The Tea Party: Who Are The Real Racists? [VANITY]

FreeRepublic ^ | May 10, 2010 | Gargantua

[Gargantua]

If we look at the 2008 General Election and break down the voters by racial demographics, one fact becomes instantly clear: As a group defined by race, an overwhelming percentage of blacks voted for Obama. More than 90% of all blacks cast their votes for Obama, apparently for purely racial reasons.

It would be a convenient argument to claim that they were swayed by Obama’s impressive track record, or shining list of accomplishments but for one small glitch… he didn’t have any. There was no compelling substantive reason for anyone to vote for Barack Obama on his merits, because he had no list of qualifications or successes to which one could point to justify his candidacy. Except, that is, that he is a Black man.

There is considerable ginned-up controversy currently swirling among the elite Leftist circles about the supposedly “racist Tea Party.” This accusation is based primarily upon the fact that most Tea Party crowds are predominantly White. Absent that one point, no Tea Party gathering to date has ever done anything to suggest that their base is racially motivated. If any Tea Party group had ever presented any racist-tinged activity, it is safe to assume it would make headlines across America for weeks on end. None ever has.

The fact that most Blacks are so unshakably pro-Obama (despite his destructive Socialist policies, job-killing government programs, and anti-American platforms) prevents their even considering joining The Tea Party in fighting against Obama’s overreaching Marxist agenda. Hence, there are a relatively small number of blacks who openly associate themselves with The Tea Party.

This fact does illustrate one particular group as being quite decidedly racist by their inherent nature, but that group is not The Tea Party. The most openly and obviously racist group in America are her Black citizens. To blame The Tea Party for the thus-proven racist leanings of America’s Black population is the very height of hypocrisy. It’s kind of like criminals blaming the police for their criminal records.

While it is true that, without the police’s actions, the thieves would not have criminal records, that fact is quite misleading and not at all the reason why criminals have records. It is the behavior of the miscreants which creates this reality.

In both examples.

[Gargantua]

Flame-retardent suit on... fire at will.

;-/

[period end of story]

A racist, is a racist. One is not necessarily a racist for voting for someone, or not. Obama is half black/white.

[Canedawg]

The most openly and obviously racist group in America are her Black citizens.

It's an inconvenient truth.

[unkus]

I agree.

[Just mythoughts]

Just like old BJClinton famously explained, “Depends on the meaning of ‘is’”, so does the word ‘racists’ depends upon whose mouth or hand the word gets uttered or penned...

I think there is a disorder of the mind being exposed by the left. Under Clintons they called it compartmentalization, where they would have been more to the point and direct if they had just said schizophrenia.

[ETL]

"Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal".--James (Jim) Cone,
African American Religious Thought: An Anthology (Paperback)
by Cornel West (Editor), Eddie S. Glaude Jr. (Editor)

SEAN HANNITY: But Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not backing down and has not for years and in his strong stance on the teaching of black liberation theology is nothing new. He had the same things to say last spring when he appeared on "Hannity & Colmes:"

WRIGHT: If you're not going to talk about theology in context, if you're not going to talk about liberation theology that came out of the '60s, systematized black liberation theology that started with Jim Cone in 1968 and the writings of Cone and the writings of Dwight Hopkins and the writings of womynist theologians and Asian theologians and Hispanic theologians, then you can't talk about the black value system.

HANNITY: But I'm a — reverend

WRIGHT: Do you know liberation theology, sir?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354158,00.html
____________________________________________

Obama's Church: Gospel of Hate
Kathy Shaidle, FrontPageMag.com
Monday, April 07, 2008

In March of 2007, FOX News host Sean Hannity had engaged Obama’s pastor in a heated interview about his Church’s teachings. For many viewers, the ensuing shouting match was their first exposure to "Black Liberation Theology"...

Like the pro-communist Liberation Theology that swept Central America in the 1980s and was repeatedly condemned by Pope John Paul II, Black Liberation Theology combines warmed-over 1960s vintage Marxism with carefully distorted biblical passages. However, in contrast to traditional Marxism, it emphasizes race rather than class. The Christian notion of "salvation" in the afterlife is superseded by "liberation" on earth, courtesy of the establishment of a socialist utopia.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=30CD9E14-B0C9-4F8C-A0A6-A896F0F44F02
____________________________________________

Catholics for Marx [Liberation Theology]
By Fr. Robert Sirico
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, June 03, 2004

In the days when the Superpowers were locked in a Cold War, Latin America seethed with revolution, and millions lived behind an iron curtain, a group of theologians concocted a novel idea within the history of Christianity. They proposed to combine the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Marx as a way of justifying violent revolution to overthrow the economics of capitalism.

The Gospels were re-rendered not as doctrine impacting on the human soul but rather as windows into the historical dialectic of class struggle. These "liberation theologians" saw every biblical criticism of the rich as a mandate to expropriate the expropriating owners of capital, and every expression of compassion for the poor as a call for an uprising by the proletarian class of peasants and workers.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=460782B7-35CC-4C9E-A2C5-93832067C7CD

[The Future 2012]

Wait a second... ten percent of blacks didn’t vote for Obama? I have yet to meet one. Besides the celebrities. Where are they?

[dsrtsage]

This is a stupid argument. 90% of blacks always vote for the candidate that has a D after his name.

[dsrtsage]

I was thinking about a little ironic thing. We are told constantly that we need diversity. However, if 90+% of a certain “racial” group think exactly the same, then you only need one of them to be truly diverse, since the second will have the exact same opinion, thus will contribute nothing new or original from the firsts opinion.

[Mortrey]

True words, well spoken.
There is a chip the size of Everest on black ‘s shoulders.
Never understood it. (Catholics, Jews, Women, and now white men are being discriminated against.) Blacks don’t “OWN” the discrimination mantle anymore!!!! They encompass the most affluent (Oprah), mayors, governors, business CEOs, lawyers, multi-million dollar athletes, entertainment giants(depending on your tastes), media whores (Sharpton and Jackson) in the country and haven’t a DAMNED thing to complain about.
I’m sick and tired of their bitch*n. They live in the greatest country in the world, have every opportunity to excel and HAVE (or, refuse to try.)
ENOUGH! It won’t “work” anymore. People are sick to death of the bitch*n.

[nathanbedford]

The curious matter of the double standard continues-or more to illustrate the truth of the Maxim: all politics in America is not local but ultimately racial.

Obama garnered well over 90% of the African-American vote yet this virtual unanimity of one race on behalf of its own has not been condemned as racist by the establishment media. But when the tea party conducts a rally in the open air the fact that a smaller proportion of the attendees are white is held up by the same media as evidence of racism. The establishment media is inconsistent on many levels.

First, it calls the tea party patriots racists because, judged by the standards of the media, insufficient numbers of African American have participated in rallies. There is no allegation that they have been excluded because they could not be, the rallies being conducted in the open air and in the public square, and no one is excluded because there is no physical opportunity to exclude anyone. All one has to do to participate is simply to walk in among the crowd. Yet, somehow, those who do not exclude by race and who have no power to compel races to join them are nevertheless labeled racist. The classic example of responsibility without power.

Second, the establishment media does not apply the same standard to blacks who vote their race. It does not even apply the same standard to African-Americans who, as jurors, engage in jury nullification based on race. The African-American race is motivated and acting based on race and the white tea party patriots are not. Yet it is the latter who are being labeled racists.

But this double standard, actually the inversion of rational standard, is not limited to the media's judgment of the tea party but it is across the board. Here is a reply made just after the election of Barack Obama:

What do I say? I say the African-American race in America has been the victim of demagoguery and has suffered as no other race as a result.

I think the substance of the article is true. I've expressed my feelings as they relate to the Ku Klux Klan and General Forrest in my about page. Please note that page ends with what I hope is a transcendent note of repentance and forgiveness.

The irreplaceable predicate for forgiveness is repentance which my Bible tells me is a breaking of the heart, a true contrition, a turning away from sin, a change of behavior, and a new course. When the repentance is real and when the trespasser throws himself on the mercy of the eternal judge, the penitent absolutely receives forgiveness. I think this is applicable in the case of Nathan Bedford Forrest but is it applicable to the Democrat party and especially to the race pimps who demagogue this issue?

I'm not sure that it will avail anything by way of changing the black culture to recite the long course of American history in which the Democrat party condoned enslavement and segregation of African Americans. The time horizon of African-American voters is probably not more than a generation and I believe for most of them the world started with the inauguration of Barack Obama. But the author unaccountably fails to deal with more recent history. I don't think there are many community activists in the African-American world who will be easily moved by a review of 19th century politics. Nevertheless, a few reminders about more recent history would not be amiss for the rest of us.

In the sweep of American history the Democrat party was virtually unanimously on the the other wrong side of slavery and the wrong side of segregation up until about the time of Franklin Roosevelt. Interestingly, it was Franklin Roosevelt cousin Teddy who scandalized society by entertaining at first African-American in the White House at dinner, but said he was a Republican. Franklin Roosevelt himself was a patrician and probably a racist but his wife was the public face of the administration on the issue and she captured the hearts of America's Negroes.

Harry Truman began seriously to take affirmative steps to undo Jim Crow, for example, he integrated the armed services and acted where he could on a federal level. Eisenhower was no less "correct" in his treatment of the subject but he was prudential and circumspect in the small steps of progress he made. He was nontheatrical, as distinguished from Eleanor Roosevelt, and so never won their hearts back. It was really not until John F. Kennedy, especially through the activities of his brother Robert, popularly understood through his phone call to Martin Luther King in jail, that African-Americans began to move solidly into the Democratic camp.

Lyndon Johnson, for all of his faults and crimes, was in fact the "Master of the Senate" and as majority leader and as President, Lyndon Johnson guided the great civil rights laws through the Congress-but only after having sabotaged them early on. As the article points out, Johnson had to make treaty with the Republicans against his own party and many instances to get his civil rights legislation through. But the popular perception among African-Americans is that it was Republicans who resisted civil right movement. And this impression has stuck to the point where nothing the Republicans can do will shake in the slightest this fixed opinion of 12% of our population or about 10% of our voters.

Sensing this dichotomy, Johnson famously turned from signing the legislation into law and predicted, "we have lost the South for a generation." Nixon was accused by the left of concocting a Southern strategy based on bigotry. Actually Nixon was in many ways proactive on behalf of civil rights but the perception stood.

Much of this I think has to do with demographics and the great moves by Southern blacks off the sharecropping acres of the South to the great industrial factory towns of the North during the First and Second World Wars. At the end of that migration trail they found themselves in a new world in which the cities were utterly controlled by the bosses and the bosses were all Democrats. These bosses operated on patronage and the seduction of the African American race began as they were induced to become addicted to entitlements.

It is human nature to rationalize one's trespasses and it would be unnatural for a whole race to be possessed of the strength of character of a man like Nathan Bedford Forrest who demonstrated his physical courage and his moral convictions time and again throughout his tumultuous life. But such was his intellectual and moral honesty that in the end he came to the place where he honestly confronted his sins and repented of them. As the African-American "community" descended into a vortex of self-destruction fueled by entitlements, they were conveniently supplied with the demagoguery by their own preachers to rationalize the very behavior that was and is killing them.

It is not by accident that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are "reverends" because for generations the cloth was one of the very few paths out of the underclass for blacks. If one thinks of the parish as a precinct and a preacher as a ward healer, the nexus from the Democrat bosses to the most important social institution in the African-American world becomes an easy connection. The bosses were corrupt and they were eager to suborn their ward healers. That meant that black preachers have to deliver the vote and to do that they have to engage in the demagoguery which we know only too well.

As the Democrats contrived to move control of patronage from city bosses to Congressional Committee Chairman, the allegiance of the African-American society moved to the national Democrat party from the local Democrat bosses. Every step of the transition was facilitated by demagoguery, victimology, and entitlements.

