So, the right-wing media has been pushing this conspiracy theory that the caravan on it's from Honduras (which is currently in Mexico) is being funded by George Soros. Also, that there are MS13 gang members and Middle Eastern terrorists in the midst of the group of largely military fighting age men. Clearly it is a planned invasion to bring death to America via our completely unprotected (aka wall-less) southern border.
What follows is a tRump-inspired fear mongering attack ad put out by the awful Marsha Blackburn. Don't vote for her opponent running to be senator from Tennessee (Phil Bredesen) she says. Because he is "dangerously wrong".
What is dangerously wrong is that republicans think there will be no consequences to their pushing absurd conspiracy theories in order to gin up their poorly educated and bigoted base. Yesterday the news was that the correctly labeled #magabomber was caught. He only TRIED to kill 13 "enemies of the people". Luckily his incompetence resulted in none of his bombs going off.
Whereas the Synagogue shooter killed 11 people. As per Wikipedia, the 46-year-old Robert Bowers social media "cover picture was a photo with the number 1488, which is used by neo-Nazis and white supremacists to evoke David Lane's Fourteen Words and the Nazi slogan Heil Hitler". He also believes there is a "white genocide" taking place.
Although Bowers thought tRump was not doing enough because "there is no #MAGA as long as there is a [Jewish] infestation". tRump supporters will, of course, deny that their Orange leader is in any way responsible. I'm not buying it. This attack marks a surge of anti-Semitism. The ADL says "2017 saw a nearly 60% surge in reported anti-Semitic incidents - which came on top of a 35% increase the year before".
So why such a dramatic rise in anti-Semitic hate crimes in the last 2 years? Might it be that a White-Supremacist-supported candidate was "elected" predisent? I say YES. Remember the march in Charlottesville where NAZIs and people waving Confederate flags chanted "Jews will not replace us"? This was a rally to Unite the Right. Donald tRump acknowledged that these were his peeps when he declared them "very fine people".
David Duke, who was at the rally, said "this represents a turning point for the people of this country. We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That's what we believe in. That's why we voted for Donald Trump. Because he said he's going to take our country back. And that's what we've got to do".
Take our country back from who? Obviously, given who is talking, we know he's talking about minorities. After a Black man served 2 terms as president finally things are back on track with a White Man in the White House (not a Black man and not a White woman). A White Man David Duke knows is fully on board with their agenda. And David Duke is NOT wrong. Donald tRump has signaled to them (given that he can't come right out and proclaim he is a proud White Nationalist) that he stands with David Duke and his people.
Another signal came recently when tRump declared himself to be a "Nationalist". He left off the "White" part, but AGAIN, the racist MAGA supporters knew what he was talking about.
Steve Bannon, the former White House adviser who helped Trump craft his campaign, has long embraced nationalism and rejected "globalism". The right-wing website he edited, Breitbart, regularly expounded on such themes and has continued to do so after Bannon's departure. After Trump's speech Monday, the site highlighted Trump's nationalist declaration on Twitter.
Breitbart's association with the neo-fascist movement calling itself the "alt-right" has led to many people conflating nationalism with "white nationalism", which not only claims a given nation should take priority, but that the white race should be protected and valued above all others.
In Europe, many nationalist movements that oppose an international world order and immigration into the continent are often overtly aligned with white nationalists and anti-Semitic groups. For many of the president's critics, Trump's embrace of the nationalist label signaled that he also embraces the racism and xenophobia associated with those movements. ("I am a nationalist": Trump's embrace of controversial label sparks uproar by William Cummings. 10/24/2018).
"For many of the president's critics"? Sure, but also for many of his fans. Also, in regards to "conflating", that is a word that is often used to criticize anyone trying to equate two things that are NOT the same. But here the Nationalists themselves "conflate" (i.e. "to fuse into one entity; merge") Nationalism and White Nationalism. The White Nationalists know tRump is simply leaving off the "White" when he proclaims himself to be a Nationalist. Which is why they applaud Donald tRump's strongest declaration yet that he is one of them.
Donald tRump, of course, condemns the Synagogue shooting. But only because he has too. To keep up the paper-thin charade. If Robert Bowers bought the charade is of little consequence. Donald tRump began the fear mongering concerning the caravan. Fear mongering which was taken up by the right-wing hate machine. A right-wing hate machine that Bowers listened to. And why he carried out his attacks.
Cause and effect. A somewhat indirect line from tRump to Bowers. And this time the right can't call the attacks a "hoax" as they did in regard to Cesar Sayoc. None of his 14 bombs exploded and nobody was killed they say. Bowers killed 11 people. And, yes, as far as I am concerned it is because tRump has dog-whistled to and emboldened the bigots on the right.
Above image found at the top of the Right-wing, Trump-supporting blog (first image).
ok, so I'd say president Obama made America better. Especially given the fact that the last guy crashed the economy and Obama reversed course, put us back on the right track and started growing the economy again (President Obama Is Handing a Strong Economy to His Successor. NYT 12/2/2016). #thankyouobama.
But if I did think that Obama made things WORSE, that's what I'd say. Also, according to one of the TOMs (1 of 4) "inauguration" is spelled "inorgaration". This idiot complains that "Andre Borchli" won't sing for Trump at his sham swearing-in (a sham because Trump cheated and will be an illegitimate president).
BTW, that Obama caused hatred, social unrest and racism by being Black, is, I think something the dumb-dumbs that voted for the KKK-endorsed Trump are responsible for. As for not helping minorities, not reducing crime and not reducing poverty, they're thinking of the Republican obstructionist Congress. Also, the foreign policy that lead to chaos, instability and terrorism? That would be the last president, gwb. You know, the guy who let OBL go (SWTD #33) and then invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 after lying about WMD (SWTD #312). Idiots.
The great deceiver? That's hilarious given how suckered by the Orange buffoon the #poorlyeducated#TrumpDupes are going to eventually realize they've been. Or not. They'll probably find someone else to blame, even though the Republicans have complete control.
The Nazi salute or Hitler salute... is a gesture that was used as a greeting in Nazi Germany. The salute is performed by extending the right arm in the air with a straightened hand. Usually, the person offering the salute would say "Heil Hitler!"... In Switzerland, France, Canada, the Netherlands and Sweden, the salute is illegal hate speech if used for propagating Nazi ideology. (Wikipedia/Nazi Salute).
I submitted a comment concerning Trump's endorsement by 88 generals to a progressive website, but the host dismissed it as a "conspiracy theory". I remain, however, 99 percent convinced that the following is true.
In a move to boost his national security credibility, Donald Trump released an endorsement letter signed by 88 retired military figures. Now some are questioning if there is a hidden anti-Semitic message behind the statement - since the number 88 is a well-known code for "Heil Hitler". (Is Donald Trump's Endorsement by 88 Retired Generals a Secret Neo-Nazi Code? by Lilly Maier. Forward.com 9/7/2016).
I'm convinced this is VERY likely true because this is the Trump strategy - to get a greater percentage of the White vote than Mitt Romney. According to Rollcall.com "to win, Donald Trump likely needs to run the table with white voters".
With his appeal to the Alt-right (hiring of Steve Bannon, for example) Trump is attempting to get the votes of White people who don't ordinarily turn out. Because the GOP isn't racist enough for these KKK-types. On the other hand, a more direct appeal would turn off many more tolerant White Republicans. Although (IMO) these people have to know what's going on (disenfranchisement of Black voters, demonization of Hispanics, etc).
