C’mon, Admit It: This Column Is Racist


This is from Clash Daily.

If this column is racists then I am racists also.


“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” — Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

An NFL player says team owners treat players like slaves. The player, a Black man, will make $10 million this year. He could not be reached for clarification. He is touring Africa on a goodwill trip. A little good will goes a long way.

new-black-panthersAccording to Obama, the Cambridge Police “acted stupidly” trying to protect a homeowner’s property. When the homeowner showed up, a Black professor, he turned on the police, refused to obey orders, then insulted them. Acting strictly according to procedure, they arrested the guy, but the President said they acted stupidly. Once Obama finally obtained the facts, he seemed to back down, but never apologized.

According to the President and his friends, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan are heroes, but George Bush and his kind are criminals. Just ask Percy Sutton, attorney for Malcolm X, and big Obama cheerleader. Just ask Khalid al-Mansour, mentor to Black Panthers, Jew hater, Christian hater, so-called professor who encourages Muslims to attack and maim white people, and big Obama cheerleader, one who helped Obama get into Harvard, a real boy scout. (, “The Obama-Mansour Connection.”)

Jesse Jackson calls for war in Madison, Wisconsin, after fomenting racial tensions in Portland, Oregon last year, but it’s all about the colors of the rainbow.

A black “professor” out of North Carolina actually says the only solution is killing all white people. No kidding. (, “Professor: exterminate the white people,” Oct. 22, 2005)

Al Sharpton says school choice is racist. Of course. You can’t be allowing people the freedom to use their own tax money to educate their own children as they see fit. How blatantly un-American can you be to suggest such a thing? Obviously racist. (The latest in Sharpton shooting blanks.)

Speaking of Sharpton and Jackson, who could forget a few years back the Duke University lacrosse players accused of rape and racism and raked over the coals by the mainstream media for at least a year, only to be exonerated by DNA evidence in the end? (, “Racism 101 at Duke,” April 12, 2006)

Remember this gem: Black Panthers standing outside a polling place during the 2008 presidential election in Philadelphia. One has a truncheon. Its only purpose is cracking skulls. The Panthers taunt voters. One says: “That’s why you’re gonna be ruled by a black man, Cracka!” (, “New Black Panther Party President admits to Philadelphia voter intimidation,” July 9, 2010).

The Panthers were convicted. Obama’s AG Eric Holder declined to follow through with the penalty phase. Holder says enforcing the law without regard to race, his sworn duty, would demean “his people,” in this case, and, he says, it’s a lie his Justice Department is racially motivated. Really?

A civil rights lawyer weighs in decrying the incident and criticizing Holder and the Obama administration. He must be a racist. Anyone who highlights the incident is a racist, a mere political opportunist. (Fox video on YouTube, “Eric Holder Drops Charges on Black Panthers for Voter Intimidation.”)

Notice, the civil rights attorney identifies the Black Panther Party as a hate organization, so designated by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Black Panther Party, dating from the 1960s, has always been a Marxist group promoting violent overthrow of the U.S. government. Saying so makes you a racist.

In the wake of Katrina a Black singer said, “Bush doesn’t care about black people,” accusing Bush of being a racist.

If you opposed the power of public employee unions and their unholy alliance with radical leftists using tax revenue to finance political activism, well, you are obviously a racist according to Charles Rangel. (, “Rangle Abolishing collective bargaining akin to slavery,” March 1, 2011)

If you want to hold hearings to determine the threat level posed by radical Islam domestically, you’re a racist, according to Black legislators weighing in at the hearings recently.

If you suggest government affirmative action housing programs interfering with the private mortgage industry led to the financial meltdown, you are a racist.

If you suggest universal healthcare is not a constitutional right: racist.

If you think turning a blind eye toward illegal immigration is not such a great idea: racist.

If you suggest we must reform welfare and entitlement spending if the nation is to survive: racist.

If you don’t swing with the green agenda promoted by Van Jones: racist.

If you suggest affirmative action actually works against the best interests of Black Americans: racist.

Anyone who levels legitimate criticism of President Obama is a racist.

Anyone who hits the streets to protest government spending, waste, fraud and mismanagement is a racist.

Write a column like this: racist.

You know, it is difficult to extend the hand of friendship when it keeps getting chopped off.

Haven’t we learned by now that playing the race card indiscriminately only stirs up violence and resentment, the exact opposite of what Dr. King would have us do?

So then, who is the real racist?

Bonus material: a real solution from a black man who experienced real slavery, Frederick Douglass:

“I have one great political idea … the best expression of it I have found in the Bible. It is in substance, ‘Righteousness exalteth a nation; sin is a reproach to any people’ [Proverbs 14.34]. This constitutes my politics, the negative and positive of my politics, and the whole of my politics.”

Parting shot: So-called “progressives” attending a recent Common Cause event said Justice Clarence Thomas should be “sent back to the fields”, or should be “strung up.”

Now, now. These were not racist comments. They weren’t even reported in the MSM. No. These were merely the statements of frustration uttered by enlightened citizens concerned about social justice and the plight of all oppressed people. (Christian Hartsock, ‘“Progressive Ralliers Call for Lynching of Clarence Thomas,” YouTube video, Feb. 2, 2011)

Ask these people about the vicious, insulting treatment they’ve received, not so much for being black as for being black and Conservative:

Larry Elder
Janice Rogers Brown
Walter Williams
Alphonso Rachel
Condoleezza Rice
Thomas Sowell
Anne Wortham
Ken Blackwell
Lt. Col. Allen West
Michael Steele
Herman Cain
Shelby Steele
J.C. Watts
Armstrong Williams
Star Parker

[From the book, The Cross & the Constitution in the Age of Incoherence, 2012, Tate Publishing]

Image: Courtesy of:




Councilwoman Blames ‘Knockout’ Attacks on Tension Between Blacks and Jews

Leave a comment

This is from DNAinfo New York.

