Exactly right. The same crowd of activist morons that are complaining about crime are the first to scream racism and police brutality any time a police officer tries to do his job. They demand action with one hand, and do everything possible to prevent it with the other.
I saw this farce play out over and over in New York. As crime was dropping dramatically under Giuliani, all you got from the community was ranting about Racist Giuliani and Adolph Giuliani (civility, anyone?) and police brutality and the prison/industrial complex. It never occurred to these folk that the biggest beneficiaries of the drop in crime was the black community. Thousands of lives were saved, and countless traumatic crimes did NOT happen to black people because of Giuliani. Much deserved thank you's are yet to come forth.
"Bushhitler using military to restore/maintain law and order in time of crisis=bad
..The request comes amid a recent surge in violent crime, including a night last week that saw seven people killed and 18 wounded, mostly by gunfire
Gunfire? From guns??! In a town that sports some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country? How is this possible?'
by Speranza ( 203 Comments )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Judaism, Media, Politics at April 26th, 2010 - 1:00 pm
The end result of leftism is anti-Semitism. Chris Matthews (who used to be pro Israel) turning on the Jews was as predictable as the day is long. When your Messiahs policies are falling apart blame the Jews. MSNBC is a despicable cesspool of hatred and Goebbels like propaganda. The husky pony-tailed blogger should take notice that Matthews and Obergruppenfuhrer Pat Buchanan are buddies.
by Stuart Schwartz
Everywhere, there are Jews. They have penetrated the highest ranks of government, control vast swaths of the economy, and bend nations to their demonic will. But not to worry: Chris Matthews is on the case.
The host of Hardball with Chris Matthews on radical-left MSNBC has become a modern-day Paul Revere. But instead of the British, he gallops each weekday into a few (very few, with first-quarter ratings down 46% compared to last year) homes and warns the nation of the threat of this international circumcision cult that wants to serve up a heaping helping of world domination along with its bagels and lox.
One if by land, Jew if by sea. Welcome to the world of Chris Matthews. Oy.
As one writer for the radical Nation approvingly put it, Matthews demonstrates nearly every night his understanding of the threat posed by socially- and politically-empowered hawkish Jews to the United States. Matthews is a protégé of former president Jimmy Carter (notorious for blaming the Jews for everything from his failed presidency to elder abuse) and friend of MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan, who blames U.S. Jewry for such varied perversions as Hillary Clinton and anal sex in Hollywood.
Both are good friends and frequent guests on his show, as is Rep. Jim Moran, the Virginia Democrat who is not shy about sharing his nuanced
view of the cause of Americas ills: The Jews did it, the Jews are doing it, and the Jews will continue to do it until stopped. In a public letter in the Beliefnet website owned by the Washington Post, former New York City mayor Ed Koch accused this good friend
Chris Matthews of peddling
anti-Semitic blood libels.
Matthews has long used his television platform to spotlight the danger to the United States posed by Israel and American Jews who actively
conspire against the country. Call it The Protocols of Chris Matthews, or, perhaps, The Protocols of the Elders of MSNBC. Rid us of Israel, rid us of Jews, and Pandora
will return to its pre-kosher bliss.
National Reviews Jonah Goldberg has described Matthewss obsession with Jews as the staple trope of someone who talks about Jews in the [Bush] administration the way Tailgunner Joe talked about Communists in the State Department. Thomas Lifson, publisher of American Thinker, is more to the point, calling the Matthews description of Israel nauseating.
Read the rest here: Chris Matthews and the Jews
Update National Security Adviser General James Jones likes to tell anti-Semitic Jokes
I know a funny joke about an unqualified black man who became president. Think the MSM will just laugh that one off if I tell it?
The Governing Class' Childish and Vicious Definition of Racism
As Gabe posted below, Obama is urging all Americans to turn out for the polls in November to create a historic level of participation among all colors, races and creeds.
Well, not so much, of course. He wants "young people, blacks, Lations and women" to show up at the polls. White men needn't bother.
Is this racist? If the liberals' typical definition of racism were applied consistently, of course it would be racist. But of course it's not applied consistently. Racism is something white people, and Republican white people in particular, do. Liberals and especially black liberals are incapable of being racist.
If Obama's exhortations for only some of the electorate to participate in democracy sounds racist to you, why, that's probably a defect in you character -- and, in fact, probably evidence of a deep-seated, subconscious streak of racism in you yourself.
But that's just the standard-issue double-standard we all know and loathe. There's another disturbing element to it -- the automatic presumption among the privileged class that wherever blacks and whites diverge in political thought, it must be whites who are in the wrong, and not only in the wrong, but almost certainly motivated by racism.
But if it's not racist or wrong for blacks to generally vote according to the perceived "black economic interest," why is it wrong for whites to do the same? This is rarely explained, and when it is explained, it usually amounts to little more than rationalized ipse dixit restatement of the double-standard. It's wrong for whites to vote according to their perceived economic interest because they benefit from "white skin privilege" and they are the "dominant social group," upon whom a greater burden of acting for the greater good is placed, etc. Asked to defend the huge assumption of the rightness of a racial double-standard, academics tend to simply dream up closely-related assumptions and assert them (and claim those assumptions, in turn, "prove" the assumption they were asked to prove in the first place).
Let's not be childish about this. We are instructed every day that blacks are poorer than whites. There is no lack of evidence for this fact. It is therefore no surprise at all that blacks should generally favor wealth redistributionist policies more than whites, as blacks, being poorer, will tend to pay less into such a regime and receive more benefits out of it. Nor is it any surprise that whites should generally oppose such policies, as whites, being richer, will tend to pay more into such a regime and receive less.
