the "race card" pattern...

Jump to Last Post 1-17 of 17 discussions (67 posts)
  1. SparklingJewel profile image66
    SparklingJewelposted 13 years ago

    every group has their fringe...

    I hope everyone will continue to evolve out of this issue and not perpetuate it further, but act to create better

    1. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think the argument that some members of the tea party movement are from ethnic minorities is not really relevant as to whether something is racist or not. Agreement from someone who happens to be from an ethnic minority group is not some sort of seal of approval.

      People from a particular ethnic minority are as diverse in opinions as any other group. Likewise, a person's experience of racism varies enormously and depends on many different variables.

      Also, racism doesn't have to be overt, and it doesn't have to be intentional. You don't have to call someone a racist name to be a racist. Racism is as much about underlying beliefs and assumptions as it is about outward behaviour and language.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image76
        Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        So even if someone says nothing that can be construed as racist nor do any of their actions tend to lead others to believe they are racist.  This does not mean they are not racist?  Huh?

        If someone calls another a racist just the fact that they are called racist makes them racist?  Huh?

        1. Don W profile image82
          Don Wposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Absolutely not, and this is a source of much misunderstanding in my opinion. Racism is not defined as a behaviour, it's defined as a belief. A racist is therefore someone who holds certain beliefs.

          Racist behaviour has become socially unacceptable. However, discouraging certain types of behaviour, doesn't eradicate the belief it stems from. A lack of overt racist behaviour does not necessarily indicate a lack of racism. It's entirely possible that someone simply suppresses racist behaviour because they don't want to loose their job, or because they don't want to be seen in a negative light by their peers etc. That doesn't mean a person isn't racist. It just means that social pressure is influencing their behaviour. An alcoholic who doesn't drink is still an alcoholic.

          I hasten to add, that's not a negative characterisation. An alcoholic who doesn't drink is behaving responsibly. Likewise someone who holds certain beliefs which constitute racism (for whatever reason) but who does not reflect those thought/beliefs in their behaviour towards others, is a racist, but is still acting responsibly. As I said racism isn't necessarily deliberate. We are all the product of our environment, upbringing and life experiences. However, we can choose how we behave.

          There is some argument as to whether there is any overt racism on the part of tea party members. But some of the posters and comments I've seen (e.g. … gn1sm1.jpg) indicate that at least some people within that group are arguing on the basis of beliefs and assumptions which constitute racism.

          1. TMMason profile image59
            TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I really don't think that kid had racism on his mind when he made that sign... the old saying "monkey see, monkey do" isn't meant racistly that I have ever seen used. But I guess it was in bad form and some adult should have said something.

            But of all the racism charges I have heard I have yet to see any proof. That one pic is far from proof of systemic racism, or even rampant racism.


            1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
              Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this





              How many more do you want?

          2. Reality Bytes profile image76
            Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            At least if racism is suppressed by the pressures of society then children will not see or hear the behaviour.  The next generation will not have as many suppressed feelings.  A few generations from now and maybe the word "Racism" will simply be a word in history class.

  2. Flightkeeper profile image67
    Flightkeeperposted 13 years ago

    This is a typical stunt by the libtards, to accuse Republicans and conservatives with racism in the effort to silence them.  It doesn't matter to them that the tea partyers have members from all ethnicities, they just want to hurl the accusations because they are hateful of anyone that prevents them from their socialist goals.

  3. Evan G Rogers profile image60
    Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

    Any Ron Paul fans out there? Remember when Ben Stein claimed that Ron Paul was a racist because he thought that, perhaps, the US might not be best served by sending billions to Israel AND to Palestine?

    That was hilarious! God I hate Ben Stein!

    1. ru blog profile image61
      ru blogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It is funny that race pops up because a group feels the need to assert itself.  The NAACP should be ashamed of themselves.  After all, trying to shut a group down because of political activism is something they once fought against.  Just goes to show how far the organization has fallen.  Too bad really, once a stalwart to civil rights, has now become an embarrassment.  Moreover, counterproductive to the healing of America.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
        Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        The NAACP isn't trying to shut down the Tea Party. They merely asked that the Party leaders disavow the racially offensive statements made by a minority of its members. That's what the NAACP does--combat racism.

        1. TMMason profile image59
          TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          They should check themselves before they go about accussing others.

