Post-Election Psychos: Haters Just Keep On Hatin’
There’s a good reason the President has all those men in black following him around.
I’ve never been to Coldstone Creamery, but I hope their ice cream is better than some of the people who work there serving it up. One of their employees in Sacramento, Denise Helms, 22, posted her shiny happy reaction on Facebook to the news of the president winning a second term.
“And another 4 years of the nigger. Maybe he will get assassinated this term..!!”
Social media never sleeps and Helms’ remarks soon drew the attention of a local TV station. Helms didn’t seem to think what she said was any big deal.
“I didn’t think it would be that big of a deal. … The assassination part is kind of harsh. I’m not saying like I would go do that or anything like that, by any means, but if it was to happen, I don’t think I’d care one bit.”
Helms cared enough to delete her original post and add a new one. “So apparently my post last night about Obama got onto Twitter and Fox 40 came and interviewed me cause apparently a lot of people in Sacramento think I’m crazy and racist. WOW is all I got to say!! I’m not racist and I’m not crazy. just simply stating my opinion.!!!”
“…but I meant “nigger” in a NICE way!”
Ever notice how idiots who spout racist crap are so quick to proclaim they aren’t racist? Is there a nice, non-racist way to call the president a nigger?
The Secret Service says they will look into the matter. They tend to take threats against the President of the United States as serious business even when they are made by a dumb ass.
I have to say I’m a little concerned at how badly some people are taking Obama’s reelection. Didn’t they even consider the possibility, however small, that Romney might lose?
Apparently not. Some idiot in Texas is taking the prospect of four more years as such a grim prospect that he wants to secede from the United States. A petition with over 51,000 signatures has been posted on the White House website.
The U.S. continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the U.S. suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect its citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.
The hell with Texas. Let ‘em walk. Besides oil and Texans what else do we get from that batshit state?
Wait. I liked Lyndon B. Johnson and Molly Ivins and they both were from Texas. Hell with Texas. Make ‘em stay and suffer. Bunch of whiny crybabies.
It’s too bad that Miss Helms and apparently the entire Lone Star state can’t accept the judgment of their fellow American citizens, but if I got through eight years of George W. Bush (former governor of the great state of Texas) they can get through for more years of Obama.
And if they can’t they can just take a big ol’ suck on the lighted end of my victory cigar.
Related articles
- Several States in the USA now Want To Leave The Union (tvaraj.wordpress.com)
- Racial Facebook Comments by Coldstone Manager Prove Costly (fox40.com)
- Obama Facebook Slur, Assassination Threat Gets Woman Fired (thehollywoodgossip.com)
Will White Racism Put a White Man In the White House?
Does Mitt Romney approve of THIS message?
I’ve been asked by my Republican friends to refrain from criticizing all of them and instead single out individuals or simply say “some Republicans, not all Republicans.”
I can do that. Some Republicans are racist assholes. One specific Republican who is a fucking racist asshole is John Sununu, the chairman of Mitt Romney’s campaign. Following Colin Powell’s endorsement of President Obama for a second term, Sununu was interviewed by CNN’s clownish Piers Morgan.
You would expect Team Romney to shrug off the former Bush Administration Secretary of State supporting their rival, but Sununu, a man with a breathlessly nasty temperament couldn’t refrain from showing just how nasty he is.
MORGAN: “Colin Powell has decided to opt for President Obama again, despite apparently still being a Republican. Is it time he left the party?”
SUNUNU: “Well, I’m not sure how important that is. I do like the fact that Colin Powell’s boss, George Herbert Walker Bush, has endorsed Mitt Romney all along. And frankly, when you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder if that’s an endorsement based on issues, or whether he’s got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama.”
MORGAN: “What reason would that be?”
SUNUNU: “Well, I think when you have somebody of your own race that you’re proud of being President of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him.”
That’s today’s Republican Party. There’s nothing too reactionary or inflammatory or just flat-out stupid someone with an “R” after their name can say that goes too far. Is Sununu backing Romney because he’s of his own race? For far too long it’s been thrown in the face of Black supporters of Obama that, “You’re voting for him because he’s Black.” Which is crap. I’m voting for Obama because he’s not Mitt Romney.
Hey Mitt. Put a muzzle on your dog.
Whites vote for candidates for no reason than they’re White and that’s accepted as standard operating procedure. Blacks are supposed to apologize and explain why they support someone who looks like them. Could it be the content of his character, not the color of his skin, makes Obama the best man for the job?
Not to shitheads like Sununu. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson told liberal talk show host Ed Schultz “My party, unfortunately, is the bastion of those people, not all of them, but most of them, who are still basing their decision on race,” Wilkerson said. “Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists.”
“And the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin. And that’s despicable.”
President Obama refused to bite Sununu’s race-bait. In a radio interview Obama said, “I don’t think that there are many people in America who would question Gen. Powell’s credibility, his patriotism, his willingness to tell it straight. So any suggestion that Gen. Powell would make such a profound statement in such an important election based on anything other than what he thought would be best for America doesn’t make much sense.”
The Republican Party is not racist. Republicans are not by nature any more racist than Democrats. But racists are voting Republicans and when Romney allows his people to race-bait in such an overt way it speaks volumes on how little he cares when his campaign wallows in craven appeals to bigotry.
Not only do anti-Black attitudes still exist, they have been growing and thriving since America elected its first Black president.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since the United States elected its first black president, an Associated Press poll finds, as a slight majority of Americans now express prejudice toward blacks whether they recognize those feelings or not.
Those views could cost President Barack Obama votes as he tries for re-election, the survey found, though the effects are mitigated by some Americans’ more favorable views of blacks.
Powell and his peeps hangin’ out.
Racial prejudice has increased slightly since 2008 whether those feelings were measured using questions that explicitly asked respondents about racist attitudes, or through an experimental test that measured implicit views toward race without asking questions about that topic directly.
In all, 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 percent, up from 49 percent during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.
“As much as we’d hope the impact of race would decline over time … it appears the impact of anti-black sentiment on voting is about the same as it was four years ago,” said Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor who worked with AP to develop the survey.
Romney will never say he wants anyone to vote for him because he’s White, but he certainly knows he will get a lot of votes because he is.
Race matters and racism matters as well. What some suspected, many already knew: if Obama will get Black votes because he’s Black, it’s equally true that he won’t get votes from Whites because he’s Black.
This has nothing to do with party affiliation. There are Democrats who won’t support a Black candidate too. The sentiment that there needs to be a White man in the White House doesn’t have to be said out loud. It hangs in the air unsaid, but clear.
If Obama loses, White racism won’t be the reason. But it will be one of the reasons.
Related articles
- Keeping it Real: Sununu is a racist (current.com)
- Lawrence Wilkerson, Former Colin Powell Aide, Blasts Sununu, GOP, As ‘Full Of Racists’ (policyabcs.wordpress.com)
- Op-Ed Columnist: The Company Romney Keeps (nytimes.com)
- Lawrence Wilkerson, Former Colin Powell Aide, Blasts Sununu, GOP As ‘Full Of Racists’ (democraticunderground.com)
Did John Derbyshire Write the Most Racist Rant EVER?
Meet John Derbyshire. If you're Black, he probably hates your guts.
Before Twitter and Facebook the two things that flourished most on the Internet were porn and racism. Both are still going strong with the most repellent and toxic forms of racism banished to hate sites and forums where bigots can gather in their little communities and rail against the Kenyan in the White House and applaud the dead teenager in Florida.
Beyond the knuckle-dragging, white-hooded, deep-fried racism of White supremacist websites, there is the genial, polished and sophisticated racism by educated, articulate intellectuals who are just as full of hate for Blacks as the two losers in Tulsa who went on a shooting spree killing three people and wounding two more for no other reason than they were Black.
The Tulsa police have downplayed any racial angle to the shootings. Nothing about this so far screams “Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman” but it is safel to wonder if that controversy spurred this crime?
This brings us to one John Derbyshire. Unless you are a conservative whose reading habits takes you beyond the internet and talk radio and Fox News, you probably aren’t familiar with the name of Derbyshire, a columnist for The National Review.
But If you are Black he is quite familiar with you. Derbyshire knows all about Blacks. He knows how violent we are. He knows how stupid we are. He knows how much we hate Whites and can’t resist any chance to intimidate, assault or kill them.
Derbyshire wrote the most overly racist screed I have ever read outside of of a White supremacist website in response to “the talk” Black parents often feel compelled to give their kids on how to interact with the police.
Derbyshire describes his take on “the talk” as the “Non-black” version Whites (and Asian) parents should give their children as how to conduct themselves when they interact with Blacks. It is long, rambling and disgustingly extreme in its contempt for Blacks. Here are some notable excerpts:
(6) As you go through life, however, you will experience an ever larger number of encounters with black Americans. Assuming your encounters are random—for example, not restricted only to black convicted murderers or to black investment bankers—the Law of Large Numbers will inevitably kick in. You will observe that the means—the averages—of many traits are very different for black and white Americans, as has been confirmed by methodical inquiries in the human sciences.
(7) Of most importance to your personal safety are the very different means for antisocial behavior, which you will see reflected in, for instance, school disciplinary measures, political corruption, and criminal convictions.
(8) These differences are magnified by the hostility many blacks feel toward whites. Thus, while black-on-black behavior is more antisocial in the average than is white-on-white behavior, average black-on-white behavior is a degree more antisocial yet.
9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.
(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:
(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.
(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.”
Racism is readily recognized when it looks like this...
Derbyshire’s rant did not run in the National Review, the publication that gave him whatever notoriety he enjoyed, but after criticisms from other conservatives, editor Rich Lowry fired him with a message on the website.
Anyone who has read Derb in our pages knows he’s a deeply literate, funny, and incisive writer. I direct anyone who doubts his talents to his delightful first novel, “Seeing Calvin Coolidge in a Dream,” or any one of his “Straggler” columns in the books section of NR. Derb is also maddening, outrageous, cranky, and provocative. His latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible. We never would have published it, but the main reason that people noticed it is that it is by a National Review writer. Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise. So there has to be a parting of the ways. Derb has long danced around the line on these issues, but this column is so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation. It’s a free country, and Derb can write whatever he wants, wherever he wants. Just not in the pages of NR or NRO, or as someone associated with NR any longer.
Kicking Derbyshire to the curb was the right thing for the National Review to do, but his racial views were always prickly and problematic. There is a necessary skill required to be a successful racial arsonist and to take the worst stereotypes and deviant behaviors of a given group, then magnify them into critically considered commentaries while provoking nevertheless pushes all the usual hot buttons.
Everybody knows what racism is supposed to look like. It looks like the Ku Klux Klan, the original boyz in the hoodies, It’s the sophisticated racists that are much more difficult to spot. In a moment of weakness Mr. Derbyshire permitted his hood to slip off and expose himself as the raving bigoted beast he truly is and always has been.
It’s easy to spot the redneck trailer trash types. They go out of their way to expose their own ignorance. It’s the quieter and more subtle bigots that are harder to spot. By going too far Derbyshire in expressing his hatred and loathing, Derbyshire effectively outed himself and got fired for it. Don’t think for a minute though that his sentiments were expelled from contemporary conservative thought with him.
...less so when it sports a suit and tie.
Related articles
- National Review Axes Conservative Columnist , John Derbyshire for Racist Column (themoderatevoice.com)
- National Review Tries To Distance Itself From Derbyshire, But Silent On Calls For Firing Him (thinkprogress.org)
- National Review’s John Derbyshire Publishes Stunningly Racist Article at White Nationalist Site (littlegreenfootballs.com)
This Is What Liberal Racism Looks Like
There have been more than enough examples of racist depictions of President Obama coming from the conservative Right.
What about a racist depiction that comes from the liberal Left?
New York magazine writer Dan Amira wrote a brief piece criticizing the president for not yet supporting gay marriage in a piece titled, “Obama’s Gay Marriage Evolution Watch: Day 468″
The illustration accompanying the article is of President Obama “evolving” from a monkey into a rainbow flag-holding human.
This image is insulting, reprehensible and New York magazine owes an immediate apology to President Obama. I do not know if New York magazine has any African-Americans on their editorial staff or if they do, they aren’t conscious ones, but racism is racism and it comes off no better when liberals engage in it than conservatives.
New York magazine tries to be edgy, hip and in the know about everything that is edgy and hip in the greatest city on earth. But depicting the president as a monkey isn’t hip or edgy. It’s racism and it’s bullshit.
I have a personal interest in this incident. I subscribe to New York magazine. I will soon be an ex-subscriber if an apology is not swiftly forthcoming.
Ron Paul Can’t Run From His Racist Roots
Just say no to Dr. No
As a writer and journalist since 1992, I have written hundreds of articles, editorials and essays and thousands of words on hundreds of topics, but the one thing that connects each and every one is I own all those words. It does not matter if the words are wise, silly, entertaining or dull as a dish rag.
They are all my words and no matter how much distance time puts between me and my words, they’re never too far and never too distant for me to be held accountable for them.
The reality for every writer is we may forget what we’ve written, but as long as it is written down somewhere those words are never truly lost and once found, they are potentially capable of returning to bedevil us anew.
This is a reality Ron Paul would rather not face.
Paul’s appeal to voters isn’t lost on me. He seems like the perfect anti-politician. He’s not a pretty boy with polished teeth and a fussed over hairstyle and a meticulously managed media image. Paul is rumpled, short, not particularly photogenic or worried about tailoring his message to fit a particular focus group or demographic. What Paul is strong on his message of individual freedom, non-intervention in foreign affairs, not spending money on non-essential frills and pet projects
Paul is also strong on his ties to the racist newsletters published under his name and weak on answering questions about them.
You can’t blame the Paulinistas for trying to frame the debate on their own terms on the issues they think are winning ones for them. Unfortunately for them (and Paul), he can’t run from his coziness with the racism he permitted to be published under his name.
Pile up enough of Paul’s hostility toward civil rights, his indifference to racist rants on a publication with his name on the title, and his refusal to distance himself from his ties to extremists like the John Birch Society and you can conclude once you get past the kindly, but slightly crazy old uncle act, if Ron Paul isn’t a bigot himself you couldn’t slide a piece of paper between him and those that are.
Claiming he never read the newsletters is an extraordinary admission to Paul’s lack of accountability and responsibility. If Ron Paul can’t be bothered to care about running a raggedy newsletter, why should anyone trust him to run the whole damn country?
Separating Ron Paul’s various explanations over the years about the newsletters is a laborious process, but it comes down to this: if you’re a publisher, you may not read everything that goes into your publication, but it stretches credulity to say you had no idea what was going in it, never read it, didn’t disavow the statements when they originally occurred. don’t know who wrote them and only disagreed with them after you decided to run for president.
Paul’s dilemma is once upon a time he seemed quite aware of what the content of his newsletters were as he explained in 1995 to CSPAN.
Along with that I also put out a political — type of business investment newsletter, sort of covered all these areas. And it covered a lot about what was going on in Washington and financial events, especially some of the monetary events since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject. That — this newsletter dealt with that.
That is a completely weak and inadequate explanation of the bigoted content of his newsletters. It’s also a reason to ask—no, DEMAND that Paul explain himself totally, fully and completely.
WASHINGTON – Rep. Ron Paul has tried since 2001 to disavow racist and incendiary language published in Texas newsletters that bore his name, denying he wrote them and even walking out of an interview on CNN Wednesday. But he vouched for the accuracy of the writings and admitted writing at least some of the passages when first asked about them in an interview in 1996.
Some issues of the newsletters included racist, anti-Israel or anti-gay comments, including a 1992 newsletter in which he said 95% of black men in Washington “are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
Paul told The Dallas Morning News in 1996 that the contents of his newsletters were accurate but needed to be taken in context. Wednesday, he told CNN he didn’t write the newsletters and didn’t know what was in them.
Paul, who leads polls in Iowa leading up to the caucuses there on Jan. 3, published a series of newsletters while he was out of Congress in the 1980s and 1990s called The Ron Paul Political Report, Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report and The Ron Paul Investment Letter.
In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia.
Paul cited the study and wrote: “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system,“These aren’t my figures,” Paul told the Morning News. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report.” I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
Nor did Paul dispute in 1996 his 1992 newsletter statement that said,”If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”
Paul believes the Civil War was unnecessary. A better alternative would have been to buy the slaves instead.
Paul voted for the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, but says he would have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as he explains at the 4:20 mark during an interview with Chris Matthews.
On July 3, 2004, He cast the only vote against a bill commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Act as he explained in remarks from the floor of the House of Representatives. Taken from his own website, Paul is obviously proud of his opposition.
Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees.
(snip)
Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
Maybe there is a good explanation for Paul’s out of touch views on race, but I haven’t read or heard a good one yet. The 1964 Civil Rights Act made life easier for minorities and harder on racists, but Paul considers this to be a bad thing. I consider this makes him unelectable and unworthy to be seriously considered presidential material.
The Atlantic’s Ta-Neshi Coates isn’t buying the “Ron Paul is the Victim” rap either.
Racism, like all forms of bigotry, is what it claims to oppose–victimology. The bigot is never to blame. Always is he besieged–by gays and their radical agenda, by women and their miniskirts, by fleet-footed blacks. It is an ideology of “not my fault.” It is not Ron Paul’s fault that people with an NAACP view of the world would twist his words. It is not Ron Paul’s fault that his newsletter trafficked in racism. It is not Ron Paul’s fault that he allowed people to author that racism in his name. It is anonymous political aids and writers, who now cowardly refuse to own their words. There’s always someone else to blame–as long as it isn’t Ron Paul, if only because it never was Ron Paul.
Next: What’s actually in the Ron Paul newsletters and some strange comments from Paul about race.
Related articles
- FACT CHECK: Ron Paul Personally Defended Racist Newsletters (thinkprogress.org)
- Media Suddenly Notice Ron Paul’s Decades of Racist Connections (littlegreenfootballs.com)
- Ron Paul And Extremism: Discover It Again, For The First Time (mykeystrokes.com)
- Statement From Former Ron Paul Staffer Causes More Problems For Rep. (pinkbananaworld.com)
- Ron Paul, In 1996, ‘Did Not Deny’ Controversial Statement In Newsletter (huffingtonpost.com)
There’s No Holiday For the Obama Haters
See any monkeys in this picture? Nah, me neither.
Here’s a story that hasn’t received much mainstream media coverage, but Black oriented blogs have picked up the slack:
A rabid Tea Party wannabe politician in California called for the assassination of President Obama and his “monkey children” in a recent Facebook rant – and then defended his right to do so Monday.
Jules Manson, who failed miserably in his 2011 bid for a City Council seat in Carson, Calif., urged the sickening reprisal, saying Obama’s support of a revised military authorization bill last week was an act of “treason” that “eroded” constitutional protections.
“It must be countered with assassinations onto them and their children,” he wrote in the original posting that has since been scrubbed from his Facebook profile.
“Assassinate the fucken nigger and his monkey children,” he prodded, according to a screen grab obtained by YourBlackWorld.com.
An angry backlash quickly ensued, and Manson, 48, toned down the vile rhetoric Monday while defending his right to spew hate.
“Once you have taken the position that anyone should be imprisoned for careless emotionally driven remarks that had no real substance, you deserve what your government has become,” he wrote in the new Facebook post.
“All I can really say is to be careful what you wish for because setting such a precedence can come back to bite you,” he warned.
“I have felt deeply regretful and apologized for my past mistakes. Can you do the same?” he asked his followers.
No one answered a telephone number listed for Manson’s residence in a Carson trailer park Monday.
I’m sure Mr. Manson has a visit from the Secret Service somewhere in his immediate future.
The Tea Party apologists may now begin with distancing themselves from one racist wannabee and shrugging off his threat against the president and his children as an isolated incident that has no reflection upon their goals.
Just wondering how many isolated incidents it takes before it starts become a worrisome trend?
Predictably, some apologists for the Tea Party have claimed Manson isn’t really a member. It’s not clear he isn’t connected in any way to the Tea Party either. A search of “Jules Manson, Tea Party” sure yields a ton of results.
The dilemma for a movement without any clearly defined leadership, organizational structure or principles is any asshole can hitch a ride and claim to be part of the club.
The same lack of a coherent form and purpose that supposedly makes the Tea Party so formidable also makes it easy to tie them to racists and other fringe mentalities.
Sucks to be them.
Nothing new about racist rantings against the president and his family. The Internet is full of hateful creeps hang out pouring their venom all over whatever it is they despise.
Manson got a visit from a pair of Secret Service agents about his death wish for President Obama. He wasn’t arrested, but he can be sure his name goes on some government database watch list as being naughty, not nice.
There should be a special section in hell for punks who single out children for death. You really have to be a total piece of shit excuse for a human being to have that kind of hatred in your heart for anyone.
It must be a terrible thing for a miserable little piece of trailer trash like Manson to wake up knowing there’s a Black man in the White House and I sincerely hope he’s got four more years of gnashing his teeth, face-palming his head and staying a pissed off, angry White man.
Related articles
- Failed Tea Party Politician Posts Facebook Page Calling For Obama Assassination (crooksandliars.com)
- Mr. Jules Manson: “Assassinate the fucken nigger and his monkey children” (theobamacrat.com)
- Calif. man says he’s sorry for Obama threat (sfgate.com)
Is “The Help” just another Southern-fried fairy tale?
Thank heaven for kind White women telling the stories of downtrodden Black women.
Not having seen The Help I can’t judge the merits of the movie any more than I could the last Black Women Catching Hell flick, For Colored Girls. However, everything I have read about it gives me reason to think this is going to be a glorified Lifetime movie with a simple and sanitized look at race relations in the segregated South. My wife wants to see the movie and judge for herself, so I will probably go with her, but all I’m expecting is not much more than another Ghosts of Mississippi or Mississippi Burning historically inadequate whitewash of where White folks gradually come to realize, ”Gosh, segregation really sucked,”
I’m not the only one wary of another Southern-fried fairy tale. The Association of Black Women Historians have their own issues with The Help.
During the 1960s, the era covered in The Help, legal segregation and economic inequalities limited black women’s employment opportunities. Up to 90 per cent of working black women in the South labored as domestic servants in white homes. The Help’s representation of these women is a disappointing resurrection of Mammy—a mythical stereotype of black women who were compelled, either by slavery or segregation, to serve white families. Portrayed as asexual, loyal, and contented caretakers of whites, the caricature of Mammy allowed mainstream America to ignore the systemic racism that bound black women to back-breaking, low paying jobs where employers routinely exploited them. The popularity of this most recent iteration is troubling because it reveals a contemporary nostalgia for the days when a black woman could only hope to clean the White House rather than reside in it.
Both versions of The Help also misrepresent African American speech and culture. Set in the South, the appropriate regional accent gives way to a child-like, over-exaggerated “black” dialect. In the film, for example, the primary character, Aibileen, reassures a young white child that, “You is smat, you is kind, you is important.” In the book, black women refer to the Lord as the “Law,” an irreverent depiction of black vernacular. For centuries, black women and men have drawn strength from their community institutions. The black family, in particular provided support and the validation of personhood necessary to stand against adversity. We do not recognize the black community described in The Help where most of the black male characters are depicted as drunkards, abusive, or absent. Such distorted images are misleading and do not represent the historical realities of black masculinity and manhood.
Furthermore, African American domestic workers often suffered sexual harassment as well as physical and verbal abuse in the homes of white employers. For example, a recently discovered letter written by Civil Rights activist Rosa Parks indicates that she, like many black domestic workers, lived under the threat and sometimes reality of sexual assault. The film, on the other hand, makes light of black women’s fears and vulnerabilities turning them into moments of comic relief.
It’s not that I think it’s impossible for a good movie to be made about Black maids in 2011 as it’s been proven time and again, Hollywood takes stories about race and racism, pours sugar and honey all over it, slathers whipped cream all over it and demands audiences eat the mess up with a spoon.
Southern racism is being romanticized by right-wing conservatives as not being as bad as advertised. Reserving final judgment until I’ve seen the film, but my suspicion is The Help is little else than left-wing liberals wanting to do right by the Black women who toiled as domestic servants, but preferring shallow depictions of an ugly time in America as not to disturb audiences with uncomfortable realities and unhappy endings.
One day Hollywood will get the guts to sing a different song of the South and the next time an immensely talented actress such as Viola Davis gets the script telling a tale of a Black woman’s struggle for dignity during segregation it will be a biography of Fannie Lou Hamer. There’s a project for Tyler Perry to mull over if he ever hopes to make his Academy Award winning dreams come true.
Hollywood wants stories about domestics, not activists.
Related articles
- Melissa Harris Perry Breaks Down The Help: ‘Ahistorical And Deeply Troubling’ (mediaite.com)
- Movie Review: The Help (blogcritics.org)
- Driving Miss Daisy meets Waiting to Exhale: circa 1960 (eboneeyes.wordpress.com)
- The ghosts of Mississippi still haunt Hollywood (independent.co.uk)
Doug Lamborn: Accidentially Ignorant. Intentionally Racist
Racism: the tar baby Republicans can't let go of.
Writing in USA Today, columnist DeWayne Wickham called out the GOP for it’s “disrespect” of President Obama.
What should be clear to the whole world watching the debt-ceiling battle is that the Republicans are far more intent on taking the president’s scalp than balancing the nation’s books. They had ample opportunities to do the latter during the eight years of George W. Bush.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., has been especially relentless in the debt-ceiling fight. He attacked this first African-American president with a palpable disrespect not only for Obama personally, but also for his esteemed office.
Following what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called Cantor’s “childish” display during a meeting with Obama, the House majority leader complained that the president had cut short the meeting and stormed out of the room. “He shoved back and said, ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’ and walked out,” Cantor snidely told reporters— as though the president needs his permission to end a White House gathering.