But, as long as it's kept on the down-low, it's OK with them. Apparently. Even the previous head of the RNC, Michael Steele, was willing to ignore/deny the fact that the GOP is still employing Nixon's Southern Stragety.
And White Nationalists are KNOWN to speak in code. So, IMO, of course the Trump campaign is using this code to speak to the White racists, saying (wink, wink) "Trump is with you". Like I said, it's been his strategy all along. People need to wake up to this fact.
Possible VP Pence knows this is the strategy as well, which is why he refused to condemn David Duke as a deplorable in a recent interview. In a 9/12/2016 interview with Wolf Blitzer, the Blitz asked Pence if he'd call Duke "deplorable", and Pence said no. Because he isn't in the business of "name calling"! (This would be the same David Duke who said that "Voting against Trump is treason to your heritage").
Right. It isn't that Pence is opposed to "name calling". The reason is because Trump needs the deplorable vote to win. Or, he's betting that it will give him the win. Hence his adoption of their coded communications. This explains why Trump would retweet a meme originally tweeted by @WhiteGenocideTM.
Innocent enough, huh? It's just a picture of Jeb with a "vote Trump" sign. But what about the name attached to the Twitter account, "White Genocide"?! Why would Trump retweet something from this account? And, no, I don't think he overlooked who he was retweeting.
Here's another of @WhiteGenocide's photoshopped images.
That's a Nazi Trump executing Senator Bernie Sanders. No, Trump didn't retweet this picture, but this IS an image designed to appeal to the kind of people Trump wants the votes of. Which is why he made the "mistake" of retweeting a anti-semitic image of Hillary Clinton.
Although, when called on the source of the image (came from "8chan's /pol/ — an Internet message board for the alt-right, a digital movement of neo-Nazis, anti-Semites and white supremacists"), he had his social media team doctor up the pic (replacing the Star of David with a circle).
Dog whistling to deplorables while not getting too much attention from the media can be tricky. But it is ABSOLUTELY what the Trump campaign is doing. It's not a "conspiracy theory". (Note: no disrespect to the owner of the aforementioned blog intended. I simply disagree with her on this. We aren't talking about a conspiracy theory here, but the Trump campaign strategy).
I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could - if that were your sole purpose - you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down ~ Bill Bennett (dob 7/31/1943) former Reagan education secretary. 9/28/2016 comment by Bennett from his nationally syndicated radio program, Morning in America.
It is time to dump Reaganomics and bring back the Great Society, but the rise of Donald Trump may present a problem in that regard. Trump has given voice to the racists on the Right (the silent bigot minority) and they won't go away if/when Trump loses. Although, that IS the direction it has been nudging toward for a long time. But now, under Trump, the racists are reinvigorated. They're LOVING Trump and his embrace of their hardcore bigotry.
The following is an excerpt from the 8/17/2016 airing of the Thom Hartmann Radio Program (edited for brevity and clarity by me). Thom, reacting to an African American caller saying "this party has been at the root of all the ills of our country" (and blaming Reaganomics), shares his thoughts on LBJ's Great Society and the enormous economic damage Reaganomics has done.
Thom: I'm absolutely agreeing with you. You pointed out the damage that Reaganomics did to communities of color in this country. We were just a generation into the Great Society. It was just starting to strengthen the Black middle class. And it was also strengthening the White middle class, and it was dealing with poverty in White communities. I would say that White working class communities have been devastated by Reaganomics as well.
This piece Justin Gest wrote for Politico called "Why Trumpism will outlast Trump" [shows why this is the case]. Gest says "I solicited white Americans' support for Donald Trump, but also for a hypothetical third party dedicated to stopping mass immigration, providing American jobs to American workers, preserving America's Christian heritage, and stopping the threat of Islam — essentially the platform of the UK's right-wing British National Party, adapted to the United States".
65% of White Americans said they agreed with it. Now, I think that probably the biggest thing they're agreeing with is providing American jobs to American workers. But the reality is that there is a large base of pissed off White people too. And they've seen their jobs devastated by Reaganomics, too. Donald Trump is pumping that With rage and he's directing a lot of that White/Right rage toward communities of color.
It's a variation of, back in the 40s, 50s and 60s when politicians like George Wallace and Pat Buchanan were saying those Black workers (back when the unions were segregated) are going to take your jobs. This is an old playbook. We've seen this before. Detroit used to be the richest city in American... [but it was destroyed by Reaganomics].
Caller: The car manufacturing jobs moved to the Southern states that have right to work laws. Their [Trump voters] anger is so misdirected and they're so easily manipulated by rich white people [the oligarchs]. (Note: comment paraphrased).
[End 8/17/2016 Thom Hartmann Program Excerpt]
This is scary stuff. As the article notes, Trump supporters are "more likely to be males under 40, of lower socioeconomic status, without a university education and ideologically conservative - in other words, the Republican Party's longtime base. ...this is not a phenomenon likely to pass quickly".
"Trumpism is Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George bush Republicanism" Thom Hartmann said after returning from the break. Pointing out the fact that, since Nixon's Southern Strategy, the GOP has been the home of the nation's racists.
Republican strategist Lee Atwater started the meme that cutting taxes and the social safety net would hurt the ni**ers and racist Whites should vote Republican for that reason. Prior to LBJ's signing of the 1957 Civil Rights Act, it was the Dems who were the party of the racists (SWTD #228). But that changed with Richard Nixon. He saw that the White racist votes were up for grabs, and he decided that racists should vote Republican (and that is how he'd win). The GOP has been a home to the racists ever since.
Many of the "Reagan Democrats" switched over to the GOP because, as Atwater (who advised RWR & GHWB) said (in 1981) "You start out in 1954 by saying, ni**er, ni**er, ni**er. By 1968 you can't say ni**er - that hurts you. Backfires. So [now] you're talking about cutting taxes... totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites".
"Boy, do we have an opportunity. We can get all these White Southerners who are hysterical about race to vote for insane economic policies that are going to destroy their own lives and make us [the ruling elites & the oligarchs] richer. Simply by talking to them in code. And we've got a new code, which is that government is bad because it helps Black people", Hartmann said later in program. Black people, Hispanic people, Muslim people and Gay people too. Democrats support these minorities and Republicans demonize them.
"The GOP has happily replaced the Democratic Party as a safe haven for bigotry" Bob Herbert (an African American journalist) wrote in a 10/6/2005 NYT article (the same article I pulled the Bennett and Attwater quotes from). Black people KNOW this, and this is why they vote Democrat in overwhelming majorities (94% of the black vote went to Johnson the year he signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act. In the Obama Vs Romney contest BHO garnered 95% of the Black vote).
Former RNC chair Michael Steel claimed that "the idea of the Southern Strategy is over. I announced that when I was chairman. We're not doing that anymore" (SWTD #274). But he didn't last long in that position. Largely because he spoke against the idea that the GOP would abandon the racists and go for a larger percentage of the Black and Latino vote, IMO (that, and because he's Black).
The GOP, despite the autopsy report that said they'd start losing presidential elections going forward if they didn't convince minority voters to vote Republican, have gone farther Right instead.
"Bill Bennett's twisted fantasies are a malignant outgrowth of our polarized past. Our job is to keep them from spreading into the future" Herbert wrote in 2005. But the malignancy is spreading into the future. Racism and bigotry has a new name; they can now be referred to using the term "Trumpism". Due to the attention paid to the White Nationalists and "Alt Right" by the GOP under Donald Trump. Proof racists and bigots should now be called "Trumpists" is his selection of Breitbart bigot Steve Bannon.
