Skip to comments.The Far-Left Democratic Party and their Obsession with Race
Posted on 08/31/2010 6:30:05 AM PDT by RogerFGay
The Democratic Party expected that having a half-black man in the White House would come with a free Platinum Race Card that would never be questioned. But as the mid-term elections unfold, they're still waiting nervously by the mail box for delivery. Their continuing efforts to get what they can't pay for in fact and reason come off looking more like clumsy caught-on-camera shoplifting attempts at the mall.
Bill Press compared Glenn Beck and attendees at the Restoring Honor Rally to Al Qaeda. He rationalized this bizarre comment on CNN, saying that the Lincoln Memorial, for all Americans, is one of our sacred places, and that he thinks that allowing Glenn Beck to speak there was just as offensive as giving those who carried out the 9/11 attack permission to speak at Ground Zero.
If you're just tuning in, wondering if you'll bother to go to the polls to vote, feeling entirely confused about what that was supposed to mean, let me explain. Press was attempting to wag a racial slur in your face. The Restoring Honor Rally was held on the 47th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's revered I Have a Dream speech, which was also delivered at the Lincoln Memorial.
Still a bit confused? The back story is important. Since Obama entered office, the Democratic Party faithful have gone to extremes to divide the nation along racial lines. In their imaginations, the racial division is now perfectly clear, in everything. (You might think that there was a racial divide to begin with; but that's nothing. It's more like they've been pressing for an all out race war.)
Lincoln presided over the American Civil War, the war that ended slavery. Dr. Martin Luther King was black. His speech is symbolic of the Civil Rights Movement (circa. 1955-1968). Glenn Beck is a white guy who is not a Democrat. (Same as Lincoln, but never mind.) So rather than thinking, you should immediately imagine Glenn Beck as a rampant dedicated racist trampling on the sacred ground of progressive politics.
Progressive politics? Maybe I'm skipping through the long progression of leftist propaganda a bit too quickly. I'll assume that even if you're just crawling out of the crib somewhere near a television, you've felt the vibrations associating Democrats with new (yes, just like soap and toothpaste) and Republicans with old. This superficial marketing ploy has been very effective in the young and female market. (What soap and toothpaste companies already knew.)
New isn't quite the same thing as progressive is it? (You might ask.) We need to probe a little more deeply than a comparison with a soap commercial. Let's get clarification on the talking point from someone who better deserves the title of the the Democratic Party's Joseph Goebbels (or at least his writing staff): Chris Matthews. Listen to this.
What is the argument? You may need to listen again, but it's just as superficial as old verses new. Let me give you a hint. A big, all-powerful federal government is good. The federal government does the right thing. His statement is unconditional. There is no current issue involved, just an event. Don't think. Just imagine that anyone who opposes unconditional federal control, particularly if they support or reference the Constitution, is standing in the way of a better world; crazed and mean-spirited racist punks if you'd like for the sake of concrete imagery.
Matthews did touch my emotions. References to the civil rights struggle that I grew up in as well as he tend to do that. Matthews did manage to make me feel offended by him. There is a huge divide between those who led the Civil Rights Movement and the progressive left, including Barack Obama especially including Barack Obama (yes, even though he's half-black). It is hard to imagine a group more solidly opposed to civil rights than today's Democratic Party and they really weren't much for it back then either. I am terribly offended by their use of the Civil Rights Movement in their propaganda.
The Civil Rights Movement built its success on lawsuits. Its participants asserted Constitutional rights. When Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they did so to avoid chaos in response to Supreme Court decisions on Constitutionally derived civil rights, and even moreso to claim political credit for something that had to be done to preserve Constitutional order. President Johnson took to the airwaves to address the nation with exactly that in mind, noting that a president from the Democratic Party, known as the party of racism, would sign the bill. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 facilitated cashing in that credit.
