The modern definition of ‘racist’ is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal.
Peter Brimelow
With the standard reply by liberals that support Obama being, only racists are opposed to him, the modern definition seems more applicable, than the classical definition. Too often, when people are debating, and the term “racist” is thrown out, it is intended to end the argument, by putting the person labeled on the defensive. It has been an effective liberal tool since the sixties. What does one do? Defend oneself against the slur, and thus head down the path the insult hurler wishes one to go? Say nothing and end the debate on their terms? Or ignore it, and press on with one’s original argument?
Things have changed since the term became such a powerful weapon, and from the modern definition at the top of this page, and those who use the term, they are indeed losing the argument.
Which brings me to some recent releases by Black Republicans, which get little or no mention in the Lame Stream Media, as it defies their well worn definitions of “racists,” as well.
In Denver, for the rest of the month of August, there are fifty billboards on display, that remind people that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, which is poignant when the polls indicate that over ninety percent of black voters support Obama.
Mrs. Alveda King, niece of MLK Jr., and a Republican, has a strong personal message, that can be read here in pdf, in which she states:
My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther
King, Sr., or “Daddy King”, was a
Republican and father of Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. who was a Republican.
The reminder is unwanted by most liberals, who have tried to high-jack the civil rights movement as their own, and wish to use 28 August, the date that MLK made his famous speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, as a historic moment for the first bi-racial candidate for President.
The National Black Republican Association and the Black Republican PAC released a press statement and video ad on Monday.
The press release states:
Forty-five years ago, on August 28, 1963, The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was a Republican and embraced the traditional values that made this country great delivered his inspirational civil rights “I Have a Dream” speech.
Today, Senator Barack Obama, with the most liberal voting record in the US Senate, is delivering his political acceptance speech, in an apparent attempt to assume for himself the mantle of Dr. Martin Luther King.
Dr. King did not embrace the type of secularist agenda promoted by Obama and the Democratic Party of today, which includes fostering dependency on welfare that breaks up families, supporting same-sex marriage and partial-birth abortion, and banning God from the public square.
Obama is no MLK!
The video is here.
No, Obama is no MLK, but he is certainly a race baiter, and evokes identity politics like none have before. An example is this statement he first made last year.
We have more work to do when more young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across America.”
–Barack Obama, NAACP forum, July 12, 2007
An outright lie, a lie he was confronted with by the Washington Post, yet he continued to repeat the same lie, many times after. According to the article:
In 2005, according to the Census Bureau, there were 864,000 black men in college. According to Justice Department statistics, there were 802,000 in federal and state prisons and jails, “even with the old heads holding on,” Morton says.
Between the ages of 18 and 24, however, black men in college outnumber those incarcerated by 4 to 1.
Still, the idea that the reverse is true stems from an image that has been perpetuated, Morton says, by the government, the media and the black leadership, whoever they are.
Then again, the WaPo Fact Checker addressed his lie with this piece.
To deal with the Obama claim first, this is an old myth that has been shot down many times before, most recently by our colleague DeNeen L. Brown in the Washington Post.
According to 2005 Census Bureau statistics, the male African-American population of the United States aged between 18 and 24 numbered 1,896,000. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 106,000 African-Americans in this age group were in federal or state prisons at the end of 2005. See table 10 of this report. If you add the numbers in local jail (measured in mid-2006), you arrive at a grand total of 193,000 incarcerated young Black males, or slightly over 10 percent.
According to the same census data, 530,000 of these African-American males, or twenty eight percent, were enrolled in colleges or universities (including two-year-colleges) in 2005. That is five times the number of young black men in federal and state prisons and two and a half times the total number incarcerated. If you expanded the age group to include African-American males up to thirty or thirty five, the college attendees would still outnumber the prisoners.
Why would Obama continue to repeat the lie about more black men being in prison, than in college? Considering that he and his wife have been obsessed with race issues since they were very young, a better question might be…why not? No one seems interested in arguing with him over this point, most certainly not the press, because they, as he, have relied on the classic definition of “racist” for decades. Obama believes he has some insulation from being called a “racist” while having free rein to attack others as “racist.” I don’t believe it is working as well as he intended.
More recently, Obama’s political mentor, Emil Jones, demonstrated the type of identity politics that his campaign promotes, by calling a Hillary supporter, a black woman, an “Uncle Tom.”
Which brings us to the classical definition of a “racist.”
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
While it is clear to me, that the current campaign of Obama and the Democrats, still adheres to the classic definition of racist in deed and thought, the modern definition seems more valid in the current state of the Democrat party, as it moves further to the far left in it’s policies and practices.
One can call me a “racist,” if they chose, since I am in complete opposition to the radical Marxist Obama. In doing so, they are demonstrating they have lost, or are losing, the argument, not ending it with a false sense of superiority.
One repeats a lie so that it may one day be taken as truth.
We’re going to revisit this already?
Can I put this simply: when MLK was a Republican the GOP was not a “conservative” party in the way it is now. IT’S A DIFFERENT PARTY!
How many times can it be said: most black people shifted parties after WWII because they felt more comfortable in the Democratic Party:
% Democratic vote in major groups, presidency 1948-1964
1948 1952 1956 1960 1964
all voters 50 45 42 50 61
White 50 43 41 49 59
Black 50 79 61 68 94
If Goldwater hadn’t stridently opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 signed by President Johnson or if Nixon hadn’t implemented the Southern Strategy or if the GOP hadn’t become a home of unreconstructed racists like Jesse Helms there’s a good chance they’d be much more competitive with African Americans.
As for your analysis of Obama’s comments- it’s exactly the reason why African Americans reject conservativism.
Incidentally, Obama didn’t say: We have more work to do when more young black men between the ages 18 and 24 languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across America.”
To attack someone for words they didn’t say is awfully dishonest. The editorial direction of the Washington Post under Fred Hiatt is a travesty.
The GOP is the party of Abraham Lincoln (not going to get into conservative v. lib here or states’ rights v. federal gov’t, or if the Emancipation Proclamation did anything more than provide a symbol- when all was said and done, slavery was ended under his watch)r. The GOP is the party that assured that the Civil Rights Act was passed (do the math- if the GOP hadn’t backed the Act, there was no way the Dems were going to get it through because there were so many Dems VERY opposed to it). The GOP is about making sure that everyone has the realization of the God-given right to pursue happiness. Obama and his party are the antithesis of civil rights for all- their attitude is “everyone is equal- but some are more equal than others.”
All that being said… did you know that one of our favorite Black Republicans is speaking at the RNC? Michael Williams is speaking 8:45-9:00 on Thursday evening, Sept. 4th. If you’re doing the math, that’s the night that Senator McCain will give his acceptance speech. (Talk about prime time!) There’s a watch party in Austin at the Shoal Creek Saloon. It’s RSVP, I think- let me know if you want to go, and I’ll give you more details.
[Editor --- Beth. I'm a huge fan of Mr. Williams too. Talk about a dynamic and motivating speaker! I received an invite to the watch party, but...alas...it's the first night of NFL football.
And as much as I love politics, I REALLY love football.]
not going to get into conservative v. lib here or states’ rights v. federal gov’t,
Isn’t this the heart of the whole revisionist history? Regardless of the party they were in back in 1964 it was liberals who favored civil rights legislation and state’s rights advocates who opposed it. These days liberals are exclusively found in the Democratic Party rather than distributed among each of the parties as in days past.
Obama and his party are the antithesis of civil rights for all- their attitude is “everyone is equal- but some are more equal than others.”
As opposed to the good ole fashioned inequality as evidenced in the Ledbetter case and McCain’s refusal to address gender based pay discrimination.
Some believe Goldwater lost the ‘64 election because of his vote against the ‘64 Civil Rights Bill, even though he voted for civil rights legislation in ‘57 and ‘60. While still others believe Goldwater lost the ‘64 election because of his desire to increase the U.S. involvement in Viet Nam. Some of the donks that LBJ had so much trouble getting to fall in line with his efforts to pass the ‘64 bill, for his own political reasons, were Senators Albert Gore Sr. (D-TN), J. William Fulbright (D-AR), and Robert (Sheets) Byrd (D-WV). In opposing the ‘64 bill, Goldwater took the position that promoted Federal intrusion into states rights, and intruded on private businesses to so with business with whom they chose.
During this period of time, the segregationists remained loyal to the donk party, as the donks had still not formally denounced it.
A higher percentage of Republicans supported all of the civil rights acts in ‘57/’60/’64, than donks did.
Nixon won in ‘68 by promoting State’s Rights and law and order, which liberals believe are “buzz” words for racism. Too many forget that Wallace also ran in ‘68, with explicit attacks on integration and civil rights, and Nixon carried the formerly Confederate states by 60%. Outside the south, the nation viewed Nixon as moderate, and won by a large electoral margin. Nixon promoted New Federalism, and Reagan New New Federalism. Of course liberals find another menacing “buzz” word in that term, when it really means that states should be responsible for their own issues, such as education, and not the Federal government.
Most whites in the South were shifting to the GOP out of self interest for economic reasons, as the GOP is the party of lower taxes, less government, more freedom, and personal responsibility.
You are being dishonest, Preston.
He didn’t say it that way, and neither did the WaPo report it that way. Take off your liberal blinders, and read what is actually posted, and not what you believe is posted.
They were referring to the census data in the story, not B-HO’s sanctimonious words.
It’s hilarious to hear of all of the tributes to the liberals and moderates of the GOP years after they have been purged from their own party.
Is it as funny as the purge of conservatives from the donks?
Seems Lieberman and Miller have been treated rather badly by your fellow ideologues.
Now you have Kennedy’s poodle as a standard bearer.
Now that’s funny!
And yet, after this ‘purge’ (Miller’s circumstance is different from Lieberman’s actual purge) liberals don’t spend hours typing how great they were.
Henh…as if there aren’t still liberal and moderate Republicans.
Implying that it was liberals who were the champions of civil rights is still the most laughable deceit, to date.
The GOP has a legacy of being a party that promotes freedom and liberty. While I don’t belong to any party, I do vote GOP mostly, as it is the only major party that wishes to conserve the greatest traditions of this country. That the GOP has to adopt positions that are too closely aligned with the donks, in order to win elections, is a constant source of disappointment. Most particularly when it comes to government spending and size.
Sure, Martin Luther King was a huge conservative- that’s why his opponents kept alleging he was a communist.
[Editor --- Is it possible then that some of his biggest opponents were then Democrats?]
But seriously, Kennedy, Johnson, Mansfield, Humphrey? Not so conservative though I’ll grant that Dirksen was.
And everyone knows that conservatives continue to ‘promote freedom and liberty’ of individuals to marry who they choose or to be paid fairly on the basis of their work not their gender.
[Editor --- I don't for a moment believe that women are paid less than men for the same work. I've been in some very "good 'ol boy" industries for most of my life --- the oil industry and the defense industry, and everywhere I've ever worked women and men were paid by merit regardless of their gender.
Now, the fact that women earn more on avg. than men doing the same job is true. But that is not because they are paid less...it's because, on avg, women work less than men do in a given year --- when you account for time taken off for pregnancy and maternity leave and other child raising responsibilities.
The myth that women today make less than men for the same work is just another lie perpetuated by Liberals to further divide people (their favorite hobby).]
Uh oh. As soon as I typed that response above to Preston — I find out that I’m wrong:
Exclusive: Biden pays men in comparable positions in his office nearly twice as much as women.
So, it looks like it’s not just a Liberal perception. But a Liberal practice, too.
Henh…Robbie, the Bidenisms have been, and will continue to be, a source of amusement.
As to your response to Preston, it was the donk administration of JFK, that initiated the FBI investigation, including illegal wire taps, on MLK. While MLK did make some comments that could be construed as collectivist, he, his father, his brother, and now his niece were/are Republican. MLK wasn’t an advocate of the welfare state, only in America living up to it’s promise, as proscribed in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.
It’s a shame that the honor of such a great American, and what he sacrificed so much for, will be tainted by the poseur B-HO tonight, on his Temple of Obamessiah stage in Denver. I haven’t checked to see if the concession stands will be featuring loaves of bread and fish, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
BTW, Baylor plays Wake Forest tonight on Fox Sports, at Waco. Hope the former UH coach has some success at BU.
Look, you wouldn’t even support the Civil Rights Act if it were proposed TODAY!
Unless you have an alternative history in which the Founders intended the Commerce Clause to be used to impel white store owners to serve customers they didn’t wish to.
Or perhaps your belief in Constitutional Originalism is simply a crutch you use to oppose legislation you don’t like.
So, Preston, you presume a great deal with your hypothetical. Hypotheticals are for fools and children.
If, if’s and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a Merry Christmas.
I know how you believe government is the answer to all of man’s ills, you are, after all, a liberal.
Did you bother to read the pdf of Alveda King? I suppose you believe it is the federal governments business to fund $300million for abortion on demand, which is what B-HO the Poseur wishes to do. That is not the role of government, and I don’t believe the originators of the Constitution hid a clause in the back of the Constitution somewhere, that makes abortions legal. That is funding of, and codification of, the ultimate violation of human rights.
I believe the Constitution was intended to place restriction on what government can do, not a carte blanche, like you, and I believe states right’s should be preeminent, as they are closer to the people they represent, and more accountable.
Which brings us to the most popular clause that big government liberals like to abuse.
Have you read the Tenth Amendment lately?
How about the Commerce Clause?
Where does the Commerce Clause, despite it’s vast abuses and interpretations, get the authority to compel certain behaviors from our citizens?
Amen on that!
Wow. I actually thought you would defend the power of the Federal government to protect civil rights.
We don’t need to look at archived copies of the National Review to observe the reluctance of conservatives to protect civil rights: it’s on display at a blog near you.
Just to be clear: you do understand that the Constitutional basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the Commerce Clause?
Because over the course of the months that we’ve debated over who deserves credit for the passage of the bill it never occurred to me that you didn’t actually support the Act or its legal basis.
That it is furthers the argument that the commerce clause has been abused, and is used as a form of Congressional tyranny. Article five of the fourteenth amendment should be enough, to protect and promote the rights any citizen of this country is guaranteed.
One of the most recent examples of the push back against congressional tyranny using the commerce clause, is U.S vs. Lopez-1995, when the Supremes ruled the Gun Free School Zone Act was unconstitutional.
For most of U.S. history, the courts stopped congresses attempts to circumvent our Constitution by using the commerce clause, until the 1940’s, and the push back has only begun since the 1990’s.
To me, a civil rights act based on the fourteenth would provide a better remedy, as it would apply to all citizens, in all public places that provide meals or accommodations, and would reduce litigation, obstructionist activities, and give dignity to every citizen.
There are those in congress who wish to use the commerce clause to ban or hinder the manufacture or sale of firearms, violating another valued right protected by the Constitution. It is a clause that violates the spirit of the Constitution, state’s rights, and individual rights.
As for your snarky assumptions about conservatives views on human or civil rights, you really are simple minded.
Liberals, like you, don’t care about the people actually effected by mistreatment, as long as they stay on the lefty plantation, believe all the empty promises, become enslaved on government hand outs, and vote donk. Liberals don’t want the poor or minorities to become self-reliant, because if they did, they would vote conservative.
The myth that women today make less than men for the same work is just another lie perpetuated by Liberals to further divide people (their favorite hobby).]
So you don’t support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 either?!?
I can’t believe we’ve debated this issue so many times and this little tidbit of information never came out…