Alt Right Rejoices at Donald Trump's Steve Bannon Hire (Daily Beast article by Betsy Woodruff and Gideon Resnick, excerpt) Donald Trump's campaign is under new management - and his white nationalist fanboys love it. The campaign's new chief executive, Stephen Bannon, joins from Breitbart News - where he helped mainstream the ideas of white nationalists and resuscitate the reputations of anti-immigrant fear-mongers.
BTW, rememeber when Trump tweeted that pic of Hillary with a Star of David next to it? The one that was captioned "most corrupt candidate ever". Well, if Trump isn't an anti-semite, then why is he "turning his campaign over to someone who's best known for running a so-called news site that peddles divisive, at times racist, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories" (this is a quote from Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook excerpted from the Daily Beast).
Time for people to open their minds and see the GOP of today for what it is, not what they want it to be [1]. If you're a Conservative voter who is "holding your nose" and voting for Trump, KNOW who you're voting for! Initially I thought that Trump was only USING the racists (a Southern Strategy on steroids being what he thought could be his path to the White House. Or at least the GOP nomination). Now, given his past history, I'm thinking that Trump is totally a racist.
That history being the Trump apartment renters being screened by race ("one rental agent said Trump's father had told him not to rent to blacks"). A young DJT, who was president of the Trump business at the time, decided to go to court to fight the discrimination charges (Is Donald Trump Racist? Here's What the Record Shows).
Then there's Trump's reaction to the Central Park jogger attack, which was to pay for $85k for newspaper ads calling for the death penalty for the so-called Central Park Five. Five young African American males who were convicted of the "assault, rape, and sodomy of Trisha Meili, a female jogger, in NYC's Central Park, on 4/19/1989" (a crime it was later determined had been committed by another individual, and for which the 5 young men had been railroaded into confessing to by the cops).
But the Bannon hiring has changed my mind on this. Trump is now, and has always been a racist. Unless one was a sociopath, how could a person live with himself, doing what he's doing? I'm talking about pandering to the Alt Right to win the presidency (if it is enough to win, and I pray to God it isn't). Not that I don't think Trump isn't a sociopath. He may be. That's in addition to being a total narcissist, a misogynist, a bigot and a racist.
"I was from an area that was all Democrat. And, frankly, over the years, I have — and especially as I have gotten more and more involved — I have evolved" Trump said on the 8/23/2015 airing of Face The Nation. PolitiFact notes that "Trump has changed his party affiliation 5 times since registering as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987".
I not sure what he means by "evolved", but I do think this conspiracy theory that says the Democrat Trump was talked into running as a Republican by Bill Clinton so his wife could win... it's bullshit. Trump ran as a Republican because his racism is a PERFECT fit for the Republican party, NOT the Democratic party. Trump is a racist. His supporters are racists. Those who vote for him in November are racists or naive duped enablers of racism and bigotry. And remember that we're not talking about your average racists or bigots, but the absolute scum of the earth, the Alt Right/White Nationalists.
Something to keep in mind when you go to the ballot box in November. IF you vote for Trumpism, the fallout will BE ON YOU! You can't say later you weren't warned. I'm not talking about being warned by me (as nobody, or VERY few people will read this), but by Trump's actions. He's a racist and he's making it very clear that he's a racist. His decision to cozy up to the Breitbart bigots being proof positive of this.
Footnote [1] My modification of a comment from Sid Andrews, left in response to my 1/22/2014 commentary Highly Dubious LBJ Quote & What It Says About Those Who Eagerly Believe It (commentary that, according to Blogger stats, is my #1 most popular post). BTW, LJB was a racist and he did use the N-word. But he, I would argue, was a product of his times and place of birth. Not that this excuses his racism. But he did sign the legislation because he knew it was the right thing to do. And despite knowing that signing the 1957 CRA would cost the Democratic Party the South "for a generation".
Video: Footage from a Donald Trump rally in Phoenix AZ 6/18/2016 featuring Trump supporter Zachary Fisher who screamed "...build that fucking wall. For me! Trump! I love Trump!". "Fisher also has the number 43 tattooed beneath his left armpit. According to the Anti-Defamation League, the number is used by members of the racist skinhead group Supreme White Alliance". (1:41).
...the formerly drug-addled host was just rambling, which is his job. It's nice work if you can get it! ~ Gawker author describing how Rush Limbaugh entertains the "bitter white dudes" who listen to his program. Excerpted from a 8/21/2008 article "Should We Bother Getting Offended by Rush Limbaugh?".
World Net Daily (AKA Black Mob Central) reports that "Limbaugh peeved by use of N-word for Obama" (re Larry Wilmore's speech at the 2016 White House Correspondents' Dinner). To which I say BULLSHIT! Limbaugh is is feigning outrage because it presents him an opportunity to attack the Obama administration.
The White House is apparently not offended by the use of the N-word for President Obama, at least not when it comes from a black comedian, but radio titan Rush Limbaugh is. Comic Larry Wilmore uncorked a slang version of the racial slur at the White House Correspondents’ dinner Saturday night, when he told Obama: "Yo Barry, you did it my n**ga. You did it".
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said he had talked to Obama about Wilmore's use of the word and said the president told him "he appreciated the spirit of Mr. Wilmore's expression Saturday night", the Washington Examiner reported. (Limbaugh Peeved by Use of N-word For Obama by Joe Kovacs. WND 5/2/2016).
Who Limbaugh is actually "peeved" at is revealed with the article's first sentence. I mean, has Limbaugh EVER expressed any offense before when the N-word was used to refer to Obama (the actual N-word and not the version of it ending with an "a")? According to Limbaugh a Black comedian (Larry Wilmore at the date correspondent's dinner) referring to Obama using the term "ni**a" is "indicative that there isn't much respect for the office of the presidency" - but apparently when Limbaugh referred to Obama as "Barack the magic negro" that was... respectful?
In March 2007, American critic David Ehrenstein used the title "Obama the Magic Negro" for an editorial he wrote for the Los Angeles Times, in which he described Barack Obama's image in white American culture: "He's there to assuage white "guilt"...
Rush Limbaugh began discussing Ehrenstein's op ed on the day it was published. He cast Ehrenstein's column as criticizing Obama himself for not being authentic or black enough: "The problem, Ehrenstein says, is he's not real. Al Sharpton's real, Snoop Dogg is real, but Barack Obama is not real. He's just there to assuage white guilt. In other words, the only reason Obama is anywhere is because whites are willing to support him because they feel so guilty over slavery". He described the column as an example of the "racism of the left". He said "The term Magic Negro has been thrown into the political presidential race in the mix for 2008" and said he would "own" the term by the end of the week. He [Limbaugh] briefly sang the words "Barack the magic negro" to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon". (Wikipedia/Magical Negro/Barack Obama).
Regardless of the fact that it was David Ehrenstein (exhibiting "racism of the left") Limbaugh took the "magic negro" application to Obama and ran with it.
Limbaugh later [in the broadcast] asserted: "I'm going to keep referring to him as that because I want to make a bet that by the end of this week I will own that term", adding, "If I refer to Obama the rest of the day as the Magic Negro, there will be a number of people in the drive-by media and on left-wing blogs who will credit me for coming up with it and ignore the L.A. Times did it, simply because they can't be critical of the L.A. Times, but they can, obviously, be critical of talk radio". (Latching onto L.A. Times op-ed, Limbaugh sings "Barack, The Magic Negro" by Adam Serwer. Media Matters 3/20/2007).