The success of the Civil Rights Movement was a triumph of individual rights over the collective that had erected social, legal, economic, and physical barriers to integration. Their success depended directly on our Constitutionally defined three-branch system of government, in which each branch has equal (but separate) power. It required an independent judicial branch with its highest obligation to the Constitution, not to a congress or a president and definitely not to a political party.
The Democratic Party has and continues to push for a shift in power from Constitutional rule to one in which the political parties have absolute power, concentrated at the top. Barack Obama has made this preference perfectly clear. He has expressed his dissatisfaction with not merely the results of the Civil Rights Movement but with the fundamentals; maintaining and asserting individual rights over the power of the collective. (By the way Barack, the United States already has or did have the largest wealth redistribution system in the world.)
(If the video doesn't post, click here for original article.)
Hitler. But separating Americans by race was a Communist party ploy of the the 30s and 50s.
That’s because Obummer is only HALF black. That’s like getting a generic Visa card, not a Gold or Platinum card, with the credit line already maxed out. LOL. IOW, it ain’t working. LOL
Truth be told, the Left is populated with Racists.
Libs use the issue of race to marginalize and divide people. Isn’t this the essence of racism?
When everyone is called racist, nobody is racist...the accusation is meaningless except to the extent it speaks to the agenda of the accuser.
Rangel Hits Back at Obama
Rep. Charles Rangel has fired back at President Obama for saying the embattled New York City Democrat should end his career with dignity, declaring: Frankly, he has not been around long enough to determine what my dignity is.
Speaking at a candidates forum in Harlem on Monday night, the 20-term Democrat also said: For the next two years, I will be more likely to protect his dignity.
On July 29, a House ethics panel leveled 13 charges against Rangel, including hoarding below-market apartments and improper fundraising.
Obama said in an interview the next day: He’s somebody whos at the end of his career. I’m sure that what he wants is to be able to end his career with dignity. And my hope is that it happens.
But on Aug. 10, a defiant Rangel said on the House floor: I am not going away. I am here . . .
If I cant get my dignity back here, then fire your best shot in getting rid of me through expulsion.
And at the candidates forum on Monday, he told the crowd: If its OK with my doctor, I am going to serve the next two years.
Then in an interview after the forum, Rangel again referred to Obamas comment, saying: My dignity is 80 years old. How can somebody so much younger tell me how to leave with dignity?
Deal with it by growing a pair and not trying to be "inclusive" on every issue. When such indirection is attempted, make it clear race is straw-man diversion unrelated to the matter at hand, then ignore all further blather about race from the lefty and stay focused on the real issue. Nine times out of ten, handling it that way will have your lefty opponent looking more and more irrational and less and less like he even understands the original issue. If anyone involved thinks you're "racist" for handling it that way, too bad, they've already taken sides so reach those you can. And, repeated applications of this approach ends up moving more than you may expect into the group you can reach.
Yes, the longstanding conflicts between people of the eastern bloc they keep telling us about, much obviously irrelevant to their current lives, are largely in their minds and emotions due to Communist propaganda. Divide and conquer.
Then keep them divided so that they will remain conquered.
If black people didn’t vote lock step with the Bolshecrats, liberals would be the most racist group.
Race is a proxy for “oppressed.” In the communist playbook, the “oppressed” must be made to hate their “oppressors,” leading to class struggle, class warfare, civil strife, civil unrest, and revolution which ushers in the long-awaited communist paradise.
Conservatives and republicans are not going to reach the zombified sheep, the brainwashed propagandized indoctrinated rank and file who vote democrat mindlessly brainlessly and by rote so why even attempt to get through to those idiots instead try to reach those that are willing to listen and learn what is true factual right and moral.
Democrats keep black people illiterate and undecuated for a reason.
Dumb blacks will not think for themselves.
A dumb black will believe everything a democrat says no matter how untrue it is.
A dumb black will continue to vote for democrat no matter what their circumstances.
I hate to be so crude but it’s the truth.
Another rewrite of history from the Progressives.
I liked Ike.
Uneducated people will not think for themselves, no matter what color.