Booker T. Washington wrote, “There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs—partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” Washington warned of men like Barack Obama.
Ever the divider, ever the exploiter of racial tension, ever the pusher of envy and resentment, President Obama, giving the commencement speech at a graduation ceremony at Morehouse College in Atlanta, GA, evoked the memory of racism in the South in the ’50s and ’60s. Discouragement is all Obama and other race-baiters have to offer to young blacks. Without a sense of eternal struggle and hardship, blacks would drift toward the Republican platform of hard work, independence, self-sufficiency, and freedom from the bondage of the government.
Addressing the graduates of Morehouse, a majority-black college once attended by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Obama said, “Whatever success I achieved, whatever positions of leadership I’ve held, have depended less on Ivy League degrees or SAT scores or GPAs, and have instead been due to that sense of empathy and connection, the special obligation I felt, as a black man like you, to help those who needed it most: people who didn’t have the opportunities that I had, because, but for the grace of God, I might be in their shoes.”
The man is right: whatever positions of leadership he has held have not depended at all on his Harvard Law degree (from which he was later barred from using) or on his SAT scores or GPA (especially considering he continues to fight Freedom of Information Act requests for him to release his college grades and therefore nobody knows what they are); instead, his positions of leadership, at least the one he currently holds, were given to him for the fortuitous fact of his being born black. Indeed, his blackness, the historicity of it, is one of the few good things about him. Therefore did an emotional public elect him.
Obama also said, “Every one of you has a grandma or an uncle or a parent who’s told you at some point in life, as an African American you have to work twice as hard as anyone else if you want to get by,” adding, “If you think you can just get over in this economy just because you have a Morehouse degree, you’re in for a rude awakening.”
Never were more encouraging words spoken. You are black, so if you only work just as hard as everyone else, you will fail. It’s tough out there, so if you feel like giving up and just letting the government mother you, no one will blame you.
And how can anyone blame them if they take that route, when their role models preach such words of discouragement and inevitable failure?
What does it feel like? What goes on in your mind when the Democratic media trivializes your courage, your legacy, the opposition you faced, by relating it all to that of a gay man whom they and most of society are all too eager to accept?
You had no choice whether or not you were black. You could not alter your biology to make life less difficult for you. Jason Collins, on the other hand, whom the Democrats’ have crowned their hero for his accomplishment of the historical feat of being gay whilst dribbling a basketball, can choose not to engage in his homosexuality.
You experienced opposition not just from fellow baseball players and umpires and team owners, but from the media itself. The media sets the course of the culture, and they were dead-set against allowing into American culture the widespread acceptance of you and your kind playing good old American baseball.
Your cultural battle is now being compared by the same media to Jason Collins’ “struggle.” So turbulent is his struggle, so Robinsonian his courage! Yet the man’s biggest advocates are the media and, as a bi-product of the media’s pro-gay campaigning over the past two decades, the entirety of popular culture. In short, Collins has the cultural winds of American society at his back.
Some battle. Some opposition.
The greatest opposition he will face is the rare media Christian who will say, “I think homosexuality is a sin, but it’s not my business what Jason Collins does in his bedroom.” And even these innocuities will always be followed by an attempt to rectify their sin of being a Christian, in statements akin to sportscaster Chris Broussard’s, who recently put his career on the line when he came out of the closet as a Christian: “I realize that some people disagree with my opinion [on homosexuality] and I accept and respect that. As has been the case in the past, my beliefs have not and will not impact my ability to report on the NBA. I believe Jason Collins displayed bravery with his announcement today and I have no objection to him or anyone else playing in the NBA.”
The media seeks romance, which is why they must employ a list of qualifiers in order for their rejoicings to make sense: Collins is not the first openly gay athlete, he is not the first openly gay American athlete, he is not the first openly gay American male athlete, he is not the first openly gay American male athlete in the four major US sports—celebrations of these “accomplishments” have already come to pass—but he is the first openly gay American male athlete still active in the four major US sports.
The desire on the part of the Democrats and the media to create victims where victimhood does not exist must really offend you, Mr. Robinson, who were a real victim at one point in time. How does it feel to have your efforts so trivialized?
This is misleading. The names of the “big two” political parties actually swapped places at some point in history.