        2. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          That's so unreasonable  - asking them to disavow.  They can't afford to do that, because half the group would walk off in a huff. 

          Too much to ask, I think.

          1. TMMason profile image59
            TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Actually if you show up at a tea party event with racist material or screaming racist shit you get tossed by the tea party people themselves.

            Unlike spewing racist hate at any of the various leant leftist events, where you would be cheered on in your racism, and most of the others around you would join in.

            1. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              A voice from an alternate universe.

              1. TMMason profile image59
                TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Post the proof of racism at the tea parties?

                I have yet to see but one questionable pic... show me the proof of all racism Pc...

                Where is it. Lemme see the signs saying lynch Obama... show me anything... I challenge any leftist... anything from a tea party movement that supports the charges being bandied about.

                1. Pcunix profile image91
                  Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Of course.  The stuff Ralph posted wasn't meant to be racist.

                  You have to say "lynch" before it's racist.  Excuse me, I sometimes forget how things work over there in Tea Party Land.

                  I stand corrected.  Y'all are a wonderful bunch and I have the utmost respect for all of you.  Especially you.

                  1. TMMason profile image59
                    TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    If Ralph is your example then he let you down... he is far from a tea party member. He is far from right wing or independent... i am pretty sure Ralph is fairly far left, Pc.

                    So again... how about some proof... and yes something with the word "lynch" in it, as that word holds a certain explosive place in the American Lexicon.

  4. Shadesbreath profile image81
    Shadesbreathposted 13 years ago

    Frankly, the group once charged with defending against racism has become something that is often nothing but.  It's a huge problem in this culture. At the risk of being called a heinous self promoter, I wrote a hub on this not too long ago. … ding-Truth

  5. TMMason profile image59
    TMMasonposted 13 years ago

    I think it is pathatic that the NAACP and the leant leftists spew thier lies about racism in the Tea Party.

    It is just an attempt on the part of the NAACP to get the tea party to say, "oh we'll police the racists from our ranks.", so they can use those words to verify the tea party is a racist group.

    That is the leftists pattern used over and over in charactor assasination. So I suggest the Tea Party ignore them and do as they have been doing. Anyone that shows up at one of thier rallies acting like a racist is taken care of already.

    I think it is pathatic they all, the left, keep talking about these signs to lynch obama and yet no one is made to produce evidence, pictures, etc.

    Like the one about calling them the N word as they went to pass the HC bill... never happened in my opinion... just un-substantiated allegations based on nothing more than the intent to malign the tea party and white people in general.

    I am tired of the lies from the leant leftists liars.

  6. Reality Bytes profile image76
    Reality Bytesposted 13 years ago

    Andrew Britbart offered $100,000 dollars to anyone that can prove that any member of Congress was abused at the Tea Party demonstration in Washington and Guess what he still has his $100,000 dollars NOT A SINGLE PERSON could prove anything was said to a member of Congress.

    Hundreds of cameras and not ONE person has tried to claim the money!  It seems like an easy way to get some dough, Congressmen do not lie Right!  Therefore there are many videos and pics of racists at the Congressmens walk of shame.  Someone please step up and claim the money.

    1. TMMason profile image59
      TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly RB.

      That is the "Modus Operandi" of the Left.

      Create a dirty lie about someone and continue to repeat it as true without evidence or any type of supporting of the facts.

      It is what the Leant Leftist Liberal Progressive Democrats do, and it has worked many times.

      And as I said... all those events and all those suppossed racist signs around.... and not one pic of any of them.

      There is something wrong there.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image66
      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You and Breitbart are in denial. Whatever the truth of this incident, everyone has seen racist cartoon pictures of President Obama. This is undeniable.

      1. Pcunix profile image91
        Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Oh, they always deny it.   If you post a YouTube link, they'll complain  that you posted it and insist it isn't representative.

        Denial is what they do.  The Big Lie is the Best Lie.

        1. Reality Bytes profile image76
          Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          THEY? Hmmm who is placing people into groups? Who are THEY?

      2. TMMason profile image59
        TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        No one has ever said there is no racism in this country, or the world for that matter... you all just leap to identify all racism with the right and the tea party.

        That is the problem here... you all refuse to admit that racism comes in all colors.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
          Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I haven't and don't "refuse to admit that racism comes in all colors." I've pointed out that the New Black Panther Party is a hate group.