It seems very one wants to blame their troubles on the Jews.

How in the Hell do this black misleaders sleep at night?

Jessie Jackson called New York City Hymie Town.


Laurie Cumbo

CROWN HEIGHTS — The alleged “knockout” attacks on Jewish residents ofCrown Heights may stem from ongoing racial tension between the neighborhood’s black and Jewish communities, a newly-elected Brooklyn politician said.

Councilwoman-elect Laurie Cumbo, who was elected to represent Crown Heights starting in January, released an open letter Tuesday saying that many of her black constituents told her they feel threatened by the growth of the neighborhood’s Jewish community — and she fears the tension could be spiking the recent violence.

“Many African American/Caribbean residents expressed a genuine concern that as the Jewish community continues to grow, they would be pushed out by their Jewish landlords or by Jewish families looking to purchase homes,” Cumbo wrote in the 1,200-word letter, which was emailed to supporters and posted on her Facebook page.

“I respect and appreciate the Jewish community’s family values and unity that has led to strong political, economic and cultural gains. While I personally regard this level of tenacity, I also recognize that for others, the accomplishments of the Jewish community triggers feelings of resentment, and a sense that Jewish success is not also their success.”

She added that these sentiments among black Crown Heights residents “offer possible insight as to how young African American/Caribbean teens could conceivably commit a ‘hate crime’ against a community that they know very little about.”

Cumbo posted her letter a week after she was quoted making similar remarks to The Jewish Week.

Rabbi Chanina Sperlin, a longtime Crown Heights community leader who stood alongside Cumbo at a press conference condemning the knockout attacks last month, said Cumbo’s letter completely missed the mark.

“I saw her letter. I told her I totally disagree,” Sperlin said. “I think she has a lot to learn in this community….she’s coming in on such a left foot, and she didn’t even step into the City Council yet.”

Sperlin added that Cumbo’s claim that African Americans and Caribbean Americans were unfairly feeling the brunt of the real-estate crunch ignored the pressures equally faced by their Jewish neighbors.

“I don’t know where the wild dream is coming from that Jewish people want to kick African Americans out of their houses…but it’s definitely not coming from the Jewish community,” the rabbi said.

Crown Heights Youth Collective President Richard Greene, who has spent his career working closely with neighborhood teens, said he, too, felt Cumbo had jumped to conclusions about the recent attacks.

“I would definitely disagree with that — I think we’re going much better now than we’ve ever been before and I see us continuing that way,” Greene said. “What is happening is some undisciplined folks who are the exception and not the rule. Whether it’s Crown Heights or Brownsville, it’s the exception and not the rule.”

The Anti-Defamation League went further, saying that the letter “evokes classic anti-Semitic stereotypes.”

“As an organization that has worked for more than 20 years to improve Black-Jewish relations in the aftermath of the Crown Heights riots, we are troubled by the incoming councilwoman’s sentiments, particularly her comment about resentment over Jewish economic success, which evokes classic anti-Semitic stereotypes,” New York Regional Director Evan Bernstein wrote in a statement.

“Still, it seems from her letter that she means well and we would be open to meeting with her and others in the community to continue the dialogue.”

New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind also weighed in, writing in a letter to Cumbo on his blog that he was “dismayed” by the councilwoman-elect’s message.

“Expressing, as you have, a sympathy for those who hold the success of the Jewish community in contempt — as a success ‘not their own’ — almost rings as an apology for those who are committing violent crimes as a response to their resentment,” Hikind wrote Wednesday.

“As you state later in your letter, if one person attacks another, regardless of the motivation, there is no justification for such an action.”

As of last week, the NYPD’s Hate Crimes Task Force was investigating at least seven attacks in Crown Heights, Midwood and Borough Park as possible anti-Semitic bias crimes, while police try to determine whether the attacks are connected to the violent street game in which teens attempt to knock unsuspecting victims unconscious with a single punch. The attacks include a 19-year-old Hasidic man who was punched in the face on Kingston Avenue near Crown Street by a group of eight teens on Nov. 10 and a 78-year-old womanwho was hit over the head in Midwood on Nov. 9.

In her letter, Cumbo characterized the attacks as part of a breakdown in relations between African-American and Caribbean-American residents and the Lubavitch Hasidim, who have lived together in sometimes-uneasy proximity for decades.

The most notorious clash between the groups took place during the Crown Heights Riots in August 1991, when a 7-year-old black boy was hit and killed by a Hasidic driver as part of a motorcade for a Lubavitcher rebbe, setting off four days of violence.

“The African American/Caribbean/Jewish community had come a long way since the Crown Heights Riots over twenty years ago,” Cumbo said, adding that she met with a local rabbi at a community meeting last month to discuss educating the neighborhood’s youth about their history “in order to prevent it from spiraling out of control.”

“Today, most young people are not even aware that the Crown Heights Riots even happened,” she added.

“I believe that it is critical for our communities, and especially for our young people, to gain a greater understanding of one another so that we can learn more about each other’s challenges and triumphs despite religious and cultural differences,” Cumbo wrote. “When I assume office in January, I will be working with local leaders to plan a series of events that will bring our young people together.”

The councilwoman-elect said that while there is never any justification for violence, “In many ways governmental neglect, outside uncontrolled influences and failed leadership have led to the breakdown that so many young people of color are currently facing.

“We should never blame a victim, or try to explain away any wrongdoing… Yet, since the issue of race has been unfortunately been introduced into the conversation about the current epidemic, I pray that I can assist in bringing my Jewish and African-American/Caribbean constituents to a far better relationship and understanding.”

She also slammed the media for raising alarm over assaults on Jewish victims while failing to communicate outrage against violence in the black community.