Back in Abe’s day, the Democrats were like today’s Republicans, they idealized tradition; and, you guessed it, his Republicans were like today’s Democrats, they idealized progress/change. So, the Democrats back then supported slavery and the Republicans opposed it. Which means that technically, Abe Lincoln would be a Democrat if he were alive today.
You mean the Dixiecrat switch which is actually a proven myth. THe switch took place in the south and is known as the “DixieCrat switch” Do you know how many Democrats actually switched to Republican? Here’s a list of ALL Dixiecrat politicians during the supposed “dixiecrat switch”
Dixiecrat – Senators
(D)VA Harry F. Byrd, 1933-1965
(D)VA A. Willis Robertson, 1946-1966
(D)WV Robert C. Byrd, 1959-Present
(D)MS John C. Stennis, 1947-1989
(D)MS James O. Eastland, 1941-1941,1943-1978
(D)LA Allen J. Ellender, 1937-1972
(D)LA Russell B. Long, 1948-1987
(D)NC Sam Ervin, 1954-1974
(D)NC Everett Jordan, 1958-1973
(R)NC Jesse Helms, 1973-2003
(D)OK Thomas Pryor Gore, 1906-1921,1931-1937
(D)AL J. Lister Hill, 1938-1969
(D)AL John J. Sparkman, 1946-1979
(D)FL Spessard Holland, 1946-1971
(D)FL George Smathers, 1951-1969
(D)SC Olin D. Johnston, 1945-1965
(D,R)SC Strom Thurmond, 1954-1956,1956-2003
(D)AR John McClellan, 1943-1977
(D)GA Richard B. Russell, Jr., 1933-1971
(D)GA Herman E. Talmadge, 1957-1981
(D)TN Herbert S. Walters, 1963-1964
Dixiecrat – State governors
Benjamin Travis Laney, Arkansas Governor
Fielding Wright, Mississippi Governor
Frank M. Dixon, Former Alabama Governor
William H. Murray, Former Oklahoma Governor
Mills E. Godwin Jr. governor of Virginia
Only one switched parties – Strom Thurman AFTER the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act were passed. Ask yourself why would Strom Thurmond move to a party that pushed for civil and votings rights if he was so much of a hard line racist? Can you tell me why then do the Democratic/Liberal voters/historians never point to this. For convenience, they look over this with dark blinders on and it’s nauseating.
Now we want to talk bout Racism let’s talk about LBJ supposed hero of Civil Rights:
Fast forward to 1964, and the Civil Rights movement is in full swing. Lyndon Johnson is now President after Kennedy’s Assassination. Personally I don’t like LBJ for many reasons,however the biggest ones had to do with him being such a derogatory person, and such a big racist. He even has been reported to peeing on the leg of a secret service agent. When the agent instinctively jumped back in horror and disgust, LBJ said, “That’s all right, son. It’s my Prerogative.” . In addition, LBJ biographer Robert Caro stated that prior to1957, Johnson, “had never supported civil rights legislation—any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.” The lynching bill he is referring to is the Civil Rights bill of 1957, Eisenhower tried to push. However then Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Johnson, removed the essential “anti-lynching clause.” As if his actions in politics weren’t already bad enough, he was so bad to his longtime black limo chauffeur, Robert Parker, that in Parkers autobiography of his serving in the LBJ years. Johnson, “called me ‘boy,’‘n**ger,’ or ‘chief,’ never by my name … Whenever I was late, no matter what the reason,Johnson called me a lazy, good-for-nothing n**ger … I was afraid of him because of the pain
and humiliation he could inflict at a moment’s notice. Now why would a man as racist, and derogatory as LBJ support Civil Rights of all things? I believe Johnson can answer this question in his own words, “I’ll have them N**gers voting Democratic for two hundred years.” How would it do this? Simple by making him look like their savior,even when he appointed a black Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall. As Johnson said to a young staffer, “When I appoint a ni**er to the court, I want everyone to know he is a n**ger.” We can find more quotes like these, but by now you get my point. So in 1964 LBJ signed the Civil Rights act of 1964, which desegregated the entire country. However there were still issues, as it still had schools with only white people, and blacks were still discriminated against. But the main goals of the bill were to guarantee, and even further enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Shortly afterwards, there were still issues with voting rights. So the Voting Rights act of 1965 came about. It was passed in the senate on May 26,1965, after a successful Cloture vote on March 23. It was then passed in the house on July 9. Finally signed by LBJ on August 6.
