White Devils

The White Devils are evil and must be collared and chained because given half a second they will put black and minorities back on plantations and “disenfranchise” them.

Damn! Them Crackers!

That’s effectively what the race baiters are saying about the Voting Rights Act decision by the Supreme Court.

You must have “black” districts or “hispanic” districts just to be “fair”. But if you want to have a “white” district, you’re a racist! 🙂

So you must segregate to be “fair”.

And the Liberals in government must have a veto power on Voting decisions in racist states like Arizona, and South Carolina.

It must always be the Mid-1960s. Time can never move on. They must fight the good fight against the White Devils and The Uncle Toms….

Meet Ryan Patrick Winkler. He’s a 37-year-old liberal Minnesota state legislator with a B.A. in history from Harvard University and a J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School. He’s also a coward, a bigot, a liar, and a textbook example of plantation progressivism. 

On Tuesday, Winkler took to Twitter to rant about the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down an onerous section of the Voting Rights Act. The 5-4 ruling overturned an unconstitutional requirement that states win federal preclearance approval of any changes to their election laws and procedures. Winkler fumed: “VRA majority is four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas.”

This Ivy League-trained public official and attorney relied on smug bigotry to make his case against a Supreme Court justice who happens to be black. “Uncle Thomas” wasn’t a typo. Denigration was the goal, not an accident. It was a knowing, deliberate smear.

After being called out by conservative social media users for his cheap attack on Clarence Thomas, Winkler then revealed his true color: yellow. He deleted the tweet (captured for posterity at my Twitter curation site, twitchy.com) and pleaded ignorance. 

“I did not understand ‘Uncle Tom’ as a racist term, and there seems to be some debate about it. I do apologize for it, however,” he sniveled. “I didn’t think it was offensive to suggest that Justice Thomas should be even more concerned about racial discrimination than colleagues,” he protested.

Holding a black man to a different intellectual standard based on his skin color. Accusing a non-white conservative of collectivist race traitorism. Employing one of the most infamous, overused epithets against minority conservatives in the Democratic lexicon. “Apologizing,” but disclaiming responsibility. Sorry . . . that he got caught. 

Just another day at the left-wing racist office.

Rabid liberal elitists expect and demand that we swallow their left-wing political orthodoxy whole and never question it. When we don’t yield, their racist and sexist diatribes against us are unmatched. My IQ, free will, skin color, eye shape, name, authenticity, and integrity have been routinely ridiculed or questioned for more than two decades because I happen to be an unapologetic brown female free-market conservative. My Twitter account biography jokingly includes the moniker “Oriental Auntie-Tom” — just one of thousands of slurs hurled at me by libs allergic to diversity of thought — for a reason. It’s a way to hold up an unflinching mirror at the holier-than-thou NoH8 haters and laugh. 

We conservatives “of color” are way past anger about the Uncle Tom/Aunt Tomasina attacks. We’re reviled by the left for our “betrayal” of our supposed tribes — accused of being Uncle Toms, Aunt Tomasinas, House Niggas, puppets of the White Man, Oreos, Sambos, lawn jockeys, coconuts, bananas, sellouts, and whores. This is how the left’s racial and ethnic tribalists have always rolled. But their insults are not bullets. They are badges of honor. The Uncle Tom card has been played out. 

Of course Winkler didn’t think it was offensive. Smarty-pants liberal racists never think they’re being racist. In their own sanctimonious minds, progressives of pallor can never be guilty of bigotry toward minority conservatives. Ignorance is strength. Slurs are compliments. Intolerance is tolerance. 

And when all else fails, left-wing prejudice is always just a well-intended joke. (PBS commentator Julianne Malveaux’s death wish for Justice Thomas set the standard: “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. . . . He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”) 

Back in her day, before the advent of democratizing social media, Malveaux and her elitist PBS friends could get away with such vile bile. But liberal crabs in the bucket, viciously trying to drag dissenters “of color” down, can no longer engage in hit-and-run with impunity. Conservatives on Twitter have changed the dynamic in an underappreciated, revolutionary way. The pushback against liberal political bigotry is bigger, stronger, and swifter than it’s ever been.

You can delete, but you cannot hide. (Michelle Malkin)

The fatuous claim that nothing significant has changed in the field of American race relations since the 1960s was expressed most perfectly yesterday by Senator Bernie Sanders. The Voting Rights Act, Sanders wrote, “is as necessary today as it was in the era of Jim Crow laws.” We wonder whether anybody genuinely believes this. Perhaps MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry does, for she went further than Sanders. “Damn,” Harris-Perry tweeted, “that citizenship thing was so great for awhile.”