“As the media has recently focused our attention on the ‘Knock Out Game,’ I am challenged with the reality that a 66 year old grandfather was shot and killed earlier this week while dropping off money in Fort Greene’s Walt Whitman Houses to help a family pay for Thanksgiving dinner,” Cumbo wrote.

“There was no public outcry or calls for swift legal action for this loss of life or for the dozens of others that were killed in the public housing developments this year in the District.”

“We must all come together across religious and racial lines anytime someone in our community is attacked.”

Cumbo said Wednesday that she’s gotten a lot of feedback about her letter online, adding that it was primarily positive.

She added that “if these attacks are driven by hate crimes, we have to understand where that hate is coming from, we just have to understand it. We may be able to arrest the individuals that were involved, but how do we prevent it from happening again?”


An Open Letter to Oprah (Of Barack and Barry)

Leave a comment

This is from The Black Sphere.

I will offer this without comment. 


“There’s a level of disrespect for the office that occurs. And that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African American.”

No, Oprah. In all sincerity I disrespect Obama for the same reason I disrespect you… because he is not worthy of respect.

Hard as it is to believe, in some circles of this great and glorious land we call “America,” there are people who think for themselves. These are those who don’t wait for some overpaid, egocentric talk-show host to tell them what to believe, what to think, or how to vote. They are the countless millions who expect others to take responsibility for themselves and their own families.

You see, we grew up in a time when there was no Oprah show to tell us we were poor, downtrodden, mistreated and abused.

Instead, we had to shoulder both trial and tragedy with no one to blame for our state but the man in the mirror. If we succeeded or if we failed, it was because of something we had done, not the color of our skin. There have been many in America of every race who were born into truly poor and terribly disadvantaged homes, yet succeeded wildly. Take Barack Obama (please).

Now, your friend Barack sits between two worlds. “Barack”, the African son of black, Kenyan economist, Barack Obama Sr., and “Barry”, son of white, American economist Ann Dunham.

I don’t believe you understand the quandary you’ve placed yourself in!

On the one hand, you couldn’t help but defend “Barack’s” African-American heritage from the evil white man. After all, no white person could actually be judging the man based upon his actions. Whites are inherently racist, after all.

On the other hand, “Barry” is responsible for one of the largest economic declines for minorities in US history. How could you possibly allow his Caucasian side to get away with leading African-Americans into such a horrible state of affairs?

It appears you want to both have your cake and eat it too (and eat it… and eat it…).

I want to thank you for reminding us all of our apparent racism. I hope you’ll take the time to remind Barry of his.



Race War in America – Fomented by Our President?

Leave a comment

This is from Clash Daily.

Obama has done more to destroy The Dream and

Legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Will an all out race war happen?

Lets pray relations improve before that happens.


Racism:  poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race; the belief that some races of people are better than others.

Have you noticed we’ve stopped talking about ways to overcome racism?  We appear to have allowed the problem to overwhelm any consideration of solutions.   Most of our talk these days focuses on making accusations, on race-baiting, on using race as a way to control or demonize or manipulate others. Moron talk in the NFL consumes the air waves, not as a basis for exploring remedies, but merely for entertainment value.  Racism is no longer a social ill.  It’s a political weapon.

dream-to-nightmareDr. Martin Luther King, Jr. never pulled a punch speaking about injustice, but he didn’t leave it there, like so many do today.  No, instead he moved the discussion forward, emphasizing two parallel subjects: non-violent activism, and racial reconciliation.

Why did he do that?  Moved by the Spirit, he was an agent of true progress, a patriot and a man of God, interested in everyone’s betterment, regardless of race.  He urged us to live up to our ideals and form a more perfect union, saying character was far more important that skin pigment, so that’s where our focus should remain.

Do we have that kind of leadership today?

In 2008 there was a glimmer of hope.  Even though I knew Barack Obama was a dyed-in-the-wool communist and radical community organizer hostile to America and Christianity, when he spoke about race back then, I was inspired.   He spoke about having the tough conversations.  He challenged black men to take responsibility.  He asked that we all engage a new conversation about our prejudices and honestly work out our differences for the sake of future generations.  He sang the glories of our Constitution and our Founding principles.

Now we know it was all smoke and mirrors, just another head fake.  Now we understand his only purpose was to salvage his campaign, because his prospects had dimmed given revelations about Jeremiah “G**da*n America” Wright.  Now we realize Obama sat under Wright’s authority for 20 years applauding teaching that encouraged fear, bigotry, division and hatred.  Now we perceive Wright and Obama are people willing to aggravate racial tensions to achieve political goals.

Today, we understand Obama’s hostility toward whites, planted in him at an early age, was brought to full flower by the likes of Saul Alinsky and Jeremiah Wright, that Obama’s hostility and prejudicial thinking toward whites is as racist as any hostility directed toward blacks by white racists.  And never forget, Obama called his own grandmother a racist, calling her a “typical white person” when she expressed fear of blacks.  Read Obama’s books.  He tells you flat out what he thinks about whites.

His tragedy is this: he is so steeped in this rancorous thinking, it imprisons him.  Notice how he never takes responsibility, he never acknowledges fault, yet he is quick to demonize all opposition.  He cannot change his mind or truly apologize, because he believes he is thoroughly correct.  His distinct lack of humility is what makes him especially dangerous.  Worse, he displays a lack of conscience. People are just pawns.
As to his attitudes toward blacks . . .

In the wake of Obama’s 2008 speech on race, Jesse Jackson was caught making an astounding remark.  In an unguarded moment, not realizing a hot microphone was nearby, Jackson said Obama “talks down to black people.”  Jackson was so angered by this, he said: “I’d like to cut his nuts off.” (Threatening this kind of violence is a crime.  You can be sure, had a white man threatened to cut Obama, he would have been arrested.)

