woman,” and feel bad about her loss of limbs, but don’t necessarily translate that sympathy into a burning zeal to vote for her.
Lisa Madigan, from where we sit, is already running for Governor, a role the Madigan family prefers she fill — as, with Mike Madigan the current Speaker of the Illinois House, that’s much better for the Madigans, where they’d essentially control two branches of government in the state. So Reid’s efforts to bully her into the Senate are silly.
And Democrats’ claims to be the champions of black voters are just plain ridiculous. Blacks aren’t even being CONSIDERED for Senate replacements in Delaware, New York, or Colorado. Why not? Surely there must be a black candidate SOMEWHERE in all of those states.
But, evidently, Harry Reid doesn’t want any blacks to serve in the Senate, for whatever reason, so what does that say about Democrats?
Not that anyone seems to care, in the lingering haze of hopium, but it’s there for you to see it.