Contrast this hyperbole with the Supreme Court’s actual ruling. By five votes to four, it held that, while certain states may still be required to submit changes in their voting rules for federal approval, Congress must update the data it uses to determine which are subject to its adjudication. The dramatic changes of the last 40 years, the majority concluded, have rendered the existing formula worthless. This should come as no surprise. That formula was last amended in 1972, while George Wallace was still governor of Alabama.

In making the case for reform, Chief Justice Roberts noted that

in the first decade after enactment of [Section 5] the Attorney General objected to 14.2 percent of proposed voting changes. In the last decade before reenactment, the Attorney General objected to a mere 0.16 percent.

The difference is remarkable. In 1965, Mississippi saw a gap of 63.2 percentage points between white and black voter-registration rates; by 2004, black voters were 3.8 percentage points more likely to be registered than their white counterparts. It is a similar story across the South. So successful has the Voting Rights Act been that New York University election specialist Rock Pildes recently observed that, instead of ensuring the franchise, the Justice Department now employs Section 5 primarily as a tool to ensure that minorities are well-represented in legislative bodies. For a law that was cast as a temporary emergency measure, this evolution is problematic.

Notwithstanding the peculiar claim of ABC’s Terry Moran yesterday morning that “now there is no Voting Rights Act operative in the United States,” the rest of the Voting Rights Act remains very much intact and in effect. Americans whose voting rights have been violated are still able to take to the federal courts and sue their local or state governments. The decision brings an end to the automatic and perpetual punishment of states that are guilty of crimes in decades past. It does nothing else.

Many of the Court’s critics appear to believe that the VRA serves as vital scaffolding, the even partial removal of which will prompt the United States to backslide into segregation or worse. This strikes us as nonsense. Like Boy Mulcaster complaining to Charles Ryder in Brideshead Revisited that he never got the chance to fight in the First World War, many of today’s naysayers exhibit a palpable regret that they missed the moral clarity of the 1960s. It is not the role of Congress to indulge them.

Justice Ginsburg complains that it is not the role of the Court to force a revision to the law. Perhaps not. Amending the law to reflect contemporary realities remains the right thing for Congress to do. Instead of gnashing our teeth and reliving old battles, we Americans should consider it a source of great pride that legal provisions contrived to ensure that the Jim Crow era was brought to a welcome close have finally outlived their necessity. (NRO)

So the Left will continue to CROW forever. That’s how their bread is buttered.

The Actual Report Card

During President Barack Obama’s first term, the number of Americans collecting federal disability insurance increased by 1,385,418 to a record 8,827,795.

As a result, there is now one person collecting disability in this county for every 13 people working full-time (and that of course is also flat as the unemployment rate in Jan 2009 and the unemployment rate now are the same- The u6 for underemployment is actually higher than in Jan 2009). Forty-two years ago, in December 1968, there were 51 people working full-time in this country for each person collecting disability.

But don’t worry, that was GW Bush’s Fault! like everything else that’s bad about our newly Re-coronated King.

The number of Americans age 16 or older who decided not to work or even to seek a job increased by 8,332,000 to a record 88,839,000 in President Barack Obama’s first term, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

At the same time, the number of retired workers collecting Social Security increased by only 4,234,480.

The increase in Americans opting out of the labor force during Obama’s first term resulted in a decrease in the labor force participation rate from 65.7 percent in January 2009, the month Obama was first inaugurated, to 63.6 percent in December 2012, the latest month reported. Before Obama took office, the labor force participation rate had not been as low as 63.6 percent since 1981, the year President Ronald Reagan took over from President Jimmy Carter.

To be in the labor force a person must either have a job or actively sought one in the previous four weeks.

So I guess those millions of jobs “saved or created” wasn’t that fantastic after all… 🙂

In the comparable period of George W. Bush’s second term, the number of Americans choosing not to participate in the labor force went from 76,808,000 in January 2005 to 80,380,000 in December 2012—an increase of 3,572,000.

But Bush is the spawn of the Devil himself and he caused all of this so this must be a lie told by right wing extremists! Because everyone who is “intelligent” knows that everything in the world went to hell after he was elected. 🙂

President Barack Obama averaged a 49.1 percent job approval during his first term in office, among the lowest for post-World War II presidents, according to a new Gallup poll.

Only Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford had lower job approval averages in their first terms, Gallup reported. (CNS)

Now that’s good company! 🙂

So 49% approved and 50% voted for him.  And it had been Lower than Carter’s (aka the lowest on record since WWII) in 2011.

Wow! that’s tight. No wonder he ran the dirtiest, nastiest, ugliest smear campaign in probably 150 years.

It was vote for me The Unpopular or Vote for my Opponent — The Evil Rich White Asshole!

And the stupid people fell for it!