Referencing the definition of racism above, and in light of Jackson’s remarks, it is not a stretch to say Obama considers himself superior to most black people, for only one harboring an attitude of superiority “talks down” to others.   That attitude of superiority pegs Obama as one harboring racist attitudes toward blacks in America, people with whom he has no real affinity, raised as he was in Hawaii attending private school, provided all the advantages, and suffering few of the experiences personally that blacks have encountered for decades.

But there is more.  Please notice that Obama’s comments about race these last five years have rarely, if ever, addressed the lofty goals and ideals he expressed in 2008, expressions akin to those of Dr. King.   Rather, his remarks have tended to aggravate tensions.  From the Trayvon Martin tragedy to the incident involving the Cambridge Police Department, or in endorsing Eric Holder’s prejudicial enforcement policies involving the Black Panthers, Obama has jumped in with words and deeds that separate people, turning them against one another.

Waves of black on black violence have gone unattended by this administration.  The vast increase in black on white violence seen in the wake of the Trayvon Martin verdict, all ignored by this President and his people.  Obama has not said one word about the excesses of an Al Sharpton or a Louis Farrakhan.  He has done nothing to solve problems.  He has done many things to aggravate them.

And why?

There can only be one reasonable explanation, and it is found in the dark thoughts germinated in Obama’s mind by adults who used him and prepared him to fulfill their grand communist vision.  From Obama’s mother to his grandparents to his “mentor” to his teachers and fellow students, to radical Jihadists introduced to him early on, and communists like Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers, Obama has been inculcated with the attitude that America is evil, and capitalism is only an enslavement tool of the oppressors.  Based on those presuppositions, the “fundamental transformation” of America involves the destruction of America, and capitalism, to make way for a socialist state leading to a communist utopia.

Those have been and always will be the goals of the Obamas and all their cohorts.  They truly believe by sheer human will and intelligence they will create a central government so benevolent and so steep in social justice that all will have the same income, and the same outcomes, except the elites, of course.  All the great dictators have shared these same beliefs.  Saul Alinsky merely translated them into application as coaching points for community organizers.

The strategy is: conquer from within.  The tactics: infiltrate to divide and conquer, any means are justified to achieve the end.

Obama is the greatest infiltrator of all time.  Remarkably, given his bigotry toward whites and indigenous blacks, he is perfectly situated to pit one group against another.  Divide and conquer.  Who better to foment a race war than a racist cutting both ways, especially if armed with 60 million voters and a vast war chest?

As Stalin said, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. In Stalin’s case, that meant starving 10 million Ukrainians, and lining up tens of thousands more in front of firing squads.

In Obama’s case, it means taking his teachers’ advice seriously — any means to achieve the end — even if it means starting a race war.   And despite the fact blacks in America are far worse off economically thanks to Obamanomics, the vast majority of them continue to support him only because of the color of his skin, no matter how many times he “talks down” to them, issues false promises, and encourages them to ignore Dr. King, to everyone’s injury.

Image: Courtesy of:


[VIDEO] Oprah Winfrey tells BBC many Americans hate Obama because he’s BLACK


This is from The Right Scoop.

To Dopey Winfrey I say We do not oppose Obama

because his skin is black but because his soul is black.

Oprah Winfrey is going around the world telling everyone that Americans are racist while she promotes her new film.

Oprah Winfrey has been a prominent supporter of Barack Obama. She thinks that both he and the Office of President have been treated with contempt because of the colour of his skin.

“There’s a level of disrespect for the office that occurs. And that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African American. There’s no question about that and it’s the kind of thing nobody ever says but everybody’s thinking it.”




Gun rights expert, economist makes case against racism narrative surrounding ‘stand your ground’ laws

Leave a comment

This is from Real Clear Politics.

The race hustlers say Stand Your Ground equals a license

for whites to hunt blacks.

But the facts prove that Stand Your Groud has been used

By more blacks in Florida than whites.



‘Stand your ground’ laws in states like Florida have drawn scrutiny for the perceived racial disparity with which they’re used in the criminal justice system. A prominent economist and gun policy expert made an effort to rebut that narrative before a Senate panel Tuesday, saying that in fact blacks stand the most to gain from these self-defense statutes.

Testifying at a high-profile Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing that included the mothers of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, John R. Lott, Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, contended that it appears “all people benefit” from stand your ground laws when taking data into account. And contrary to arguments that the laws have a discriminatory effect, they benefit black Americans in particular, Lott said.

“Poor blacks who live in high-crime urban areas are not only the most likely victims of crime, they are also the ones who benefit the most from stand your ground laws,” Lott provided in his testimony. “The laws make it easier for them to protect themselves when the police can’t be there fast enough. Therefore, rules that make self-defense more difficult disproportionately impact blacks.”

As evidence, Lott took figures from the Tampa Bay Times that frequently have been used to criticize the effects of stand your ground laws and put them into broader context.

“In Florida, for example, in contrast to the [Trayvon] Martin and [Jordan] Davis cases, there are 15 cases where black men, who were being threatened, defended themselves and successfully relied on this law in their defense, with their charges either being dropped or they were acquitted,” according to Lott’s testimony. He also crunched data to find that 69 percent of blacks in Florida who raised a stand your ground defense in court were not convicted, compared to just 62 percent of whites.

Still, stand your ground opponents were unconvinced during the hearing. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the subcommittee’s chairman, leaned on separate data from the Urban Institute alleging the policy’s bias — data that Lott has criticized on technical grounds – in attacking stand your ground laws. Durbin said that the statutes have the opposite effect of deterring violent situations or functioning as instruments of legitimate self-defense.

“This law is an invitation for confrontation,” Durbin said.

Sybrina Fulton, the mother of slain teenager Trayvon Martin, and Lucia McBath, the mother of another teenager, Jordan Davis, who was fatally shot outside a gas station in a separate circumstance, agreed with Durbin’s assessment at the hearing. Regardless of the non-role that stand your ground played in the trial of George Zimmerman, Fulton said that “this law does not work” in light of his acquittal. McBath made an emotional plea to the committee to resolve the larger issue, saying that ”even the Wild West had more stringent laws governing the taking of life than we have now.”

Harvard law professor Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr., who also testified against stand your ground before the panel Tuesday, put his argument in pointed terms.

“[The law] tells Floridians that they can incorrectly profile young black children, kill them, and be protected by stand your ground laws,” Sullivan said.

Lott disagrees with the premise of such characterizations.

“Racism shouldn’t be tolerated. Yet, precisely because of its seriousness, false accusations of racism are also unacceptable,” Lott provided in his testimony. “Those making explosive claims of racism  should carefully back up their claims.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the ranking member of the panel, concurred.

“This is not about inflaming racial tensions,” Cruz said. “This is about the right of everyone to protect themselves and protect their families.”

In that vein, Republicans wondered Tuesday why Senate Democrats were focused on disparaging stand your ground laws while failed economic policies have been such culprits in harming black families.

“While Senate Democrats mobilize to discuss ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws, I hope they also plan to rally around black youth facing dwindling opportunities and job prospects across the country,” Orlando Watson, Republican National Committee Communications Director for Black Media, said in a statement. “With more than 10 million black Americans living below poverty level, why aren’t Senate Democrats also holding hearings on the impact their disastrous policies have had on the black community?”



Obamacare seeks to segregate patients, doctors by race

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

Obama is usering in the new Jim Crow era.

Wiil America become racially segregated once more?

It sems t be th goal of this semn of Obamacare.



If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor under Obamacare — if you both belong to the same race.

Obamacare’s spectacular flop of a rollout distracts from its crude calculus that encourages the allocation of healthcare resources along racial lines and a doctor-patient system splintered into ethnicities.

While the 2010 Patient Protecion and Affordable Care Act’s language on diversity sounds innocuous, a review of the frankly separatist thinking of the law’s ardent supporters indicates Obamacare is aiming for a health care system that puts political correctness above the struggle against illness and death.

A 2009 report by the Center for American Progress (CAP) examining the House and Senate bill eventually signed by President Barack Obama advocates pairing patients and doctors of the same race, a goal toward which the law channels taxpayer dollars.

“Research suggests that health care providers’ diagnostic and treatment decisions, as well as their feelings about patients, are influenced by patients’ race or ethnicity,” the CAP report reads. “Several studies have shown that racial concordance is substantially and positively related to patient satisfaction.”

The key phrase is “race concordance” — a word which means “a state in which things agree and do not conflict with one another.”

“There is… evidence that race concordance — defined as shared racial or ethnic identities between clinicians and patients — is related to patient reports of satisfaction, participatory decision making, timeliness of treatment, and trust in the health system,” the report reads. In other words, fixing the broken U.S. healthcare system means assigning Hispanic doctors to Hispanic patients, African American doctors to African American patients, Creole doctors to Creole patients, and so on.

To accomplish this, the CAP report explains, Obamacare pours taxpayer dollars into affirmative-action candidates whose judgment will lead them to make life-or-death decisions. Ultimately, these taxpayer-funded grants would provide scholarships and loan forgiveness for minorities so they could provide healthcare services exclusively to their own race or ethnicity.

Obamacare, the report reads, “provides scholarships and loan repayment support for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds serving in the health professions, and it grants funding for the Health Careers Opportunities Program, which supports schools that recruit and train individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to work in the health professions. The bill also establishes a grant program at HRSA to promote health care professionals’ cultural and linguistic competence.”

A 2010 report [pdf] from Families USA’s Minority Health Initiatives offers similar language. The report applauds the Affordable Care Act for providing health care materials that are “culturally and linguistically appropriate.” Families USA adds, “The legislation also provides grants for training health care providers in culturally appropriate care and services.”

Grants are indeed handed out on a racial or ethnic basis. For example, Subtitle D, Sec. 756 of the Affordable Care Act lists eligibility requirements for mental health grants that demand universities and colleges recruit and “understand the concerns” of minority students, that programs offered to those students must emphasize “cultural or linguistic competency” — and the institutions must provide the HHS Secretary racial data on its student body, under threat of not only losing its grants, but being forced to repay them to the government.

Obamacare also re-authorizes The Office of Minority Health, whose secretary will hand out grants, government contracts and other taxpayer-funded favors to “eliminate racial and ethnic disparities.”

Other sections of the Affordable Care Act also go beyond standard diversity boilerplate to describe a more prescriptive approach to ethnicity in health care. In one section, Obamacare outlines the relationship between HHS and the CDC, awarding grants to healthcare agencies to “promote positive health behaviors and outcomes for populations in medically underserved communities through the use of community health workers.”

The law also includes this line:

“The Secretary shall encourage community health worker programs receiving funding under this section to implement a process or outcome-based payment system that rewards community health center workers for connecting underserved populations with the most appropriate services at the most appropriate time.”

That same section of the law also provide grants to “identify, educate, refer, and enroll underserved populations to appropriate healthcare agencies.”

Despite their invocations of “diversity,” progressives pushing healthcare reform are quick to sow self-enriching discord and allege racism lurking in the hearts of nurses changing bedpans for critically ill patients.

The CAP report blames racism for U.S. healthcare woes — “biases and stereotypes inherent in the healthcare system and in individuals” — and for disparities in healthcare coverage. Only 11 percent of whites are uninsured, while 31 percent of Hispanics, 32 percent of American Indians and 19 of African Americans have no health coverage, which CAP, incredibly, deplores as an active effort meant to harm minorities.

