Posted on 07/23/2010 2:03:38 PM PDT by Nachum
On the heels of the NAACP’s call for an end to the racist wing of the political tea party movement, the organization pushed forward this week with plans for a national march and rally in D.C. on October 2. “We have to celebrate this victory,” NAACP President Ben Jealous said in a brief telephone interview with the NNPA News Service on Monday. “People are now depressed and they need signs of light and signs of strength. And the fact that we just got the tea party to push out an entire faction of the Tea Party because of racism...
(Excerpt) Read more at thecharlottepost.com ...
FU NAACP!! Marxist/racist pigs!!
Is that for ONE BLACK ONLY NATION?
booga booga booga booga
“And the fact that we just got the tea party to push out an entire faction of the Tea Party because of racism...”
I must have missed this part...or is this guy just off his meds?
Ugh! Yuk! Puke! Another NAACP March...Where to.. The White House...Nahh theres a Black Guy in Charge...How bout the Justice Dept..Nahhh that won’t work either..Black Guy. Hmnn where can they march to and what about?
Paid for by whites.
*bangs head against wall*
**Ein Reich**
And using Tea Party Conservatives as the JEWS...
March like that will declare WAR on Whites.. just like the racist SCUMBAG Puking Panthers
Obama’s Poll Numbers Down, Imaginary Racism Up
by Ann Coulter
07/21/2010
The Democrats are depressed about their collapsing poll numbers, so it’s time to start calling conservatives “racist.”
As we now know from the Journolist list-serv, where hundreds of liberal journalists chat with one another, and which was leaked to Daily Caller this week, journalists cry “racism” whenever they need to distract from bad news for Obama. (Ironically, this story did not make headlines.)
When the Rev. Jeremiah Wright scandal broke during the 2008 campaign, the first response of Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent was to demand that they start randomly picking conservatives — “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
Ackerman, frequent guest on MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show,” continued on Journolist:
“What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.”
This is what “racism” has come to in America. Democrats are in trouble, so they say “let’s call conservatives racists.” We always knew it, but the Journolist postings gave us the smoking gun.
This explains why we’ve heard so much about Tea Partiers being “racists” lately.
But despite a frantic search, the media have been unable to produce any actual evidence of racism at the Tea Parties. Even the trace elements are either frauds or utterly trivial.
For example, there was blind terror last week over a Tea Party billboard in northern Iowa that showed a picture of Adolf Hitler, Obama and Vladimir Lenin under the headings: “National Socialism,” “Democratic Socialism” and “Marxist Socialism.”
Overheated? Perhaps. Racist? No. Unless liberals are about to break the news that Lenin and Hitler were black, what we have here, gentlemen, is not racism.
I’m not even sure why liberals are so testy: As an aficionado of liberal talk radio, I’ve heard both Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes repeatedly say socialism is terrific. (Given their ratings, this is understandable.)
Most sickeningly, the mainstream media continue to spread the despicable lie that someone called civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis the “N-word” 15 times during the anti-ObamaCare rally in Washington. Fifteen times!
That turned out to be another lie. About a week after the protest, Andrew Breitbart offered a $100,000 reward for anyone who could produce a video of Lewis being called the N-word even once — forget 15 times. (That’s the most we can afford. Hey, who do we look like over here, George Soros?)
Plus, the winner might have his video appear on the new hit TV show, “America’s Most Racist Home Videos.”
With hundreds of news cameras, cell phone cameras and camcorders capturing every nook and cranny of the Capitol Hill protest — and news media hungry for an ugly, racist act — it defies possibility that someone called Lewis the N-word once, much less 15 times, without one single camera capturing the incident. And yet, to this day the reward remains unclaimed.
Democrats did their best to provoke an ugly confrontation by marching a (shockingly undiverse) group of black Democrats right through the middle of the anti-ObamaCare protest. But they didn’t get one, so the media just lied and asserted Lewis was called the N-word. (If they wanted to hear the N-word so badly, they should have sent the congressional delegation to a Jay-Z concert.)
Indeed, news anchor after news anchor has indignantly claimed to have footage of the incident, teasing viewers by saying, “We’ll get that right up” or claiming personally to have seen the video -– and then you watch the whole program without ever seeing footage of anyone calling Lewis the N-word.
Dateline: April 18, 2010, CNN’s Don Lemon: “We have the tape here at CNN. I saw it on CNN’s ‘State of the Union.’” And yet, Lemon never got around to showing viewers that tape. IF YOU HAVE THE TAPE, DON, CLAIM YOUR $100,00 REWARD!
And now this week, with the NAACP accusing the Tea Partiers of harboring racists, and conservatives demanding proof, the George Soros-backed Center for American Progress ran a 45-second video allegedly showing racism at the Tea Parties.
One of the videos shows an obvious liberal plant announcing, “I’m a proud racist!” Apparently this was their best shot, because they had to work this video into the montage twice, amid utterly innocuous posters, for example, saying, “God bless Glenn Beck.” So I guess they didn’t have anything better.
Here’s the part Soros’ people didn’t show you: In the fuller video shown on the Glenn Beck show, the Tea Partiers surrounded the (liberal plant) racist, jeering at him, telling him he’s not one of them and to go home. In a spectacularly evil fraud, all that was edited out.