Why use it at all (and in song form)? Because Rush is cloaking his racism with faux outrage. Because someone on "the left" used the term, Limbaugh saw that as license for him to use it (27 times during the same broadcast, according to Media Matters). And blame "racism of the left". But it's Rush's own racism that explains his actions.
He jumps at these opportunities. Previously it was David Ehrenstein who provided Rush the opportunity to express his true racist feelings (and have someone "on the left" to blame). This time it was Larry Wilmore (and there are likely many examples between these two that I'm not aware of).
And further proof that this is indeed is what is occurring is that this story was written up for the notoriously racist World Net Daily (their "religion is apeshit racist ring-wingnut douchery with a side of tabloid pablum" says a 2/18/2014 Gawker article).
WND author writes "racism is an illusion, and Black Lives Matter lies". And yes, Jesse Lee Peterson is an African American. But that's how WND "proves" it isn't racist - it has African American best friends (authors). But for even more proof check out the (more overtly racist) comments. These are the kinds of racist Whites that WND panders to (Trump voters).
As for Wilmore's use of the word being offensive? I'll leave that to the Black community to hash out. Although I will say that I agree that it's not the same when a Black person uses the term compared to a White person using it. Regarding the "controversy" within the Black community, I've heard comments both ways. From "get over it" to "yes, it was offensive".
Me, I'm more offended by Limbaugh. Not regarding what he says. The Gawker blogger I quoted at the top of this article has a point... THIS is what Limbaugh does. And he's been doing it for a long time. But that his last contract awarded him with $38 million a year for 8 years plus a $100 million signing bonus. That Conservative commentators like Limbaugh get Brinks trucks backing up to their homes with hourly deliveries of cash while Liberal commentators make significantly less? It makes me want to puke!
Ben and Candy Carson terrific. What about a real black President who can properly address the racial divide? And much else ~ Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) tweet from 10/8/2015.
So what would make Ben Carson a "real Black president", while Barack Obama is not "real"? Does Obama not being "real" based entirely on him living outside of the United States for a number of years during his childhood, or is it something more than that?
The following excerpt from the 11/5/2015 airing of The Stephanie Miller Show might shed some light on why, and in what ways, Ben Carson would be "real", whereas Obama isn't. (Note: what follows was minorly edited by me for clarity).
SM: Carl in Texas. You're on with the crew. Hello Carl.
Carl: Someone was talking about Ben Carson possibly being a sociopath. But if we all recall, when the Oregon shooting happened, he spoke with bravado about attacking the gunman. [Ben Carson on Fox & Friends said "Not only would I probably not cooperate with him, I would not just stand there and let him shoot me. I would say: 'Hey, guys, everybody attack him! He may shoot me but he can't get us all'"].
Then, when people said "you don't know what you'd do if someone pointed a gun at you", he came up with this story about what happened in the "Popeye's organization". [Ben Carson, appearing on Karen Hunter's Sirius XM Radio programsaid "I have had a gun held on me when I was in a Popeye's organization. Guy comes in, put the gun in my ribs. I just said, 'I believe that you want the guy behind the counter'"].
When people said he was a coward he came up with the story about the rocks and the bricks and the baseball bats... ["As a teenager, I would go after people with rocks, and bricks, and baseball bats, and hammers. And, of course, many people know the story when I was 14 and I tried to stab someone", Carson said... on the 10/25/2015 airing of Meet the Press].
SM: Yes. He was stabby.
Carl: CNN went to his hometown and organized some of his neighbors and school friends. Not one of them knew anything about any of this. They said that when he was in school he was a nerdy bookworm.
SM: Oh... so he was inventing some street cred for himself. A thug story.
[End 11/5/2015 Stephanie Miller Show Excerpt]
If this story of Ben Carson's troubled youth makes him a reformed thug, is that what is makes his "Blackness" "real"? Also, is this how White Conservatives view Black people; by which I mean the "real" ones are all thugs and some of them (the GOOD ones) are "reformed"?
Is Obama, on the other hand, not a "real Black" but "mixed race"... because his mother was White and because his White grandparents raised him (and in Hawaii, of all places)? Yeah, I think that while the primary factor regarding why Obama isn't "real" is due to his time living outside the US, these other things are also a factor.
Including the lack of a "thug story", which Ben Carson seems to be trying to create/relate. Because being a reformed thug is a positive in the eyes of White Conservatives. Because it shows that embracing "personal responsibility" can transform a typical Black person... someone who, as Conservatives put it, reside mainly on the Democrat plantation where they lazily rely on "free stuff" instead of developing a work ethic.
Obama, on the other hand, became a community organizer, which, in conservative minds, meant he organized lazy Blacks to beg for "free stuff". (However, even though Obama, as someone organizing lazy Blacks to beg for free stuff places him in with the majority of African Americans who reside on the "Democrat plantation", this ABSOLUTELY does not cause his Blackness to be real).
Anyway, as for Carson's "thug story" and it making him a "real Black", there are questions as to whether EITHER of these incidents (the one where he stabbed someone or the one where he encountered a gunman in a Popeye's) actually happened.
Ben Carson's Stabbing Story Is Full of Holes (excerpt from the 10/27/2015 Daily Beast article by Gideon Resnick) In one version of the story, Carson attempts to stab a bully with a large camping knife he had been holding. In another, he pulls a pocketknife on his friend while listening to classical music at the friend's house. So which is it?
In the many different version of the stabbing story, the basic facts are the same, but the particulars are quite different. That Carson is relating differing versions of this story says to me that he might be making it up.
As for the incident that Carson claims took place in the Popeye's fast food restaurant, or the "Popeye's Organization" as Ben calls the chain... it might not have happened either.
Was Ben Carson Really Held at Gunpoint? (excerpt from the 10/8/2015 Daily Beast article by Olivia Nuzzi & Gideon Resnick) The candidate's not-so-harrowing tale about his encounter with a gunman at a Baltimore Popeyes is tough to verify. Almost too tough. ... throughout his several published books and three autobiographies, Carson doesn't appear to mention the story once. When The Daily Beast reached out to Carson's... central advisor, Armstrong Williams, he said... [the story] appeared in Carson's 2006 book, Take the Risk, [but] there is no story about a stickup at Popeyes in Take the Risk.
Also, as pointed out on the Daily Kos "Baltimore police say they can't confirm or debunk Dr. Ben Carson's Popeye's robbery story". But that's because they might not have filed a police report. Or so Carson advisor Armstrong Williams claims. Despite Carson's story including the line "he left the store running before the police got there".
So, is Carson lying? Some say yes, he's a liar. I say I don't know for sure... but I certainly think there is enough evidence to conclude that he MIGHT be a bald-faced liar.
Lying so he'll come off (in the eyes of White Conservatives) as "authentically Black"... unlike the current president. According to Carson "growing up in inner-city Detroit gave him the sophistication to know that the [Popeye's] gunman wasn't going to murder him but was just looking to rob the place".
"Sophistication" being code for "street smarts", I'm guessing. As a "real" Black man he'd have to have street smarts, no? Yeah, I don't know. To me, this strategy (if this IS Carson's strategy) doesn't sound like it would work. Or I would conclude that, if not for Rupert Murdoch's tweet.
Although, even if this (likely) faux "genuine" narrative convinces Conservative voters that Ben Carson would be "a real black President who can properly address the racial divide", I seriously doubt that this will translate to votes. (Although it IS translating to book sales, as evidenced by the fact that Carson "suspended" his campaign to go on a book tour).
Video1: Straight outta Carson: Republican candidate releases campaign rap. An actual Ben Carson campaign ad that will air for two weeks in Miami, Atlanta, Houston, Detroit, Birmingham, Jackson, Memphis and Little Rock.
Video2: Remix of Ben Carson campaign rap. NOT an actual campaign ad, but a "remix" by Slate that includes many absurd comments from Carson.
To say that Black lives matter is not to say that other lives do not; indeed, it is quite the reverse - it is to recognize that all lives do matter, and to acknowledge that African Americans are often targeted unfairly... ~ Rev. Dan Schatz, Minister of the BuxMont Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in Warrington PA(and White man), in his 12/15/2014 HuffPo article On Being Asked to Change 'Black Lives Matter' to 'All Lives Matter'.
The following poll results from an 8/20/2015 Rasmussen Reports survey.
Rasmussen: Yes, black lives matter, but don't all lives matter? That seems to be the subject of some political dispute.
When asked which statement is closest to their own views, 78% of Likely U.S. Voters say all lives matter. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 11% say black lives matter. Nine percent (9%) say neither statement reflects their point of view. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Thirty-one percent (31%) of black voters say black lives matter is closest to their own views, but just nine percent (9%) of whites and 10% of other minority voters agree. Eighty-one percent (81%) of whites and 76% of other minority voters opt instead for all lives matter, and 64% of blacks agree. (source).
The bias of Rasmussen is evident in the very fist sentence. Black Lives matter is NOT saying all lives don't matter... yet Rasmussen says it's "a subject of some political dispute" when IT IS NOT! The phrase "Black Lives Matter" is in reaction to a system that says Black lives don't matter. What they're really saying is Black lives matter just as much as White lives, although our system doesn't act as if they do.
So, because OF COURSE "all lives matter", Rasmussen get responses that indicate most people agree that "all lives matter" is the statement that is closest to their own views. 69% of Black respondents choose "all lives matter" because ALL LIVES DO MATTER!
But notice that Rasmussen did not also ask if the respondent supports the Black Lives Matter movement? Why didn't they? Because those responses would have revealed the boggussness of their poll. A poll CLEARLY intended to discredit the BLM movement. Had they asked people if they also support the BLM movement, I strongly suspect that there would have been a huge amount of overlap.
People would have said, YES "all lives matter" is the statement is closest to their own views, while at the same time supporting BLM. As for the 31% of African American respondents who chose "black lives matter" as their statement? I believe (most/a large percentage of) those people realized they were being asked a leading question designed to get the response Rasmussen wanted... and they refused to play Rasmussen's game.
Personally, I would have also asked if "do you support the BLM movement" was a followup question, and if I was told "no" I would have replied that "black lives matter" is closest to my view, whereas if they had said yes, I would have said "all lives matter" is closest to my view. I would have refused to play their game and give them the response they wanted in their leading poll, in other words.
BTW, for proof that this was a leading poll - just take a look at how the Rightwing-o-sphere has responded... they trumpeting this poll result. It's proof that the BLM movement has no support... even among the Black community. But note that "do you support the BLM movement" is NOT the question that was asked!
Is this proof that Rasmussen Reports is a tool of the Rightwing? Are they Conservatively biased? I'm not sure. I Googled for confirmation of this suspicion, and found some evidence that backs up this suspicion, but not a lot. Nothing that said, oh yes, that Rasmussen is Conservatively biased is well know. I do know that this specific poll was biased, however.
Here is another example (from the same page I pulled the above Rasmussen poll results from).
Rasmussen: ...82% of black voters think most black Americans receive unfair treatment from the police. White voters by a 56% to 30% margin don't believe that's true. Other minority voters are evenly divided. But 70% of all voters believe the level of crime in low-income inner city communities is a bigger problem in America today than police discrimination against minorities. (source).
OK, so Rasmussen is obviously trying to discredit the idea that black Americans receive unfair treatment from the police by following that question with another question that gets a response of "70% of all voters believe the level of crime in low-income inner city communities is a bigger problem in America today than police discrimination against minorities".
The two aren't mutually exclusive! Both are big problems, although I would say African Americans receiving unfair treatment from the police is the more serious problem... because the police are supposed to serve and protect all law abiding citizens regardless of race!
Sure, numbers-wise, the level of crime in low-income inner city communities is a bigger problem, but criminals commit crimes... that is what they do. The police treating people unfairly based on skin color is not supposed to be what they do! Yet, it seems that it is. Which is why the BLM movement exists... to draw attention to this problem.
It does not exist to say that ALL LIVES don't matter or that Black lives matter more... although this is EXACTLY how the Rasmussen poll question is phrased... and why they did not ask if respondents also supported the BLM movement.
Which is why my conclusion is that Rasmussen (at least with this poll) is obviously and transparently (IMO) shilling for the Rightwing... by asking a leading question to get the response they were looking for. A response that discredits the BLM movement and scrubs race from the conversation altogether.
In response [to "Black Lives Matter"], some white folks have countered with the phrase, "All Lives Matter". While this is seemingly a more empowering as well as a diversity affirming response, it is neither ..."All Lives Matter" is a form of willful colorblindness - the erasure of the issue of race. When people say "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter," they are not simply opening their arms to the greater diversity of humanity. Instead, they are taking race out of the conversation. While the statement masquerades as a bright and inclusive light, in the shadow of this statement hides a willful ignorance of America's racist past and present. (What's the Matter with "All Lives Matter" by David Bedrick. The Huffington Post 8/24/2015).
Erasing of the issue of race is the goal of the Whites pushing back against BLM in my opinion. There are some clueless people going along with this, but much of the pushback (replace "Black Lives Matter" with "All Lives Matter") is racist in nature. That's why it's mostly Rightwingers getting offended and claiming that BLM is "racist" and saying things like "All Lives Matter is beautiful" and "If your self-righteous, pompous, racist activism clouds the cognitive portion of your brain... Fuck You".
Speaking of FUs, Glenn Beck led a rally of 20k similarly clueless and/or racist individuals in an "All Lives Matter march" along the historic civil rights route from Kelly Ingram Park to Birmingham City Hall on 8/29/2015. Chuck Norris and Jon Voight were there, along with African American pastor Bishop Jim Lowe and Alveda King (a Conservative Fox Nooz contributing niece of civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr).
Because Rightwingers love it when they can get Black dupes to tell them their racism is OK.
It is also "unfortunate" that Rasmussen Reports participated in the discrediting of the BLM movement (via replacement of "Black Lives Matter" with the color-blind history-ignoring "All Lives Matter"). Although I'm not at all convinced the Rasmussen poll was "unfortunate"... but rather it was calculated, in that Rasmussen asked the question that elicited the response they wanted. Too bad more respondents didn't realize they were being played.
Image: Protestors show the real message of the BLM movement, which is that Black lives matter as much (not more) than White lives. We need to laud this movement, not denounce it. We need to emulate it, not shut it down... which is what the Right wishes to do with their "all lives matter" counter-slogan... shut down BLM.
The idea that WND somehow has racist motivations is bizarre, especially when fully 20 percent of the site's regular weekly columnists are black – including Sowell, Star Parker, Walter Williams, Eric Rush... ~ Joseph Farah, founder of the website World Net Daily (and head birther) making the Black Friend argument as to why their excessive reporting on Black Mobs isn't racist. (as reported in a 2/8/2014 Gawker story).
As is ALWAYS the case, when some crime occurs in which racism may be a factor, the Right must present incidents where the roles are reversed (AKA "The Fallacious Flip"). As those who follow the news know, a White Ferguson MO cop shot and killed an unarmed Black teenager. So guess what? You probably already know. The Right finds a case in which a Black cop shot and killed a White teen.
Proof that racism wasn't a factor in the Ferguson shooting, right? Whether it was or wasn't I do not believe is clear, but I think at least some (if not many) of the protestors believe it was... and for good reason (it's called "institutional racism"). Whatever the truth is (whether or not racism was a factor), it certainly strikes me that the number of shots fired might have been excessive (the 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot 6 times).
Although CNN reports "dueling narratives in Michael Brown shooting", and, after reading the story, I can report that the witnesses accounts are at odds with one another in key areas. So an investigation is definitely needed, and no conclusions should be jumped to until it is complete.
I do, however still believe there is a problem in general with cops shooting - or by some other method killing - unarmed suspects (a police killing via a choke hold for example). And MANY of the examples of this ARE of a White cop killing a Black victim, so there is cause to believe that race may be a factor (in general and not necessarily in regards to this case). And there is also the fact that a majority of the Ferguson MO police are White, while the community they are policing is majority-Black.
But the Ferguson community protests in regards to problems of (White majority) cops using excessive force (which is how they view this case) - and the problem of the police force not being racially diverse - is spun by WND as lies serving an agenda of the "Leftist Media"... as usual. This time WND reports on fellow racist Limbaugh's take on the subject...
Rush Limbaugh: There's a mindset out there, and the way it works in situations like this [is] only people of color can be victims. A white person can never be a victim. It just can't happen. That's not permitted, that's not allowed because it isn't the case. The whites are the oppressors. They're the majority. In the liberal worldview, every majority is an oppressor... They're all oppressors. The minority is always the victims, and the victims are with whom we should always sympathize, no matter what. And the victims are permitted to do anything precisely because they're a minority... They're outnumbered. The evil majority does horrible things to the minority. And so the minorities... [are] always victims. And so anything they do is justified and we must try to understand the rage.
But in the current climate in the United States, a black person can never be the oppressor and a white can never be the victim. And that's how you have a corrupt or perverted news business in Salt Lake City, refusing to identify a black cop who may have shot an innocent person. That destroys the whole picture we've been creating here for centuries. That could totally destroy the image that we've been trying to concoct... (Rush Limbaugh comments via World Net Daily, 8/20/2014. "Black cop kills White Man, Media Hide Race" by Joe Kovacs).
The Media was "hiding" the race of the Black cop who shot the White teen? The WND article notes that "Utah's Desert News reported the police chief saying the officer is not white [and] The Salt Lake Tribune noted, the officer involved was not white". Seems pretty clear to me that they said the cop wasn't White. And it did come out that the cop wasn't Hispanic or Asian or whatever. But two papers saying the cop wasn't White (info that came from the police chief) amounts to the Media "hiding" the officer's race? Right.
What this REALLY amounts to, IMO, is (yet more) racism from the Right. As well as opportunism. An opportunity to shamelessly attack the "Leftist Media". This time with bogus claims of hiding the fact that the cop was Black. Similar to what happened with George Zimmerman, that he was "White" was info that came from the cops. In both cases the media reported what the police told them!
As for the rest of Limbaugh's racist tirade, it is complete BS, of course. A White person can be a victim, but Whites ARE the oppressors. They're the majority (police force in Ferguson is mostly White, while community they are policing is majority Black) and we also have a long history (that began with slavery) of racism... against Black people.
Yeah, racist Whites like Limbaugh and those at the Black-mob-obsessed WND find that history inconvenient and work hard to deny that our past influences our present. But it *is* our history. So, no, a Black person can't be an oppressor. A minority can belong to an organization that sometimes acts as an instrument of oppression (the police), but this does not make them an "oppressor", but simply an instrument of the organization (in this case the police) that acts as oppressors for the White majority (again, it's called "institutional racism").
And there is also the fact that the police are becoming increasingly militarized, and what this points to, I think, is a mentality that says excessive force is what is necessary. I mean, another issue that concerns me is the police killing of pet dogs when those pets react to the police busting down doors (sometimes the wrong ones) to arrest people. And surely that has nothing to do with racism.
In any case, a minority is NOT "permitted to do anything precisely because they're a minority". And this "image that we've been trying to concoct" that Limbaugh refers to is REALITY. And YES, the "Leftist media" does NOT want that "image" destroyed, you lying racist tool!
So, in conclusion, I'd say that we definitely have a problem of police using deadly force not as a last resort, but drawing their guns and shooting to kill when they shouldn't be drawing their guns at all, or, if they do, shooting to wound. Racism may be a factor (and I believe it sometimes is), but if it was a factor in the Ferguson shooting is not known.
And I believe it probably won't be a factor in the investigation. Only the question of whether or not the shooting was justified will be asked. But, as you can see from the Limbaugh spin as reported by WND, the Right misses no opportunity to inject race into a news story. Injecting it via false accusations against the Left of "playing the race card" and "concocting" a history of racism for the United States.
"Concocting" being code for reporting the reality of the situation. A reality the Right wishes to deny because it aides THEIR concocted narrative regarding their racism being a "fair and balanced" reporting of the facts. "Facts", that when it comes to WND, often include the violence of "Black mobs".
A 2/8/2014 article from the blog Gawker by Adam Weinstein says that WND is battling Google for "its right to be racist". According to the article, Google "has accused WND of using hate speech and has threatened to block ads on the news site over its use of the term black mobs in news stories and columns.
Yeah, no kidding. As a subscriber to the WND newsletter, I noticed this some time ago. Google cites a figure of 670 "Black mob" stories and bases it's objection on it's AdSense policies against using "derogatory racial or ethnic slurs to refer to an individual or group". Although, over how long a period of time the article does not say. Still 670 is a big number... and kudos to Google for calling out WND. And Google, being a private company, does not have to respect WND's "free speech rights".
.........................
Something else the Right likes to complain about in these situations is when Black leaders show up on the scene to offer their support and assistance. People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, in doing so, are "race baiting", they say. The Reverend Sharpton, I should note, went to Ferguson and discussed the problem of the police force not being racially diverse. His solution was for more Black voters to show up on election day.
Catching the end of his MSNBC program the other day, I saw Mr. Sharpton note the fact that when it was time to elect Mr. Obama a second time, Black turnout was high. But for the next election - one which also had local officials like the chief of police on the ballot - turnout was pathetic (2 percent, if I remember correctly). Sounds like good advice to me and certainly NOT "race hustling". Advising the Black community to vote, that is (which is a good way to at least begin to curb the institutional racism problem).
"Race husting", IMO, is a term used by White racists, or "right-wing white-grievance mongers" who are "stoking racial tension for cash" (wording as per a 7/23/2013 Salon article). People like Limbaugh... and organizations like WND (even given the fact that they have "Black friends") are real "race hustlers", and I think the evidence overwhelmingly shows this to be true. It isn't the Black leaders or Black MSNBC personalities who "race bait", but the racist right and race hustling and racist-pandering Rightwing media.
Video: Ferguson Cops Busted? New Video Seems To Show Brown Paying For Cigarillos (0:42) Link. (H/T to Shaw Kenawe of Progressive Eruptions for pointing me to this story & video from Crooks & Liars).
The question of why poor people vote Republican is not simply an issue of income but primarily race and partly region and gender. Poor people may be more likely to vote Democrat; poor white people are not ~ Gary Younge writting for The Guardian in a 10/29/2012 article, "Working class voters: why America's poor are willing to vote Republican".
The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 3/13/2012, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Have Right to Work laws made people in the Southern states stupid? Thom answers a caller's question.
Caller: I was wondering, what divides us intellectually from Mississippi and Alabama? Why are those states deemed as being the "stupid states"?
Thom: A lot of it has to do with the history of labor. During the industrialization of the United States, in the 1920s through the 40s... The Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act or NLRA) was passed in 1935 and Union shops started, and the South started unionizing just like the North did. Although most of the industrial activity was still in the North. The South was still largely agricultural, although there was a lot of textile work going on in the south... a lot of clothing being made. And people were forming unions.
Then, in 1946 the Republicans took both the House and Senate for the first time since the crash of 1929. They only held the House for 2 years... they lost the House for over 30 years - they didn't get it back until the year Newt swept the House in 1994. So, during that 2 years they did a lot of damage.
Harry Truman proposed a bill that would give everyone in American free health care. It was Medicare Part E, basically... they shot that down. They then passed a bill called the Taft-Hartley Act (Labor–Management Relations Act) which said that individual states could opt out of the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act [Congress overrode Truman's veto]. If a majority of people in a workplace voted for a union, that was fine, but not everybody had to participate in that union. Which basically makes it real easy for employers to bust unions, and radically reduces the benefits, both to the union and the union employees, of having a union.
The Southern states were the first to jump on this bandwagon and they all became right-to-work-for-less states, very, very quickly. And so, since the 40s they've had lower wages... in the average right-to-work-for-less state people make 5 thousand dollars a year less than they do in a free bargaining state. They are also twice as likely to die on the job.
Now we're almost 3 generations away from this, and I would say that's the largest single reason. Because there was less [tax] revenue [because workers were earning less], there was less money for education and people were stuck in cyclical poverty. It's a genuine tragedy.
END Thom Hartman Program excerpt. If you are a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann program podcast, the location of this segment of audio can be found at 17:50 to 21:21 of Hour 2 on Tuesday March 13, 2012.
Keeping wages low for average workers is ABSOLUTELY the reason why the south is essentially a solid, grim block of poverty. I say this in agreement with a recent post on the excellent blog "Progressive Eruptions", a blog where the proprietor, Shaw Kenawe pointed out the following...
...the south is a solid bloc of conservative voting. This is what southern conservative leaders have done for the citizens who vote against their best interests by keeping those conservatives in office. And here is the result of their failed conservative policies. Nothing but misery has "trickled down" to these southern states. (H/T to Progressive Eruptions. Posted on 7/3/2014 at 7:25am).
And why is the South solidly Republican? The answer is slavery and the Civil Rights legislation signed by LBJ in 1964, previous to which it was the Democratic Party that supported Slavery and racism. But that all changed when Democrats flipped to support to equality and Republicans (several years later) took up the mantle of White racism in order to win the South.
Wikipedia, Solid South: ...beginning in the 1960s, Southern support for the Democratic Party started to decline given its national leaders' support of the civil rights movement, including school integration. The Republican Party began to make new gains in the South, building on other cultural conflicts as well.
In 1968, President Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy is credited with allowing either the Republicans or Southern Democrat George Wallace's independent campaign to keep much of the South out of the Democratic column at the presidential level.
The South continued to send an overwhelmingly Democratic delegation to Congress until the Republican Revolution of 1994. Today, the South is considered a Republican stronghold at all levels above the local level, with Republicans holding majorities in every state except Arkansas and Kentucky after 2010. Political experts have often cited a southernization of politics following the fall of the Solid South.
The South's history of slavery and racism and Republican Party's desire to pander to these voters is why the South is today solidly for the GOP. And the South is poorer than the rest of the nation due to the Republican Party being the party of the wealthy and big business...
From a business perspective... the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. ...the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't. ...earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business. (excerpt from a 6/14/2014 post from the Soadhead blog "Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms". Authorship attributed to "Sharon" with quotations from Eric Rauchway, a professor of American history at the University of California, Davis).
So, the flipped platforms referred to in blog excerpt above is in reference to support for Big Government. The Republicans used to support Big Government and now they do not. But they obviously ALSO flipped on the issue of support for African Americans, going from supporting ending slavery to opposing equality/civil rights legislation.
And this is the same Republican Party that began as a reform party that initially opposed slavery. But the priority of pandering to the wealthy won out and the decision was made (by Nixon) that the racist White vote was needed in order to win elections, which is why the Republicans and Democrats flipped positions on the issue of racism; after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Legislation of 1964 the GOP became the new home for America's racists.
And the South is decidedly poorer and dumber as a result. Poorer because big business does not want to pay as low of a wage as possible to workers, and with Republicans in control, they get what they want (Right-to-work legislation). Dumber because, as research has shown, poverty makes people less intelligent.
Image Description: This map shows U.S. poverty rates, which are highest in the south. Red-shaded states indicate poverty rates between 17.9 and 22.8 percent. Orange is 15,9-17.8 percent. Light orange indicates 12.2-15.8 percent, and yellow indicates 9-12.1 percent (source: These Nine Maps Show How The GOP is Destroying Southern States by John Prager from Americans Against The Tea Party, 3/6/2014).
From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats ~Richard Nixon (1/9/1913 to 4/22/1994) the 37th POTUS, serving from 1969 to 1974, when he became the only president to resign the office.
This recent straw man from the blog of a fiscally Conservative Libertarian-leaning idiot..
Willis Hart: On the Hackneyed Leftist Assertion that all of those Segregationist Dixiecrats Ultimately Became Republicans... I gotta go, false, on this one, folks. Al Gore Sr. never became a Republican. John Stennis never became a Republican. Sam Ervin never became a Republican. James Eastland never became a Republican. Everett Jordan never became a Republican. William Fulbright never became a Republican. George Wallace never became a Republican. Lester Maddox never became a Republican... I mean, yeah, you did have Strom Thurmond switching over but one is a hell of a lot different than all and this is one bromide that really needs to be put to rest, I'm thinking. (5/20/2014 AT 8:18pm).
The argument, I'm fairly certain, is that the majority of the vote that used to go Democrat from racially biased Southerners ultimately flipped to the Republican Party. The argument isn't that every single racially-biased Democratic politician who identified with the Dixiecrats switched the political affiliation to GOP.
How easy it is to disprove an argument when you set it up as a straw man! The straw man in this case being the inclusion of the word "ALL" as well as narrowing who we're talking about to politicians. People become set in their ways and cling to their bigotries. That many Dixiecrats stayed with the Democratic Party until their deaths is NOT a big surprise.
The ACTUAL Leftist argument is that the vote of those inclined to racial bigotry flipped from Democrat/Dixiecrat to Republican over time as those people (had a change of heart) or, (more frequently) died. And it is a known fact that Richard Nixon specifically courted the racist Southern vote (people who would have, if they had been alive during the time of the Dixiecrats) voted Democrat.
But this attempt to smear modern day Democrats with the sins of Democrats of yore is old hat for the Hartster. Conveniently he ignores the reality of the situation (which is that the Party that represents the racist vote flipped from D to R) in order to paint the Democrats as the Party of the "real" racists.
The Truth About Republican Racism and the "Southern Strategy": it's easy to say Lincoln was a Republican and the KKK was largely built by Democrats, but by doing so you only prove your own ignorance of history. You're ignoring the fact that as Democrats evolved to embrace equality for African Americans, Southern racists were left looking for a new political party — and they found one that not only embraced their racism and bigotry, it sought it out. (Excerpt from the Forward Progress 6/4/2013 article by Allen Clifton).
What the actual takeaway from this history should be is that the Democrats progressed while Republicans have regressed. The fact is that now/today it is the Repubs who most racially biased voters identify with (the Tea Party wing of the GOP in particular).
Wikipedia: The Republican Party was founded in the Northern states in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs, and ex-Free Soilers [and] quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Southern Democratic Party.
[But the Republican Party eventually turned away from their anti-slavery roots...]
Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.
The [Southern] strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater in the late 1960s. The strategy was successful in winning 5 formerly Confederate states in both the 1964 and 1968 presidential elections. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party.
Talk of the Democratic Party having a racist history (which it does) somehow excusing/negating the Republican Party's racist PRESENT is one bromide that really needs to be put to rest, I'm thinking. And we can also awaken people to the FACT about where the Dixiecrat (racist) vote went too (it went to the GOP... which actively courted it).
7/6/2015 Update: Willis frequently posts on the same topic (and says essentially the same thing) many times. As if restating the same belief over and over will validate his bullshit. That, or he simply forgets he already wrote a blog post on the topic.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that Al Gore Jr., John Stennis, Sam Ervin, James Eastland, Everett Jordan, William Fulbright, George Wallace, and Lester Maddox All Got Buried with Their Democratic Boots on... So much for the Democratic racists changed parties narrative. (7/1/2015 AT 9:36am).
As I already pointed out, it is NOT the "narrative" that the politicians changed parties. The "narrative" (reality) is that the voters switched parties. And I'm referring to "voters" as in people who vote, not individuals. The fact that the South is solidly Republican is proof positive that this "narrative" is 100 percent accurate. That Willis insists that the "narrative" is that the politicians changed parties is another of Willis' infamous strawmen (the reason why I call him "Willis I love strawmen Hart").
You think I'm a racist? You think I have anything in the world but love for everybody? ... You know I'm not a racist ~Donald Sterling (dob 4/26/1934) the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers professional basketball franchise, who, on 4/29/2014, was banned from the NBA for life after recordings of him making racist comments were made public.
Can you believe anyone would have the nerve to post a commentary defending the racist Clipper's owner Donald Sterling? Or, downplay and minimizing what happened, which is what the blogger Willis Hart has been doing on his site with 2 commentaries so far going after people OTHER than Sterling himself...
Willis Hart: I really don't have a problem with the NBA throwing the book at this asshole. But there does seem to be a double-standard. Ron Artest, a player, went into the stands and started beating people up. Latrell Sprewell, a player, strangled his coach. Both of these dudes only got a one year suspension. Is the NBA really saying that idiotic statements said in the privacy of your own home are a more serious offense than criminal acts of violence; assaults and batteries? That certainly does seem to be the case. (5/8/2014 AT 9:52pm).
So, the Hartster realizes that he shouldn't be defending Sterling, due to how racist what he said was, but he obviously wants to. The way to do it? Complain about the "hypocrisy" of a "double standard" of those "persecuting" Sterling... and rail against that. In part 1 of Willis' complaining about Sterling's persecutors he said, "[Sterling is] unquestionably an asshole. BUT I am just as much disturbed by the fact that somebody taped him without his knowledge and in his own home". (my emphasis).
Now he's complaining about players doing naughty things and being punished less (another "yes, but"). However, if Willis had bothered researching WHY the league wants not to suspend Sterling, but get rid of him - he would have found that it's a money thing...
LA Times: Major advertisers of the Los Angeles Clippers are fleeing in droves as they rush to distance themselves from comments about blacks attributed to team owner Donald Sterling. A growing list of more than a dozen sponsors, including Virgin America, Kia and State Farm, are canceling or suspending their deals with the basketball team... The statements could cause tens of millions of dollars in damage to the Clippers and the NBA, experts say. (Clippers advertisers flee in midst of Sterling scandal, 4/28/2014).
So, what the doofus Hart fails to realize - or never bothered finding out, due to his strong desire to find SOME angle by which he could defend Sterling - is that the league had to get rid of Sterling to appease the sponsors.
This isn't a matter of "idiotic statements said in the privacy of your own home" VERSUS "criminal acts of violence; assaults and batteries"! It's a matter of one guy's offense COSTING them, whereas sponsors didn't say anything about Ron Artest or Latrell Sprewell (and so they only got a light punishment).
For an individual who worships at the altar of the all-mighty dollar like the Hartster, this oversight is surprising. Or perhaps not, given how strong we can all see his desire to defend Sterling is. Even though he knows he shouldn't... which is why he preferences his comments by calling Sterling an "asshole" (first commentary) - and then attacking Al Sharpton... and next saying Sterling should have the book thrown at him (second commentary) - but then attacking two players who previously behaved badly.
And blatantly racist and disgusting comments are "idiotic statements"? Really? Yeah, I think most people would describe racist comments like Sterling's as offensive and beyond the pale and NOT go with a lesser pejorative like "idiotic". And that he said them "in the privacy of his own home" really isn't relative at all to this conversation. Regardless of where he made them, they are public knowledge now.
From the LiveJournal Blog Sex and Race...
Defending Racism: Like a drinking problem or drug habit, racism works best when no one is willing to talk about it, and even better, when everyone works together to cover up the problem. The most important thing is to make sure that you can hide your problem from yourself - it's key in maintaining those 3 beliefs that will keep you racist for a lifetime!
Sounds to me like this is exactly what Mr. Hart is doing. In neither of his posts does he discuss racism - instead downplaying it ("idiotic comments"), and then going on the attack against other targets. Why? Possibly because Willis has some racial biases he's hiding from himself? If so I'd say he has that in common with Sterling. I can't say for certain, but this individual does have a history of accusing Liberals of "playing the race card" - which is how those with racial biases OFTEN describe what's going on when "a liberal" (or a Black person) REACTS to racist behavior (usually from the Right). And, BTW, Sterling is a Republican.
Regardless, I find the sordid saga of Willis' backdoor defense of Sterling to be disgusting.
Also, I don't think I really buy that it hasn't occurred to Mr. Hart that the NBA might want to get rid of Sterling because he's costing the league money. I mean, to get rid of those other two guys would have cost THEM. Remember that the NFL took back Michael Vick (who currently plays for the New York Jets). Harsher penalties for Artest, Sprewell and Vick would have cost the sports franchise owners... but getting rid of Sterling is only going to cost Sterling. And it will appease the sponsors thus saving the league money. Really, it isn't that hard to figure out.
Image Description: A graph that shows those on the Right and those on the Left have increasingly separate realities about race. I have no idea how Willis Hart feels about 12 years a slave winning best picture, but he did defend George Zimmerman with posts in the double digits, and he must be opposed to Sterling being forced to sell the Clippers (I'm guessing). I mean, why should someone be forced to sell something they own because of "idiotic statements said in the privacy of [their] own home". That would be ridiculous, right?
