St. Louis Tea Party condemns NAACP racism

With the NAACP set to condemn the Tea Party movement as racist, the St. Louis Tea Party decided to go on the offensive by condemning the NAACP for their own racism.  It's about time too:

St. Louis Tea Party Coalition Resolution
July 12, 2010

Whereas, the National Coalition for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was founded to advance the position of minority groups, and

Whereas a hallmark of the NAACP has been to do the important work of identifying and exposing remaining vestiges of racism and discrimination, and

Whereas the NAACP vocally stands against the discriminatory and harmful practice of labeling people with a broad brush, and

Whereas the NAACP decided to launch their 101st National Convention with a resolution condemning the Tea Party movement and labeling millions of their fellow Americans who subscribe to the movement as “racists”, and

Whereas the “Tea Party movement” is a label applied to patriotic Americans who have expressed their political free speech in the grand tradition of all that is American, that being the spirited expression of viewpoints in a 100% peaceful manner, and

Whereas, it is a hallmark of America that we settle our disputes civilly and avoid the gutter tactic of attempting to silence opponents by inflammatory name-calling, and
Whereas the very term “racist” has diminished meaning due to its overuse by political partisans including members of the NAACP, and

Whereas, the NAACP had an opportunity to preserve some semblance of legitimacy by standing up for Ken Gladney, the victim of a vicious racist battery conducted by a black avowed communist, even labeling him an “Uncle Tom”, but chose instead to use the opportunity to mock the St. Louis Tea Party, and

Whereas, the NAACP has refused to denounce the New Black Panther’s call to murder white cops and their babies, and

Whereas, the NAACP does its entire membership a grave disservice by hypocritically engaging in the very conduct it purports to oppose,

Now therefore be it resolved that the St. Louis Tea Party condemns the NAACP for lowering itself to the dishonorable position of a partisan political attack dog organization, and,

Be it further resolved that the St. Louis Tea Party calls on similar organizations to join in unanimous condemnation of this despicable behavior, and

Be it further resolved that we demand that the NAACP withdrawal their bigoted, false and inflammatory resolution against the tea party for any further consideration, and

Be it further resolved that these organizations call on the Internal Revenue Service to evenly apply their standards and consider the tax-exempt status of the NAACP considering the degree to which they are engaging in habitual partisan political behavior.

Adopted unanimously, this day, July 12th, in the year of our Lord, 2010.

It was only a matter of time until the repeated hypocrisies became too much.  As I've started before, the leaders of the black community - which includes the NAACP - all have political goals, and they use their position to control thinking and use blacks as a political club for their own purposes.  It becomes increasingly difficult to give those leaders the benefit of the doubt when you see someone like Jesse Jackson being outraged over the Arizona law, but absolutely no outrage when the leader of the New Black Panthers calls for the death of "crackers" and their babies.

Hopefully other Tea Party organizations will pass similar resolutions.  I doubt very many people will care if the NAACP passes a resolution calling the Tea Party racist - the talking point is rather old now - but why ignore it when you have legitimate grievances of your own to bring up?

Hey Nancy: I found your Astroturf

Anyone remember the Coffee Party? 

In case you forgot (or blinked and missed their brief existence ) the Coffee Party was basically the left's grassroots response to the increasingly successful Tea Party.  The movement billed itself as non-partisan and civil, using the cliched stance of being tired of partisanship in Washington and wanting thoughtful discourse.  Unsurprisingly the leftist organization received a glowing reception from the media, but despite the promotion they didn't manage to accomplish anything other than directly confronting the Tea Party (Kinda).  To give you an example of how badly the Coffee Party failed, look at their "breakout" protest, which attracted a grand total of...30 people.

The failure of the Coffee Party has to be rather disappointing and mildly embarrassing for a Democratic party so desperately in need of some sort of momentum from Progressives, especially while the Tea Party continues to enjoy some level of success.  So what's the left to do when a grassroots movement won't shoot up on its own?  Create one:

If imitation is the highest form of flattery, the "tea party" movement must be honored.

In an effort to replicate the tea party's success, 170 liberal and civil rights groups are forming a coalition that they hope will match the movement's political energy and influence. They promise to "counter the tea party narrative" and help the progressive movement find its voice again after 18 months of foundering.

The large-scale attempt at liberal unity, dubbed "One Nation," will try to revive themes that energized the progressive grass roots two years ago.

[...]

The groups involved represent the core of the first-time voters who backed Obama, including the National Council of La Raza, the Service Employees International Union, the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, and the United States Student Association. (The effort is separate from the Democratic Party's plan to spend $50 million trying to reach those same voters.)

WaPo does a pretty poor job of covering their bias, but what else is new?  Ed from HotAir hits nail on the head over that last paragraph:

Separate?  Uh, sure it is.  The SEIU and the AFL-CIO never  coordinate with Democrats, and neither do La Raza or the NAACP … right?  This overly credulous statement should embarrass the WaPo editorial staff.  If the Tea Party had been formed on the basis of massive funding from the NRA, the Chamber of Commerce, and Focus on the Family, would anyone in the media have written that the effort would have been “separate” from the GOP?

Say, didn't Nancy Pelosi have something to say about groups like this?




Throughout this blog I've repeatedly pointed out cases of liberal hypocrisy, and this is certainly a big one.  When the Tea Party was gaining ground the left was comically schizophrenic in their lies, either claiming that the Tea Party was a group of fringe extremists, or fake grassroots controlled by special interest groups loyal to the GOP.  The Democrats and Progressives spewed the demagogue and the media eagerly proliferated it.  But when their own grassroots organization failed miserably, they wasted no time in dabbling in a bit of astroturf.  In other words:  Demagogue the opposition and then engage in the very same thing you accused them of.

The hypocrisy falls not just on the heads of the Democrats, but also on the media, who is undoubtedly going to ignore the obvious while at the same time proclaiming "One Nation" as a great example of civic involvement.  I'd include the groups involved in this, but being hypocritical is the last thing anyone should be concerned about when it comes to a group of thugs (SEIU), racial supremacists (La Raza), and charlatans (NAACP).

Exit question:  Wouldn't silence on this be in violation Pelosi's much vaunted ethics?  More hypocrisy?  There's a shocker.

"Am I not a man and a brother?"

In August last year a black, conservative man was handing out Gadsen flags at a Tea Party rally in St. Louis when he was attacked and beaten by members of the SEIU who yelled racial slurs while beating him.  From the police report:

I then contacted Witness #1, Harris Himes.  Witness H. Himes stated that as he was leaving the school gymnasium, he saw Suspect McCowan talking to Victim Gladney.  He stated he saw Suspect McCowan reach over the table and punch Victim Gladney in the face.  This assault knocked the victim off balance.  Suspect Molens then went around the table and pulled Victim Gladney over the table backwards by the back of his shirt collar.  he began to punch and kick Victim Gladney.  Witness H. Himes added that while Suspect Molens was kicking and punching Victom Gladney, Suspect McCowan joined in on the assault.

Witness #2, Sandra Himes, statement of the incident concurred with Harris' account of the incident.  She did add that Victim Gladney did nothing to provoke this assault.

[...]