          The current problem is that Tea Party leaders refuse to condemn racists who appear in their gatherings. The NAACP has justifiably called the Tea Party out on this.

  7. MikeNV profile image67
    MikeNVposted 13 years ago

    RACE is going to be a huge factor in the coming Elections.

    Why?  Because it's very easy to use RACE to manipulate the masses into siding with one party or another based on something which is not relevant to real issues.

    People will vote on EMOTION... and the powers that be know they can use RACE to steer people one way or another regardless of the issues.

    RACE is a manipulating factor... always has been, always will be.


  8. TMMason profile image59
    TMMasonposted 13 years ago

    Ralph... "Who do you think is buying these bumper stickers? Onusonus is probably one of their customers. He's probably been buying them by the gross and giving them away to his friends and relatives."

    Proof, Ralph... that's all I ask.

    Nice assumption, Ralph.. but still no proof.

    And no I do not think anyone should threaten his life. Nor should the leant leftists have threatened Bush's life.

    But that was okay, right ralph.

    Do you think it was okay when NPR put the hit out on bush?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "Do you think it was okay when NPR put the hit out on bush?"

      Where do you get this looney tunes stuff? Do you make it up or do you get it from some right wingnut website?

      1. TMMason profile image59
        TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        NPR, check the record, Ralph.

        That chic Randi Rhodes the announcer.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
          Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          How about some proof. Randy Rhodes doesn't = NPR.

          The council’s website has referred to blacks as “a retrograde species of humanity” and said non-white immigration would turn the country into a “slimy brown mass of glop.”

          [The Council of Conservative Citizens, San Francisco Chapter}

          1. TMMason profile image59
            TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yes I will trust... "think progress" for the truth.

            And they themselve state some with racist ties are, "trying to make inroads into the tea party", so they admit they are not a part of the tea party, but another group trying to be a part.

            So now it is guilt by someones wanting to associate with you.

            As far as the white nationalist I will look into that, ralph.. but I don't just believe anyone who says they are part of the Tea Party just cause they say it. That clown would not have anyone I know backing him, and alot of people I know are in the tea party.

            So... we will see

            But yes, Randi Rhoades...

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
              Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              From what I read there is no monolithic, centralized Tea Party but rather a whole bunch of loosely associated local Tea Parties. In Michigan it looks like the Tea Party will be on the ballot, but many of the various Tea Party "leaders" from around the state are protesting that the application is a dirty Democrat trick. Somebody collected 50,000 or so signatures on the petition to be put on the ballot along with several other splinter parties. Of course the Republicans don't want to see Tea Party candidates on the ballot. They have been coseying up to the Tea Party, but may be likened to the "dog who caught the bus." [I hope so!]

              1. TMMason profile image59
                TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I am glad you are open to the fact that there could be something fishy going on in much of this.

                yes the tea Party is more a loose colition... if that, than a sound group. Which could cause for a lot of problems and confusion in the elections.

                I will definitly look into the nationalist though. Even though he is a NAZI and we know that is not exactly a tea party type individual I will check it out.

              2. SparklingJewel profile image66
                SparklingJewelposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                ...there is continued mis-perception and blatant distortion of who and what the TEA Party people are...

                establishment Republicans are trying to takeover the "label" because of its appeal to the masses...just another of their means to run the show, keep their power (congress people and those that support congress, corporations, etc)  and their jobs

                with the media's help the Constitutional core, true values, ideals and definition of the TEA Party people, keeps the masses confused and in their old robotic ways, to vote Repub or Demo or be a fringe something else

                the TEA Party Patriot group and label is the only true to the core Constitutional ideal with the intent of taking those ideals back to whatever political group they are a part of...and people are finding their way to recognize that, wake up to the Constitution and recognize the establishment corruption left and right and whatever...we're talking spiritual concepts here not politics or religion

                1. TMMason profile image59
                  TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Seems to me there are alot of leant leftists starting to call themselves tea parties also. It is just thier way to cause mass confusion.

  9. lovemychris profile image75
    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    Geoffrey DunnAward-winning journalist, filmmaker and historian
    Posted: July 16, 2010 04:45 AM

    Supporters of Sarah Palin's Senate Candidate Carry Assault Rifles in Parade

    "Supporters of Joe Miller--the U.S. Senate candidate supported by Sarah Palin in Alaska--carried assault rifles and wore open side arms during a festive community parade this week, while young children marched alongside them."