Catchphrases such as “culturally competent care” appear several times in the study and its authors advocate for a means to “tackle bias and stereotyping … in the health professional-patient encounter.” In other words, CAP insinuates that coldhearted doctors deliberately withhold treatment from some patients in a conspiracy that leaves millions suffering.

CAP provides no evidence for its extraordinary presumptions, but proceeds apace with wild conclusions drawn from healthcare data. Again and again, the Center presents a specter of racism haunting the U.S. healthcare system, a “root cause” with deadly results.

“A second analysis… concluded that over 880,000 deaths would have been averted if African American mortality rates been equivalent to that of white Americans during this time period,” reads one typical line of breathless inquiry, turning data on its head and implying America willingly lets its own citizens die.

“Addressing these disparities is also an issue of social justice that can be regarded as a moral imperative,” the report declares. According to CAP and Obamacare, segregation of health services is a step forward, “the right thing to do.”

Throughout the Obamacare process, administration officials have put a strange emphasis on racial and ethnic factors of dubious relation to health care outcomes. On the day the exchanges opened, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius boasted the national call center employed translators ready to interpret 150 different languages. Her comment was one of many that seemed aimed at separating Americans into units labeled by skin color, ethnicity and other areas that are unrelated to the goal of helping sick people get better.

Read more:

America Needs a White Republican President


This is from The Black Sphere.


America needs a white Conservative Republican preasident.


presidentAdmit it. You want a white Republican president again.

Now before you start feeling like you’re a racist, understand you are not.

Wanting a white Republican president doesn’t make you racist, it just makes you American.

In the pre-black president era, criticizing the president was simply the American thing to do. An exercise of one’s First Amendment right. Criticism had nothing to do with color, because there had never been a black president, or at least one whom people recognized as black.

So to criticize the president meant that you didn’t like his policies.

The election of a recognized black president was not supposed to change anything. In fact, it was supposed to (1) ease any perceived racial tensions, and (2) allow the government to focus on legislating without race. So America would be more free than ever to discuss the issues.

Not the case. And that is why having a white Republican president is best for the country.

Consider that nobody is ever accused of being racist for disagreeing with white presidents. Mexicans disagreed with most white Republican presidents over America’s immigration policy. Many deranged Mexicans believe we should open the country up to them, some saying that much of America belongs to Mexico anyway. They are not called racists.

Liberal blacks have disagreed with most Republican presidents since Eisenhower, yet these blacks are not considered racists. In fact, when blacks had sanity and disagreed with the policies of racist white Democrat presidents, nobody accused black people of being racists.

Fighting for one’s civil rights was not racist then, nor is it racist now. Blacks (and Republicans) were on the side of righteousness, when they disagreed with the racist policies of Andrew Johnson, and adopted by every Democrat president since.

Never has a black person been called racist, because they didn’t like one of the white presidents’ policies. Blacks were just exercising their First Amendment rights to speak freely. Blacks have disagreed with policy positions of about every Republican president in the modern era, including those who have helped them.

Take Reagan for example. Reagan ushered in a veritable Renaissance for blacks, as Fox News showcased.

And the Reagan record?

African-American columnist Joseph Perkins has studied the effects of Reaganomics on black America. He found that, after the Reagan tax cuts gained traction, African-American unemployment fell from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. Black-owned businesses saw income rise from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987—an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent. The black middle class expanded by one-third during the Reagan years, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million.

Real Politics reports Obama’s statistics as follows:

Median family income for black Americans has declined a whopping 10.9 percent during the Obama administration…This decline does not include losses suffered during the financial crisis and the recession that followed, but it instead measures declines since June 2009, when the recession officially ended.

That’s not the only bad news for African-Americans. The poverty rate for blacks is now 25.8 percent. The black labor force participation rate, which rose throughout the 1980s and 1990s, has declined for the past decade and quite sharply under Obama to 61.4 percent. The black unemployment rate, according to Pew Research, stands at 13.4 percent. Among black, male, high school dropouts, PBS’ Paul Salmon reports, the unemployment rate is a staggering 95 percent.

That report was from 2011, and it’s gotten worse since then. Facts don’t lie. Yet blacks want to put Obama on Mt. Rushmore and hang Reagan in effigy.

The only way you can argue with those stats is if you are a racist. Truth be told, most Liberal blacks are racists.

Nobody wants to discuss it, because racism by black Liberals has been sanctioned by the Left, even encouraged. Black racists get a pass, as black race-baiters are unchallenged on the most idiotic ideas and statements.

MSNBC’s Touré said that using the word “angry” to describe Obama is racist. Juan Williams of Fox News said that mentioning the Constitution is racist, and the list goes on.

But it gets worse. These Lefty racists do a far bigger disservice to blacks and America in general, as they rationalize Obama’s (and the Left’s) inability to create opportunity. When their policies wreak havoc, they pose insane arguments. They say that Republicans are trying to starve people by reducing the welfare rolls that Liberals have happily increased by 16M Americans.

Race-baiting, poverty-pimp Al Sharpton argued recently to keep 3M known deadbeats on welfare.

Black racists don’t complain when black people are marginalized and insulted with policies that dumb down black America, like the lessening of academic standards. They are fine telling black youths that those youths are less smart than all other ethnic groups. Certainly no future ramifications from that policy, said nobody ever.

These same racists allow for black children to be cheated in education and ultimately, opportunity, as their enablers—guilty white Liberal racists—turn a blind eye.

I long for the days of a white president, because under white presidents, at least black people had pride. Liberals have stolen pride from blacks, and they have no intention of giving it back.

At least if we had a white president, black people might have a shot of regaining a modicum of respect.



11 Liberal Rules for Racism in America

1 Comment

This is from Joe For America.