Yeah people need to actually do their research as all my political science professors even look at the dixiecrat switch as a myth.
The notion that a Republican politician could stand up and ask Mexican-American voters to demonstrate their loyalty to America by voting against illegal immigration because it is, on the whole, bad for their fellow American citizens is simply unthinkable today. Asking Mexicans to think in sophisticated legal terms such as “citizen” instead of crude biological terms such as “race” has become too advanced for today’s advanced thinkers.
Even if I hated Muslims, that wouldn’t make me a racist. “Muslim” isn’t a race. But let’s say I am a racist. So what? What’s your point? “You’re a racist” isn’t an argument.
Christians didn’t form the KKK. Democrats did.
We don’t invade for oil. We have more oil here in America than in the entire Middle East.
I’m not surprised an atheist defends Islam. Both atheism and Islam are inclined to domination and tyrrany. Also, atheists are usually pretty cowardly, so they try to avoid angering Muslims because they know it’s the one religion that kills people for angering them.
(I will now get more hatemail from thin-skinned atheists than I ever get from liberals.)
I think it’s time Justin Bieber stop hanging out with, ahem, those whom I will politely call “rappers.” He’s starting to act like them: his arm motions, the way he walks, his drug use, his obnoxious outbursts. In short, his primitive behavior. He used to be a nice li’l white nerd. Now, after hanging out with “rappers,” he’s become such a douche.
Consider this official notice: I am no longer a belieber.
"For 12 years, Americans have been told a nice little story of about who the bad guys are and what they look like. And then along come these two. They’re Muslim, but they’re white. They’re immigrants, but they’re Americans. They’re athletes. They’re stoners. Jahar is a monster, yet he’s kind of a hottie. But, the point is, there’s too much going in with these guys."
— Aasif Mandvi. Except they’re not white. They’re of middle-eastern descent. Has this woman (or man; I don’t know if Aasif is a male or female name) not seen their pictures? Their race is anything but white. You can be a black albino with white skin, but that doesn’t make you a member of the white race. I guess TECHNICALLY there from a Caucasian region, but you would never point them out as “those two whiteys over there.”
An oversensitive Korean woman is “horrified” that she was called an Asian name by an employee at a CVS Pharmacy. The employee used ”Ching Chong” as a placeholder for the woman’s real first name, Hyun. Hungry for money, and having learned from liberal Americans that it’s okay to sue for any reason you can pull out of your butt, Hyun Lee—yes, her last name is the stereotypical Korean last name—is suing the pharmacy.
“Honestly, I’m just horrified by this whole thing,” Lee feigned. Oh, the horror!
Lee hired a smart attorney who devised the winning strategy of claiming that “Ching Chong is a very pejorative, racial slur meant for Asians.”
Uh-oh. Best not tell that to Ching L. Chong, who resides in Roslyn, New York, just to the north of Hyun Lee’s New Jersey. And definitely don’t notify Ching P. Chong of Los Altos, CA, or Ching M. Chong of Santa Maria, CA, or Ching W. Chong of Fremont, CA, or Ching H. Chong of San Francisco, CA, or the two Ching Y. Chongs of Torrance, CA, and Novato, CA, respectively. [Whitepages.com search results.]
“[Lee] was very distressed,” said Lee’s lawyer.
Maybe these numerous Ching Chongs can sue Lee’s lawyer for the “distress” caused by someone saying their names are insulting.
A statement from CVS said:
CVS/Pharmacy is committed to treating all of our customers with dignity and respect and we have a firm non-discrimination policy.
Wait, was Hyun Lee discriminated against? Is name-calling discrimination? No and no.
The statement continues:
We take this matter very seriously as the allegations in the complaint describe behavior that is unacceptable and not in keeping with our values or our policies.
They also say they will send the employee to a re-education camp (counseling and sensitivity training) until he accepts their way of thinking.