    I'm just curious...suppose black marchers hit the streets carrying assault you think the Tea-Baggers would recognize their right to carry, or call them Terrorists?

    I'm thinking Palin would be on the news calling them "Obama Terrorists"...what do you think?

    1. TMMason profile image59
      TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The black panthers have marched more than once with fire-arms chrs...

      Also did you not see the black man cnn and the left tried to pass off as a white racist carrying his assault rifle at the tea prty.

      I think your lost... thats what I think.

  10. kerryg profile image83
    kerrygposted 13 years ago

    Prominent white conservatives are angry about racism.

    Forget all that talk about a post-racial society. They know better than to believe in such a thing, and they’re hopping mad.

    What is it that woke them up finally, after all these years of denial, during which they insisted that racism was a thing of the past?

    Was it the research indicating that job applicants with white sounding names have a 50 percent better chance of being called back for an interview than their counterparts with black-sounding names, even when all qualifications are the same?


    Was it the study that found white job applicants with criminal records have a better chance of being called back for an interview than black applicants without one, even when all the qualifications are the same?


    Was it the massive nationwide study that estimated at least 1 million cases of blatant job discrimination against blacks, Latinos and Asian Americans each year, affecting roughly one-in-three job seekers of color?


    Is it the fact that black males with college degrees are almost twice as likely as their white male counterparts to be out of work?


    Is it the data indicating that Chinese-American professionals earn less than 60 percent as much as their white counterparts, even though the Chinese Americans, on average, have more education?


    Was it the study that found the lightest-skinned immigrants to the United States make as much as 15 percent more than the darkest, even when the immigrants in question have the same level of education, experience and measured productivity?


    Perhaps they finally stumbled upon the evidence suggesting millions of cases of race-based housing discrimination against people of color each year, and this is what has them so incensed?


    Or maybe their anger is due to the reports of blatant racism practiced by Wells Fargo, which was deliberately roping black borrowers (to whom they referred as "mud people") into high-cost loans, targeting them for these instruments, and even falsifying credit histories to make black applicants look like greater risks than they were, so as to justify the scam?


    Was it the study demonstrating that e-mail inquiries about rental property submitted by people with white sounding names were 60 percent more likely than those with black sounding names to get a positive response from a landlord (meaning an indication that a unit was available for rent), even when the housing had been previously advertised as available?


    Maybe they’re furious because of the way whites in the New Orleans area conspired after the flooding of the city to keep blacks from returning and being able to find housing on equitable terms, if at all?


    Or maybe it’s because of the data from the Justice Department, to the effect that blacks are far more likely than whites to have their cars and persons searched after a traffic stop, even though whites, when searched, are more than four times as likely to have drugs or other illegal contraband on us?


    Well then, perhaps it’s the recent revelations that police in New York City are blatantly profiling blacks and Latinos, stopping and frisking them in massive numbers, even though in 90 percent of all cases, the people they stop are released without any charge because they are found to have done nothing illegal?


    Is the source of their anger the data showing that although whites and blacks use and sell drugs at roughly the same rates, African Americans are anywhere from 2.8 to 5.5 times more likely than whites to be arrested for a drug offense, depending on the year? Or perhaps the state level data indicating that in nine states, blacks are arrested at more than seven times the rate of whites, and in Minnesota and Iowa at rates that are more than eleven times greater than white arrest rates for drugs? Or perhaps the additional data that blacks are more than 10 times as likely as whites to be sent to prison for drug offenses, despite relatively equivalent rates of drug crimes? Or the fact that a majority of persons admitted to prison for drug offenses are black, even though there are about six times more white users nationwide?


    Maybe they're beside themselves over the fact that millions of black men who are ex-felons and have paid their debt to society are permanently blocked from voting thanks to disenfranchisement laws that were devised for blatantly racist reasons? Surely they are upset that these laws have led to blacks being denied the right to vote after serving their time at a rate that is 7 times the national average?


    Perhaps they’re enraged by the way white police officers conspired to murder a black man in New Orleans after Katrina, and then cover up the crime, or the way other whites formed a vigilante terror squad and went hunting for black people in the aftermath of the flooding?