That encounter might have reminded Obama of the open letter Frederick Douglass, a runaway slave and abolitionist who became one of this nation’s first black diplomats, wrote to his slave master.
It would be “a privilege” to show you “how mankind ought to treat each other,” Douglass told the man who had badly mistreated him. “I am your fellow man, but not your slave.”
Douglass’ words might have prompted another reflection when, during a critical point in the debt negotiations, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, contemptuously waited more than half a day to return a call from the president.
Or, Obama might have heard Douglass’ words ringing in his ears after acting House Speaker Steve LaTourette of Ohio had to warn his GOP colleagues during a heated debt-reduction debate on the House floor to stop making disparaging remarks about Obama.
This total lack of respect is downright contemptible — if not unpatriotic. Such contempt, I’m convinced, is rooted in something other than political differences. Today, you might not see the overt actions of racist southern governors like Ross Barnett or George Wallace in the 1960s. But the presence of Jim Crow, Jr. — a more subtle form of racism — is there.
It’s possible to blame the raw rhetoric and tension between the president and the Republicans on the summer heat, the unflinching media scrutiny on the debt ceiling negotiations or next year’s elections and the gamesmanship that Washington thrives on in these sort of dust-ups.
On the other hand, maybe Wickham is right. Maybe the Republicans have a deeper seeded issue with Obama. Like a racial one.
The latest example comes from Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado:
“Even if some people say, well the Republicans should have done this or they should have done that, they will hold the president responsible,” said Lamborn said Friday during an interview on a Denver radio station. “Now I don’t want to even have to be associated with him. It’s like touching a tar baby and you get, you get it, you know… you are stuck and you are part of the problem now and you can’t get away.“
The sooap that makes you dirtier, not cleaner.
Lamborn may just be a lamebrain who had no idea of the racial (and racist) implications of such a loaded phrase.
But how many “accidents” does it take before it stops being accidental and starts being deliberate? How many times can the nation’s first Black president be taunted, mocked and insulted based upon his race before it becomes clear it is based on racism?
How far does it have to go? Does someone have to stand in the well of the House or Senate and drop a “N-bomb” on Obama before there’s no denying it anymore?
Apologists for Lamborn have said he meant no offense by the reference and people who are offended now were probably the same ones who were offended when the word “niggardly” was used by another politician years ago.
“Niggardly” isn’t an insult. Niggardly means cheap, not a dark-skinned person of African heritage. “Tar baby” is an insult and if you doubt me, try calling any sentient Black man by that name and see how they react (but you might want to take a step or two back first).
Since we’re mucking around deep in the Cliche mine, let’s excavate another one while we’re in here. It’s called “playing the race card” and you don’t have to be Black to pull it and throw in on table as a device to shame guilty conscience liberals into spasms of White guilt.
Lamborn the Lamebrain and his victim.
White folks can pull it too–and they do. They do it when they want to dog whistle to the real hardcore racists, that they got their back. “Pssst…I can’t say it out loud, but I can’t stand ‘those people’ either.”
Did anyone’s ears just perk up?
Republicans used to call it “the Southern Strategy.” Now along with romancing slavery it’s just “standard operating procedure.
Lamborn apologized to the president and says he “regrets any misunderstanding” over his comments. What’s to misunderstand? How many times do most people say “tar baby” in a year?
An apology is meaningless when it’s issued only because you got caught in the act of being stupid, insensitive, crude, but mostly racist.
An apology is worthless when it’s issued after the dog whistle to the really hardcore racist that you’re sorry you said it (but really you’re not sorry at all).
An apology is garbage when you know what you said is what you meant and the “apology” is just to cover your ass.
Apologies are meaningless when they come from Republicans after they have made racist remarks because as sure as God made little green apples, there’s going to be another Republican coming down the chute to say something even more racist.
Kill that noise. Apology not accepted.
Forward these bullshit lies to someone who will happily swallow them. Try Herman Cain. He specializes in absolving White Republicans of racism. He’d probably love the gig.
The Herminator Gets All the Women. Gotta be the hat.
Related articles
- Gop Disrespect of Obama (maboulette.wordpress.com)
- Colorado GOP Rep. Doug Lamborn: Associating with Obama is ‘Touching a Tar Baby’ (littlegreenfootballs.com)
- 50 Cent Goes In On Congressman For Calling President Obama A “Tar Baby” (hiphopwired.com)
