Tag Archives: Race Relations

Geraldo Rivera, Barack Obama ‘Is Black’

Last night on the O’Reilly Factor, Fox News host and sanctuary city apologist Geraldo Rivera still believes that, despite being elected by people of all races (that includes white people) and backgrounds two years ago, the dissatisfaction with him now is due to his being black. President Jimmy Carter, CNN, Bill Moyers, Hank Johnson, much of the Washington and New York press corps, Newsweek Magazine said the same thing two years ago.

Does opposition to President Obama’s policies and agenda exist because of his skin color? Don’t know. Let’s examine this proposition a little closer.

If Geraldo is right, he would have you believe of Americans right now:

  • We would be more than willing to welcome cap-and-trade with open arms, even if we paid a thousand dollars or more extra every year for our energy use, if Barack Obama were only white.
  • We would be dancing in the streets celebrating the dawning of government control of our health care if only Barack Obama were white.
  • It would be just dandy if government bureaucrats rationed health care for our parents, as long as the president is white.
  • We would jump at the chance of the government owning ALL of the auto manufacturing companies .. not just General Motors … if the president just didn’t have dark skin.
  • We would applaud those ACORN workers giving tax avoidance advice to a pimp and his prostitute if the workers hadn’t been black.
  • Most Americans – even ones that don’t pay income taxes now – would be more than willing to give 70% of everything they earn to the federal government when asked … so long as they are asked by a white president.
  • We would have been thrilled, I tell you … THRILLED to have all of those Islamic goons being held at Guantanamo be not only released, but sent to be school resource officers at our local government schools, if only a white president put that plan in motion.
  • It would be OK if a white president stood back and allowed Iran to build its coveted nukes … we’re only unhappy about that because a black president is doing it.
  • Deficits? We don’t care about deficits! Make our children and grand children and great grand children pay through the nose for our president’s spending habits … just so long as the president isn’t black.
  • Government pork? Like we actually care? Look … you folks in Washington can spend all the money you want – how about more studies of the mating habits of Polish Zlotnika pigs? – just make sure it’s not a black president who signs the spending bill into law.
  • We wouldn’t care if all illegal aliens were counted twice in the next Census … just so long as the president isn’t black.
  • Those Black Panther thugs who threatened voters in Philly? The ONLY reason we’re upset that they were given a pass is because Barack Obama is black.
  • Every single member of the president’s cabinet could be a tax cheat as far as we’re concerned … just so long as the president is white.
  • Forced unionization? Bring it on! We love card check! We love the idea of union goons threatening and intimidating workers to sign a card saying they want to belong to a union! What we don’t like is that a black president is pushing this idea.
  • Single-party talks with that Gargoyle that runs North Korea? It’s about time we legitimized that little pipsqueak. We’re only mildly upset here because the person who is doing that happens to be black.
  • More regulation of the finance sector? We could care less! For all we care you can nationalize the banks and decree that only the government can make home loans .. .and you can even apportion those home loans on the basis of race if you want to … just so long as the president is white!
  • Minimum wage? Like we care about that? Raise it to $15 an hour if you want! Just give us our white president back.

Upon further examination, I may be going out on a limb, being conservative and all, but I’d say that Geraldo is wrong.  Because if there were a white president trying to do all the above, most of America would still be against him, or her. I feel better about myself now. No white guilt or anything.

But I do weep for where this President and his party has taken this country. His party using the race card against any and all opposition to advance their agenda is a disgrace. Which may explain to some extent why the media has been more a cheerleader than an inquisitor when it comes to the President and his policies. Otherwise they would have to characterize themselves as being racist.

There is nothing post-racial about Obama’s administration, Democrats in Congress, and Geraldo Rivera. And every second that passes where Obama himself does not talk it down and put an end to it, is just digging their racial hole deeper.

Celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

On November 2, 1983, Republican President Ronald Reagan signed the bill in the White House Rose Garden making the Birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a national holiday. The bill first came up for a vote in 1979, but the Democrat-controlled US House of Representatives refused to pass the legislation. The first national celebration of the holiday in honor of Dr. King took place on January 20, 1986 and is celebrated on the 3rd Monday in January. In his remarks on signing the bill Reagan said: “Dr. King had awakened something strong and true, a sense that true justice must be colorblind, and that among white and black Americans, as he put it, ‘Their destiny is tied up with our destiny, and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom; we cannot walk alone.’”

The Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Holiday Commission with the mission of overseeing the observance of the MLK holiday was created in the bill signed by Reagan.