Gladney stated that he was handing out pens and buttons outside the gym.  He stated that is when Suspects Molens and McCowan, along with a third suspect who is unidentified at this time, walked by his table.  Suspect McCowan picked up one of the buttons from Gladney's table and said, "Who's sellin this shit?" Victim Gladney stated, "I'm not selling anything, it's free."  At this time Suspect McCowan said, "What kind of nigger are you?"  Suspect McCowan then reached across the table and punched Victim Gladney in the face.  Victim Gladney added that Suspect Molens grabbed him from behind, at which time he was struck several times and taken to the ground.  At this time he was struck several more times.  He doesn't know how many people struck him or how many times exactly he was struck after he was on the ground.

There was no outrage among the black community, no appeal from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or the NAACP for charges or justice.  No one lamenting "black on black" violence, or the attack on free thinking.  Just a silence that emphasize a message most conservatives already knew:  "You cannot be both black and conservative." To be both would make you a traitor, a dog, and below human in their eyes, and ff a "real" black man happened to attack you, then you probably deserved it.

So the event went ignored by the black community, and the media decided to ignore it as well.  After all such a beating would undermine their already weak "Racist Teabagger" narrative.

In my first post I wrote this:

In case you're wondering about the name of this blog I decided to give a little explanation. There's a particular hatred for Black Conservatives on the Left. The names they use to describe us say it all: Race Traitor, Uncle Tom, Oreo, Pet Monkey, among others. The message is clear "You cannot be both a Conservative and Black." You are forced to pick between your beliefs and your race.

It's an absurd thing, especially when you consider who it comes from. The people who claim to champion tolerance and free thought are the very same ones who become so outraged whenever someone dares to think differently. It is surreal to think that the rewards for freedom and equality are a loss of individuality and a demand to participate in group think. We must become what THEY want us to be.

Keep those words in mind as you watch a video released today showing a NAACP leader calling Kenneth Gladney an Uncle Tom, and basically saying he isn't black:





He's far too excited to praise political, racially motivated violence, especially for an organization that is supposed to protect blacks from those very things.  It's more than a little ironic that the organizations and people who fought for black equality now encourage violence against those who dare think differently then them. 

If any one video could be used as proof of the hypocrisy of black community, and evidence that black Americans - in general - are used as sheep for the far left, then this is it.  This is the  reason I made this blog, and the reason it's named "TheRaceTraitor".

5 things Conservatives shouldn't say

Obama isn't my President.

It's unsurprising that the first time I heard someone declaring that the President wasn't their President was during the Bush years.  Although I'm certain others have made this statement toward other Presidents, I doubt it was quite as widespread, and so the statement has come to personify the rabid, foaming at the mouth hatred that liberals expressed during those years.  The statement isn't offensive because the man in charge happened to be from my political party, but it offends me as an American.  To disagree or even hate a President is one thing, but to declare that he isn't your President is something else entirely.

The same goes for Obama.

Is it unfortunate that an incompetent, far-leftist got elected to office?  Of course, but does that mean he's not your President?  Absolutely not.  Him being your President doesn't mean you owe him any particular loyalties.  Americans aren't expected to love or follow their Presidents, but we should be expected to respect the office.  I hardly consider it respectful to ignore the current officeholder just because you disagree with - or outright loathe - his policies and ideology.  Like it or not Barack Obama is the current President of the United States of America, so unless you're in the process of throwing a revolt or giving up your citizenship, he is your President.

There's a surprisingly thin line for legitimate dissent to outright insanity.  Liberals sprinted across that line without looking back, and conservatives could find themselves teasing with that boundary if they're not careful.  I can count the number of people I've heard say "Obama isn't my President" on one hand, but virtually no one offers any sort of condemnation for such statements, and that's what worries me.  Conservatives need to ensure that we don't become what liberals became during the Bush years.


Obama is a Kenyan!/Where's the Birth Certificate?

Where is the birth certificate?

That question isn't aimed toward Obama, but the Birthers who, for whatever reason, have pursued this relentless despite having little to no proof.  Initially I was open to the suggestion that Obama wasn't a natural born citizen and thus wasn't eligible for the Presidency, but as time went on I became less and less impressed with Birthers and their arguments.

For the last year and a half they've been going on about this, and for the last year and a half they've produced...nothing.  Their argument never evolved past its original point, in which they point to Obama having never released his birth certificate.

For a starting argument it isn't bad.  It is suspicious that we've never seen a birth certificate, and that Obama has blocked that information with an executive order, but that's circumstantial evidence at best.  At some point you have to start producing something to validate the serious nature of your claims, but they never did that.  There was never any decent answer to the certificate of live birth, or the newspaper clipping declaring Obama's birth, but their absolute lowest moment came when they declared that they had the birth certificate, only to find out it was forged by a blogger.

Conservatives should treat Birthers for what they are:  Conspiracy theorists.  If they want to spend their own time pursing this, then that's their business, but conservatives need to continue to distance themselves from people who believe Obama isn't a natural born citizen.  At the same time we really do need to pass legislation which requires presidential candidates to produce their birth certificates.


Obama is a Muslim!

The argument for Obama being Muslim goes something like this:  Because Obama's father was Muslim, and because he spent time as a child in Indonesia learning in Islamic schools, Obama is a Muslim today, as is evident by his poor treatment of Israel.

It's a bit difficult to address that argument simply because it's so absurd, and is on the same level as doubting Nikki Haley's conversion.  I'm not even sure why they would bring up his faith of his father since that's certainly does not bind a man toward any particular faith, especially when you grow up in a completely different culture.  Pointing out that he spent time reading the Quran and learning in Islamic school has a bit more validity, but again has no consequence on choices he made later in life in regards to faith.  It would be like saying a Muslim child is Christian because her family has embraced the American life and now celebrates Easter and Christmas in the same commercial sense that so many other Americans do.

I've repeatedly maintained that if Obama is anything other then what he says he is, it's Atheist, but ultimately it's not something worth focusing on.  Arguing over whether Obama is Christian, Muslim, or Atheist doesn't change what he's doing to this country, but it does serve to make his opposition look radical and/or insane.


When will the States/People revolt/secede?

Revolt and secession should always be a legitimate option for the American people to take should it ever come down to it, and wondering how far you would have to be pushed before you take up arms against your own government and countrymen is something we should all think about at least once.  However it's a thin line between asking yourself what the prerequisites are for rebellion, and openly demanding/supporting it.

Advocating revolution is a serious thing, so unless times are extremely dire or your reasoning is perfect you won't find much sympathy with the public, and to be honest that's a good thing.  When people make such threats they often do so not because they believe they have an obligation to fight against a government that has usurped the law, but because they disagree with the current ideology/policies in practice.

Again we can look to the Bush years for an example.  During this time it wasn't uncommon to hear smug liberals saying that the blue states should leave the union, have their own President, and watch the red states crumble and die.  This talk wasn't driven by a belief that they had a legal obligation or case to rebel, but from a hatred of the man (Bush) and his policies. 

There are some similarities the conservative case for revolt against Obama.  It would be dishonest to say that the majority of flirting with revolt doesn't stem from a conservative hate of the man and his ideology.  While there is a valid argument that his ideology could be outside the constitution, and thus illegal, the argument isn't so clear cut as to permit talk of revolution.  There is quite a bit of gray, and certainly nothing that mainstream America would see as valid.   It's worth noting that in some cases the threat is merely on the table, with legitimate reasoning for it, such as when Governor Perry of Texas spoke of secession if the Federal government continues to usurp state power. The distinction has to be made between the two, otherwise you risk coloring the entire movement as one of radicals who may very well be those "right-wing terrorists" the DHS spoke of.


Impeach Obama!