    Maybe it was that racist e-mail sent by the white Boston police officer to the reporter at the Boston Globe, in which he called Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates a “banana eatin’ jungle monkey?”


    Then maybe it was the story about that high ranking racist in the Chicago police force who OK’d the torture of black men to extract confessions for years?


    Then I bet they must have finally seen that story about the Philadelphia cop who refers to black folks as animals and niggers. That’s it, right?


    Could it be that they’ve read and been moved by the dozens of studies that show the cumulative health effects of racism and discrimination on people of color, and which indicate that doctors do indeed treat patients of color differently, and worse, than their white counterparts? Or perhaps the research that finds how even black women with college degrees, decent jobs and good incomes have infant mortality rates for their children that are higher than the rates for white women who dropped out before high school? And the way that researchers believe stresses associated with racial discrimination are implicated in the worse fetal and neo-natal health of these mother's children?


    Perhaps it’s the research that shows black students being suspended and expelled from school at far higher rates than white students, even though there are no significant differences in the rates at which students of different races violate serious school rules?


    Maybe it's the research indicating that teachers set lowered expectations for children with black-sounding names, independent of observed ability, and even when compared to the child's own siblings who have less identifiably black names. These lowered expectations, based on presumptions of lowered competence and ability then result in lower performance by the stigmatized students.


    Or maybe it was that troubling story on CNN about how white children and even many children of color seem to prefer white skin, and think that children with black skin are bad, dirty, mean and ugly?


    Well then it must be the blatant stuff. Maybe they finally got around to looking at those images of Tea Party protesters and other assorted conservatives coming to rallies with signs advocating the lynching of Democratic party leaders, or portraying the President as an African witch doctor? Or maybe somebody informed them of all the times that conservative and Republican Party activists have sent around blatantly racist e-mails lately, like those portraying the white house lawn covered in watermelons, or once again with the witch doctor imagery, or likening Michelle Obama to an ape, or picturing the President as a pair of "spook eyes" against a black background?


    Maybe they're angry at Tea Party leader Mark Williams for calling the President an "Indonesian Muslim" and a "welfare thug?" I mean, that's pretty racialized rhetoric, right?


    Or maybe it was the Tea Party leader in Ohio who tweeted about how he wants to shoot Hispanic immigrants, to whom he refers as "spicks?" (sic)


    Well then surely it must have been the story about Tea Party candidate for Governor in New York who sent e-mails picturing the President dressed as a pimp and featuring a group of African tribesman performing a traditional dance, which he referred to as the "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal?"


    Perhaps what has them angry is the statement by that Arizona Congressman, to the effect that black folks were better off under slavery than they are today?


    Maybe it was because of those guys over at the popular right-wing website, who called the President's daughter, Malia, "typical ghetto trash," and a "whore" whose mother likes to entertain her by "making monkey sounds?"


    Or perhaps they finally had enough when they heard about how Rep. Ciro Rodriguez was called a "wetback" by one of his constituents and told to go back to Mexico?


    Or maybe it was that lawmaker in South Carolina who called both President Obama and Republican Gubernatorial candidate (and Indian American) Nikki Haley, "ragheads?"


    Or perhaps they're upset about how the guy who sponsored the law in Arizona, ostensibly to catch "illegal immigrants" (a law they support), turns out to be pals with neo-Nazis? Or the fact that the organization that takes credit for writing the bill has longstanding ties to blatant racists and hate groups?


    Or maybe it was the story about how National Review columnist John Derbyshire told Harvard law students that black achievement lags behind white achievement because blacks are biologically inferior to whites?


    Well perhaps it was that story about the motorists in Prescott, Arizona who continually shouted racial slurs at artists who were painting a mural on the walls of a school, which featured children of color who go there? And certainly they must have been upset about the fact that initially the school was actually planning to lighten the subjects' skin color so as to appease locals and a right wing talk show host?


    Or maybe they're irate because of the report that employees of the Department of Homeland Security have posted blatantly racist comments about Latino immigrants on web boards?


    Surely it must be because of the evidence that uniformed American soldiers are joining up with neo-Nazi organizations and even flaunting their membership in such groups?


    It is none of this. Neither the evidence of systemic discrimination against people of color in every walk of American life, nor the repeated examples of blatant racism directed towards people of color individually moves them.

    But they're angry nonetheless about racism in America.

    They're especially angry about the tax being placed on those who use tanning salons. Because this is racist. Against white people. No, seriously.

    Oh, and the President criticized a white police officer for arresting a black man for a crime that, turns out, the black man didn't actually commit, according to state law. That Obama would do such a thing--namely, criticize an officer for making an unjustified arrest--means that white police officers are "under assault" from Obama, and that the President is trying to "destroy" the white officer, no doubt because he's white.

    Oh, and since people of color disproportionately lack health care coverage, the President's plan for expanding coverage is obviously a racist scheme to get reparations for slavery.

    Oh, and the President is deliberately trying to destroy the economy so as to pay back white people for slavery and hundreds of years of oppression.

    Oh, and two black kids beat up a white kid on a bus in Belleville, Illinois--something that is obviously due to Obama being President.

    Oh, and the President picked Eric Holder as Attorney General. Since Holder has said Americans have often been "cowards" when it comes to discussing race, this proves that Holder is racist against white people, even though he didn't mention white people. He said Americans, and Americans means white people. So he's a bigot. And so is Obama for picking him.

    Oh, and the President nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. And she's a Latina, who notes that she sees the world through the lens of her experience, and that she hopes that experience would positively inform her decision-making. And that means she's a bigot. And the fact that Obama nominated her, as well as Eric Holder, proves that he "views white men as the problem" in America, and that the only way you can get promoted by Obama is "by hating white people." Like Tim Geithner, who most definitely hates your honky ass.

    Oh, and the President also nominated Elena Kagan, and Kagan once worked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, and Marshall once said the Constitution as originally conceived--which, ya know, excluded blacks from citizenship--was flawed. Imagine. And this means that Marshall was anti-white, and anyone who worked for him must be too.

    Oh, and the Obama Justice Department dropped criminal voter intimidation charges against three members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia (while obtaining an injunction against a fourth member). So this proves the Administration is allied with the Panthers, whose Philly leader proclaims that he "hates all white people," and Obama probably agrees with him, and is refusing to prosecute because he doesn't care about white folks' voting rights. In fact, the New Black Panthers are part of Obama's "army of thugs." Even though the same Philly leader of the group didn't support Obama for President, and has called Obama a "puppet" and "slavemaster." And of course, as a point of fact, the criminal charges against the other three Panthers were dropped by the Bush Department of Justice. And there have been no voters who actually claim to have been intimidated by the Panthers. And even a leading conservative Republican on the Civil Rights Commission says the incident is much ado about nothing.

    Oh, and since the Justice Department is considering bringing federal charges against the white officer who killed Oscar Grant--a black man--in cold blood in Oakland last year, this proves that we've returned to the 1950s, only this time it's whites who are the victims of racist oppression. Because it's oppression to bring charges against a white cop who kills someone. Naturally.

    Yes indeed, they all agree, Obama is a "reverse racist" who has a deep-seated hatred of white people, and who is like Hitler, and we know this because he's proposing a national service corps to help work on various community problems, and this is just like the Nazi SS, well, except for the murdering part. Or if not Hitler, then at the very least he's just like an "African colonial despot".

    And for sure, Obama is the reason race relations are so strained: not because of the ongoing discrimination against people of color, which the data indicates is commonplace, or because of the incendiary rhetoric coming from conservative commentators. But because of Barack Obama.

    Race relations could never be strained by say, for instance, having a white talk show host fantasize about murdering a black congressman with a shovel.

    Or by another host calling undocumented migrants from Mexico "invasive species".

    Or by spreading lies about how 5 million so-called "illegal aliens" were given subprime mortgages, as a way to blame the undocumented for the housing meltdown, even though there is no evidence whatsoever to support the fabricated claim.

    Or by alleging that ACORN (a community-based organization comprised mostly of people of color) committed massive voter fraud so as to help elect Obama, even though there is no evidence that a single illegitimate vote was cast due to ACORN's voter registration efforts, and despite the fact that when a few ACORN operatives filed phony voter registration cards, it was ACORN itself that alerted election officials to the problem

    Or by a prominent conservative commentator insisting that white men are experiencing the same kind of oppression that blacks faced for years, even as that commentator has previously reminisced fondly about the days of segregation.