There is hardly any cause here for liberals interested in honest, civil debate -- which they all to a man assure me is all they care about lately -- to scream "racism" over differences in white and black opinions over Obama's wealth-redistributionist agenda. You can call opponents of it greedy (but then, how are poorer blacks who are to be favored under that system any less greedy than whites, given that both are acting according to the precise same factor -- perceived personal net-economic self-interest?), but you can hardly brand someone "racist" for wanting to have an extra two or three thousand dollars.
Everyone wants an extra two or three thousand dollars. Politics, famously played within the 40-yard-lines in America, is 90% about who shall have an extra two or three thousand dollars and from whom shall be forcibly extracted that "free" two or three thousand dollars.
It is only an intellectual thug or "hater" who could assert that someone's quite-rational and utterly-understandable desire to keep two or three thousand dollars that he earned in the first place is evidence of racism and a vicious animosity towards blacks, rather than just wanting a fucking Sea-Doo this year.
This is as clear-cut an example as possible of a political position having nothing at all to do with race, as a formal matter, nevertheless causing a sharp divide between the races.
Another example -- cutting government payrolls. If my experiences at the DMV are any guide, there are a lot more blacks, as a fraction of the black population, working government jobs than whites (again, as a fraction of the white population).
If everyone in America, say, cares enough about ten other people enough that they take those other people's economic situations into account at all when making political decisions, we would find (and I am just making these numbers up out of whole cloth for illustrative purposes) that the average white guy might have a 1.5 people in his group of ten that he cares about with a public job, whereas the average black guy might have 2.3 people in his group of ten.
And that causes big disagreements between the races on cutting government payrolls. For the white guy, it's more upside -- he gets to lower the costs of government for himself, and only 1.5 of the people he knows could be adversely affected by the cuts. For the black guy, on the other hand, while he too would get the benefit of a cheaper and leaner government, he now has to worry about 2.3 people in his circle of close friends who will be harmed by that choice. Black enthusiasm for slashing government payrolls will thus be dampened.
Again, at no point in this topic was race explicitly a factor. This isn't about civil rights or interracial marriage or affirmative action. It's about as non-racial a subject as you could think of, and yet the races will have, due to different circumstances, noticeably differing levels of support for the policy.
And, again, simple economic self-interest perfectly explains both the voting behaviors of whites and blacks on this issue. But even though whites' voting behavior is easily and completely explained by morally-neutral economic concerns -- "Hey, if I cut government's costs, I'll have more money for myself and my family" -- the left and the media (BIRM) insists on supplementing that explanation with the cry of racism.
And when it comes to explicitly racial policies like affirmative action quotas and "plus factors"? Forget about it. Obviously a white man who opposes affirmative action quotas is a racist. It's simply not possible that he could see affirmative action quotas as by design making it harder for him to get key things in the one life God has granted him -- a good job, a plum promotion, a slot in an elite college -- and therefore opposes it simply because it disadvantages him and, indeed, harms him.
No, the only possible explanation as to why he should not want his employers, colleges, and own government discriminating against him is his hatred of the black race.
Once upon a time, charges of "racism" would chiefly be expected to fly in issues which explicitly reference race, such as affirmative action, or, lately, illegal immigration. The left's major innovation in the past 15 years is to apply that exact same paradigm to issues having nothing superficially to do with race such as tax policy, heath care policy, and, Dear Lord, even environmental policy.
Now, regarding Obama: In my own mind, what he did here is not racist. There is a very simple reason he wants blacks, Latinos, and women to turn out to the polls in great numbers: those cohorts vote for him. The man doesn't have to be a racist to understand that the more minorities and women show up for the polls, the better the odds the Democrats avoid an electoral Chernobyl.
On the other hand -- imagine the reaction if a Republican specifically urged white men to turn out at the polls like they've never done before.
In both cases -- in Obama's and the hypothetical Republican's -- it would be a case of the men acting not out of any particular racial impulse but instead doing simple statistics and deciding that if a group votes more for you than your opponent, you want more of that group voting -- obviously! -- but in only one case, of course, would the charge of racism attach.
And Obama and the Obama-loving media will never explain why this should be the case, but friends of his like Louis "Skip" Gates -- last glimpsed in the vicinity of a white officer who was "acting stupidly" in the sage opinion of our president -- will offer you a bunch of jargonized just-because-I-said-so twaddle about why double-standards are not only acceptable, but morally obligatory.
70 Now, regarding Obama: In my own mind, what he did here is not racist. There is a very simple reason he wants blacks, Latinos, and women to turn out to the polls in great numbers: those cohorts vote for him. The man doesn't have to be a racist to understand that the more minorities and women show up for the polls, the better the odds the Democrats avoid an electoral Chernobyl.
The Precedent is not doing this for the reason you state. He's not doing it for racist reasons, either. What he's doing is trying to foment racial animus in this nation, to being this country to a boil. He's been pulling this every so often and he is going to move much more heavily into this tactic as he loses his useful idiot majorities in Congress and switches to more executive actions and stirring racial strife.
Now, he doesn't care about losing Congress, as he hates the dems as much as he hates most Americans, but he is preparing to finish his suicide run and blow the US up before he is tossed out of office and that will include getting the cities all whipped up and scaring whitey as much as possible.
This all comes back to the real intentions of The Precedent: He wants to exact revenge on this nation and take us down. That's it. For him, the racial edge is just one more tool of destruction he can wield against us. Make no mistake, he is pitting the races against each other as much as he is able, not looking to squeeze any votes out of anyone.