In May 1989, Coretta Scott King was made a member of the commission for life by Republican President George H. W. Bush.

Democrats today are trying to usurp Dr. King’s legacy, when it was the Democrats who Dr. King was fighting. See the below article for details.

* * * * * * * *

Democrats Smeared Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the 1960′s

By Frances Rice

Character assassination. That’s the tactic used by Democrats in the 1960′s to discredit Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican who was fighting the Democrats and trying to stop them from denying civil rights to blacks.

The relentless disparagement of Dr. King by Democrats led to his being physically assaulted and ultimately to his tragic death. In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Prior to his death, Democrats bombed Dr. King’s home several times. The scurrilous efforts by the Democrats to harm Dr. King included spreading rumors that he was a Communist and accusing him of being a womanizer and a plagiarist.

An egregious act against Dr. King occurred on October 10, 1963. With the approval of Democrat President John F. Kennedy, Democrat Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy – President Kennedy’s brother – authorized the wiretapping of Dr. King’s telephone by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Wiretaps were placed by the FBI on the telephones in Dr. King’s home and office. The FBI also bugged Dr. King’s hotel rooms when he traveled around the country.

The trigger for this unsavory wiretapping was apparently Dr. Kings’ criticism of the Kennedy Administration, according to the author David Garrow in his book, “Bearing the Cross”. The justification given by the Kennedy Administration publicly was that two of Dr. King’s associates, including David Levinson, had ended their association with the Communist Party in order to work undercover and influence Dr. King. However, after years of continuous and extensive wiretapping, the FBI found no direct links of Dr. King to the Communist Party.

The unrelenting efforts by Democrats to tarnish Dr. King’s reputation continued for years after his death. To his credit, Republican President Ronald Reagan ignored the Democrats’ smear campaign and made Dr. King’s Birthday a holiday.

Today, while professing to revere Dr. King, Democrats are still trying to tarnish his image by making remarks that diminish his civil rights achievements and continuing to claim that Dr. King embraced Communism – a system that is secularist and socialist.

In reality, Dr. King was a Christian who held deeply religious beliefs and was guided by his faith and his Republican Party principles in his struggle to gain equality for blacks. He did not embrace the type of socialist, secularist agenda that is promoted by the Democrat Party today, which includes fostering dependency on welfare that breaks up families, supporting same-sex marriage and banning God from the public square.

An understanding of who the real Dr. King was can be gained from a glimpse of Dr. King as a young man who participated in an oratorical contest when he was 14 years old. The title of his speech was “The Negro and the Constitution” which had the following sentences: “We cannot have an enlightened democracy with one great group living in ignorance…We cannot be truly Christian people so long as we flout the central teachings of Jesus: brotherly love and the Golden Rule….”

If Dr. King were still alive, he would be slandered by Democrats in the same way that they smeared him in the 1960′s and demean all black Republicans today.

Bio: Frances Rice is a lawyer, a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She can be contacted at: www.NBRA.info/

Just Racists And Haters

There is a lot of anger toward President Obama, this time from Democrats and the far Left Progressives. They vehemently disagree with his posture over not increasing taxes on ‘the rich.’ Well, if what was said about Republicans’ anger at Obama’s policies is any indication, isn’t it now obvious? These Democrats are all racists. They’re just objecting and are angry at him because he is black. Oh, and they’re haters too!

related link: Is Jimmy Carter Right?

NAACP: Wear Our Chains, Not Theirs

The NAACP has been down this road before. So has the President and his advisors. So has Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. But the more dire the political future looks for the Democrat(ic) Party in the upcoming mid-term election, the more we’re going to see the worst in them and their supporters like the NAACP.

Now the NAACP leaps into action and puts out the call for all black Americans to get back on their plantation with the accusation that Tea Party supporters, over half the nation, are racists. Get out there and vote for the Democrats. Keeping their power is that important to them. What they’re not saying is wear our chains, not theirs. The way this party and this group continually use the race card to obfuscate the real issues is disgraceful. Taking blacks for granted and treating them like mind-numb robots is even worse.

David Almasi of the Project 21 Black Leadership Network calls out the NAACP’s fraudulent accusations . . .

“Looking at the research that comprises this report, I find it interesting that it appears not a single leader of the mentioned tea party groups was asked for its background,” noted Project 21 member Coby Dillard, a co-founder of the Hampton Roads Tea Party in Virginia. “Had this research been conducted, the facts would show that two of the mentioned groups are simply capitalizing from the tea party movement and that two others are for-profit enterprises. I fail to see, just as I did this summer when their resolution was voted on, how this report ‘advances’ black Americans or those of any color. The longer the NAACP stays on this path, the more they show themselves unable to provide solutions to the issues most Americans care about.”

But don’t worry about the heightened racial tension the NAACP is fomenting. President Obama said that his administration was going to be post-racial. I guess that means we will see him on the network news tonight denouncing the NAACP for their ridiculous accusations. Or, maybe not.

Link: NAACP Fails to Disappoint with the Failure of Its Latest Tea Party Attack

CNN’s Rick Sanchez Fired For Comment

Saying stuff like this used to be a resume enhancement for media types. Is CNN really serious or is this what happens when your ratings get down to friends, family members, and employees? Maybe he would have been OK if the target of his comment was a conservative?

CNN fired news anchor Rick Sanchez on Friday, a day after he called Jon Stewart a bigot in a radio show interview where he also questioned whether Jews should be considered a minority.

Intramural sniping like this is interesting to watch though. It does put Sanchez between a rock and a hard place. If CNN fired you, where else is there to go? Or to put it another way, who else would want you?

Other than possibly Rick Sanchez and his family, who cares?

Link: CNN’s Sanchez fired after calling Stewart a bigot

Quran Burning Day, Misquided

No doubt that Rev. Terry Jones, the minister of a so-called church (in Florida no less) is out to get some publicity. Regardless of the fact that doing so will only stir up emotions among the good Muslims or those ‘on the fence’ in being on the right side of the war on terror, this fool is hell-bent on doing it. There is also no doubt that he can do it, legally. The same as that Imam Rauf guy can build a mosque in a building that was hit in the 9/11 attack, making it actual ground zero. But in both cases it would be wrong and insensitive to do it. Chaulk it up to having a secular government with inherent freedoms.

Gen. David Petraeus expressed concern that this Quran burning party would endanger U.S. troops in theater. More than they are already in danger. Also no doubt, the General has a point. But let’s face it. The enemy there is and always will be our enemy until they either surrender or die. Not burning a Quran is not going to change that fact. And given the motivation of those radical Islamists, who betray Islam, the best thing the General can do is kill them. War is about killing people and breaking things. The responsibility to ‘finish them’ belongs to the Commander in Cheif. Think that will happen?

Also, have you noticed the same people who ran in front of the camera in support of that Imam are missing with respect to Rev. Jones? Same issue, rights and freedom. But like the proposed ground zero mosque, just because it could be done, doesn’t mean it should be done. Rev. Jones needs to get a grip, same as Rev. Wright needs to get a grip. Both are preaching and fomenting hate. One is a race bigot, the other a religious bigot.

There is an opportunity and a role that the media could play in this sick display planned by Rev. Jones. They could flat-out ignore him. Ignore him in print and on TV. That would be acting responsibly.

Also acting responsibly would be to deal with the real issues of oppressive Muslim society where it comes to stoning a woman in Iran. THAT ought to be front-page, above the fold. Not this jerk in Florida.

This undated file image made available by Amnesty International in London on Thursday, July 8, 2010, shows Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a mother of two who was sentenced to death by stoning in Iran on charges of adultery. Ashtiani is now facing a new punishment of 99 lashes because a British newspaper ran a picture of an unveiled woman mistakenly identified as her, the woman’s son said Monday. (AP Photo/Amnesty International, File)

Related Links: EU decries ‘barbaric’ plans to stone Iranian womanHolder: Quran burning idiotic and dangerous

Black Conservatives Support Glenn Beck Event

Black activists with the Project 21 leadership network support the right of talk show host Glenn Beck to hold his “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 2010. Because Beck’s event takes place on the anniversary and at the location of Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1963 “March on Washington” rally, leaders of the establishment civil rights groups oppose the event.

“It’s my understanding from reading the Constitution that the First Amendment applies to all. And nothing better exemplified that than when Dr. King exercised his First Amendment rights nearly 50 years ago,” said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. “This isn’t about Dr. King or the day and venue itself. It is about a contempt for the message. It is about those who trade on race as a means of notoriety and income fomenting discord for the sake of keeping those who are loathe to realize they are free imprisoned on a plantation of resentment and bitterness.”

Read more »

Where Do Anchor Babies Come From?

Justice Brennan’s Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies

by Ann Coulter

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you’re 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves — many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)

Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it’s amazing the drafters even considered the amendment’s effect on the children of aliens.

But they did.

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, the Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement — who, I’m guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.

Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such “plausible distinction(s)” before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than “lives within walking distance.”

But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.

Combine Justice Brennan’s footnote with America’s ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.

Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:

“Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa … gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa’s 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. … The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies.”

In the Silverios’ munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.

It’s bad enough to be governed by 5-4 decisions written by liberal judicial activists. In the case of “anchor babies,” America is being governed by Brennan’s 1982 footnote.

New Racism And The NAACP

Keep a lookout for the NAACP to take up a resolution to urge all people of good will to repudiate the racism of the ‘The New Black Panthers,’ and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era. But don’t hold your breath waiting.

Link: The New Black Panther Party, gangsta edition!.

Black Activists Condemn NAACP Resolution

Washington, D.C. – As the NAACP plans to use its group’s prestige to bash the tea party movement, members of the Project 21 black leadership network are urging delegates at the NAACP’s national convention not to turn the NAACP into a pawn for progressive political bosses.

“As a frequent speaker at tea party rallies around the country, I can assure the NAACP that the tea party movement’s concerns are about President Obama’s policies and not his race,” said Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli. “I’m deeply concerned that the NAACP is being used as a political tool to do the dirty work of the progressive movement. Instead of criticizing tea parties, the NAACP would be better served denouncing the racist comments made by a member of the New Black Panther Party and their voter intimidation outside a Philadelphia polling place in the last presidential election.”

According to a report in the Kansas City Star, the NAACP, which is conducting its 101st annual convention in that city, will take up a resolution as early as Tuesday to urge “all people of good will to repudiate the racism of Tea Parties, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.”

Kansas City NAACP chapter president Anita Russell said the tea party movement is “really not about limited government.” The resolution reportedly dwells on “explicitly racist behavior” that relies upon anecdotal posters opposing President Obama and allegations of the use of racial epithets by tea party participants.

Project 21′s Borelli added: “I urge the delegates to read the Contract from America – a list of policy objectives for Congress that was developed by tea party members nationwide. These objectives are clearly about limited government and liberty. In fact, the NAACP should be very concerned Obama’s cap-and-trade energy policy will lead to higher energy prices and higher unemployment – particularly among poor and minority households.”

Borelli, who has spoken at tea party events nationwide (including last year’s 912 rally at the U.S. Capitol) is the author of the commentary “Liberals Crash Tea Party, But Stay Silent On Black Panther Hate Talk,” published by FoxNews.com on July 12, 2010.

“Personally, I’m tired of arguing with the ignorant,” said Bob Parks, a Project 21 member who has also participated in tea party events – including the rallies outside the U.S. Capitol the weekend of the House votes on Obamacare. “Al Sharpton recently tried in vain on his radio show to get me to apologize for alleged tea party racism. He tried to get me to apologize for racial epithets hurled at Congressman John Lewis that only Lewis seemed to hear. I would guess neither Al Sharpton nor the overwhelming majority of NAACP members have ever been to a tea party, so they speak from intentional ignorance. While liberals scream racism at the tea parties purely because of their audacity to oppose Obama, it’s the progressives who seem to feel free to use racial epithets against others as they know – as is seen in this instance – that the NAACP turns a blind partisan eye.”

The NAACP’s Russell reportedly is “pretty certain” the anti-tea party resolution will pass.

“Progressives have hijacked the NAACP to the extent that the group stands silent as conservative blacks suffer indignities for their beliefs. Some NAACP even egg on this appalling behavior – providing political cover and lapdog services for these elitists,” said Project 21 member Kevin Martin. “As a conservative black man, I have felt more welcomed and at home within the tea party movement than among those of my own who side with the this new NAACP. If a few random signs of President Obama looking like the Joker is indeed racist, then where was the NAACP when conservative blacks are depicted as lawn jockeys, Oreos and Uncle Toms?”

“The level and depth of ignorance and misrepresentation of truth is unquantifiable,” said Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie, another speaker at tea party events in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Michigan. “The simple truth is that the tea party movement is about smaller government, lower taxes and an adherence to the Constitution. The NAACP is welcome to disagree with the tea parties, but in making that complaint they must be truthful and not fall prey to ignorance and perceived disaffection.”

A $100,000 reward offer made by Andrew Breitbart to anyone who can provide video and audio evidence that racial epithets were shouted at Congressional Black Caucus members by tea party activists on March 20 remains unclaimed months later.

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information about the history of Project 21, visit the Project 21 website.