Much like how I'm offended as an American when people say Obama isn't their President, I'm also offended when people call for the impeachment of Obama.

Throughout this post I've brought up the Bush years, and I've done so because it's easy, for me at least, to remember the disgust I felt over the way liberals acted during those years.  Those memories and feelings have been invaluable in guiding my dissent against the current administration, in reminding me where the line is and why I shouldn't cross it.  The call for impeachment personifies this best.  During the Bush years liberals were proud to call for Bush's impeachment, often validating it under the belief that he lied about the Iraq war.  It was, and is, a flimsy excuse, one that if true would mean the impeachment of many Senators and Representatives, including many Democrats and liberals, and would imply a greater conspiracy throughout the world.  Pointing this out doesn't change their mind, and only serves to remind you that their dissent is based in disagreement turned into rabid hatred.

Just to be fair:  The above picture actually came from a Ron Paul rally, but it's just an example of the type of thing you would see broadcast, proudly, by liberals.

Just as liberals had no legitimate reason to call for impeachment with Bush, conservatives lack a legitimate reason to call for impeachment with Obama.  Many of the arguments I made when talking about revolution apply here.  There is a legitimate line of questioning about if his ideology is legal under the constitution, but it's such a gray that I don't believe any of the arguments (that I've heard) for impeachment are reasonable, let alone legitimate.  The call for impeachment stem from a sizable minority, who often make the call during Obama's particularly bad moments, and often are never called out.  It's not beyond reason to believe that if Obama were reelected it could send conservatives into a frenzy not unlike that of liberals during the Bush years.

The consolation is that impeachment would ultimately do more damage.  Biden is a complete moron in every sense of the word, and impeaching Obama would only serve to make him a martyr for Progressives.  His defeat, however, would be a crushing defeat, and perhaps see moderates retake control of the Democrat party.


Final thoughts

Unlike liberals, conservatives do not have much in the way of leeway.  Liberals got away with their rabid, foaming at the mouth because they have the support of the media and as such they were able to present themselves as far more moderate and reasonable then they were.  The worst of them were not shown, and the bad was always presented as no so bad.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are always presented as bad.  We're violent, we're radical, and we're insane.  Most people don't buy into that, but conservatives can't take that for granted.  Conservatives need to remember what it was like during the Bush years, and always need to do their best to keep their arguments within reason, or at least be able to justify them when the time comes.

Often people say shocking things (and too often it seems they do it just to be shocking) and too people many look the other way, unwilling to attack another conservative.  However, this is our movement, and we have an obligation to police our own.  Maybe we can't control it, but we do have the right to try.

If nothing else internal dialogue offers us the chance to strengthen our views, and helps us to defend them against liberals later.  As the bible says:

     As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. - Proverbs 27:17

Unbelievable Part 2

Ever read a news story that left you seeing red?

Arthur Furano voted early — five days before Election Day. And he voted often, flipping the lever six times for his favorite candidate. Furano cast multiple votes on the instructions of a federal judge and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a new election system crafted to help boost Hispanic representation.

Voters in Port Chester, 25 miles northeast of New York City, are electing village trustees for the first time since the federal government alleged in 2006 that the existing election system was unfair. The election ends Tuesday and results are expected late Tuesday.

Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats, which until now were chosen in a conventional at-large election. Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.

Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act, and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas.

I found the article as a featured headline on Yahoo.com.  I don't particularly enjoy going to Yahoo for news since they're the very definition of MSM (Mainstream Media), but whenever I'm there I usually take a casual glance and see what's going on.  When I spotted the title "Town's election gives residents six votes" with the caption of "The New York town of Port Chester responds to a Federal complaint that it was under representing Lainto voters." with the blue link button saying "Novel plan".  I thought, "Surely this isn't what it looks like" and clicked.

I was wrong.

Do I have to say the obvious?  If every man has an equal vote, and no man is being kept from voting by force, then the only logical reason for being underrepresented would be because he was too lazy to go vote.  How does failing at your civic duties equate to getting extra votes?  Furthermore, how is it fair that the system is encouraging racial voting?  There isn't any rule in place that says "There aren't enough whites in government in New Mexico, all whites get 6 votes.", yet Latinos are afforded that right?

I hope the article left something out, but seeing as how the AP calls this a "novel plan", I doubt it.

Democrats Gone Crazy

The last eighteen months have been pretty interesting, and I'd say downright entertaining if it weren't for the seriousness of the situation.  After winning 08 in pretty much every category, Democrats set about to disprove the myth of the time; that they were invincible.  Though a mixture of a insanity, arrogance, and a deep rooted lack of common sense, they would make people hate them.

At least that's the reasoning we can hope for.

Now to be fair the crazy of the last year and a half hasn't been restricted to just Democrats.  We all remember that guy who did his best to not just destroy himself, but the party as well with one moronic declaration of love after another.  But for every story of Republican crazy (half of them coming from Ron Paul and Birthers) we get ten stories of Democrat crazy.

Below are some of my favorites.  I'll probably write about this again simply because I had so much fun reminiscing.  Good times.


Meet Alvin Greene

Alvin Greene came onto the political not too long ago.  Until he somehow won the South Carolina primary nobody had heard of him, and his campaign consisted of paying the $10,000 fee and...doing nothing.  I don't mean nobody in the way the media used it with Obama, I mean that one of the leading theories for him winning the primary was because voters picked names alphabetically since they didn't recognize either candidate. 

Since his primary victory he's proven to be a complete train wreck for the Democrats.  At first he was a curiosity.  People asked "Who is this guy that's going to get crushed by DeMint?" 

And then we found out about his felony charges, and it's been all downhill from there:

Court records show Greene was arrested in November and charged with showing obscene Internet photos to a University of South Carolina student, then talking about going to her room at a university dorm.

Charged with disseminating, procuring or promoting obscenity, Greene could face up to five years in prison. He has yet to enter a plea or be indicted.

Democrat response has ranged from wanting him to drop out - you'll fully grasp why that's reasonable when you see the video below - to saying he's a GOP plant, which is delightfully insane (Who would plant a guy that no one's heard of, and didn't do anything during the election?).  It's not that they want to win this election, they can't, but this guy hurts just about anything at all related to the Democrats.

Skip to 2:15 to get to the interview



The drama is still playing out today with allegations of voter irregularities and Democrat Vic Rawl saying he's going to join the ticket anyways.  Why these two men want to fight over who gets the right to lose with a D next to their name is beyond me, but it's entertaining so I hope they keep at it.


The Obama Administration Photo-OP


What event could cause a city to panic and buildings to be evacuated?  A terrorist attack?  A major fire?  Maybe a massive natural disaster?  Try a photo-op the Obama administration ordered:

Monday's authorized military jet photo shoot over Lower Manhattan frightened many New Yorkers and enraged Mayor Bloomberg, who was never told the event would be occurring.

The Department of Defense had pre-approved the flight of a presidential Boeing 747 and two F16 military fighter jets, seen above in a photo taken by NY1 Viewer Tatyana Hube, to fly around Staten Island and the Statue of Liberty.

According to an administration official, the flight was being conducted to update its file photo of the plane near the Statue of Liberty.

The article briefly touches upon the chaos this sparked, and one person asks the obvious question:

The incident sparked fear in many workers in Lower Manhattan and forced the evacuation of buildings in Jersey City.

"Whoever thought this through and didn't come to the obvious conclusion that there should have been a notification of the residents of Lower Manhattan, many of whom are 9/11 survivors, how does that work?" said Gregory Segal, a Battery Park resident.