When the Bush tax cuts and War on Terror went into effect, the debt as a dollar amount rose, but as a percentage of GDP it remained fairly stable.   It was only when the financial crisis hit that the debt exploded.  So, it’s not mathematically possible that policies that were put into place nearly seven years prior to the debt exploding, could be responsible for its rise.

The left is simply cherry-picking the policies–expenditures in their minds– that it likes the LEAST, from the time prior to Obama taking office and using them to deflect the blame away from things like the stimulus, the growth of welfare spending and the failure of liberal economic policies to stimulate economic growth.

Think about it this way.  The amount of money taken out of the general fund each year to pay for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is more than the cost of any one year of the Bush Tax cuts or the was in Iraq and Afghanistan when they were at their peak.

By the left’s standards, you could pin just as much blame for the debt increase on the presidents who passed those entitlement programs.  But, you don’t hear President Obama pinning the blame on LBJ or FDR for the $5 Trillion in new debt that we’ve accumulated since he took office. (CNS)

So in closing, a Little Comedy:

And this is funny:

They are having  a 3/5 sale! 🙂

Now if that doesn’t offend the hyper-sensitive Left I don’t know what will.

I know, George W, Bush!  That always works! 🙂

 

 

 

A Matter of Faith

To truly understand the depthless awfulness of the just-posted “interview” that Slate’s Jacob Weisberg conducted with Rachel Maddow, one needs to turn to religion. Simply saying that Weisberg interviewing Maddow is like Tiger Beat interviewing Justin Bieber is just not enough anymore. It misses the bigger picture.

When Whittaker Chambers published “Witness,” his classic 1952 account of his time as a communist, many people, including a few conservatives, wondered why he talked so much about God in the book. To Chambers, communism had gained traction in the West because it offered what too many liberal democracies had lost: faith. Communism pointed to the future. When the world seemed to be collapsing into war and depression, communism provided a coherent, if comic book, version of history, complete with saints, sinners, and heaven.

That idea has never quite been shaken by the left. This is why liberals should never be trusted. Ask yourself this question: Suppose Obama is re-elected and he gets everything he wants. Suppose gay marriage is declared legal in every state, and limits on abortion banned. Suppose they pass universal health care. Suppose people are not allowed to cough without filing an environmental impact form. Suppose all those things happen. Do you really think the left will be satisfied? Or will they want more?

Of course they will want more. This is the evil blackness at the heart of liberalism. At its core, liberalism is utopian and godless, and therefore willing to lie, cheat, steal, and kill to fulfill its vision. It’s why liberals are never satisfied with creating a welfare state, but must always take the next step and begin abolishing religion and liquidating people who stand in their way. Admittedly, the left’s utopianism has changed a bit since the days of communism. These days it’s more about avenging personal resentment and public displays of therapy — Occupy Wall Street — than about any overarching certitude in dialectical materialism and the gears of history. But in the end it’s the same result: The people we don’t like, and their ideas, get disposed of. This is the ultimate goal.

When this worldview is fully understood and absorbed, the joke that is the Weisberg-Maddow make-out session can be fully comprehended. Again, go into it thinking of it not as politics, but catechism. The point of liberal “journalism” is not to get to the truth about anything, but to reinforce dogma.

Here is Weisberg’s first question to Maddow: “These Republican ideas that we’ve been living through, an unprecedented number of them. … you don’t hear a real conversation about ideas you, don’t hear a serious debate. What is that conversation about?” Maddow: “The conversation is about which one of them is a good person and a bad person, and who can come up with the snappiest one-liner blaming the Obama administration for anything that’s going on in the world.”

There are two different ways to approach this nonsense. The first is to puzzle over the sheer irrationality of it, the totalistic refusal to engage with facts. To wonder why, no matter how much Maddow and Weisberg dislike the right, they won’t at least concede that, as colorful as the Republican debates have been, they have also been about very big and important ideas. Ideas about, among other things: immigration, the deficit, the wars America is involved in, federalism, education, and the environment. You might think the answers given were dumb, but to simply claim that they were never even discussed is to relegate yourself to a place of impenetrable unreality. It’s to be as uncomprehending, and as sure of oneself, as a suicide bomber.

Conservatives should no longer be surprised by this. When someone on the right tries to reason through a liberal argument, it often leads to a lot of shouting and debate that goes nowhere. And it goes nowhere because conservatives, despite being very well-educated about liberal media bias, have not fully taken the next step. They have not completely understood that, more than a half-century after Whittaker Chambers and “Witness,” liberalism is still very much a faith. Understand that, and the Weisberg-Maddow clench makes tight sense. Remind yourself that liberals view conservatives as demons and believe that the left is on the side of the angels, and your irritation at Weisberg’s “interview” evaporates. Of course. He’s not conducting an interview, he’s genuflecting. These are not two journalists. These are two priests talking about the devil.