Just hours later on MSNBC, Chris Matthews was loudly proclaiming that he would believe the Tea Partiers weren’t racist when he sees “just one of those Tea Party people pull down one of those racist signs at the next Tea Party rally. I’m going to just wait. Reach over, grab the sign and tear it out of the guy’s hands. Then I will believe you.”
Well, here it was. The (liberal plant) racist was driven from the Tea Party by the Tea Partiers. But you won’t see that. Like USDA official Shirley Sherrod’s apparently racist comments excerpted this week from what was, in fact, a commendable speech about racial reconciliation, the alleged Tea Party racism was, literally, “taken out of context.”
Not this Tea Party!!
Paid for by liberal whites who vote them millions to play with from our tax dollars IMO.
People should just go to work instead of making money from creating racial divides IMO.
Ignore them.
We’ve got illegal aliens marching on Washington demanding rights they don’t have and the Marxist NAACP marching on Washington demanding that Tea Party people lose the rights they do have. Eff them all!! Come and take my rights you Marxist race pimps!
Refudiate this!
**Is that for ONE BLACK ONLY NATION?**
There is one... called Liberia.. originally LINCOLN’S LIBERIA, created for the slaves who wanted to go back..
Since they didn’t go back.. they’re on their own.
**Is that for ONE BLACK ONLY NATION?**
There is one... called Liberia.. originally LINCOLN’S LIBERIA, created for the slaves who wanted to go back..
Since they didn’t go back.. they’re on their own.
whoops
When is the march for the NAAWP? (Oh, that’s right, a group like that would be a racist group)
Zer0 Nation.
RACIAL POLITICS BLOWS UP IN OBAMA’S FACE
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on July 21, 2010
Whenever race is mentioned, it hurts Barack Obama’s presidency. The very basis of his presidency is that he is the post racial president. Now he finds himself knee-deep into racial politics.
Some is of his own doing. In suing Arizona over immigration reform, he takes a step that alienates the three-quarters of Anglo voters who back the law. In refusing to prosecute the Black Panthers for their blatant intimidation of white voters in 2008, he alienates fair thinking people of both races. But in firing Shirley Sherrod, he showed African-Americans that he was caving in to pressure from FOX News and the conservatives. Then, by reversing field and reinstating her, the president and his Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack show whites and Republicans-Independent voters that he is caving in to pressure from the African-American community.
There are two common denominators to this equation: race and weakness. Any involvement in racial politics has to hurt Obama at his core. It goes to his fundamental selling point: That he is post racial. By dealing with race repeatedly, he is vulnerable just as Bill Clinton was when he had always to deal with sexual scandal. It is not his strength but can ultimately destroy his credibility.
And then there is weakness. By caving in first to the right and then to the left, Obama acts and looks indecisive and weak. He comes across as out of control and projects the same image of incapacity and chaos that he so amply demonstrated when the oil was gushing in the Gulf. He reminds one of the opening days of the Clinton Administration when it tied itself in knots over the issue of gays in the military. It looks like amateur hour at the White House.
Obama has two conflicting goals: He wants to expand his base among whites and heighten enthusiasm of blacks. Good goals, both. But if he uses racial issues to accomplish either objective — as he appears to do in the Sherrod controversy — he alienates one group in order to win the other. Not a good strategy.
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY
THANK YOU!
One People, ONE NATION, One president.
It is a loose translation.
an entire faction of the Tea Party
Why the silence from The Post on Black Panther Party story?
By Andrew Alexander
Ombudsman
Sunday, July 18, 2010; A17
Thursday’s Post reported about a growing controversy over the Justice Department’s decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. The story succinctly summarized the issues but left many readers with a question: What took you so long?
For months, readers have contacted the ombudsman wondering why The Post hasn’t been covering the case. The calls increased recently after competitors such as the New York Times and the Associated Press wrote stories. Fox News and right-wing bloggers have been pumping the story. Liberal bloggers have countered, accusing them of trying to manufacture a scandal.
But The Post has been virtually silent.
The story has its origins on Election Day in 2008, when two members of the New Black Panther Party stood in front of a Philadelphia polling place. YouTube video of the men, now viewed nearly 1.5 million times, shows both wearing paramilitary clothing. One carried a nightstick.
Early last year, just before the Bush administration left office, the Justice Department filed a voter-intimidation lawsuit against the men, the New Black Panther Party and its chairman. But several months later, with the government poised to win by default because the defendants didn’t contest the suit, the Obama Justice Department decided the case was over-charged and narrowed it to the man with the nightstick. It secured only a narrow injunction forbidding him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of Philadelphia polling places through 2012.
Congressional Republicans pounced. For months they stalled the confirmation of Thomas E. Perez, President Obama’s pick to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, while seeking answers to why the case had been downgraded over the objections of some of the department’s career lawyers. The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility launched an investigation, which is pending. The independent, eight-member Commission on Civil Rights also began what has become a yearlong probe with multiple public hearings; its report is due soon. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), a prominent lawmaker in The Post’s circulation area, has been a loud and leading critic of how the case was handled. His office has “aggressively” sought to interest The Post in coverage, a spokesman said.