Some workers say the image invoked memories of September 11, 2001, when two hijacked commercial airliners flew into the World Trade Center towers.

No, really, how does that work?  What happened the last time people suddenly saw Boeing 747's flying low over New York City?  Was there not one person within the administration who said "Hey, guys, maybe we shouldn't do this." or at least said "Maybe we should let people know we'll be flying this plane over them."  This wasn't a one man operation, quite a few people had to of been involved and signed off on this, and that's what makes it so crazy.

To give you an idea of the panic this caused:



Oh and the picture?

The only thing that could make this better?  Finding out it cost the taxpayers $357,000.


Her Royal Highness Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Fransisco

There's a reason people don't like Nancy Pelosi, and it has something to do with her being a word I won't use here.  However if a conservative ever wants to pant liberals as elitists, they need only look to Nancy Pelosi as an example.  Pelosi has a problem with spending, which we all know, but it goes beyond just supporting overpriced, bloated bills.

Take the debate over her jet.  After 9-11 the Speaker of the House was legally obligated to fly on a military aircraft for security purposes, which makes sense.

So when does it become a problem?

Did you know she was entitled to a military plane? Neither did I. But under legislation passed after 9/11, it’s legally mandated for security reasons. Dennis Hastert had such special transport for five years.

Nancy Pelosi asked for a bigger (and far more expensive) plane because the one she was using couldn’t make it to the West Coast without a refueling stop. Hastert didn’t have that problem getting to Illinois.

It's pretty safe to say that there was no pressing security need to ensure she get a plane that can fly non-stop across the country.  Refueling at military bases isn't exactly a risky proposition, but it does take time, and our Speaker demands that no expenses be spared in getting her from point A to point B in the least amount of time possible.

Pelosi reacted with her usual level of grace, which is shrieking and screaming like a banshee.  She may have a point though, it is kinda sexist to criticize purchasing an expensive plane just so the Speaker can from point A to point B without stopping.  Downright Un-American.

You could almost ignore the jet incident.  She did have a legal obligation to fly on them, and even though the excuse is incredibly weak, it's still an excuse.  But then Pelosi, in all her brilliance, does this:

Last fall, Speaker Nancy Pelosi moved her district office into the new federal building in San Francisco. The move quadrupled the rent she pays, and her new $18,736 monthly bill is almost double the next-highest rental paid by a Member of the House.

A database assembled by the Sunlight Foundation in cooperation with Roll Call provides new insight into Congressional spending on district office rents. Not surprisingly, Members from large urban districts with the highest property values are paying the most for district office rental, particularly New York–area Members.

But even in these high-rent districts, Pelosi’s new digs blow away the competition.

The next highest monthly office rent belongs to Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D), who occupies an office in a federal building in Manhattan’s trendy SoHo neighborhood for just under $10,600. Rep. José Serrano (D) paid $10,350 a month last year for an office in the Bronx, but he recently moved into a new building where the first month’s rent was only $9,583, his spokesman said Friday.

The fact that she's charging the US taxpayers over $200,000 a year on a district office is pretty ridiculous, but then you find out why she moved:

Pelosi’s spokesman said the high price of the Speaker’s new office is partly due to her need for additional space — she had been in her prior office for more than 20 years — and new security needs that go along with being the Speaker of the House.

“San Francisco is one of the most densely populated cities in the country and, of course, office space rents are some of the highest, on average, in the country,” said Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s press secretary.

“After being based in the Burton Federal Building for over 20 years, we were no longer able to meet the needs of San Franciscans in the existing space. The new office space is 3,075 square feet, nearly a third larger than the old space, which was of inadequate size. Additionally, the new building is more centrally located, right off of Market Street, which allows for easier access for constituents via public transportation,” Hammill said. Pelosi’s old office was about a half mile away, near San Francisco’s city hall.

Who buys this crap?  Around $150,000 extra in costs because you wanted 33% more room and "new security"?  That math is pretty sketchy even by Democrat standards, but the security part is what boggles my mind.  She spent two years in the old building as Speaker, and suddenly she needs new security? What pressing threat justifies charging the US taxpayer so much more money?

This is all ignoring the moronic statements Pelosi regularly makes.  When you spout out gems like "We have to pass to bill to find out what's in it." people tend to think you're lording over us poor, common, peasants.  Which is either dangerously true or dangerously delusional.  Probably a mixture of both.


Tell me who you are!!!

Democrat politicians have done a lot of things in the last eighteen months, but one of the things they've held back on is assaulting people, which is pretty wise when you want people to vote for you.  Or you don't want to go to jail, take your pick.

But Representative Etheridge was having a bad day, so what does he do when two students ask him a question on the street?  Loses his mind:



Check out the unedited footage here.

The only thing more confusing than his action is how quick Democrats have been to defend him.  I don't get it, why?  Even if the students were trying to ambush him, and are in fact not students, how is his response at all acceptable?  He could of just kept walking, or given them an answer that didn't mean anything.  Heck he could of even told them he doesn't appreciate being interviewed on the sidewalk.  Really, he could of done just about anything other than what he did.

Hey, maybe they were students who were inspired by this message of civic involvement!



A crazed hypocrite makes for "Wtf" moments apparently.


Expect more posts like this in the future.  The last year and a half has been filled with Democrats going mad, but virtually none of it gets the attention it deserves since the media is too busy going nuts over conservatives.  Hearing what these people say or seeing what they do truly helps you grasp just how our country got to where it is today.

It's also the best argument for Congressional term limits.

A reminder on Christian intolerance

One of the things I've noticed about far-leftists in general is their hatred of Christianity.  The hatred goes beyond just disagreeing with the religion or its effect on our culture and values.  George Orwell has a quote which sums it up pretty well:

"He was an embittered atheist, the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him."

The hatred is very personal.  I had one friend who, when pushed, admitted that she hated Palin because of her ties to the Christian right, and as she ranted I couldn't help but notice the sheer amount of venom.

Hatred like that can't be beaten with logic, at least not in a short amount of time, and not with most people.  Once someone has those views they have to abandon them on their own, and there's no guarantee that will ever happen.  However such people do influence those around them, people who don't hold such strong beliefs, into believing that Christianity is an intolerant religion and that the Christian right are nothing but fundamentalists, eager to drag us back to the 14th century.


With that in mind it's good to remember stories like this:

On Tuesday’s Lopez Tonight on TBS, magicians Penn and Teller appeared as guests, and, while discussing their controversial program on Showtime, and the show’s history of criticizing religion, Penn Jillette conceded a compliment to American Christians that they are "the most tolerant people worldwide." He also admitted that it was a "shock" to discover the relative tolerance of American Christians after the airing of the show from last August attacking the Catholic Church, as he compared reaction from Christians to that from other groups the show has attacked, such as 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Jillette:

Well, you know, we've done heavy stuff. I mean, we've done the Vatican. We've done Mother Teresa. We've done the Dalai Lama. We've done really, really heavy subjects. And I've got to say it was actually a shock doing the show, the religious communities in the United States of America are the most tolerant people worldwide. I mean, we did really aggressive stuff we believe strongly, and mostly got letters from Christians and Catholics saying we really like how passionately and clearly you put out your ideas. Very few nut cases.