When you have fully absorbed that idea, nothing in liberalism will surprise you anymore. Consider another of Weisberg’s questions: How does Maddow challenge the left the way she does the right? There are incoherencies on the right, what about incoherence on the left?

Douglas Adams: I refuse to prove that I exist says God, for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing. Oh, says man, but the Babel Fish is a dead give-away, isn’t it? It proves You exist, and so therefore You don’t. Q.E.D. Oh, I hadn’t thought of that, says God, who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

And the Left has undying faith in their self-righteousness and their inability to be wrong about anything, anywhere, at any time.

Better to ask a snake handler about incoherencies in Christianity. There’s no need to anticipate with any sense of surprise what Maddow will say; simply ask yourself how such an answer would fit into the liberal Bible. Easy: the problem, as with any other, is the Great Satan of conservatism. Thus, the biggest left-wing inconsistency is, “How do you deal with a John Boehner?” It’s like the Westboro Baptist Church. Everything from gay marriage to nuclear war and cockroaches is the fault of the devil.

It’s all Bush’s Fault and he is the Devil incarnate. Reagan is demon.

What is so sad and awful about this is that liberalism, like other extreme religious movements, tends to eradicate the human conscience. One of my favorite religious stories involves Cardinal Newman, one of the great converts to Catholicism. Cardinal Newman was once asked to offer a toast to the pope. He raised his glass and said, “To conscience first, the pope second.” Most people with an active conscience who are not religious fanatics have moments of self-reflection where they work through their philosophy and try and align it with what “the voice within” is telling them. It’s why I am a conservative who supports amnesty for immigrants. (But I don’t) It’s why Christopher Hitchens was an atheist who opposed abortion. But to True Believers like Maddow and Weisberg, the conscience has no place. From the tragedy of abortion to the $15 trillion deficit, from the arguments against gay marriage to the smaller question of simply presenting the Republican candidates as people with ideas, there is no need to consult what St. Ambrose called “God’s herald and messenger” — the conscience. The Nation says it, I believe it, and that settles it. It’s why there are people in this world who still believe — not think, believe — that Alger Hiss was innocent.

That Gore was cheated out of being President in 2000, and instead we ended up with the Devil himself. (never mind that the most voter fraud is because of liberals-but that’s just the “angels” trying to beat the “devil” after all…ACORN anyone…)

The communist Ignazio Silone once noted that to become a communist was not simply to join a party. “It meant a conversion, a complete dedication. The Party became family, school, church, barracks; the world that lay beyond was to be destroyed and built anew.”

That’s what we’re up against. And it’s why Jacob Weisberg and Rachel Maddow are a joke. A dangerous joke.(DC)

The Slate: Rachel Maddow doesn’t shy away from the liberal label. But she says there’s an important distinction between what she and her MSNBC colleagues do and how their counterparts operate at Fox News. On-air personalities at MSNBC, Maddow says, don’t take direction or follow talking points from the network.

No, they have worse, Religious Orthodoxy.

From one of my older blogs in 2009: https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/e-plurbus-no-unum/

I spent the last 3 years (now 5) on AOL message boards with many of these very “civil-minded” people.

Most of them were “the faithful”, people who’s religion is Liberalism. Thus, challenging them is challenging their faith.

So rational discussion is practically impossible.

And this is where we really are today.

We have the Ministry of Truth, that is made up of the faithful. So they are all for Big Brother. And they are all for divide and conquer. As long as it benefits them.

That’s why liberals hate Talk Radio.

It’s the voice of the opposition.

And Big Brother doesn’t like opposition.

Rachael Maddow (Formerly of the failed Air America) was mocking it on her MSNBC show on 9/10/09. “I guess they just want us all to be fearful, anxious, scared,and depressed all the time just like on 9/12″ (The Tea party Rally that was under-reported by the Ministry because it was a threat to them)

Snide, arrogant, snotty,childish, immature and very definitely irrational. And not the slightest interest in your views at all, after all, they are perfect and you are not.

They are the sainted ones, and you are the filthy, dirty little ignorant peasants!

It’s better that they (Tea Partiers) are “an angry mob” of “republican operatives” and “dupes”.

Rather than actual people who actually have a grievance against their government.

That can’t possible be true!

They have to be duped, ignorant, slobs or political operatives in disguise!

And when THERE political operatives do show up (usually from a Union) they are “concerned citizens” and just look at the praise that was lavished on the Occupiers until those squatters become politically unhelpful.

And this goes for ABC,NBC,CBC, CNN, NPR, The New York Times, and more.

And if object, you’re “a racist”, “stupid”,”a moron”,” a dupe”, “a stooge” etc and it’s not “fair”.

So much for “civility”. 🙂

Be Afraid, Be very Afraid.

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

 Political Cartoons by Eric Allie
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel