Monthly Archives: July 2015

Yup. You, Racist

Saw someone post this on HKB (as Morgan calls facebook, the “Hello Kitty of Bloggin'”) … yet another white person self-flogging in an effort to garner favor from those who constantly demand self-flogging for a fleeting moment of favor.  Until they throw you right back into your race box and demand another round.

It never ends.

article about race

Article linked from picture

So to sum up, even though some individual whites might not be not racist, it’s a racist system. And I’m going to go ahead and slap a race label on that “white” system.  Also, white people have zero authority on the subject, so they need to shut up. Therefore … we must institute solutions approved by black activists.  White people who agree with the black activists can speak as long as they defer to the black activists in the end. Sit in the back of the bus, if you will. And black people who disagree with the black activists aren’t really black, so they must shut up too.

Because, you know, we can’t judge people by the color of their skin, right?

We know it’s a racist system because neighborhoods are segregated. When white people move out of neighborhoods it’s because they can, because “the system”. When black people move out of neighborhoods it’s because they’re not really black. You know, they’re “acting white”.

Because, you know, race determines behavior, right?

What he’s saying is there’s nothing any white person can do to appease it.  It’s so bad, it’s not even worth talking to “them” about it.  Why is that?  So I’ll always have a club with which to beat them and control them?  Apparently to be truly black, you must at least resent, if not hate – white people.  Because racism.  Irony, identity politics is thy name.
o-OLBERMANN-MADDOW-facebook

If you ask me, the racists are the people who make absolutely everything about race.  The people who cannot stop talking about anything without putting it in terms of race.  Those people.

It’s “the system”.  So “tear it down”.  Perpetually.  If it sounds familiar, it’s because the black activists, like the gay activists, and pretty much all of the identity politics activists have all been co-opted by the community organizers, who are at their core revolutionary (or, as they like to put it, “fundamentally transforming”) Marxists.  They’ll use you as long as you serve their purpose, which is tearing “the system” down.

sharptonjacksonWe’ve had 50 years of affirmative action. 50 years of government-mandated, preferential treatment – which intentionally ignores merit and rewards race. Not Asians, Arabs, or Hispanics, for the most part. I guess because they’re all really “white”. Or they act “white”. Like the Uncle Toms.

And what is the result? Blacks and whites still self-segregate, mainly along these cultural lines. If you’re not angry at whites, you’re not really black. If you’re responsible and polite and you try to integrate into American society like pretty much every other ethnic group which has come here has done … you’re not really black. As it turns out, the only things that make you black in the black activists’ mind is anger at white people and a self-destructive victimhood attitude. As ye sow so shall ye reap.

People get treated badly by different people for lots of different stupid reasons.

Yup, there are some real assholes out there who are racist. And they come in every skintone. All over the country. All over the world. You have your Spike Lee’s who stare daggers at mixed couples. How dare they? It counters the hate narrative, which must be preserved. Or your Marion Barry’s who see Asians coming over, working hard, being polite and responsible and doing well and saying “We got to do something about these Asians coming and opening up businesses and dirty shops. They ought to go.”

Or Mary Frances Berry, former chairwoman of the US Commission on Civil Rights “Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them.”

Or you have the backward asshole who sees a black man and assumes he reflects the culture that is projected and “celebrated” as “black” culture when … he’s just an American with dark brown skin.

No, to be an American basically means to believe this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Pretty much everything else flows from that. There’s no right to be liked no matter how you behave. If we don’t have the right to judge behavior, then there is no basis for any laws at all. Behave like an American, be treated like one. A generation of that attitude will do far more than 50 years of being handed a free victim grudge token to be redeemed by you and your prodigy forever.

It never ends.  So someone must be benefiting from this attitude.  And it’s not regular white and black folk.  It’s the race hustlers.

I know. “Thanks for white-splaining that to me.”

Know what? You’re welcomed.

Loading Likes...

If I Were a Democrat …

Inspired by Bob Parks’ Black History Month and Bill Whittle’s Pin the Tale on the Donkey.

HillaryConfederate2a

hillaryshoppedAs an aside, on a related note, it looks like the old College pic of Hillary with the Confederate Flag on the shelf is a fake (would NOT surprise me if it were faked by democrats to dupe free-speechers into posting it to discredit them). But no matter. It really isn’t needed to get the point across.

The Obama pin that’s been circulating is probably a fake as well, and I would bet that the Hillary “H->” pin was created to capitalize on the controversy too. But neither is needed to get the point across.

ConfederateFlagObama

Probably a fake

 

hillz

Likely a fake as well.

 

Loading Likes...

Obamify Democrats Pathetic Meme

Obamify DemocratsOf course, it’ll work if nobody counters it.

Fortunately, it’s pretty easy to counter.

When you take office at the low point of a the kind of recession caused by the housing bubble popping and things rebound naturally, you would expect this. After the stock market fell by 2/3, it WILL rebound back to where it was … usually in 18 months or so. Why did it take 6 years under Obama?

Same thing with unemployment, with the added benefit of so many people just plain giving up and leaving the job market altogether skewing the numbers downward to help you out.

Presidents rarely have jack to do with gas prices – and this is particularly rich from a guy who WANTS energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket”.  Because ManBearPig.

Bush_Obama_Deficit_2014At best, the Obama deficits are now about the same as Bush deficits were before the big TARP bailout — which Obama voted for — which drove the deficit tremendously high just before Obama took office – and also drove the *average* Bush Deficit up as a result. Pretty rich to blame your predecessor for something you voted for, then take the credit for NOT borrowing as much in subsequent years — because you have the benefit of the graft you blamed on your predecessor to fall from. The graph tells the story.

insuranceInsurance … insurance … Obamacare… 57% of those ENROLLED in Obamacare plans were previously uninsured according to this study.  I can see where the mathematically challenged might take that as half of the uninsured are now insured.  But really, it’s only half of the enrollees were previously uninsured.  That’s different.  In reality, it’s only dropped the “uninsured” rate by 2-3%.  Not half.  And at what cost?  We haven’t even begun to see what this is going to cost, especially after the unintended market consequences kick in.

You “got” Bin Laden largely because of efforts you opposed. Word has it you could have gotten him much sooner, but you were hesitant to pull the trigger and others basically pressed the issue until you said “yes”.  Either way, it’s not like it was some sort of bold decision.  Well for YOU maybe.  But I’m pretty sure any normal president at war in this kind of war would have taken out the enemy once found.

IRAQ-SYRIA-UNRESTYou also managed to lose everything that was gained in at least one of those wars, leaving a power vaccuum into which ISIS has stepped. In addition you’ve agreed to drop sanctions against Iran if they’ll promise (*snicker*) that they’ll stop working on their nukes for a while – while retaining their capacity to do it. And not allow anyone to check to see if they’re even holding up their own tiny end of the bargain.  I think we’ve seen this movie before.

The housing market crash was a market correction, so of course it stablized. It crashed to back to a relatively stable position. And there are signs of a new housing bubble building. This is what happens when you fail to address the underlying issues that led to the previous one.

As for the redefinition of marriage — of course you wanted it and your allies campaigned hard for it, calling it “marriage equality”. What it really is is the re-definition of a social institution, and it was done in response to a majority of people in several staLyingtes voting to keep their social institution defined the way they wanted it rather than to have courts impose a different one on them. So it went to the Supreme Court where the intense activist political pressure caused 5 judges to invent a new “right” out of thin air — which will ultimately lead to the de-definition of family. But that’s what Big Brother wants ultimately, anyway. Surprise!

FAIL. All around. But this is the kind of naked spin community organizers do every day.

Loading Likes...

But, Bible Verses!

Lotta argument out there on the marriage redefinition thing over religious doctrine and Bible verses.  Quite understandable, as this is a freedom of conscience issue as much as it is a cultural issue.  If it really were a “why can’t we just get along” issue, I think it would have already been settled.  We were actually a long way toward getting it settled in the public conversation  — and pretty much in favor of tolerance and protection of these relationships without fundamentally redefining a basic cultural institution for 320 million people without their consent.