This shouldn't be particularly surprising to anyone who's free from the bias and hatred that the public school system lays the foundation for, and the media expands upon.  Christianity is constantly attacked, demeaned, and insulted, and yet for the most part Christian's do not respond harshly.  Truly awful incidents may spark outrage, but this outrage is virtually never violent, and before too long Christian's move on.

All of this is another lesson in liberal hypocrisy.  Take the liberal silence over sexism in Islam, and their recent reaction to the Sex and the City 2 movie, and compare that to the liberal equation of Christian's being sexist for being against abortion.  Or the silence of the ACLU in a student being suspended over wearing rosary beads to school, and compare that to the ACLU's reaction to the high school that canceled their prom over the lesbian teen (Not even necessarily a religious argument, but you can bet that the left won't see it that way). Perhaps the best example and warning is the increase in persecution of Christians in the highly secularized Great Britain, something they regularly accuse Christians of doing to Pagans, Muslims, and really anyone different.

The bottom line is that Christianity isn't an oppressor, and is a victim of the same old attacks that liberals have used for decades now.  Conservative atheists tend to make a very strong case for Christianity, and tend to be a great example of Christian tolerance.  Though they deny the existence of God, they recognize that Christianity plays a very powerful, very positive role within our culture.  Like it or not our government and culture is based in the concepts of freedom that Biblical Christianity introduced.  Sure there are going to be people who hate in the name of religion, but you can find them anywhere, and they are certainly not found in greater numbers among Christians.

One last snippet from the article to think about as you go:

But it could also be argued that Jillette’s account makes American Christians sound almost too accepting of the show’s criticism of Christianity and downplays the fact that there was legitimate criticism of the show leveled from high-profile Catholics such as Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.

Maybe Obama should lecture Mexico

Less than a week ago President Calderon went before Congress and lectured us all on the evil's of the new Arizona law:

Calderon, the first foreign national leader to address Congress this year, said he strongly disagrees with the Arizona law that requires police to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they are in the country illegally.

"It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree but also introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement," he said to cheers, mainly from the Democratic side of the chamber.

Speaking in English, he warned of the risk when "core values we all care about are breached."

Calderon makes a pretty speech, standing up as a heroic figure for his people and warning the mighty American oppressors about the dangers of racism, and telling us we should change our ways.  His speech, however, is nothing more than pretty words.  Democrats choose to pick ideology over their fellow Americans, although we've seen that before, and to add insult to injury they ignore the obvious:  That Mexico has effectively exported 10% of its population into America as a means to sustain their economy and avoid social unrest over their corrupt, broken government.

If Calderon gets to come over here and lecture us about the horrors of racism, perhaps Obama should do the same.  Obama is the first black President, and as such you would think he would take some interest in addressing racism against blacks whenever possible.  By that I mean legitimate concerns, not the political demagoguery they use against the Tea Party.  Calderon's lecture presents the perfect opportunity for Obama to travel to Mexico and address an issue not really touched upon by the American media:  Mexican racism.

It's difficult to know where to start exactly, but President Calderon's predecessor, President Fox, wouldn't be a bad place.  In 2005 when the illegal immigration debate was raging President Fox had this add to the debate:

"There is no doubt that Mexican men and women, full of dignity, determination and a capacity to work, are doing the jobs in the United States that not even black people want to do there."

When President Fox said this there was a widespread outrage among both the American and Mexico press, even though his words aren't particularly outrageous by Mexican standards.  However that says more about Mexico than anything else, and doesn't excuse the racist language used.  Back when this was said Jesse Jackson issued a meek statement on the whole affair:

[Fox] opened a door for us to talk about the system of denial… In late years, we have been locked out of conversations [negotiations with the President Fox and the US on issues of immigration, trade, education and health care]," said Mr. Jackson. "It's been only President Bush and President Fox."

Compare this to his response to the Arizona law:

Jesse Jackon appeared on MSNBC today and told Contessa Brewer that the new law, allowing police to require proof of citizenship from anyone they “suspect” of being an illegal immigrant, is the equivalent of ‘terrorism for the innocent…you look suspicious because you are Mexican.” Jackson also seemed to suggest that even Gov. Bill Richardson was at risk of being pulled over under this law because of his appearance. And further pointed out that it’s not the illegal immigrants who are to blame for our economy it’s Wall Street

Again ideology (amnesty for illegal immigrants and all that it brings) trumps principles (standing against racism, and standing up for blacks).  Is there a single leader of the black, liberal community who actually cares about blacks?

Obama, Jesse Jackson, and others are ignoring more than just the principle of defending blacks from racism in other countries, they're failing to protect blacks in their own.  In perhaps one of the most shocking examples of racism we find Mexican gangs participating in ethnic cleansing campaigns in our own country:

Anthony Prudhomme was slain by members of the Avenues, a Latino street gang. But he was not a rival gang member, or a police informant, or a drug dealer. The Avenues did not target him for the content of his character, or even the contents of his apartment.

They targeted him for the color of his skin.

Prudhomme was murdered because he identified himself as black (he was in fact mixed-race) in a neighborhood occupied by one of the many Latino street gangs in Los Angeles County. Incredibly, even though these gangs are fundamentally criminal enterprises interested mainly in money, gang experts inside and outside the government say that they are now engaged in a campaign of "ethnic cleansing" -- racial terror that is directed solely at African Americans.

The leaders of the black community most certainly have a responsibility to protect the interests of blacks living within America, even when that clashes with their own far-left ideology.  If this had been a white gang there would've been an uproar.  Jesse Jackson would of gone there personally to comfort the families, blacks would of demanded the white gang members been handled harshly, and the entire nation would watch the gang killings happening in LA very closely for years to come.  But because it clashes with the liberal argument that illegal immigrants do not increase crime, it cannot be mentioned.  Perhaps liberals consider the blacks who are slaughtered by these gangs to be silent martyrs, dying for the greater good of mankind.  I somehow think their motivations are a little more selfish than that.

There is more, less extreme evidence as well.

Take this incredibly racist show that was broadcast on the Spanish Language channel.  I got about five minutes in before I shook my head and walked away, and those who know me know that I'm fairly strict about what I consider racism.  It seems that every slur and stereotype they can think of is not just used, but repeated over and over again.

If that show didn't do it for you than maybe you'd enjoy the stamps Mexico made to commemorate one of their favorite comic characters, Memin Pinguin:

Without any context the images themselves are pretty offensive.  When I look at these pictures I see a shocking resemblance to Curious George, which may just be me, but it doesn't change the point that this character looks more like a monkey than than a human being.  A BlackNews article gives you a bit more insight into the character:

Then there's Pinguin. An entire generation of Mexican school children (and many adults) has grown up delighting in the zany frolics of the popular comic hero. Pinguin has grossly distorted monkey like features, a baldhead and big ears. His mother is a grotesquely fat, bandanna-wearing mammy. The black mammy domestic was the stock racist image of black women in countless 1930s and 1940s American movies. But Pinguin's mother isn't a domestic. She routinely wears her bandanna around their house, and it's a ramshackle house in a poor barrio.

The Pinguin series ran in Mexican newspapers and magazines during the 1960s and 1970s. It was created by Sixto Valencia Burgos, one of Mexico's top creative artists. In 1998, Burgos became president of the Mexican National Association of Comic Artists. The Pinguin series is so popular that decades after Burgos discontinued the series, fan clubs still sprout up on both sides of the border. The comic books are still wildly popular collector's items in Mexico, and other parts of Latin America, and continue to be much discussed and much read.