Don’t take it seriously, CVS! That’s the problem. The more we allow people to claim discrimination for simply being offended, the hungrier that beast of liberal greed and oversensitivity becomes. The employee should be fired for giving the company unwanted publicity, but CVS should not cater to fascist babies who want to sue simply because someone was mean to her (and in about as passive a way as it gets). Hyun Lee acts as if she’s in first grade, tattling to the teacher, “Teacher, teacher, Sally won’t be my friend!”
Sensitivity training serves no purpose at all. The people who attend do not genuinely change their opinions (and that’s their right). If a racist works at a store, calls a customer of a particular race some name that society has arbitrarily assigned the label “bad,” and is subsequently sent to sensitivity training, he’s not coming out of there a non-racist. He will still be a racist, it’s just that he will now know not to flaunt it unless he wants to get fired.
So just fire the employee, CVS, and don’t let these bullies—I’m referring to Hyun Lee here—walk all over you unless you want to encourage more people to tattle to the teacher.
If you want to catch a bad guy, you need to know what he looks like. “A teenager” is not a good enough description, nor is the knowledge of the man’s height and weight.
The most immediately noticeable feature about humans—what we all first notice with but a fleeting glance—is skin color. A 17-year-old black kid in a crowd of middle-aged white men should not be pointed out as “that teenager over there, you see him? The five-foot-eleven kid.” He should be identified by the thing that most singles him out: “the black kid.”
The same goes for a white teenager in a crowd of black men. If you want to spare a lot of confusion, you would refer to him as “the white kid,” not “the skinny chap over there,” because it is his skin color that most differentiates him from the others surrounding him.
In Greenville, SC, police are looking for a pack of 20 “teenagers” whom they suspect are all involved in three separate crimes: vandalism at a restaurant, an attempted robbery, and an assault. If there were reward money, I’d drive down there and perform a citizen’s arrest on the first teenager I see, since “teenagers” are the only descriptor we’re given in the news report from Greenville’s NBC affiliate.
Luckily there is security footage to put a stop to the political correctness the reporters engaged in to avoid reporting all the facts, and the fact that the footage reveals is that all the teens are black.
According to the 2010 census, 31.54 percent of Greenville residents are black, so the information that the teens are part of that 31 percent saves Greenville residents a lot of strain on their eyes. Now they only have a third of the population to look at rather than scrutinizing every citizen.
This story comes out at the same time as another one about a pack of unruly teenagers, also black, this time in Jacksonville, FL.
A 56-year-old white man was walking home with his groceries after getting off the bus, when he was approached from behind, knocked to the ground with a stick, and repeatedly stomped on in the middle of the street by 10 or 15 “African-American kids,” according to a witness.
But you can’t accuse the witness of being a racist, for she herself is black. The woman, who wishes to remain anonymous for fear that those rap-music-listening thugs will celebrate their next Friday night getting crunk in the middle of the street all over her beaten body, and her fiancé are actually the ones who saved the man. The two of them approached the animals and, according to her, they “scattered like ants.” Cockroaches might have been a better insect comparison, but to each his own.
If the woman hadn’t mentioned that the thugs were black, we’d never know it. The media certainly wouldn’t have shared that important fact.
Hey, wait a minute…15 attackers? Quick, someone contact the White House and tell them we have another reason why the number of rounds in a gun magazine should not be limited to ten!
The best part of an article by Thomas Mullen for The Washington Times:
If segregation was the result of the voluntary choices of private business owners, then why were Jim Crow laws necessary to force them to segregate?
The question answers itself. Obviously, there were at least some business owners who wanted to serve blacks equally with whites. Perhaps they were a majority, perhaps a minority, but enough wanted to do so that racist legislators had to pass laws to stop them.
In other words, the libertarian perception of reality is more accurate than the conservative or liberal.
So is the libertarian solution. What if the Civil Rights Act were more libertarian, prohibiting governments from being racist but leaving private decisions up to individuals? That question also answers itself. Some business owners would refuse to serve blacks and some would serve everyone. Some employers would hire the most talented employees and some would turn down superior black candidates because of their race.
Anyone who has ever run a business knows which group the market would allow to survive. The Civil Rights Act actually gives racists cover because it doesn’t let the market weed them out. It has also spawned a whole new set of reasons for racial resentment because of affirmative action and other derivative legislation. Like all government solutions, it produces more of whatever it “declares war on.”
Libertarianism didn’t fail African-Americans. Government did, as it has failed us all.