This little gem from DU is the perfect illustration of their total abandonment of reality replaced by the single obsession of skin color...
Insane.
Racism against whites is coming out of the closet. The Democratic Party, except for a time of transition from FDR to JFK, has always been the party of racism. It has simply shifted around its racism. The Republican Party was formed as a post-racial party and has always been a post-racial party.
On the issue of affirmative action, we don’t mind affirmative action for people based on the objective circumstances, such as being born into a poor family, so that all people can, in fact, have equal opportunity. But, increasingly, skin color is not well enough correlated with being poor, to be useful for identifying the poor among us. There are black people who are rich, and there are white people who are poor. And it is racist and unfair to give rich black people affirmative action and deny opportunity to poor white people.
The Democrats wonder why so many poor white people vote Republican. They think, why don’t those poor white people vote their pocketbook, you know, to get more free stuff from the government. The fact is a greater percentage of poor white people remain self-respecting than do poor black people. Most poor black people have accommodated themselves to the life-style of dependency, promiscuity and violence. Whereas most poor white people continue to aspire to self-responsibility.
It’s not just the economy. We have to shore up the cultural values that undergird success. And, this is with all people, not just this group or that.
First, we have to restore a vibrant economy, so there actually are jobs out there for all who choose to work.
Second, we have to restore real incentives to working for the poor, so they actually have more because they work.
Third, we have to give all people, and the poor especially, alternatives to the failed public school system.
Fourth, we have to honor reserving sex for marriage, love of children, and how being a real man or a real woman means taking responsibility for yourself, your spouse, and your children.
Fifth, we have to be tough on crime and smart about crime. Going after violent criminals, and distinguishing non-violent offenders from the violent.
You can’t separate the economic agenda from the social agenda.
“Black”???
Recall that he who controls the meaning of words controls the outcome of the discussion.
In the context of Critical Race Theory, just what, exactly, is meant by “race” and thus “racism”, “racist” and even “black”? We have a prominent case of “race” in that BHO told us in his own autobiography that in his youth he struggled with his racial identity and finally chose to be ‘black”. However, he also tells us that his mother was Caucasian and his father was from Kenya but listed as part Arab. In 1988, none other than Bill Clinton was called our “first black president” by Nobel poet Tony Morrison.
If a Caucasian man can be “black”, and a person with a Caucasian mother can decide to be black despite the fact his biological father may be more Arab than black or something else, then what, exactly is meant by “black”?
When Bill Maher, during a panel discussion on HBO complains that Obama’s policies are “half-assed” “because he’s only half black.” and that “if he was fully black, I’m telling you, he would be a better president.”, and that “there’s a white man in him holding him back”, than what is “black”?
CNN’s Soledad O’Brien writes of a private meeting in 2007 with Jesse Jackson in her book, “The Next Big Story.” During the meeting, Jackson complained to O’Brien, whose mother is a black woman from Cuba, that there weren’t any black anchors on CNN. She wrote, “He looks me in the eye and reaches his fingers over to tap a spot of skin on my right hand. He shakes his head. “You don’t count,” he says.” She closed the section with “[t]he arbiter of blackness had weighed in. I had been measured and found wanting.”
Finally, Dr. Cornel West, whose official web site describes him as “a prominent and provocative democratic intellectual”, was the subject of an article in the May 18, 2011 Washington Post. Reporter Krissah Thompson opened with, “Scholar Cornel West’s scathing critique of President Obama’s liberal bona fides in a series of recent interviews has ignited a furious debate among African American bloggers and commentators.”
These are all facts that anyone can verify on Google in 0.8 seconds.
References to race, racism and especially to “black”, in all these contexts, is clearly not about “race”. It is about ideology, socialist ideology. The problem is not how black all these people may be, but how RED. With that in mind, to a person who equates “black” with socialist, then “racism” and “racist” is only about people who reject socialism and socialists.
This is hogwash. UTTER disregard? That is absolutely false. Republicans are Democrats lite, they support all those three things. They might disagree on how to achieve or how to define the above, but I have not heard any Republican say they want to gut any of those programs/ideas. What a crock, from a professor? Wow...
re: “. . . the modern Republican Party’s utter disregard for economic justice, civil rights and the social safety net.”
The “utter” disregard?? Yes, economic justice, civil rights, and the social safety net, as defined by Marxists and Socialists, should be disregarded. But, that’s the real issue isn’t it?
If, by economic justice, you mean that the government decides what jobs are valuable, where you work, and what salary everyone makes so that it is “fair” to everyone - then, heck, yeah, I disregard it.
If, by civil rights, you mean that all American citizens should have equal standing before the rule of law, then “yes”, I’m with you, but if you mean that in order to “fix” discrimination of the past, or perceived discrimination of the present, the government can grant preferences on jobs, scholarships, business contracts by discriminating in favor of a group based on the color of their skin or their sexual orientation - then NO, NO, NO!
If, by social safety net, you mean that the government should encourage religious groups or other private groups who have a desire to help the poor, the sick, the elderly who have, through no fault of their own, need of financial assistance - then, “yes”, I’m for that. If, by the social safety net, you mean the government should have policies which encourage business (small and big) to flourish, then “yes”, I’m for it. If you mean that the government should have tax policies which encourage people setting up for their own retirement and medical funds, the “yes” I’m for that, too. But, if by safety net you mean that the government should replace family, the church, and the individual for responsibility in taking care of themselves, then NO, NO, NO!
But, again, that’s the issue isn’t it?
This, my friends, is the African-American story in America right now.
This little gem from DU is the perfect illustration of their total abandonment of reality replaced by the single obsession of skin color...
Insane.
“There is another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs...
There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who do not want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.”
~ Booker T. Washington (1856-1915.) ~
Educator, Author, Civil Rights Leader
Really? Why don't they and you GFY!