In the long sweep of American history the Democrat Party for most of its existence was on the wrong side of the original sin of America: slavery and segregation. Today, race demagoguery is big business and big politics. It becomes bigger and bigger as the Democrats manage to federalize everything. I believe it has just put an African-American in the White House. I know of no way that the demagoguery which so affects the African-American world can be washed clean because I see no disposition whatever in the demagogues to come clean.

That is another way of saying that I know of no way that African-Americans can be made to vote against the Democrat ticket for the foreseeable future. Therefore, Republicans and conservatives should look to different demographics. But most of all, Conservatives should articulate a conservative message which is so compelling that races of all flavors will be drawn to it.

The irony is that the founding Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan should present a model of repentance. The tragedy is that the men of God in the African American community do not.

[Vaduz]

The fact that most *liberals* are so unshakably pro-Obama (despite his destructive Socialist policies, job-killing government programs, and anti-American platforms).Proof that logic is something not everyone has.

[Gargantua]

"A racist, is a racist. One is not necessarily a racist for voting for someone, or not."

A smidgeon of truth there, but a tiny one.

To vote for someone regardless of their race is to be racially neutral, i.e., not racist. To vote for someone only because of their skin color is racist, pure and simple. There is no gray area here; for good or ill, the matter is black and white.

;-/

[Bob J]

It may have been a mistake to immediately follow up your assertion that Black Americans are racists with a cop-thief analogy.

[laotzu]

The overwhelming majority of tea-partiers are white.

All hatred, and criticism, directed at them is ipso-facto racist.

[Gargantua]

Any truly sane, logical interpretation of the observable data available would insist that "Reverend Wright" is one of the most blatantly racist, race-hate-filled people alive today. That anyone can claim the Name of God or Jesus in his preachings, and then spew the venomous vitriol that this man lives for is beyond reprehensible.

We know that he's just using race as his calling card, because it sells so well to the inner city Blacks whom he victimizes with it. It fills his pews and his bank accounts, but it is devoid of God or the love, forgiveness and compassion that were Christ's amazing message.

He knows exactly what he's doing, just like Calypso Louis Farrakhan. Hate sells, especially to the ignorant or uneducated. Their teachings are Hate Crimes of the highest, vilest order. While it is unlikely that they will ever face prosecution for them here on earth, their Judgement indeed awaits them.

;-/

[Gargantua]

"90% of blacks always vote for the candidate that has a D after his name."

Not true. More like 67% are incurable "D" voters. Not 90+. What is "stupid" is making grand statements with no basis in provable fact.

;-/

[ETL]

Both Farrakhan and “reverend” Wright advocate Black Liberation Theology. BLT uses concocted religions to advance the cause of revolutionary-communist “Liberation”. The Weather Underground, the Black Panthers (new and old), and of course the murderous Black Liberation Army all advocated “Black Liberation”. The Black Liberation Front was formed in Cuba in the mid 1960s. The Weather Underground, close allies of the BLA, received training from the KGB while in Cuba.

[Gargantua]

"It may have been a mistake to immediately follow up your assertion that Black Americans are racists with a cop-thief analogy."

Perhaps.

On the other hand, your appraisal is only salient if viewed through a cynically racist filter... whereby you could be assumed the racist for interpreting it thus. It is therefore probably best to assume that the individual(s) is/are not racially motivated until they prove otherwise.

I'll gladly extend you that courtesy.

;-/

[Bob J]

“On the other hand, your appraisal is only salient if viewed through a cynically racist filter... whereby you could be assumed the racist for interpreting it thus.”

I see.

I mention that you may have may used an unfortunate comparison and the first thing you do is call ME the bigot.

[Gargantua]

"I see."

Quite obviously, you do not. I made a specific point of how silly it is to impugn a poster with racist intentions based upon their comments unless they prove themselves to be racist with repeated overtly bigoted comments. You missed that somehow, huh? You aren't racist, but you clearly do employ the liberal trick of trying to twist what people say to fit your own twisted agenda.

"I mention that you may have may used an unfortunate comparison and the first thing you do is call ME the bigot."

Here you go again. That is the exact opposite of what I wrote. I have watched you on FreeRepublic for years, so I know you're not that stupid. Well, neither are we. Your repeated use of Liberal canards and straw-men speakes to your own insecurity, nothing more, nothing less. Most signally, it says far more about you than it ever will about me.

I suggest a "time-out." Go back, re-read what I actually did say, then re-read your lame, transparent attempts at Liberal revisionist manipulation. You'll probably feel as silly (and hard to take seriously!) as you look to us when you pull this three-year-old crap.

And you would do well to remember, when you try to put words in my mouth, you'll get your nuaghty little fingers bitten again ~ just like you did here. N'kay? Run along now... there's a good lad.

;-)

[Gargantua]

There is no race or clan or tribe of humans in all of history who weren't at one time or another, for centuries, used as slaves. For America's blacks to feign that this is their issue, and theirs alone, only speaks to their lack of true historical awareness.

It also speaks, ironically enough(!), to their having been victimized by the Liberal Left into believing that their most persuasive calling-card is that of being America's perpetual "victims."

By buying into this steaming pantload, many blacks apparently feel that it is their birthright to do poorly in school, eschew learning proper language skills, and expect a "Gummint handout," most likely from "Obama's Stash," to make up for how badly they've been mistreated by society as a whole.

Never mind that the last actual black slaves died many decades ago, or that if they (as a group) would just get over this garbage being drummed into their heads by real racists like Wright, Sharpton, Jackson, and Farrakhan, middle-America would have alot more respect for them.

It's really hard for people who are not racist to have any respect at all for people who have no respect for themselves, and who prove that they still have none at every possible turn. Just listen to how blacks refer to each other, in an unending attempt to keep alive the vile epithets that, for nearly all of white America, would otherwise have died out almost 70 years ago.

Blacks can keep playing this "Po' downtrodden black man" role for as long as they feel it somehow serves them to do so, but it has gotten really, really tired and pointless. It's time for America's black community to grow up, and move on. If blacks really can make it on their own (and they know they can, the question is, "do they want to?"), then do it. If they actually can't, they should stop blaming others for their own lack of spine.

The free Racist Ride is just about over. Whites are getting tired of being victimized just because of the color of our skin. And when, in a few short decades, whites are the new minority, you won't see us in the street waiting for our handouts. We have too much self-respect.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Find out what it means to me.

;-/

[Bob J]

“Quite obviously, you do not. I made a specific point of how silly it is to impugn a poster with racist intentions based upon their comments unless they prove themselves to be racist with repeated overtly bigoted comments.”

This is the thing Gargantua, I never called or impugned you as being a racist. I merely said the language was unfortunate.

[Gargantua]

Great. So what did you think about the actual point of the article? The discussion about who are the real racists, America's Tea Party or the neo-militant blacks and their enablers/appologists?

Since you're bound and determined to hammer away at one peripheral analogy within the entire piece (yet another Liberal ploy, by the way), I'm sincerely interested in your take on the posting as a whole.

;-/

[Bob J]

“Great. So what did you think about the actual point of the article? The discussion about who are the real racists, America’s Tea Party or the neo-militant blacks and their enablers/appologists?”

I think once you start penning excuses and/or diversions for what is obviously a lying and unethical attempt at character assassination, you’ve already lost the argument.

Basically you played a childish game of “I know you are but what am I?”. Game over, they won.

[Bob J]

But not attacking the underlying premise and intent of the accusation you subconsciously accepted it and responded by saying “Okay, we may be racists but you’re a BIGGER racist!”.

Nice debating there Sherlock.

[Gargantua]

Talking to yourself again? It is fun to watch, I'll admit.

How you seize upon these flights of fancy is amazing to watch. You concoct content out of, apparently, the dim and shadowy folds of your cerebellum which have nothing at all to do with the topic at hand... totally ad hoc and appropos to nothing. It's an amazing feat for someone absent extremely heavy medication. How do you do it? I am sincerely in awe.