I am offering this without comment.


When America was a racist country, Democrats were primarily the ones engaged in racism. However, now that racism has been largely relegated to the fringes of American society (the KKK, the New Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, La Raza, MEChA, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, American Nazi Party, etc.), the Democrats are constantly wagging their fingers about it. Of course naturally, given the racist history of the Democrat Party, liberals have managed to rig the rules in order to benefit themselves and hurt their political opponents. That’s a pretty neat albeit despicable trick that they’ve managed to pull off.

1) Liberals aren’t held to the same rules as Republicans: When liberals say racist things, it’s just excused out of hand as if it’s no big deal. If Dick Cheney had said, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man” instead of Joe Biden, you’d read about it every time he criticized Barack Obama. WhenChristopher Dodd said“I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation,” it was shrugged off. On the other hand, Trent Lott ended up resigning from the GOP leadership for making very similar comments about Strom Thurmond.

2) Minority racism must be ignored: According to Rasmussen polling“Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans.” This isn’t coming out of the ether. Black Americans voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton because he was black. If George Zimmerman had been black and Trayvon Martin had been Hispanic, most black Americans would have been indifferent to the case or would have supported Zimmerman. This is one of the great ironies of the liberal obsession with racism. While they can turn practically anything into evidence of Republican racism, the most grotesque examples of racism from minorities are just shrugged off.

3) You pay no penalty for falsely accusing people of racism: False accusations of racism can do just as much damage as actual racism. People can be ostracized for it, lose endorsement deals or even lose their jobs over being falsely accused of racism. Yet, the only reason you’ve heard of people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Touré, and Melissa Harris-Perry is because they’re willing to accuse people of being racists on the flimsiest of pretexts. It’s tempting to compare these race-hustling poverty pimps to the KKK, but the more appropriate analogy is the Spanish Inquisition. The attitude is, “So what if we unjustly accuse a lot of people as long as we get a few heretics in the process?”

4) Outrage matters more than facts: It doesn’t matter what Bush actually did in New Orleans or that the local government failed the people of the city; it matters how people FEEL about it. It doesn’t matter that Democrats have run Detroit since 1962; it matters that people FEEL Republicans are responsible. It doesn’t matter that Trayvon Martin wasn’t really a twelve year old kid and that he was slamming George Zimmerman’s head into the pavement; it matters that Zimmerman’s acquittal FEELS symbolic of law-abiding black Americans being profiled because so many other black Americans are criminals. Once an accusation of racism is made, facts are treated as if they’re of secondary importance to FEELINGS.

5) It’s okay to discriminate against white Americans: It’s unbelievable that in 2013, we still have race-based discrimination in America and liberals are perfectly fine with it. The rationale for what should be an incredible violation of the equal protection clause in the Constitution? It’s that whites are doing better than blacks are as a group. That’s probably a cold comfort to the son of a white single mother making minimum wage whose son loses out to one of Obama’s daughters because he happened to be Caucasian.

6) It’s always the fifties and sixties: Comparing the United States of 2013, when we have a black President of the United States to a time when black Americans couldn’t drink from the same water fountains as whites is so ridiculous that to do so should practically be considered a sign of mental illness. Yet, it happens all the time and it’s not immediately met with laughter and eye rolls. It should be. The reason that it happens is because it benefits liberals politically to pretend that racism is still everywhere. After all, what else does the Democrat Party have to offer minorities in America other than protection from mostly non-existent racism? Crime-ridden neighborhoods? Joblessness? Poverty? Fighting mostly non-existent racism the Democrat Party can handle just fine, but actually helping people improve their lives is apparently way too tough to manage.

7) Past evidence must be ignored: Ironically, saying you have “black friends” is now considered to be something that a racist would say. That says much more about the sort of witch hunt allegations of racism have become in this country than the people who say it. Judge Charles Pickering put his life on the line to prosecute the Grand Dragon of the KKK in Mississippi in the early sixties; yet liberals falsely branded him a racist to stop his nomination to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. George Zimmerman tutored black children and fought to get justice for a black homeless man beaten by police and even voted for Obama, but he was still falsely portrayed as a racist. This can happen only because determining if someone is a racist has become a political tool that is completely disconnected from whether the person in question actually dislikes people because of the color of their skin.

8) Republicans secretly want to do things Democrats used to do:Conservative, moderate, and liberal Democrats were behind slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, segregation, the Tuskegee Experiment, lynchings and every other racist horror inflicted on black Americans in this country. Republicans stood against the Democrats while they were doing all of those terrible things and while we congratulate them on now agreeing with us that they were wrong, it’s disgusting to try to blame Democrat sins on the Republican Party. God willing, a hundred years from now Democrats will be wagging their fingers about the horrors of murdering children via abortion and claiming Republicans secretly want to abort children. If so, it would be the same sort of step forward we’ve seen from the Democrats on racism.

9) Minorities shouldn’t be held to the same standards as whites: Walter Williams once said“During the first Reagan administration, I participated in a number of press conferences on either a book or article I’d written or as a panelist in a discussion of White House public policy. On occasion, when the question-and-answer session began, I’d tell the press, ‘You can treat me like a white person. Ask hard, penetrating questions.’ The remark often brought uncomfortable laughter, but I was dead serious. If there is one general characteristic of white liberals, it’s their condescending and demeaning attitude toward blacks.” The soft bigotry of low expectations that liberals bring to the table encourages mediocrity, undercuts excellence and generally helps to hold minorities in America back.

10) When a white non-liberal disagrees with a liberal minority, it’s probably because of racism: Republicans absolutely detested Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton; so what kind of moron would assume that their intense dislike of Barack Obama must be driven by race? Tea Partiers love black conservatives that agree with them, like Herman Cain and Allen West; so could there be a reason that they detest Barack Obama other than race? Do we really need the Scooby Gang to figure out why a group that’s all about small government, low taxes, and cutting spending would dislike a socialist who’s all about big government, higher taxes and increasing spending?

