MEME BUSTERS Updated

This week seems to be meme destruction week.  It has been a devastating week for some well-worn liberal canards. Two different vehemently upheld liberal/progressive beliefs have been proved  wrong and one is under heavy fire.  We seem to be reaching a point of implosion for the democrat party and the fallout is not restricted to just the halls of Congress.

First on the chopping block was the much-hyped "shovel ready jobs" that were used to sell the Porkulus bill.  According to President Obama in a recent New York Times piece, he has since learned that

"there's no such thing as shovel ready projects".

 

Apparently the only thing shovel ready about that bill was the bill itself.... Too bad Mr. Obama couldn't have figured out the futility of the effort before he spent a trillion dollars of other people's money.

And then there is the meme that the Tea Parties are chock-a-block full of racist signs carried by white-hooded klansmen out for blood.  All the press and liberals have been talking about is how incredibly, overtly racist and dangerous the movement is.  Eh, not so much, it turns out.   The woman who did the study has liberal creds, inasmuch as she is a graduate student from UCLA.  For anyone who has attended a Tea Party, the results of this study are unsurprising.  What is surprising is the fact that the Washington Post actually carried the story.  Doubtless the rest of the neo-pravda media will be all over this story and apologize for their biased, flat-out wrong coverage of the movement.  Yeah, riiiiiiiight.

Another meme that is in the process of being busted is the one about conservatism being solely the jurisdiction of whites.  In a piece in Ebony Magazine entitled "The Browning of the GOP", author Armstrong Williams makes the case for the growing number of self-identified Black Republicans and their place in the history of the GOP.  He also explains the single event that caused the exodus from republicans to democrats in the 1960's - an exodus that has been the norm for so long that Democrats have managed to fool the black community into thinking they were always democrats.   But, as Mr. Williams states:

But today, the great flight has the chance to be met by the great return as a new breed of Black conservative has emerged and taken center stage in the Republican Party.

This meme has not yet been busted, but it seems to be coming off the tracks.  The best argument in favor of the Ebony article is the unprecidented fourteen black republican candidates running for Congress this fall.  Primary season boasted a whopping thirty-two black conservative candidates vying for the republican nod.  There is a very good chance that three of them will win their elections, which would set a record for the most black republicans since Reconstruction.  It is a small number, but it is a start, and hopefully more black conservatives will step up and run in the future.  If Messrs. West, Scott and Frasier are any indication of the caliber of candidate in the offing, the Republican party could hardly do better.

The liberal/progressive talking points seem to be going down like a line of dominoes.  Not only are their recent claims being proven to be false, but even long-held positions are being challenged. 

The information age is a beautiful thing, isn't it?

UPDATE:  Uh-oh, another one bites the dust!

Read more...

MEME BUSTERS Updated

STALKING ON A NATIONAL LEVEL

The NAACP and various left-wing media groups have started up a new website, TeaPartyTracker.org.  The point of this new website?  Why, to monitor and report on any and all examples of "racism" and "extremism" in the Tea Party movement, of course.  They are calling on bloggers and assorted lefties with camera phones to document any wrongdoing on the part of the tea party.

Good luck with that, guys.  Oh, and here's a tip for you - the idiots on the fringes who carry the Obama is Hitler signs are LaRouchies - democrats.  Just a little FYI for ya, 'cause so far you don't seem to have gotten the memo.  

If the NAACP is so interested in rooting out racism on a national level, perhaps they should start here.  Or here.  And don't forget all of these.  It's really amazing that their highly tuned 'racedar' didn't go off over this one - but, then, "death to cracka's" isn't really racist, so it's understandable that they would have missed that.

Even with a $100,000 bounty for video proving claims of racism in the tea party, there has still been no video tape to prove the point, even with the hundreds of cameras present - including ones in democrat hands.  Perhaps the NAACP and their ilk should be focusiing on people like this who make their living off the back of racial prejudice, even when it is a hoax, and even when the result is violence and riots.

These constant, fruitless attempts to smear the tea parties as racist are wearing very thin.  According to a press release from Project 21, a black activist group sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research:

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

Actually, members of the NAACP themselves are guilty of this.

It's time to stop the race baiting.  The damage being done is damage to themselves.  As long as the NAACP and other progressive groups indulge in these antics, there will never be progress and there will never be healing.  Resorting to baseless name-calling cheapens the NAACP and causes people to question their relevance.  Attempts to make the dissent against the current administration (and just about every other issue) about race does a disservice to their cause. 

Read more...