Most of all, I thank you for the repeated bumps... that was my goal, you know. You're a prince among men.

;-?

[Gargantua]

"...a lying and unethical attempt at character assassination,"

Cut and paste, please. Now, the exact quote which you feel was a "lying, unethical character assassination."

Anything other than the direct quote which proves your allegation will be your admission that you either made the whole thing up, or hallucinated it...

...this is fun! I love you, Bobby J!

;-/

[Shade2]

Haven't blacks voted around 90% for every Democratic Presidential candidate for the past 5 or 6 decades? Didn't Steele, Swann and other black Republican candidates for governor get between 10 and 20 percent of the black vote? You have far from proven your race baiting assertion.

[Gargantua]

Typical ethnocentric apologist mumbledygook from a transparently agenda-driven reverse bigot. Voting for someone because of their skin color is just as bigoted and racist as is not voting for someone based upon their skin color.

The Republicans are perenially the most anti-racist, minority-prone political party on any ballot, because it is the Democrat's pandering to minorities which is the most blatant attempt to keep them "on the plantation" waiting for handouts and pats on the head from "Bwana Massah."

Treating all people as true equals is the most un-racist, anti-bigoted approach to human interaction. The GOP practices this in virtually every instance, while Democrats are genetically incapable of such even-handed behavior. That minorities have for decades been systematically duped by Democrats into believing that their "Affirmative Action" is anything other than the most insidious, insulting, demeaning and de-humanizing form of brazenly racist bigotry is a disgusting deception, not to mention largely causal of the current and continued plight of inner-city minorities despite the civil rights strides that, for decades, the rest of society has made around them.

The dumbing-down of America knows no singular racial focus, as all of society have been exposed to the horrific fruit of its sewing, watering and tending by Liberal Academia over the past half-century-plus. But the most devastating destruction of the human spirit has occurred where this dumbing-down has been combined with the savage belittleing of the individual under "Affirmative Action," where the most capable and deserving are often turned away in favor of another whose minority status fulfills an arbitrarily decided, purely racist "quota."

True fairness and equality is, and must be, color-blind. Anything else is racism, period. That blacks vote more often for Democrats (and not just for other blacks) is not a dismissal of, or an explaining away of, the thrust of my article. It is actually further proof-positive of my posting's nail-on-the-head accuracy.

Since you asked. Thank you.

;-/

[Shade2]

Nice strawman. Not address the point. If blacks vote around 90% for white Democratic Presidential candidates and tend to vote between 10 and 20% for black Republican candidate for governor, what is your bases beyond ignorance and race baiting for declaring that voting around 90% for a black Democratic candidate is automatically racist?

Also, why do black Republican candidates tend to get less support from Republican voters than white Republican candidates?

[Gargantua]

"If blacks vote around 90% for white Democratic Presidential candidates...?"

Over the past 50 years, the national average is 67%, not 90%.

"...why do black Republican candidates tend to get less support from Republican voters than white...?"

Please show us the statistics which form the basis of this racist screed. There are fewer black candidates who run as Republicans, but that is a decision made by blacks. Those blacks that do run in the GOP get support based upon their qualifications, not their skin color. Ask any black Republican... like Martin Luther King, Jr., J. C. Watt, Rod Paige, Carter G. Woodson, Frederick Douglass, or any of the other prominent black Republicans down through history.

Try to remember as you spew this phenomenally ignorant hootane drool that it was the Republican Party who freed the slaves and started the Civil War against the largely Democrat southern plantation owners.

Typical of an uninformed Liberal bigot to call my arguments "Straw Men" when that is all you offer in each of your screeching disinformation blatts.

Keep posting, genius. You true colors are showing.

;-/

[Shade2]

Over the past 50 years, the national average is 67%, not 90%.

Well, take us back 50 years all the way to the time when Southern Democrats were CONSERVATIVE. How about the national average over the past 30 years? Jimmy Carter received around 90% of the black vote. Same for Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry. But blacks are racist for doing practically what they did previously for 6 white Democratic candidates.

Ask any black Republican... like Martin Luther King, Jr., J. C. Watt, Rod Paige, Carter G. Woodson, Frederick Douglass, or any of the other prominent black Republicans down through history

You named one elected official. Paige and Douglass were appointments. Woodson never held political office. All you have is Watts who only reached Congress (as opposed to Senate). Ken Blackwell couldn't win Ohio. Lynn Swan couldn't win Pennsylvania. Michael Steele can't win the Senate.

Try to remember as you spew this phenomenally ignorant hootane drool that it was the Republican Party who freed the slaves and started the Civil War against the largely Democrat southern plantation owners.

Another straw man. It is quite telling how folks like yourself repeat how it was the Democratic Party who pushed for slavery and segregation as opposed to saying that "liberals" pushed for slavery and segregation. The Democratic Party was formed under the philosophy of a weaker Federal government. It was during Reconstruction that many of the conservative Northern Democrats switched over to the Republican Party. The conservative Southern Democrats became Republicans after the Civil Rights Movement. Bull Conner was a Democrat, yet was conservative.

Also, Mr. Luther King SENIOR was a Republican. His son, the famous one, never publicly endorsed a party.

Typical of an uninformed Liberal bigot to call my arguments "Straw Men" when that is all you offer in each of your screeching disinformation blatts.

Typical of a bigot who spouts faulty racial generalizations to ignorantly declare anyone who calls him out on his bigotry a "liberal". Very cliche. Of course, not knowing a persons social and political views nor who that person voted for (Bush and McCain in my case) is meaningless. To many conservatives like yourself believe that in order to be conservative, you must bash racial and ethnic minorities. Black Americans are not adverse to conservatism. They are adverse to conservatives such as yourself. YOU and those like you are the greatest impediment to blacks voting Republican. But I feel that deep down you prefer it that way.

[Gargantua]

Site for the National Black Republican Association:

http://www.nbra.info/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.blackgop

An excerpt from the wonderful site celebrating America's best-known Black Republicans:

"... He (King) and ninety others were arrested and indicted under the provisions of a law making it illegal to conspire to obstruct the operation of a business. King and several others were found guilty, but appealed their case. A Supreme Court decision in 1956 ended Alabama's segregation laws enacted by Democrats.

Note how it points out that the South's Segragation Laws were enacted, not by "liberals," but by "Democrats." In fact, laws are not enacted by conservatives or liberals, but by Republcans and Democrats.

Look at the three most outspokenly racist, divisively race- baiting figures in America's social and ploitical discourse today: Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, and Barack Obama. All three are black, all three are Democrats. Hell, look at the top ten, and include John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Reverend Wright, Charlie Rangel, Carole Mosely-Braun, etc. I mean really... how much proof do you need before you admit it?

Blacks and Democrats are not only the most racist, race-baiting provocateurs alive today, they have actually made a cottage industry of fanning the otherwise dwindling flames of racial tension for their own cynical political gain, regardless of the destructive effects their actions and words have on the country they were elected to serve.

But, as you so aptly prove over and over again, there is none so blind as he who simply refuses to see.

BTW, are you black? I am.

;-/

[Shade2]

Conservatism is the Republican ideology. When Republican’s stray from this ideology, that are called RINOs. Rush Limbaugh leads the Conservative Movement, not the Republican Party. The party is led by Steele, who is widely viewed as a RINO. While there is nothing racist about conservatism, historically and unfortunately, those who have been most inclined to express anti-black racism have tended to be conservative, whether Democrat or Republican. Today’s Democrats are nothing like the Democrats of the past.

Also, Louis Farrakhan is not a Democrat. He would be far from it. As a rule, he has no polical affiliation and being that he is anti-abortion, anti-government dependence, anti-gay, pro-traditional family and gender roles, anti-sex outside of marriage, etc., he seems quite conservative.

And there are others divisive individuals to add to your list:

Pat Buchanan
Charles Murray
David Horowitz
Ann Coulter
Rush Limbaugh
Steve Sailer
Carol Carter
James L. Hart
Jared Taylor
Gordon Lee Baum
David Duke
Glenn Miller

All Republican or Conservative

Beyond being quite liberal, please give me details of how Obama is “divisive”. Is he any more divisive than Carter or Clinton? The most divisive racial action out there is white flight.

And yes, I am black and conservative. I just don’t believe that black bashing and playing the reverse race card is a criteria for being conservative and such others holding such a criteria is, in my opinion, what fuels the very perceptions that turn blacks away from the Republican Party.

[Gargantua]

You come on here, pretend to be conservative, pretend to be black, and pretend that there is some correlation between race-baiting/fanning racial flames, and being controversial?

Take a clue, dipstink: this post is about "who are really racist ~ Democrat Blacks or The Tea Party." Your ignorant Liberal spew, and failed attempts to derail the topic at hand by calling Ruish Libaugh "divisive" is just more inane Liberal BULLSNOT. Jam it up your crease, and enjoy it, pantload. Thank you for all the free "bumps," you've proven my point with every vapid imbecilic femmy screed.

Good to know that you claim to be black. Just more proof in the pudduing, and icing on the cake. Post all you want, I won't be responding to your off-topic misdirections any more. But pleae, keep bumping the post, and "Thank you!"

;-/

[Gargantua]

"Beyond being quite liberal, please give me details of how Obama is “divisive.”

Let's up the ante a smidge here, shall we? I'll go you one or two better than that. I'll prove that Obama is not just "divisive," but that he is also an inflammatory racist bigot, and that despite likely not even realizing it, you yourself are as well!

Let's start by keeping two things in mind:

1. You claim to be both black and conservative.
2. Obama claims to have written "Dreams From My Father."

On July 22, 2009 Barack Obama went before the TV cameras and in his official capacity as President of the United States said the following: "I don't have all the facts here, but I will say this--the police acted stupidly..."

It is exceedingly rare to hear a sitting President actively speaking out against Law Enforcement, especially in a racially-tinged episode with far-reaching societal overtones. It is unheard of for a president to begin such a nationally-broadcasted public criticism with the admission that he still didn't have all the facts. To offer a conclusive opinion without knowing all the facts is the definition of "bigotry." This was a first for America. It was neither a "first" nor a "last" for Obama, who would later claim that an Arizona law would cause "rampant racial profiling" and allow "Dad and the kids going out for ice cream" to become likely targets of racial persecution-- despite that the Law in question specifically prohibits such actions by Law Enforcement.

In both of the above instances, Obama made repeated public proclamations which later proved to be erroneous, and which had at their core a shared potential for (if not design to) creating public unrest and distrust of Law Enforcement.

Hardly presidential, though extremely bigoted.

Obama's pattern of racist commentary is traceable at least to his years in college if not his childhood. In "Dreams From My Father" he explains that his Grandmother is a "typical white person" with the following explanation (as if the statement isn't racist enough without one, never mind this one!).

"If she saw a black man on the sidewalk coming toward her, she would cross the street to avoid passing too closely..."

Are there white people who do this? Of course there are. Are these "typical," i.e., representative of the majority of whites? Absolutely not. In fact, in order foer one to either believe, or merely to state for effect, that such behavior is typical of all white people requires extremely bigoted thinking. Bigots take the extreme actions of the few, and paint them as being representative of the entire group. It is just how hate is done... when you're a racist.

This comes quite easily to Obama, who admits to having been steeped in the very worst of radical racist traditions from his years as a child at the knee of Frank Marshall Davis to his years in the pews of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Only very committed extremist racist bigots would say any of the above, yet Obama has said all of them. Racist. Bigoted. Inflammatory. All for political gain, at the expense of a nation's decades-long attempts to heal, and come together.

This above addresses my assertion concerning Obama's amply demonstrated racist zealotry. As to you, let's take off the gloves here. You are aware, and have been for some time now, of everything I just related in these paragraphs. Yet you have the balls to ask me to demonstrate how it could be that I call Obama a divisive, inflammatory racist bigot?

Thank you!

I rest my case, but it was you who made it for me.

;-/