I recommend reading the entire article, and I would like to point out that this character seems to be the perfect visualization for their "term of endearment" for blacks, which is negritos, and means "little black people."

Perhaps the most damning counter-argument to Calderon's lecture is their own policies toward blacks in regards to illegal immigration.  From wikipedia:

Because their existence is not widely known throughout Mexico and the rest of the world, they are often assumed to be illegal immigrants from Belize or elsewhere in Latin America (Sailer, 2002). There have been many accounts of Afro-Mexicans being pulled over by the police and being forced to sing the Mexican national anthem to prove they are Mexican (Graves, 2004). This discrimination causes many Afro-Mexicans, if they are able, to conceal their African lineage.

The source is in all spanish, so if anyone can read it and dispute this piece, I'll remove it.  I know Wikipedia isn't the most trustworthy, but it's not particularly bad either.  If the source is true, and it's not hard to believe that it is, then this is the most damning thing that could possibly be brought up against Mexico.

The simple fact of the matter is that Mexico, and indeed most of Latin America has the remnants of the old Spanish racial caste system still in place.  Whites are at the top of that caste system, and blacks at the bottom.  For Mexico to lecture us on illegal immigration is ridiculous, but for them to lecture us on racism is an insult.  And for Obama, the "pinnacle of black trimumph", so simply take it is unforgivable.

The Oil Spill: Another reason to ignore the media

When Hurricane Katrina struck the US Gulf Coast in 2005 it left 1,836 people dead and did 81.2 billion dollars in damage.  We saw the images of a flooded New Orleans with people stranded on roofs, read the stories about the chaos of evacuation, and were told horror story after horror story.  And then we were given one message from the media:  It's all Bush's fault.  There were no shortage of reasons why either.  Some were just angry at the lack of response, and others attributed it to race or the lack of conservative support for global warming.

The left, in typical leftist fashion, decided to politicize something that had no business being politicized to begin with, and then proceeded to scream about it to anyone who would listen.  It was a dishonest, manipulative, and remarkably successful strategy that Democrats used throughout the Bush administration.  Continually raving like a lunatic may not work in the short term, but if enough people do it long enough eventually a negative atmosphere spreads until you begin to associate someone with negative things.  In Bush's case this was failure, incompetence, stupidity, and a lack of compassion.

Once you recognize that it's easy to understand the media's portrayal of Obama during the oil spill.  In an article titled "A month after oil spill began, Obama begins taking charge" we're shown an Obama that is at worst trying and, at best a hero trying to fix the problem and punish those responsible:

Facing a growing furor over the monthlong Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the White House Friday named two environmentalists to lead a presidential commission investigating the disaster.

The appointments of former Florida Democratic Sen. Bob Graham and William K. Reilly , who led the Environmental Protection Agency under President George H.W. Bush , came as the Obama administration tried to defend its handling of the spill against critics who charge that the oil giant BP has been dragging its feet in measuring how much oil the company's ruptured well is spewing.

A month after the spill began, the Obama administration also appeared to be distancing itself from BP, forming a task force this week to measure the spilled crude that includes an engineering professor who's told Congress that he thinks the spill is far larger than originally thought, but not a representative from BP

The article focuses heavily on what Obama is doing, while at the same time placing blame squarely on the shoulders of BP.  To be fair that's exactly where the blame needs to go.  BP messed up, and their response to the disaster has been poor to say the least, but there are legitimate points to criticize Obama on.  We can't forget that this spill happened in the federal jurisdiction, and Obama's behavior has been similar to that for which Bush was criticized for, such as not spending enough time in the areas affected.  Don't expect the AP, CNN, or MSNBC to talk about that anytime soon though.

Why I support the Live Oak High 5

In case you haven't heard:

On any other day at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Daniel Galli and his four friends would not even be noticed for wearing T-shirts with the American flag. But Cinco de Mayo is not any typical day especially on a campus with a large Mexican American student population.

Galli says he and his friends were sitting at a table during brunch break when the vice principal asked two of the boys to remove American flag bandannas that they wearing on their heads and for the others to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. When they refused, the boys were ordered to go to the principal's office.

"They said we could wear it on any other day," Daniel Galli said, "but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today."

It seems like a rather simple issue to me.  As far as the article goes, the students weren't causing any problems or trying to provoke anyone.  No fights broke out, and the article doesn't mention anything about anyone challenging them or exchanging words with them.  Still the teachers and principal decided to punish five students because there was the possibility there could be violence.  Not even because the threat of violence primarily stemmed from the five students in patriotic clothing, but just the threat of violence in general, which seems a whole lot like punishing someone for the potential actions of another.

Simple right?  The teachers are wrong, they should apologize, and everyone should move on with their lives.

Yet there is an opposite side to this.  People argue that the students were looking to start trouble simply by choosing to wear the clothes that day.  Of course there is some truth to that since the odds of them accidentally wearing those shirts on Cinco de Mayo are slim, but it doesn't really matter.  That entire point is irrelevant.

It doesn't matter why they choose to wear the shirts.  The students were fully within their rights to wear the clothing to begin with, and didn't break any rules while attending school.  Had the students acted in some manner which alarmed the staff then perhaps there would of been validation to threaten suspension or send them home.  Even if the students had been attacked you could of asked them to take off the shirts, but certainly not forced them to.  But nothing happened.

I would contrast that with this story:

Yesterday, a listener’s son was offended that his school, Klein Collins High School, displayed the Mexican flag prominently.  His mother called to complain, and the school wouldn’t return her call.  The student took the sign down.

The school pitched a fit, reviewed the surveillance tapes, found the student, and suspended him for 3 days.  AND he has to pay for the flag.  In light of the SF story of students sent home for wearing the AMERICAN flag because it offended the Hispanic students, I thought you’d like to know about a story closer to home.

In this case the student didn't have any right to act the way he did.  The school didn't do anything wrong by hanging that flag there, and so were completely within their right to put it up. Just because the student doesn't like it and finds it offensive doesn't mean he has the right to take it down.  Likewise just because some students or teachers find some clothing offensive doesn't mean they have the right to coerce the students if they haven't done anything wrong.  It's a very simple, very logical thing however it didn't stop hispanic students at Life Oak high from protesting and demanding "respect".

Respect?  Where is the respect in getting offended over people expressing patriotism over the nation they live in?  And just where is the respect in imposing your political correctness on others?

Nevermind, I forgot about the double standard.

Final thought:  Where's the ACLU's statement?

Liberal outrage

While searching for an article on terrorists yesterday I came across this old article about the FBI adding an American to the Most Wanted Terrorist list:

A fugitive animal rights activist believed to be hiding outside the United States has become the first domestic terror suspect named to the FBI's list of "Most Wanted" terrorists.

Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 31-year-old computer specialist from Berkeley, Calif., is wanted for the 2003 bombings of two corporate offices in California.

The article itself isn't anything special, but I scrolled down to see what the lefties reactions would be to an eco-terrorist being thrown on the list.

This was the first comment I saw:

i agree with so many others here (and i am surprised!) that i hope such a suspect continues to evade authorities however he might.
similarly i reject the term "terror" or even "violence" in reference to the destruction of objects..(as it has been noted, these groups make extraordinary effort not to harm ANY living thing.)

So using violence and destruction to get someone to stop doing something you don't want them to do is ok so long as you don't hurt anyone?  That doesn't sound right.  Let's go to the dictionary to see how they define terrorism:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

The word the above poster was looking for is murderer.  Terrorism is a separate thing which can include murder, but one can use violence to coerce for political purposes without being a murderer.

This post wasn't an isolated thing either.  Similar posts lacking any sense or reason can be found throughout the comment section:

When I saw the headline I felt sure he was a bankster and we were on our way to rounding them all up. What a let down.

Time for Mr. Obama to call off the hounds on this one...do we even know what corporate buildings this guy "allegedly" bombed? Just the word "corporate" would indicate a high probability that the attack was justified... Corporate America is bringing this world to its knees...

I wish San Diego and his fellow "animal rights and environmental extremists" luck in evading arrest. So long as they take care to avoid killing or seriously injuring anyone, I am sympathetic. 

After the "War on Terror", maybe it would be appropriate to start the "War of Terror" against those Americans timothy mcveigh look alike and other well founded militias, super armed to the teeth, and stuffed, intellectually, with infinite hate for the federal government, the blacks, Jews, homosexual, liberals, Hollywood, the rest of the Universe, including the underverse.

I always wandered...Why our response to 911, against the terrorist + those who were with or against us, wasn't equal to the blown federal building, by the internal terrorist Mcveigh and his look alike.
Was it the number of death differences?

One conservative did lay down a very reasonable argument including numbers:

Other than McVeigh how many right wing terrorists can you name? How many right wing terrorist acts have been carried out in the US? Here's some LEFT WING attacks will someone list the RIGHT WING ones?

Ted Kaczynski sent 16 bombs to targets including universities and airlines, killing three people and injuring 23: LEFT WING

Free Puerto Rico's FALN and Macheteros activities resulted in 72 actual bombings, 40 incendiary attacks, 8 attempted bombings and 10 bomb threats, resulting in 5 deaths, 83 injuries, and over $3 million in property damage: LEFT WING

According to the FBI this PETA/ELF nut Andreas and his fellow LEFT wing companions are responsible for "more than 1,800 crimes and caused more than $110 million in damages. He said the FBI is currently investigating about 170 incidents of animal rights or environmental extremism.

" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/fbis-most-wanted-lists-1st-domestic-terror-suspect/
It also looks like he planted his bombs to go off sequentially to get the first responders. Anyone here got a friend or loved one that's a EMT or fire fighter? If so it looks like the left wing has taken a page from Hamas and is planing to kill them when they arrive to help.

But as I pointed out above these people aren't particularly fond of reason:

The Bush Administration
Corporate America
The Banking industry.
Just to get the ball rolling.

Sorry for not having the facts and figures,
But you and I both know that these three terrorist Groups
have done more harm to the US than Al etc.al?,Saddam,etc.al.

Still the same old mentallity
Hunt and kill Jesse James for stealing $150,000 over a lifetime
and yet refuse to investigate these multi-billion dollar robbers and politicians
thank you

At least he's polite and admits that he doesn't have anything to back up his argument other than his own self-righteousness.

The comments continue in this fashion, dismissing this man as either a hero or non-threat while at the same time warning about Christians, the right, bankers, corporations, and Bush. To be a fair a few individuals do point out that this man broke the law, and is in fact a terrorist, but these reasonable few are drowned out by the hundreds of others ranting about what a great injustice this is.

Now to be clear: I'm not using these comments as an example of Huffington Post. What I'm using them as is an example of the left, which I think is more than fair unless someone wants to make the argument that HuffPo posters aren't at all representative of the left.  But I don't think anyone would make that argument, in fact I find it significantly more likely that leftists will agree the posters. 

Now lets contrast all of this to how conservatives acted when George Tiller was murdered:

I am conflicted.
I am relieved Tiller will not be able to kill any more of our children. I am sad this is because he was murdered.

Murder is murder and here’s to hoping the shooter is caught and either locked up forever or given his own dirt nap.


“The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God” James 1:20
I’ve been praying for his family and loved ones all day. I’ve also asked that God would not allow murder to be the means of justice in the minds of those who claim to be called by His name.

The worst comment I found from a casual glance through was:

Prayers for the dead are an invention of the Catholic church, and have no basis in Scripture. Tiller wasted his life as a murderer, and now his own murderer will also have to answer for his abominable act.

If you feel a need to pray for someone, pray for the living fiends who welcomed a baby-murderer into their worship assembly simply for his blood-drenched tithes.

Hot Air does moderate its comments section, so anything extremely vile would be removed, but even so the vast majority of posts are tame and compassionate.

Liberals are extremely good at appearing to be reasonable or fair on the surface, but underneath it they are far detached from the majority of Americans.  The posts above are a good example of that, but it's also a warning for conservatives.  As we get more and more riled up we have to be careful to ensure we don't become what they are.  So far we're doing a pretty good job.

If you ever find yourself edging closer to that line, just think of this gem I found in the comment section:

This country should worry more about the right wing extremism, they are the most scary.

We're not the ones starting riots and planting bombs, bud.

Margaret Sanger: American Villain

Margaret Sanger is an interesting character.  In life she called for the sterilization of the poor, the weak, and the "unfit" with a focus on minorities.  Yet today she is a hero for leftists, which makes just about as much sense as Jews idolizing Nazis because they knew how to keep order.  Still, that didn't stop Hillary Clinton from praising her:

"The 20th century reproductive rights movement, really embodied in the life and leadership of Margaret Sanger, was one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race," Clinton had said. She also said that Sanger's work "is not done."

Hey guys it's ok to love a woman who wanted to abuse and violate the people we claim to fight for because she gave us planned parenthood and birth control!

Maybe Hillary Clinton was referring to this when she says Sanger's work isn't done:

"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."

Or...

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Or maybe this...

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

When you take a look at the things Sanger has said or done there's virtually nothing redeemable about her.  It's understandable why neo-feminists would find her to be a hero:  She created Planned Parenthood, she believes that the key to "female freedom" lies in sexual freedom, and she views children as some sort of curse.  I'm not a fan of any of those beliefs to begin with, but when you include eugenics and racist tendencies it crosses the line and becomes outright evil.

For those of you who don't know what eugenics is:  It's the belief that the Human race can be purified by deliberately removing the weak or impure elements.  Nazi Germany, for example, was a strong believer in eugenics and justified it's slaughter of homosexuals, Jews, gypsies, Slavs, and others under the pretense of creating a master race.

Sanger was a believer of less extreme version of eugenics and described her views in her 1920 book Woman and the New Race as "nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or those who will become defectives.".  By sterlizing or otherwise preventing these "defectives" from breeding you could solve the problems of poverty, disease, racial tension, and overpopulation.  In other words:  By doing away with those you deem weak you could create the perfect society.

"Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism." - Sanger advocating the use of forced sterilization

Eugenics is a fundamentally anti-American belief.  It essentially creates two classes, with one class being totally and utterly inferior to the other.  Rather than all people being equal because they are all subject to the law, one group of people is ruled by a completely different set of rules.  They are told they are inferior, virtually sub-human, and thus must be controlled for the good of the race.  In its tamest form eugenics encourages these people to not procreate or sterilize themselves voluntarily.  In it more extreme forms it ranges from Sanger's belief that people can be forcefully sterilized, to the Nazi's campaign of extermination.

Sanger's work would lead to the creation of Planned Parenthood, an organization that we all know of today.  This organization was her ideological child, and other founders were just as radical if not more so.   Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, for example, warned of the black and yellow "peril" and was an advocate of eugenics.

The Planned Parenthood of today isn't free of Sanger's influence.  One of Sanger's first clinics was set up in Harlem, an overwhelmingly black area.  They distributed contraceptives and justified their work by pointing out that blacks had a higher rate of unemployment, a higher infant mortality rate, and a higher death rate to tuberculosis.  She would eventually work with black leader W.E.B DuBois (rival to Booker T. Washington if you remember) and develop the "Negro Project" who's goal was specifically target blacks when distributing contraceptives.  Blacks became a prime target for her belief that the socially and economically lower classes were inferior, and had to be prevented from breeding in order to ensure a strong human race.  Through her clinics should could actually put her work into practice.

What started out as one clinic is now hundreds. Today 78% of all Planned Parenthood clinics are set up in minority neighborhoods.  Blacks make up 12% of the population and 35% of all abortions.  They are the only minority on the decline. 
I doubt it's a coincide that woman who said "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." would found an organization that, today, kills a disproportionate amount of black babies.

Margaret Sanger is yet ANOTHER example of what is either liberal hypocrisy, or their ignorance.  To support someone so abhorrent is shocking, but when you claim to protect the very people your idols sought to destroy it becomes dangerous.  I'm not suggesting that Hillary Clinton wants to kill all black or poor people, but I most certainly believe that her, and the neo-feminists like her are friendly to Sanger's radical beliefs.  Eugenics must never, ever, be treated as a serious science again and by glorifying someone like her you leave the door open to her ideas becoming viable once more.

"[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children..."

The groundwork is already there, you just have to know what to look for.

The Tea Party: A Tale of Leftist Tolerance

If you were to look at the Tea Party by the numbers you wouldn't see anything particularly shocking for a mainstream conservative group.  That is unless you were a liberal.  In that case Gallup's findings on the Tea Party would be downright shocking to you:

Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large. That’s the finding of a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28, in which 28% of U.S. adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement.

Tea Party supporters are decidedly Republican and conservative in their leanings. Also, compared with average Americans, supporters are slightly more likely to be male and less likely to be lower-income.

In several other respects, however — their age, educational background, employment status, and race — Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large.

For the last year the left has hurled insults and accusations at the Tea Party that range from childish to very serious in nature.  Everything from Janeane Garofalo's calling Tea Partiers racists to Anderson Cooper's sexual innuendo field day after playing his first game of Halo 3 online.




Childish jokes are one thing, but any accusation of racism is serious.  In America today there a few worse things you can be labeled.  At least it was that way before the Democrats abused the word and left it nothing more than a shallow insult by using it against a group clearly not racist at all.  Former President Jimmy Carter thought that "an overwhelming portion" of animosity against Obama was racist.  California Representative Maxine Waters came to the conclusion that the media should probe Tea Partiers for racist thoughts.  Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island declared the Tea Party is filled with racists and birthers that only hate Obama because he's black.  The list could go on to include Chris Matthews, Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi, and many others but the point is that racism became the primary weapon of the Democrat party against conservatives and the Tea Party.

I've pointed out in past posts that Democrats love using the race card since it's such a potent weapon, but I can't think of a time where its been used so often and so carelessly.  When I got over my initial outrage I came to the conclusion that this blatant attempt at demagogue would not harm the Tea Party, but rather cause harm to the Democrats.  I also personally think it harms race relations in America.  Whenever you make it a "us vs them" and make it about race you inevitably do damage and set things back.  Suddenly its "those racists whites tearing down our black president".  Not that Democrats particularly care about race relations and bridging the gap.  That gap is a means to an end for them.

When it comes to tolerance liberals are often portrayed as the ultimate force of tolerance, in contrast to the hateful conservatives.  In reality that tolerance is nothing more then a means to an end, and the Tea Party is another example of how liberal tolerance only extends to those who they agree with.  The argument generally seems to be that everyone who doesn't agree with them has some sort of phobia or mental illness that explains their "irrational hatred", and thus gives liberals the right to demagogue that person or group at will.  Tolerant of everyone except those they perceive to be intolerant is a good way to phrase it.

Even more amazing then the constant and blatant hypocrisy is how well they can lie given how little evidence they have for any given argument.  They claimed (and still do) that the Tea Party is a violent group one step away from committing a wave of hate crimes, and yet the two big incidents of violence in any of the Tea Party events have come from the left.  Ironically the first attack was committed by union thugs who yelled racial slurs while beating a black man.  Did this stop the Democrats from screaming that Tea Partiers were racists?  Of course not.  And the accusations of violence continued even after a conservative had his finger bitten off by a liberal.  At least they're dedicated to their story.

This isn't even touching on a comparison of civility between Tea Partiers and the anti-war, anti-Bush protesters.  That deserves a post of it's own.

As the Tea Party has gained strength Dem. politicians have toned their rhetoric down a notch, and even the media is slowly coming around, but ultimately liberals themselves have not changed.  Spend some time watching comments in a political forum and sure enough there will be a liberal who comes in screaming that any conservative is a Tea Bagging, racist eager to shoot Obama and any other liberal they can get their hands on.  It doesn't take a a psychologist to figure out that the level of hate these people demonstrate isn't an appropriate reaction, and that it must be something deeper than the things the Tea Party has done.  It says more about them than it does about the movement.

I'll wrap this up on a happy note.

Why "The Race Traitor?"

In case you're wondering about the name of this blog I decided to give a little explanation. There's a particular hatred for Black Conservatives on the Left. The names they use to describe us say it all: Race Traitor, Uncle Tom, Oreo, Pet Monkey, among others. The message is clear "You cannot be both a Conservative and Black." You are forced to pick between your beliefs and your race.

It's an absurd thing, especially when you consider who it comes from. The people who claim to champion tolerance and free thought are the very same ones who become so outraged whenever someone dares to think differently. It is surreal to think that the rewards for freedom and equality are a loss of individuality and a demand to participate in group think. We must become what THEY want us to be.

In return for this loyalty, this loss of individuality, the black community has suffered. For example: 65% of Black children live in homes without Fathers, nearly twice the national average. Instead of promoting things such as faith, hard work, and family values we are told that we are victims, and the key to our survival and uplifting will only come when it is given to us. Basically we are told that we are so damaged that we can no longer pull ourselves up, but rather must be pulled up. What makes this downright insane is that I believe most blacks would inherently be drawn to an ideology which promotes the values listed above. An ideology which says you can be whatever you want, you just have to work for it.

Growing up as a mixed raced child I had the benefit of being able to see things from both sides. I don't pretend that there isn't still racism out there, but neither do I pretend that it's mostly Whites who are racists. Blacks may very well be the biggest racists out there. Their racism manifests itself as a sort of obsession with race that seems to dictate how they interact with everyone and how they see the world as some sort of unfair, oppressive thing. On the opposite end most whites go out of their way to make sure they're not perceived as racists, and for many of them it has become a sort phobia. Neither mentality is healthy, and neither will ever solve the issues that surround race in America.

This blog is called "TheRaceTraitor" because I refuse to buy into the victim mentality fed to me by liberals. I believe that the Black community has been taken advantage of, and is being used as pawns by the Left. Ultimately I believe that Conservative values are good for all of America, including Blacks, and that hypocrisy of the Left ultimately comes down to intellectual slavery.

George Orwell has a quote which I love:

"Patriotism is usually stronger than class hatred, and always stronger than internationalism."

In this you could include racism, and that sums up my feelings toward my fellow Conservatives. To them, I am a fellow American. Nothing less.