The controversy was elevated last month when J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer who had helped develop the case, wrote in the Washington Times that his superiors’ decision to reduce its scope was “motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law.” Some in the department believe “the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation,” he wrote. Adams recently repeated these charges in public testimony before the commission.
The Post didn’t cover it. Indeed, until Thursday’s story, The Post had written no news stories about the controversy this year. In 2009, there were passing references to it in only three stories.
That’s prompted many readers to accuse The Post of a double standard. Royal S. Dellinger of Olney said that if the controversy had involved Bush administration Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, “Lord, there’d have been editorials and stories, and it would go on for months.”
To be sure, ideology and party politics are at play. Liberal bloggers have accused Adams of being a right-wing activist (he insisted to me Friday that his sole motivation is applying civil rights laws in a race-neutral way). Conservatives appointed during the Bush administration control a majority of the civil rights commission’s board. And Fox News has used interviews with Adams to push the story. Sarah Palin has weighed in via Twitter, urging followers to watch Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly’s coverage because “her revelations leave Left steaming.”
The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology, nor should it feel obligated to order stories simply because of blogosphere chatter from the right or the left.
But in this case, coverage is justified because it’s a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide. If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed. If the Commission on Civil Rights’ investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed. If Adams is pursuing a right-wing agenda, he should be exposed.
National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy “significant,” said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.
Better late than never. There’s plenty left to explore.
Andrew Alexander can be reached at 202-334-7582 or at ombudsman@washpost.com. For daily updates, read the Omblog.
Loose, but Close Enough!!!
and
Frighteningly SO
Why don’t they just say what this is. An Obama and Soros protest to use poor black people to push their socialist take over of the government.
“It will be a mass gathering of civil and human rights organizations..”
NAACP/ACORN/ANSWER/Gay-Lesbian-Transgender/PETA/ACLU/People for the American Way....you know....the usual suspects.
Spray the whole batch with “STUPID GAS” ... oh wait...
Nevermind!
“People should just go to work instead of making money from creating racial divides IMO.”
I’ve always noticed, that the poorest people are the ones who are the most intolerant. To go out, get a job, would require that one set one’s personal prejudices and preferences aside and accept that the world isn’t there to cater to their own preferences.
If they did that, they wouldn’t be able to live life according to THEIR wants specifically. They wouldn’t be able to sit in a posh office, blathering about racism to a boot licking assistant and they would be like everyone else in the workforce, for better or worse.
They stick with things like the NAACP because it makes them more important than they otherwise would be. Same with the black panthers. If they were normal people with normal jobs, then they wouldn’t be anyone outside of the mainstream. But by hanging out in their grandmother’s living room with these gay guns and posters, they get to build up their own identity and importance. Look at their military uniforms and self appointed ranks within the Party. And their stupid titles.
Without it they would be plain “Paris Lewis” or whatever their real names are. For some reason, that is anathema to them.
Obviously, the NAACP’s goal here isn’t to improve race relations.
Not a single Tea Party march has ever been about race, but the NAACP decides to have a march, and that’s ALL it’s about.
It’s a declaration of war. A provocation. A dare. It’s also extremely stupid.
This can’t end well.
That makes two of us. Whasup widdat?
Yes it’s called Africa not America.
Every bit of this narrative is utterly out-of-reality's touch.
Their is all this pride, and none of it seems directed at getting their children a good start in life with a good education.
You end poverty in a generation with a family if a child came to school prepared to sit, listen, participate and to do the work.
Seems to be more interest IMO to just run around with their pants around their knees with their boxers hanging out.
Stupid is as stupid does IMO.
It’s a real waste of families generation after generation.
OTOH I expect them to bungle the propaganda event. Their ham handed attempt to blame the republicans/TEA party will backfire.
Why do we listen to these worthless people? They do nothing for the country and come from a place that left to them would still be in the stone age.
Africans have been killing themselves in tribal warfare and to this day have been selling their enemies into slavery.
Africa is the biggest mess in the world IMO.
**Wonder what the October Surprise/Reichstag bombing will be.**
They’ll just BLAME BUSH ... their Base is STILL BUYING IT!
The worst part, is that we have to pay for it. No other country, with the exception of the socialist countries, subsidizes their criminal element or those who have constant broods, one after another without planning on getting a job to pay for them.
Because the current power elite are for some reason intimidated by these thugs.
Why do we have to subsidize it?
“Hmnn where can they march to and what about?”
They can march in the streets and about wanting more money to spend on their programs solely for blacks and blacks only. With whites, Hispanics, and Asians paying for it out of their taxes.
The economy stinks for everyone, the economic pie is shrinking. This translates into the end of kow towing to these race hustlers. White guilt is evaporating
Congressional black caucus, NAACP, And the black panthers, Are the new KKK.
If the NAACP pushed out every one of it's members who is a racist, it's membership would decline to zero.
We’ve got illegal aliens marching on Washington demanding rights they don’t have and the Marxist NAACP marching on Washington demanding that Tea Party people lose the rights they do have.
Check out # 26, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.