V Sebastian Page

Still Sucks To Be Whitey In "Post-Racial" Obamaland

Great product, for those who can use it (there's the customary no-cracker clause):

Yet another reminder that racism is alive and well (but never as popularly advertised).

-VSP

"Uppity Negro" Says We Are "A Nation Of Cowards"

First things first. Yes, the title is intended to be provocative. And if you happen to be a liberal who ended up here mistakenly on your way to the Huffington Post, then no, you should not assume the title is indicative of my personal views, whether conscious or not.

What you can assume is that I am one of a growing majority who are absolutely sick and tired with the race and gender games we play these days, in many cases with life impacting or altering effect (for the worse) on real victims of modern day political power struggles. I'm tired of seeing men be trashed for being men, and for endlessly blaming "whitey" whenever someones life is not all hunkey-dorey.

Rather than ranting on and on about this thing, and believe me, I could, here's an article (printed at Big Hollywood) by actor and columnist Joseph C. Phillips that prompted me to post. Enjoy:

"According to the website CNN.com, some of the criticism of first lady Michelle Obama is driven by partisan politics. However, “others say the attacks are rooted in white resentment of the “uppity Negro.” Two things quickly come to mind. The first is that no one other than Harry Reid uses the word “Negro” anymore. Second, that it is the 21st century and yet there are those who continue to talk about race as if it were 1955.

Last February, in a speech to honor Black History Month, Attorney General Eric Holder remarked that Americans of all colors should stop avoiding an honest discussion of race in America. Said Holder: “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”

I disagreed with Holder at the time and still do. Americans are not cowards when it comes to discussions of race, neither are they dishonest. Rather, I believe Americans are simply bone-tired.

The American conversation on race began more than two centuries ago and frankly, we have talked of little else. The topic permeated the discussions during the drafting of both our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and continues today, with a black man sitting in the white house.

Not cowards, just exhausted and so very, very eager to move on!

This was the great “hope” for Barack Obama. The great tide that swept Barack Obama into the White House was not the hope of a hard left social and economic agenda. Americans were eager to move on to a new and more uplifting conversation about their nation and their lives as citizens. And one of the things they wanted to change was the conversation on race.

In fairness, changing America’s racial conversation may have been a bit too much to ask of one man. Although for a man who promised that his nomination as a candidate for president would be remembered as the moment the planet would heal and the oceans would calm, such expectations were perhaps not so outrageous. Nevertheless–his ability or inability to calm the tides notwithstanding–he is only human.

And early on, there were signs that it was all too good to be true.

There was the revelation of his 20-year association with the reverend Jeremiah Wright, pastor of the universal church of “get back whitey.” This eye-opener was followed by several editorials introducing voters to the new “racial code.” We discovered, for instance, that talking about Obama’s elitism was code for saying he was “uppity” and to point out his inexperience was to call him a “boy.” Alas, this was all a harbinger of what was to come.

This administration has attempted to marginalize its opponents by labeling them as racists; movements have been slandered with charges of racism, and principled disagreement is suddenly seen as evidence of bigotry. It all seems a bit surreal. As a nation, we seem to be talking about race now, more than we have in a very long time. As far as leading this nation into a post racial era, the election of Barack Obama can only be seen as a bust.

But perhaps I have misread the tea leaves. It may be that what we are witnessing is race- as-we-have-come-to-know-it in its death throes. We might also be seeing first hand the birth of a new paradigm of race in America—one that will carry us into the next generation.

This past March, in a deliberate attempt to provoke a racial incident, members of the Congressional Black Caucus marched through a large crowd of angry, mostly white, ObamaCare protestors. But the trick failed. The fire hoses didn’t appear; neither did the attack dogs, or the white racists shouting the N-word. Sure, the left claimed it happened–that these noble black heroes were spat upon and called ugly names as in days gone by–but the lie failed to gain traction.

Representatives Charles Rangel and Maxine Waters have claimed that race is behind investigations into their behavior, as opposed to the possibility that they have been unethical and dishonest. There was a time when such charges would have been greeted with seriousness as opposed to the snickering these recent protests have garnered.

The new left media is hard at work attempting to prove racial animus. Increasingly, however, their charges seem to read like a laundry-list of falsehoods and rather mundane annoyance: Scrutiny of the first lady, for instance.

It would be difficult for Americans to witness the cynical, dishonest, and hollow way in which race has been at issue over the last two years and not sense that something is afoot. Indeed, it may be that this nation is moving in a new direction on race. Sure, there will continue to be those who cling to the outdated view of black-white relationships, but increasingly they must be seen as out-of-step with the times. If true, it is both reason to celebrate and to shake Mr. Obama’s hand."

-VSP

My, how the times are changing...

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” - Theodore Roosevelt, 1907

Now I ask you, can you actually picture any modern liberal saying such things, much less believing them? No, certainly not. And they would call that modern progress. I would call it devolution into treacherous lunacy.

And now we have Obama, who hasn't a clue of what American patriotism entails, fighting to welcome illegal aliens who are by definition criminals. To listen to them, it becomes obvious they are precisely that of which President Roosevelt warned. They are of divided allegiance, if loyal to the US at all, seeking to import foreign nationalism rather than assimilate into Americanism, with no loyalty to the country or to the American people. Yet because they comprise a potential voting bloc sympathetic to liberal notions and policies of racism and redistribution, our leftist leaders welcome them with open arms, even as they spill blood across our borders.

Modern liberalism is the definition of treachery, shallow lunacy, and self-indulgent narcissism. They now seek to increase their numbers by flagrant dereliction of their most basic duties, the enforcement of our borders, and of our laws.

If you vote liberal, shame on you.

-VSP

Interesting: The decline of a once great nation

If you've read any of my previous posts, you should have no trouble figuring our who and what I blame for this:

The racist left: Stating the historically obvious

These days, charging the right with inherent racism serves the useful function of a de facto IQ test. For decades now legions of morons have bought into this accusation without the slightest bit of examination or intellectual integrity. It's a fantastically twisted bit of irony that race-mongers have been so successful with this demagoguery, given that history is riddled with examples of the precise opposite. It is one of the distinguishing honors of American conservatism that their historical track record is one of championing the equal rights of blacks. Here is just part of the historical record I refer to:

- The Democratic Party was founded in 1824 by Martin Van Buren (who became our 8th President). His plank consisted of the position that the federal government did not have authority to speak on race issues, or the issue of slavery; these were best considered by the states. This position allowed Democrat candidates to run as opposed to slavery, while guaranteeing the protection of slavery. In other words, this allowed them to begin their trend of voter manipulation, deceit, and outright lying, all for the cause of political power.

- The Republican Party was formed in 1855 and ran on a strictly abolitionist platform. In contrast to  many Democrats of the time, Abraham Lincoln (our 14th President) ran for federal office on the clear message that all were created equal. This was the unambiguous moral challenge to free slaves and the beginning of efforts to establish equal rights on their behalf (for those exposed to public education, just remember this...Lincoln was a Republican. He freed the slaves, not FDR, Kennedy, or Clinton).

Congressional records show that it was the Democrats that were opposed to legislation created to achieve civil rights for blacks as equal citizens. The acts that shared Democratic opposition were:

The Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866, the Enforcement Act of 1870, the Force Act of 1871, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972.

Get that? It was Democrats who opposed them. And, to spell out the obvious to liberal readers, that means it was Republicans that favored them. From the birth of the Republican Party to the present day, the last thing they have stood for is racism. In fact, they are consistently recorded in history as having been the exact opposite. Democrats, on the other hand, have a much more shameful history.

It takes an incredible amount of self delusion to think that a party that houses Senator Robert Byrd, former KKK member and supporter, is somehow the party championing the black plight. And Democratic Senator Harry Reid can refer to Obama as "light  skinned with no negro dialect," without barely a notice from liberal drones. Then there was the ascension of  Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, a known member of the racist organization La Raza with a judicial record of racist activism. I won't even get into Van Jones. For those of us who still agree with the colorblind ethic of Dr. Martin Luther King, it is  clear that there is virtually no member of the liberal political class that is without some degree of racist sentiment. The fact that these types of transgressions are permissible on the left while any conservative would be politically lynched for far less betrays the complete lack of integrity common on the liberal left.

So, in terms of history, it has been the Democrat Party that has been shown as racist to the core. In fact, the KKK was once an appendage of the Democrat Party, despite delusional contemporary efforts to align it with conservatives ( remember that neo-nazi groups favor national socialism, and socialism is a preference of the political left). But in these sensitive times, Democrats  cannot possibly be elected to power with such tastes. And in fairness, I would think (hope) that they have outgrown their old sensibilities in this regard. But I would argue that, in a sense, they have not.

 As the above video points out, Democrats have relied upon the dishonest manipulation of blacks for decades now. They see blacks as one of many constituency groups that must be kept in line with promises of bribes (entitlements) and the fear of racism, should Republicans be in power. It is, however, quite perplexing at how a group so doggedly devoted to a political party can be so incredibly ignorant of its history, and that it can so repeatedly fail to grasp the degree to which it is constantly manipulated by that party.

For many of us who have long ago figured out the tactics of the socialist left, it is obvious that racism is in fact alive and well...on the political left. No, they are not overt in that racism. But they cannot help but segregate people by race, gender, and now, sexual preference. Its the old tactic of "divide and conquer." And by sucking into their orbit each relatively smaller group, and by maintaining their allegiance through tax-payer funded promises and the constant whipping up of crisis and fear, they rely on the ignorance of the marionettes they would puppeteer.

Thankfully, as more and more blacks and other "minorities" slip through the cracks and get something approximating education rather than indoctrination, they are coming to conservatism in increasing numbers. Regretfully, a majority of the racial groups to which they belong are still of the "slave mind," defending their "masters" (Democrats) by attacking the brothers who do not fall in line with the "plantation mentality." Most hilariously, they often do it by using the exact same charges and language I've used in the previous sentence.

Wake up, America.

-VSP