STALKING ON A NATIONAL LEVEL

IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON Updated

Last week, Shirley Sherrod was merely another regional director for the USDA.  She performed her job admirably well, and has spent much of her life helping the poor.  But all of that was thrown out like last week's garbage when Andrew Breitbart posted video of Ms. Sherrod on his BigGovernment website. 

The video showed Sherrod speaking before the NAACP last year, telling a story about a white farmer who, twenty-four years ago when she worked for a different agency, came to her for aid to keep his farm.  At first, Sherrod was reluctant to help him, feeling her duty lay with the black farmers in the region.  She helped him a bit, but not to the full scope of her capabilities, as she warred with herself over what to do with him.  She finally referred him to a white lawyer, preferring to allow "his own kind" to help him. 

Out of context, her remarks seem to promote discriminating against whites.  But taken in context, her story wasn't about some sort of 'justifiable' racism, it was about racism never being justifiable.  It was about the needs of the poor being universal, and the help from people such as her being colorblind.  It was something she struggled with over the years, and continues to struggle with, but, at least in the case of the farmer in question, she saw the wrong she was doing and set it right.    She was not perfect, but she recognized her imperfection and strove to change it.  She overcame her bias and wanted to use her story to inspire others to see things as she did.

But this story isn't really about Shirley Sherrod.   As compelling as her story may be, she is just the most recent in a long string of innocent victims to the racial narrative that has exploded in this country since Barack Obama took office. 

Was this a setup by Andew Breitbart - an effort to draw out a racial accusation by the NAACP on an erronious spot judgement to prove a larger point?  There have been several unfounded accusations from the left over the past 18 months, culminating in the NAACP's denouncement of the tea parties last week over implied but unproved slurs and slights.  The NAACP demanded that the tea parties take ownership of and denounce any and all persons who make racial remarks at a tea party function, whether they are affiliated with the group or not.  Because of this ridiculous, impossible stance, they were forced to live up to their own standards and so went after Sherrod as an example to prove their own, well, intolerance of intolerance. 

Sherrod is more of an example than they know in that, much like the tea parties that are the left's favorite punching bags, she was innocent of their charges of racism.  Much like the tea parties, the NAACP made judgements on Sherrod based on incomplete and incorrect information.  Instead of checking their own archives, they just assumed she was in the wrong, much as they assume the allegations of racism in the tea party are correct, with no evidence to corroborate.

Which brings up another question - why were they so quick to think she really was making racist statements at an NAACP forum?  Considering how quick they were to come out on this story, without even researching their own archives first, that raises an important question -  does it happen that often?  Ben Jealous claims the NAACP was "snookered", but it seems more like they set themselves up. 

Granted, it is one of Alinsky's Rules (Tactic #4) to hold the opposition to a higher standard (#4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.").  The problem is, sometimes the hypocrisy is just too much and the blowback is worse than the initial assault.  After the rantings of the New Black Panthers, Rev. Wright, and even members of the NAACP itself, there just isn't as much weight behind the accusation anymore.  The race card has been played too much, with too little to back it up.  In short, the country is suffering from race fatigue.  This is an excellent example of why tactic #7 - "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag" - is a caution that should be heeded.

The NAACP doesn't seem to want the country to move on, though.  They cannot afford to acknowledge the giant strides this country has made in race relations, because it would illustrate their eventual obsolescence.  For every step forward, people like Jealous, Al Sharpton, Rev. Wright and Jesse Jackson try to drag us back to 1967, when they were relevant and necessary.  Not to say there is no discrimination, it is just that it is becoming more rare, as opposed to the systemic corruption of bigotry from the Jim Crow era.  With their broad brush accusations, they are trying to argue that the entire tea party 'system', as well as everyone sympathetic to it, are racists.  Even with a surge of black conservatives denouncing the racial accusations, the NAACP has their narrative and they're sticking to it. 

They are attempting to lay blame on, of all things, Fox News.  This is interesting, since Fox did not air the video until hours after she had been booted to the curb resigned.  The USDA blamed the White House, saying if she didn't resign, she would be on Glenn Beck.  The White House is now blaming Vilsack, the head of the USDA, saying he "jumped the gun".  It would be very interesting to know if the White House did demand her head out of fear of giving Beck fodder for another show.  The threat of Beck coverage seems to be a pretty strong incentive for this administration.  Odd, considering how stupid and crazy they keep saying he is.

The problem we have in this country is that we are unwilling or not allowed to see the strides made, only the original sins that propelled the change.  It is nothing short of amazing to me that in this day and age, with the country being led by a man of african descent, that racial bias and the old stereotypes of decades past are still being trotted out as relevant today. Opposition to a political agenda is NOT racism.

The constant race baiting by left-wing groups has become nothing more than a distraction from the real issues.  This is far too serious a charge to be bandied about in that way.  If the Journolist scandal has taught us anything, it is that a surprising number on the left are perfectly happy to use the race card to change the subject, no facts required.

Many of those the NAACP would label racists for opposing the Obama agenda were the self-same people who helped vote Obama into office in the first place. The NAACP seems to be incapable of seeing the great strides towards equality that this country has taken since the civil rights era. They are unable to let go of the hate, and it has poisoned them nearly to the point of irrationality. Much like infection keeps a wound from healing, so too does the continued trumping up of racial charges keep the country from moving on in the quest for an equal society of free people.

UPDATE: Allen West weighs in.

Read more...

IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON Updated

COMEDY OR RACISM - DEPENDS ON THE MESSENGER

I am no fan of Bill Mahr.  And yet again, he has reminded me why:




Let's see - we now have blatantly racist remarks about our president from liberal 'supporters' Bill Maher, Harry Reid and Bill Clinton.  They have all made highly offensive, undeniably racist remarks, and every one has been dismissed by the left.  I wonder how they will spin this one.  Oh, that's right - it's comedy and he's a comedian, so we shouldn't hold him to the same standards as other people.  Isn't that how David Letterman gets away with his offensive remarks? 

If a conservative comedian (if there were any, of course) made a "joke" like this, they would be tarred, feathered and blacklisted.  Luckily for Mr. Maher, he has no moral code and is a card carrying liberal, so he is in the clear.  I personally find it sad that these far left idiots seem to think that a black man is only "authentically" black if he is a gun-toting, epithet spewing, 'gangsta' stereotype.  

On the other hand, there are accusations of racial epithets uttered by tea party protesters - none of which have been captured on tape for verification, even though there were literally hundreds of people video taping the event in question - including the people who were allegedly called the slurs.  These accusations have somehow become fact anyway, even with no real facts to uphold them, and are held up as proof that the tea partyers are racists.

No, no double standard here.  Move along, move along....

Read more...

COMEDY OR RACISM - DEPENDS ON THE MESSENGER

IN DEFENSE OF RAND PAUL

The Rand Paul tempest in a teapot that has been unfolding for the past week has been a case study in how to sabotage a perfectly good, potentially highly successful campaign.  A textbook case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, if you will.  It's also a perfect example of the pointless depths the media will sink to in order to control the debate.  Paul's commendable attempt at being open and transparent in his views seems to have backfired on him.

Mr. Paul won his primary by a landslide, there is no denying that.  As of last Thursday, he was leading his democrat rival for the Kentucky Senate seat by a 25 point margin.  He seemed to be a shoo-in for the seat come November.  Even better, he was chosen over a GOP sponsored pick by the Tea Party, giving them some real electoral muscle and sending a message to the establishment that the run-of-the-mill candidates just weren't up to snuff.

Mr. Paul, and the Tea Party by extension, was flying high after the election.  But then he went on MSNBC and did an interview with Rachel Maddow.  Ms. Maddow went after Paul over a video interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal back in April (skip to the 59 minute mark for his comments).  In the interview, Paul was asked if he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Suddenly, with a single question, this incredibly promising candidate is battling for his political life. 

How this issue is pertinent to what is going on the country today is anyone's guess, but they sure did strike gold, didn't they?

Let's just try to put his comments in context - something the left is always clamoring for - before we continue.  He told Maddow (and the Courier-Journal) that he would have tried to change the legislation.  NOT that he would have voted against it, attempted to filibuster it or try to repeal it.   His problem with the legislation was that the corrective behavior on this issue, solely at the private level, should have been consumer based, not federal intervention.  Economic pressure to bring about change, not governmental mandates. Those businesses that continued to discriminate against people because of the color of their skin should have been boycotted by their customers until they changed their ways.  It goes to the heart of the debate over how much the federal government should be allowed to intervene in our lives.

Maddow's attempts to say that he somehow condoned the violence of the era was ridiculous, but it is also pertinent to Paul's opinion.  Yes, people were beaten for sitting at a lunch counter.  The reason this happened was because of institutional racism in the form of Jim Crow laws.  Police were not required to intervene in these cases, and when they did, it was in support of the businesses in question. After all, the people who were originally in violation of the law were the protesters, who, by law, could not sit at the counter.  Making the black community equal in the eyes of the law was necessary to stop the beatings Maddow was so focused on.  Ms. Maddow seems to have amnesia as to the role the police, state and local officials had in segregation.  Certainly there were business owners who thought the Jim Crow laws were perfectly proper and fitting.  No doubt there were also those who did not, but they were helpless to do anything about it because of the laws protecting such reprehensible actions. 

What Mr. Paul advocated was removing the biased laws and allowing human decency to do the rest.  The problem with the left is, they don't give people the chance to do what is right.  They feel people must be taken by the hand and "guided" down the proper path.  And let's not forget that it was democrats (the "Redeemers") who ran the South and enacted the Jim Crow laws. 

Boiled down, he feels that institutions do not have the right to be racist or biased, but people do. 

This is about more than just the Civil Right Act, though.  Ms. Maddow had an agenda for that interview - corner Paul and paint him as a racist.  This is classic Alinsky Rule #13 - 'Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.' What better way to do that than imply that he is racist?  It's the indefensible accusation, after all.  Haven't we all learned over the past two years that that's what it's really all about with these people?  Bring it back to racism, because once they manage to label you that way, you will always be fighting it.  You have to give her credit - she's certainly tenacious.  She even managed, at the end of the interview, to add this little gem:

Dr. Rand Paul, Republican nominee for the United States Senate in Kentucky, where he'll be representing not only his own views about how to live but what kind of laws we should have in America....

That's the sum-up of the whole exercise - the big, flashing 'danger' sign the liberal media is desperate to illuminate - be careful, you idiot voters, this racist guy will be single-handedly deciding our laws if he gets in office.  The possibility that the man could or would force a repeal of the '64 Act is laughable, but what else do they have, really?  As Alinsky says, the ends justify the means.  Add in the old adage "Desperate times call for desperate measures" and you have the current liberal attack formula.

Let's not forget that Mr. Paul is a libertarian at heart.  The reason the Tea Party embraced him was because of his inherent distrust of federal intervention.  This is often a problem with the libertarian viewpoint.  It sometimes runs the risk of being taken to the extreme - borderline anarchy - or is perceived that way.  Those views, in this climate of a hyper-nanny state, are total apostasy.

On one hand, Mr. Paul makes sense - desegregating public buildings, institutions and programs is certainly within the milieu of the federal government, but forcing a private business owner to serve people is not.  And no, I do not think that businesses should not serve people because of the color of their skin - but I do think they have a right to withhold service, no matter how reprehensible their reason for it may be.  But that is easily countered, because it is also MY right to take my business to someone who doesn't espouse those policies.  Which is Mr. Paul's point.   The problem with Paul's rationale is that, in a society where racism was the norm and had been for generations, would anyone have boycotted the places that refused to serve the black community?   In a perfect world, we would all hope that basic human decency would win out over something as appalling as racial segregation, but, unfortunately, the Deep South in the 1960's was anything but perfect. 

In the meantime, Mr. Paul has inadvertently created a media feeding frenzy.  After all, nothing says "racist" like someone who doesn't agree with the Civil Rights Act!  This is really a twofer for the liberal media.  Not only do they get a golden opportunity to sink a republican senatorial campaign, but they also get to take the tea parties down a notch, too.  No wonder the media has been semi-orgasmic in their coverage of the "controversy".

They are using fear to sink a very popular candidate - as if there have ever or will ever be any attempts to repeal the Civil Rights Act.  Puhleeze.  This also has the bonus of sucking the air out of the room and leaving no space to talk about other things, like the administration's lack of response to the Gulf oil spill, government unions' role in the collapse of the European union, the rank hypocrisy of our president signing a freedom of press act ten months into a moratorium on press conferences on his part, unemployment back up to 9.9%,  the stock market's most recent roller-coaster impersonation, or the president's outright demagoguery of the Arizona immigration bill.

Who really knows how damaging this will be to Paul come November?  The Courier-Journal most certainly is working this angle as much as possible, as is most of the left-wing neo-pravda media.  They are happy to paint Paul as a racist by implication and spread the fear to Kentucky's black community that if he is voted into office, there is a chance segregation will take hold again.  It is fear baiting at it's most crass.

That Mr. Paul didn't see this coming when he was talking about a 46 year old law that has no relevance in today's politics is worrying.  This is settled law that had no pertinence to the current debate, and bringing it up should have set off some alarm bells for him.  A more savvy politician would have seen the trap for what it was, especially coming from far-left media like the Courier-Journal and MSNBC.  Of course, the main reason he gained the Tea Party endorsement was because he wasn't an entrenched, career politician who parses everything he says and makes no stands on any issues, relevant or not.  He is a principled man who doesn't pull his punches.  Perhaps he has learned from this episode that politics is a contact sport, and, as with all contact sports, strategy is required.  Sometimes that means pulling a punch or two to save your energy for the real battles.

Read more...

IN DEFENSE OF RAND PAUL