    Or by another radio host and prominent conservative author blaming "multicultural" people for "destroying" the country, or calling Arab Muslims "non-humans," or fantasizing about killing people in the "civil rights business."

    Or by another radio host and prominent conservative author referring to the mostly black residents of New Orleans, in the wake of Katrina as "worthless parasites" and "human parasitic garbage" because of their high rates of welfare receipt. Even though, according to Census data, there were only 4600 households in all of the city receiving cash welfare at the time of the flooding, which was less than 4 percent of all black households in the city, and whose annual benefits came to only around $2800 per year.

    Or by walking around with a sign suggesting that President Obama intends to put white people into slavery.

    Or by saying that President Obama only won the election because he's black, and if he weren't black, he'd be a tour guide in Honolulu.

    Or by saying that the only reason Colin Powell endorsed Obama was as an act of racial bonding.

    Or by saying that Oprah Winfrey is also successful only because she's black.

    Or by blaming the economic collapse on fair lending laws and lending to minorities, even though all the evidence suggests such laws and such loans had nothing to do with the housing or larger economic crises.

    Or perhaps by having a right-wing talk show host announce a plan for conservatives to "take back the civil rights movement," and compare himself to Martin Luther King Jr. This, even though conservatives were almost uniformly opposed to the movement and King, and even though the talk show host's favorite authors, whose work he promotes regularly, viewed the movement as a communist conspiracy and referred to civil rights activists as animals.

    Or by another conservative comparing himself to Dr. King, and speaking of how much he respects King's legacy, even as he--the conservative--has said he believes private businesses should have the right to discriminate on the basis of race.

    No, none of those things could strain race relations, or further racism.

    And certainly not when compared to a tanning booth tax.

    While on the face of it, these kinds of right-wing inanities may seem so absurd as to hardly merit being taken seriously, it's important to step back and think about the internal logic of even the most outlandish claims. I mean, no one can honestly believe that health care reform is reparations. After all, what the hell kind of reparations is it where you have to get sick first in order to get paid? That's not a good hustle. And no one can really believe that some white kid got beat up on a bus because it's "Obama's America," as if the President had sent a text message to those black guys saying: HEY, YNOT BEAT SUM CRAKA ASS 4 ME, U DIG?

    But the intellectual strength of the claims is not the issue. It doesn't matter. From a political perspective, even the most insane-sounding claim about Obama's supposed hatred for white people makes sense. It's a perfect way to prime white racial fears and anxieties, to say, in effect, they're coming for your money white folks, and then your children. In a nation where the population will be half people of color within 25-30 years, and where the popular culture is now thoroughly multicultural (and thus many of the icons don't look the way they used to), and where the President doesn't fit a lot of people's conception of what such a person is supposed to look like, and where the economy is in the toilet for millions, playing upon white anxiety is the perfect recipe for political mobilization.

    They've said very clearly that they want their country back. And if we who oppose the right don't challenge these folks for the racists they are, or continue to shy away from making race an issue (as if it weren't already), they just might get it.

    Source: … 3063700459 (with links to every point he makes)

    1. TMMason profile image59
      TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      And that is a dicriminatory tax... that is pretty simple to undersand.

      1. kerryg profile image83
        kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Lol, way to prove his point!

        1. TMMason profile image59
          TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Discrimination is discrimination... unacceptable reagardless of who it is against. Unlike the left... most of us don't believe that we should embrace reverse discrimination in some absurd attempt to cleanse our society of discrimination.

          1. kerryg profile image83
            kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            It's not a tax on white people, it's a tax on stupid people. If you're too dumb to go tan for free in the sun, then you deserve to pay the tax, especially since it's going to be used to help pay for your treatment when you give yourself skin cancer. Think of it as an investment in your future survival. tongue

            1. TMMason profile image59
              TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              I can assure you that not one dime will be collected from me for that tax.

              But the fact is, whether directly or indirectly, it is a discriminatory tax.

              1. kerryg profile image83
                kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Nope. In order for a law to be discriminatory, you have to prove that the intent was to disadvantage a particular group, not just that the group was disadvantaged in practice. There's nothing that says blacks, asians, hispanics, etc. who do happen to use tanning salons won't be taxed, so you'll have a pretty hard time proving intent to discriminate!