11) Only liberals get to decide what’s racist: We’ve set up a system where the world’s most easily offended people get to decide what’s offensive and what’s not and coincidentally, crying “racism” often helps them fund raise or hurts their political opponents. It’s like starting up the Salem Witch Trials again and then giving Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP $10,000 every time they find a “witch” to burn. If we did that, what do you think the chances are they’d be finding witches EVERYWHERE? EXACTLY.

Read articles like this at


5 Liberal Policies That Backfire and Ruin Lives

Leave a comment

This is by John  Hawkins in Town Hall.

While John has pointed out 5 Liberal that have backfired and ruined lives.

Soon or later all Liberal policies backfire and ruin lives.

That is the reason I pray that Obanacare gets defunded and replaced.

Before is gets implemented the backfires and ruins lives and businesses.

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” — Ronald Reagan

“There are no solutions; there are only trade-offs.” — Thomas Sowell

“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle: There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’” — G.K. Chesterton

The biggest problem with modern liberalism is that it has devolved into little more than childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues. A liberal picks which policies to support based on whether they make him feel “nice” or “mean” and then he declares a policy to be a moral imperative based on his emotional reaction to it. There’s no consideration put into whether the cost of a program is worth the benefits provided or whether the policy ultimately benefits more people than it harms; there’s just a wild lurch based on feelings. Unfortunately for liberals, governing in that fashion is not sustainable over the long haul and leads to the sort of disasters we’ve recently seen in Greece and Detroit. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the wheels of history turn slowly and at times, ambiguously, which means bad ideas can take a long time to prove their unworthiness — so long in fact, that there’s often someone trying the same failed idea under a new name by the time the old idea has been discredited. 1) Price controls: Limiting the prices of certain goods like gas, electricity or food seems a kind -hearted thing to do. However, lamentably, it destroys the way the market functions. If the price of a product or service is kept artificially low, it will cause the populace to use more of it than it normally would. When this happens under ordinary circumstances, suppliers spend more money to keep the product coming (They buy surplus stock, set up 2nd and 3rd shifts at their plants, etc., etc.), they raise the price to cover their higher expenses and they wet their beak a bit by taking a little extra profit. On the other hand, if they can’t cover the extra expenses because of price controls, they’ll still try to sell what they have available, but there is no longer an incentive to use extra resources to meet demand for the product. So, when you see price controls put in effect, prepare yourself, because as sure as night follows day, a shortage is going to eventually occur.

2) Affirmative Action: In an effort to help black Americans, liberals advocate Affirmative Action. Sadly, this has turned into a particularly detrimental policy for black Americans. First off, every black American now has a question mark over his achievements. Did he deserve them or were they given because of Affirmative Action? This is one of the biggest drivers in the grossly unfair, soft bigotry to low expectations that are all often applied to black Americans in the media. Worse yet, depending on the numbers you believe, somewhere between 60-70% of black Americans drop out of college. Affirmative Action has a lot to do with that because it “helps” black Americans get into a more rigorous college than they may be ready to handle at a young age. As Walter Williams has said,

“…(B)lack students who are being turned into failures at MIT, if they’d gone to engineering school at the University of Pennsylvania or Cornell, they’d be on the Dean’s list.”

That’s an awful lot of human potential being wasted in the name of Affirmative Action.

3) Rent Control: Everybody needs a place to call home; so keeping rents low seems like a benevolent idea. Also, who wouldn’t want a great place to live on the cheap? However, in practice, cities with rent control are the most expensive places in America to rent. That’s because housing is a for profit industry. Existing apartments that can’t make a profit will close and new builders certainly aren’t going to build more space if they can’t make a profit on it. If you have a housing glut, it’s cheap to find a place to live. If you create an artificial housing shortage via rent control, it creates more homelessness and makes an area less affordable to live in for average families.

4) The DDT Ban: DDT is a safe, incredibly effective pesticide that was used extensively here in the United States with few negative effects. Sadly, Rachel Carson’s junk science book Silent Spring made a lot of wild, unsupported claims about DDT hurting birds that forever stuck in the minds of liberals. The substance was banned worldwide and even after the ban was lifted, liberal foundations, governments, and USAID have applied tremendous pressure to keep poor countries from using it. This is regrettable because DDT was and still is the cheapest and most effective way to kill mosquitoes that spread malaria. It’s very difficult to estimate the numbers of people in poor nations that have died because of liberal hatred of DDT, but most estimates seem to at least put it in the tens of millions with another million or so dying each year. There are a lot of dictators whose names we curse that haven’t killed as many human beings as liberals have by making sure poor people in South America and Africa can’t use DDT to free themselves of the scourge of malaria.

5) The Minimum Wage/Living Wage: What could be wrong with making sure that everyone makes at least a certain minimal amount for any work he does? After all, shouldn’t everyone make enough to support a family off his wages? That’s a nice idea, but the problem with it is that businesses aren’t charities and when you force them to pay employees more per hour than they’re worth, the company is probably going to react either by cutting their work force, replacing them with machinery, technology or outsourcing, or by hiring a smaller number of higher quality workers that are worth the money. In other words, minimum wages and living wages create unemployment. A great example of how this works recently happened in D.C. A law was passed targeting Wal-Mart which would have forced the retailer to pay its workers 50% more than the minimum wage. Wal-Mart’s response was to cancel the opening of six stores in the area. The liberal argument is that the thousands of people who would have voluntarily chosen to work for Wal-Mart will be better off unemployed. The conservative argument is that they should be allowed to make their own choice about whether the pay, health care, skills, and potential for advancement in the job are worth it.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: