Posted on 01/30/2014 8:39:38 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
So-called Republican Ana Navarro told a left-of-center outlet this week that she believes some people on the right oppose amnesty because they are racist.
Navarro, the former "strategist" to liberal Republicans like John McCain and Jon Huntsman, has been elevating her profile among the mainstream press in the so-called "Acela corridor" by bashing conservatives, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).
Though there is often hardly a difference between the mainstream media and left-of-center outlets like Talking Points Memo, the Huffington Post, or BuzzFeed, Navarro now wants to be adored by them as well. There is no easier way to do that than to imply that those who are opposed to amnesty are racists, even though the primary argument against amnesty has been that it would lower the wages of American workers of all races, ethnicities, and backgrounds--particularly those in black and Hispanic communities who have suffered in President Barack Obama's economy.
Navarro said that there are "certainly" some "racist people" on the right who oppose amnesty primarily because of race. She said that she wants to "think its a minority and thats not whats going to decide the immigration debate.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
It’s probably closer to 50/50 there now.
Elian is the only reason why Bush won Florida in 2000, the Miami Cuban vote made the difference.
I agree
The Mexican-American unemployment rate is between 10 and 12 percent.
If American companies cant employ the millions of Mexican-Americans already in this country, why do they insist on displacing minority workers born in this country, including Mexican-Americans, by legalizing 12 million more? - - Greenfield...
“...It is racist if white people do it. Seriously. That is what racism is. Why deny it? Why not embrace it?...”
Learned that in college, didja?
“...It is racist if white people do it. ..”
Maybe if you’re a dumbass moron educated by Marxist professors to hate your own people it is.
Don’t know who YOUR teachers were, but I have a pretty good idea, newbie.
I think you misunderstand but in a way you prove my point. Whites are accused of being 'racist' for only doing what other racial groups are praised for. The Left defines was racism is and when accused we react like a vampire just saw a crucifix, hemming and hawing, protesting, and denying. When people react that way to the word 'racist' they are conceding the point, in effect, agreeing that wanting to have culture, heritage, and traditions is racist. We empower the word 'racist' and the accuser.
I say take that power away. I say so what if you call me racist for wanting to have an society, a culture, and traditions. There is nothing wrong with that. If wanting those things makes me a racist then so be it.
We have to face the Left on our terms. We have to take away the power of this charge of racism because its the most powerful weapon they have and, really, its the only thing they've got.
Well written.
I’m fine with whatever the left wants to call me. Words mean nothing to me, and the only power they have is the power we give them.
I have nothing but complete and absolute contempt for people who are too afraid of that word to fight back (see “GOP”).
And in any event, it’s NOT “racist”. It’s normal. People have a natural affinity for their own traditions and culture.
“Racism” is just another lefty creation, along with “chauvanism”, “sexism”, etc, etc., created to create and sow division and disruption, and it ONLY works because some people lack the courage of their convictions to stand up for what they claim to believe in.
If people were left alone to simply treat each like PEOPLE instead of racial / political demographics, we’d probably get along much better.
But that’s not how the leftards want it.
And yes, I did misunderstand you, and was ready to go to war with you.
I’ll blame you for that :^) Haha!
Your logic is somewhat askew. Racism has a negative connotation that cannot be changed, “embracing” the term would be suicidal, we need to engage the rats in the real world not in a candy land of silly semantic games that can’t be won. And it would be “conceding the issue” to do so because our beliefs are NOT racist and their’s ARE based on the dictionary definition of the word.
No doubt, but reading the Count’s abstract point I am not sure if he was saying we should take on the label ‘racist’, or some more general point about opposing multiculturalism.
Levin was ranting on this exact same issue Thursday.
embrace what specifically?
The Count clarified his point.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3117696/posts?page=66#66
No, this is about power and Votes. This is about a One party rule.
This is about assimilating the Republican party and casting away those
who refuse to tow the socialist line like Conservatives and most Christians.
The Dems have beat the Republicans because the (R) party has been filled
with Democrats who were promoted to the top, and now run the party.
How many Conservatives are in the Democrat party? ZERO, they are
not allowed or tolerated. Gasp, that would be insane.
The Repubs have been taken over from the inside. And it was so easy.
Obama is unpopular because of his disaster heath care law. POTUS favorability is the most important factor in every midterm election. Historically a President needs high approval for his party to break even or slightly gain (which happened both in 1998 and 2002). The rats have Senate seats up in state's Obama lost, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Alaska. And all those rat incumbents are in big trouble. West Virginia, South Dakota and Montana are almost certain gains.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.