Well I ran across one of those arguments over at Pirate’s Cove, and there was the ubiquitous Z-type over there spewing out Bible verses about stoning people and such for various things, which we clearly do not do, and called them out for picking and choosing which Bible verses to follow…. along with the tired old “Christians hate gays” meme … well, I had to leave a comment.  Which follows:

It’s a myth that Christians hate gays, perpetrated by those who want you to be riled up at them. They conflate disapproval of behavior with hate. They are two very different things. But propagandists throughout history try to frame their arguments by stripping words of their meanings and by re-defining words as they understand the emotional power of some words over others.

Leaving Christianity aside, it’s hardly just Christians that eschew homosexuality. And if we’re concerned with religious liberty, then it really doesn’t matter why someone thinks something is right or wrong, whether he read it in a book, had a holy man tell him so, or just came up with it on his own. If he thinks something is wrong, that is his right to believe it, church or no church.

I myself, for the record, am not saying homosexuality is right or wrong here, I’m saying people have a right to their own conscience — which means THEY DO get to pick and choose which pieces of scripture to stick to, and which not to, how to interpret them– and YOU do not get to choose them for them. One would think this would be reflexively clear, but it’s apparently not. So it doesn’t matter how many verses from the Bible you come up with to tell Christians what they should or should not believe. Religious liberty is just that.

Which also means they should not have to accept any behavior they do not wish to accept, and not to facilitate any activity they do not want to facilitate, to whatever degree they do or do not want to.

A lot of gay people actually get this. Not the activists, though. The activists and their allies are after something else — government-forced acceptance. Which is no better than government-forced acceptance of a particular establishment of religion.

I say that any society has the right to define its own cultural institutions, but that should come from within the society of people not from a board of unelected Ivy League, Ivory tower self-congratulatory elitists flipping definitions like toggle-switches in a giant social engineering experiment where people are little gears and light bulbs within a machine.

In the multi-cultural model, to the extent that it can even work there must be some level of respect for others’ beliefs and institutions. But one side shows nothing but contempt for them, and it’s not the Christian side doing it. It’s the activist side, projecting.

So spare us the various Biblical arguments, often taken out of context — and invention of rights that do not exist.

Let people choose who they want to associate with and how they behave toward each other in those groups, and let them choose whom not to associate with — and therefore the extent to which they wish to participate in the activities of other groups.

As Atheist Anarchist Christopher Cantwell put it,

“a “license” is an indicator that you do not have a “right” to do something. Licenses are a thing government issues, specifically to prevent someone from doing something, until they get government permission to so do. They are, by their very definition, a constriction on rights, a limiter of freedom. To license a thing is to outlaw it, and to then grant one permission to break that law. To say that you are fighting for gay “rights” by seeking to have licenses issued to them, is not just a complete failure to understand rights, it is a complete failure to understand rudimentary English.”

The real solution to this was to get the government out of it completely. I think I read somewhere that even in states where “gay marriage” was legal, only about 6 or 7% actually did do it, as this guy’s article underscores. There must have been some other reason it was really being pushed … and going back to Cantwell:

“The answer is quite simple. To expand federal authority, centralize power, and give the left a win that they would never be able to accomplish through elections. While portrayed as being a lessening of restrictions on gay people, it is an increase in the power of the court and of the federal government, which could just as easily be used to federally ban homosexuality entirely.”

So be careful what you ask for, and be careful how you go about getting it, and who you … (and I realize the irony of this metaphor) get into bed to do it with.

You, I, nobody — has the right to demand approval of any of our relationships. The government, especially the Federal government has no jurisdiction here unless the people, through their congress, decide to. And even then it is to be limited, through the courts, citing authority in the Constitution. It is not the court’s role to insert itself and invent rights out of thin air.

Loading Likes...