  11. TMMason profile image59
    TMMasonposted 13 years ago


    Wednesday July 14, 2010
    The Amish run afoul of Obama regulators?
    The Amish run afoul of Obama regulators?
    The Obama administration has developed a keen interest in the Amish folks of Lancaster County, Pa., due to their lifestyle and not their carbon footprint. The cattle on their dairy farms produce milk and manure.

    It is claimed that great piles of manure are the source of pollutants from Lancaster County to the Chesapeake Bay due to run-off from heavy rains. Lancaster County is far from the Chesapeake Bay.

    Agents have been dispatched to "educate" the Amish in methods the Obama administration requires for lifestyle changes. They use no electricity and few automobiles, so how dare they live without government assistance?

    There is no information given on how the administration determined their manure was the particular pollutant.

    How was that particular pollutant identified after being mixed with waters of the Potomac, which also carries runoff from Washington, D.C.?

    Is this an attempt to blame the Amish for the pollution caused by all the "BS" in Washington, D.C., or is this just the result of the president's search for an ass to kick?

    Steven West … egulators/

    1. kerryg profile image83
      kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that it's a little fishy to be investigating small farmers like the Amish when there are so many cases of blatant disregard of health and environmental regulations by large agribusiness corporations, but the solutions to manure runoff are simple, relatively inexpensive, and fit neatly within the Amish way of life. A carefully planned riparian buffer strip, for example, can actually increase a farm's income thanks to timber, nuts, fruits, and other forest products. The Amish would recognize this better than most.

  12. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

    Let me get this straight; a law that taxes tanning salons is racist but stopping Hispanics in Arizona to ask if they are citizens is not?

    1. TMMason profile image59
      TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      See UW... you cannot even state the AZ law in correct terms, but you expect others to take you seriously when you speak.

      The AZ law does not allow anyone to stop anyone just because of ethnicity.

      Go read the law.

  13. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

    I know what it says...that does not mean that what I said will not happen and I believe that it will.

    And, to quote SabOh, please refrain from personal insults.

  14. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

    Here is what the NAACP says about asking those in charge or whatever to not condone racism in their organization and to try an wipe it out. I don't see anything about trying to destroy the tea party movement but a way that would make it more palatable to some. … index.html

    1. TMMason profile image59
      TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The insult is that peoplke like you continue to mis-represent this law.

      And the fact that it is unpalatable to you, is great. Believe me UW, we don't want a canada in this country.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
        Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        I assume you meant to reply to what I said about Arizona?

        I stated my opinion, and that is the way I see it. There is no deliberate misrepresentation on my part.

        Maybe HubPages should put it in the TOS that only American's are allowed to respond to political issues outside their country.

        1. kerryg profile image83
          kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Haha, tempting, tempting, but can you imagine the chaos that would cause given the number of Americans around here who apparently sincerely believe that the NHS lets old people die instead of treating them, all Muslims are terrorists, and socialism, communism, and Stalinism are interchangeable terms?

  15. TMMason profile image59
    TMMasonposted 13 years ago

    Yes... Thank God the rest of the world is so smart.

  16. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 13 years ago

    The Nazi Patrolling Arizona’s Border

    Here’s the latest doomsday news from Arizona: A heavily armed neo-Nazi militia, led by a 37-year-old ex-Marine named Jason “J.T.” Ready, has declared war on “narco-terrorists” and begun patrolling the Mexican border. The group’s leader is an avowed Nazi, belonging to a party that believes all Jews and non-whites should leave the U.S.—either “peacefully or by force.” “We’re not going to sit around and wait for the government anymore,” Ready has said. “This is what our founding fathers did.” His group wears fatigues and body armor and carries assault rifles. Arizona’s agitated political climate and loose gun laws have tolerated the emergence of armed militia groups in recent years, but a sheriff in the county where Ready’s group is active—he patrols about 50 miles south of Phoenix—says he’d rather such groups stay away. “Especially those who espouse hatred and bigotry such as his,” the sheriff said. Officials from the Bureau of Land Management met the militia on their patrol and said they weren’t violating any laws.

    Read it at Associated Press

    1. TMMason profile image59
      TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      They are not violating any laws.

      When and if they do, we will arrest every one of those Leant leftists.

      Don't worry, Ralph.

  17. Tom Cornett profile image83
    Tom Cornettposted 13 years ago

    The greatest race problem we have is the race to judgment.


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)