BluegrassBulletin.com

Hank Aaron vs. The Black Sphere

Former baseball player Hank Aaron has accused Republicans of being like the KKK.

Speaking to USA Today Tuesday on the 40th anniversary of his then record-breaking 715th home run, the 80-year-old Aaron said that Republicans are hindering Obama’s job performance.

“Sure, this country has a black president, but when you look at a black president, President Obama is left with his foot stuck in the mud from all of the Republicans with the way he’s treated,” Aaron told USA Today Sports.

Aaron continued: “The bigger difference is that back then they had hoods. Now they have neckties and starched shirts.” [CBS]

Maybe he took one too many hardballs to the head.

The Ku Klux Klan‘s first incarnation was in 1866. On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-Americans. The Klan was involved in a wave of 1,300 murders of Republican voters in 1868. The group was an offshoot of the Democrat Party. [Gateway Pundit]

In a column back in February writing for his website "The Black Sphere" Kevin Jackson came up with this cool idea.

In celebration of 150 years since the Republicans freed the slaves from slave-loving (pardon the double-entendre) Democrats, my team has come up with a snarky way for you to get back at them. We are projecting what famous black people would be doing had Republicans not fought and died for their freedom. In short, my team does what the Republicans won’t do for themselves, and that is SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.

Senator Paul, I Respectfully....Diverge

Rand Paul admonished a group of TEA party patriots to avoid divisive rhetoric and said "we can disagree with the president without calling him names.” [POLITICO]  Rand had recently called upon Ted Nugent to apologize for calling the president a "subhuman mongrel".  Obviously "subhuman" is a racist term.

I agree with Rand that some of the vitriolic rhetoric I hear spoken in private about the president is quite nasty.  And while I also agree with Rand that respectful disagreement will better serve the goals of the TEA party movement than hate speech, I diverge a bit from his viewpoint for this reason.

People resent government officials of any stripe telling them what they can and can't say.  Though there is certainly a level of grace that Rand brings to his debates the rank and file are damned angry over the political correctness that has been rammed down their throats.

They are tired of a president who they perceive as a racist himself.  They are tired of being told that their views on fiscal issues and social issues must reflect a more refined attitude.  They are tired of being told that they must refer to certain lifestyles which they object to in a "neutral" manner rather than spitting out their disdain in coarse and disparaging language.

I don't for one minute think that Rand was trying to control free speech, rather he was trying to elevate the debate to a higher level where logic and facts will win more support than hatred and disgust.  But for a lot of Americans they feel as if the president continues to intentionally hit them on the thumb with a hammer and they want to react with the same language they would use if they did it themselves.

Moreover, as the POLITICO piece above corrected itself to say, A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that one T-shirt worn at the event called Obama a “racist” as if calling the president a racist is somehow off limits for the very people who are called racist on a daily basis.

Obviously any language which refers to another human being in purely racist terms is wrong, and should be avoided, but in a free society the right to say almost anything should be protected, even as the speaker is being condemned as wrongheaded. 

Furthermore, if any description of a person is accurate, then it should be fair game.  If a person is a rapist, the term "sexually challenged" strikes most people as offensive.  If a person is a murderer then treating them as "socially maladjusted" won't meet with much approval among the majority of law abiding citizens.  And if a person is a racist, and there is proof of such, then calling him/her a racist is justified.  But, if calling people "racist" merely because they disagree with you is acceptable among the very people whose actions are racially motivated then we have gotten ourselves into a pickle of political correctness that we need to fight our way out of.  And as we've been told since we were children, sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can never hurt you.

I agree Rand that we would do better to win the debate over the future of our nation on a level playing field in an environment where reason controlled the outcome, but our battlefield is far from level and reason has given way to provocation.  If you can bring us back, I'm all for it, but for many the fight is not advancing far enough or fast enough to save us.  Though I want to be very clear that I am certainly not urging the same action as Patrick Henry did, I do think that his words shed light on this discussion, if not merely to illuminate the frustration of the people:

[W]hat have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

The Problem Isn't Republicans, It's The Hated View Of Republicans

EDITORIAL RANT

I was once asked by a news paper editor if I was a Republican, or a TEA partier.  I told him that I prefer to avoid labels because they are over-broad.  I am who I am, think what I want and try to have good reason for what I think always willing to be persuaded, if possible, where I am wrong.

As Emerson once said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."  I would emphasize the word "foolish" in that quote as I do not believe that there is anything inherently wrong in being consistently wise.

I know many people who are registered to vote under different banners who think very much alike on many issues.  The Republicans certainly have no special claim to the "right to life" issue, the "right to bear arms" issue, the right to be free from intrusive government regulations issue or many other issues that are of real concern to people regardless of their party registration.

But listen to the haters and you would think that all Republicans are evil.  Such thinking is over broad, over inclusive and born of a little mind.

Dea Riley, former candidate for Lieutenant Governor with the late Gatewood Galbraith recently posted this to her Facebook page:

Come on Dea.  Do you really think that all persons in the Republican Party openly embrace exclusion, elitism and social categorization?  That we are all radical fascists seeking to impose a specific ideology/theology on everyone, embracing intrusion into individual rights?  That certainly doesn't define me, and neither does it define or describe many of the republicans I know. That is an insult.

But you are in good company.  MSNBC which has turned out to be the great hater of all things republican made up out of thin air a claim that "conservatives" hate bi-racial families. 

My God!  First of all there was no "conservative" backlash last year which the facts prove and which caused MSNBC to amend it's tweet to remove the word "conservative".  But that doesn't cure the problem.

The far left, the liberals in the democratic party and yes, even some of the TEA party liberals who are hiding out under the banner of "constitutional conservatives" hate republicans so much that they refuse to see that we are all individuals, with individual thoughts, feelings and beliefs.

As a republican I still believe in individual freedom, and that is because like our founders I believe that my life is a gift from God and that I am endowed by Him with inalienable rights.

As a republican I still believe that when a government fears the people there is hope for liberty, but when the people fear the government we have tyranny.

As a republican lawyer I defend the constitution every day, which on some days means that I defend the rights of people to do things, and say things with which I might personally disagree, but they have the right to do and say them.

And as a republican I have no compelling desire to see that we control people through a particular theology.  I am a Christian and my faith teaches me that I am to love my neighbor, introduce them to God when the chance arises, but recognize that they operate with free will and their choices are their own.  Do I want everybody to be a Baptist, or a Catholic, or a Methodist, or a Quaker or a Mormon or a Pentecostal?  Of course not.  As a Christian I would like everyone to know and accept Christ and I think the best way to do that is to live what I believe to the best of my ability and introduce them to each other.

But as an American, who believes that people should be free from government dictates as to whether and how they worship, I do oppose the goal of radical Islam to force the world to capitulate to their twisted worship of a pedophile prophet or be killed or enslaved.

And likewise I oppose any effort, by any person or group of persons to enslave people under any ideology, including the disgusting political game that addicts people to government hand outs, destroying their sense of self worth, de-incentivizing them to reach their full potential and thus enslaving them to the masters who they eventually think are the only ones who can provide for them.

The problem in this nation isn't republicans, it's the irrational, unsupportable, off the chart hatred OF republicans.  And THAT my friends is not an accident. 

Hating republicans is not the natural consequence of an honest study of history.  It is not the result of deductive reasoning.  Hating republicans is the cold and calculated strategy of those who wish to fundamentally transform America into the kind of nation our founders and thousands upon thousands of our best and brightest ever since have fought to prevent.

It is unfair to say that all democrats are far left liberals.  It is unfair to say that all republicans are cracker-assed racists.

We are all Americans.  We all have the right to want and pursue different paths to happiness.  But hatred of others is destructive.

You may assign to me a desire to run things by my theology, but only on this one point.  In my view, hatred has no place in America.  I would prefer that we love each other, and all people, as we love ourselves. 

If that was our guiding principle, I believe everything else would fall into place.

Have You People Lost Your Freaked Out Minds?

Rational thought cannot explain what is going on in the world of politics today.  It's as if the American people have been dosed with seconal and mentally kidnapped.

The liberals are engaged in a perpetual rant that the republicans have waged a war on women.  This ridiculous claim is grounded primarily in the lie that only republicans oppose abortion.  Lots of people oppose abortion including many, many democrats.  But not all democrats.

Al Gore, one time democratic presidential nominee, is now calling for "fertility management", specifically in Africa, to control global warming.  Do you not know what he is saying?  This is right out of the Margaret Sanger eugenics playbook.  It's about forced population control, particularly among the dark skinned people of the world.  Snap out of it!  Remember what she said:

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."

Pro choice my ass.  Isn't having a child a choice?  Isn't having as many children as you want a choice?  What are you people who support these loons thinking?

They are the ones who have an evil plan for the world.  They are the ones with a racist plot to limit the number of dark skinned people in Africa through "fertility management", and for what?  For their phony chicken-little screech about global warming?  It is now and always has been a front for controlling people.  How is it that my friends in the democratic party can't see this?

Is it because you have been mesmerized into thinking that George Bush was the great evil of our lifetime?  For God's sake wake up!

You allowed yourselves to be cursed with tunnel vision and believed that "The Bush Doctrine" was a one dimensional description of a war monger president who claimed the right to launch "pre-emptive strikes" even in nations that were no direct threat to the United States.  Forget for a minute that "The Bush Doctrine" was not the over simplistic concept that Charlie Gibson was high-fived about when he sneered at Sarah Palin.  Stop to look at how much farther than even what you THOUGHT George W. Bush was planning your own president is going in his slobbering lust for power:

In a video posted Wednesday at the Right Scoop, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Senators the administration would seek UN or NATO approval for the deployment of U.S. forces overseas while deciding whether or not it would seek approval from Congress.

The statement shocked Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who asked Panetta if he could "initiate a no-fly zone in Syria" without Congressional approval.

"Again, our goal would be to seek international permission and we would ...come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress - I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here," Panetta said.

"Obama is bypassing Congress every chance he can to do whatever he wants. He did it in Libya and then never complied with the War Powers Act, and I’d expect he’d do that again. He is a totalitarian, it’s just that simple," notes the Right Scoop.[Examiner]

And the world of the crazy left in the media centers went all ape-ish over comments by Mike Huckabee in a speech to the Republican National Committee.  Huckabee said that "no co-pay" birth control is an affront to women suggesting to them that they can't get by "without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government."

But Al Gore can call for the imposition of "fertility management" on an entire continent of Africans and the world just sits there blinking and nodding and drooling a little bit?

Have you people lost your ever loving freaked out minds?

Just go on, watch another reality TV show, buy what they are selling you, run up your credit cards, pretend that political debate and the future of our country are matters too far beyond your control to be bothered with, hope and pray that your unemployment gets extended, take advantage of every government benefit that comes your way and lay down on your face with your hands behind your head whenever you are told to do so.  It's all going to be okay.  Here's your medicine.

Now get off my lawn.

Told Jah

Nice to know that others are thinking the same things I am.

I told you recently that the democrats are going with a new "ism" in the ramp up to Hillary's run in 2016.  They are replacing "racism" with "sexism".  We've seen it tried already in Kentucky.

It is rewarding to see others now beginning to discern the same thing.

As NewsBusters reported Sunday, liberal cartoonist Ted Rall was recently banned from the progressive website Daily Kos for publishing a comic strip with Barack Obama in it that was deemed to be racist.

On Monday, Rall spoke with Newsmax TV’s Steve Malzberg about the incident, and warned that if Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, “sexism will be the new racism”

 

"If you look at the vast majority of people who came down on me, these are white Democrats, white guy Democrats who are just using this as an excuse," Rall added. "Get ready, because in 2016, if Hillary is the nominee, it’s just going to be sexism will be the new racism...It’s what you use when you don’t have anything."

Indeed it is, but Rall's right. Just as anyone that criticized Obama the past six-plus years was accused of racism, in the coming years, anyone that criticizes Hillary if she runs will be depicted as sexist. The so-called "Republican War on Women" will be dusted off again, and every utterance by an opponent or commentator that isn't flattering will be due to Clinton's lack of a Y-chromosome and not because of her views. [Newsbusters]

Related articles

Get Ready For SEXISM!

Look Hard And Find Double Standard In Comment On McConnell/Grimes By Lexington Media

Grimes Is The New "Obama Girl"?

Grimes Linked To Obama Lies

Look Hard And Find Double Standard In Comment On McConnell/Grimes By Lexington Media

Having read the Lexington Paper for many years I was at first surprised to read what appeared to be a relatively fair comment on the efforts of McConnell and Grimes  to "woo" women voters.  The paper began with a hard look at Grimes' and ended with a warning for McConnell.  But on further analysis it turns out that they were really only up to their old tricks.

On the surface their comment might appear to be an attempt to warn Grimes that she could be making a huge mistake by whining about the "Obama Girl" photo I posted a few days ago. 

In early September 2008, just days after Republican presidential nominee John McCain announced then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, a group of high-profile GOP women called a news conference at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Carly Fiorina and U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., ripped into the assembled media for their sexist approach toward Palin...

America had its say, and Palin built a strong and loyal following. But on Nov. 4, 2008, exit polls showed that 60 percent of voters said Palin was not qualified to be president if the need arose.

Like Palin, Grimes has a lot of work to do to satisfy voters' questions about where she stands on the issues.

Last week, Grimes and her Democratic supporters expressed outrage after the National Republican Senatorial Committee promoted a picture of Grimes' head on the body of Amber Lee Ettinger, the so-called "Obama girl."

It's up to individual women to decide whether they were offended, but how much stronger would her hand have been had she been a forceful voice this summer when state Rep. John Arnold, D-Sturgis, was accused of sexually harassing three women staffers?

The GOP counter-attack persisted through the election.[Kentucky.com]

Okay, so they didn't give me direct credit for raising that issue in the first place by my series of posts on Grimes, but that's okay, at least they made my points, again.

After this tepid warning to Grimes they went on next to warn Mitch that he better watch his peezencues.

In Hillary Clinton's 2000 New York State Senate run, [Rick] Lazio, a Republican, walked from his podium to Clinton's, demanding that she sign a pledge against using so-called soft money in the campaign.

The Clinton campaign had been preparing the soil for a while, and it was ready to use the incident to turn Lazio's claims of strength into a charge of bullying. When he stepped away from his podium, Lazio might as well have stepped out of the race. The media and the campaign seized on the move as an example of his bullying, aggressive demeanor.

If McConnell takes one step in that direction, he is likely to find a backlash he has not seen before. Folks who decry and debate double standards, as McConnell's campaign did last week, usually have plenty of time to make their points after they've lost in November. [Kentucky.com]

While the warning to Mitch might sound a bit like fair play in reality they have taken a stand in favor of the successful use of fake outrage by Hillary and warned Mitch that in the future they will likely side with Alison and her use of the democratic playbook tactic of "-ism" politics.

Barack Obama was able to shame his critics by accusing them of "racism".  This year, and moving into 2016, women democrats are trying to play the same game only this time with charges of "sexism."

The Lexington publication didn't come right out and say it, but when using the examples of two prominent women, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, they seem to have endorsed Hillary's success at "ism" politics and denounced Sarah's attempts to call out critics who have lampooned her unmercifully in much more offensive ways than walking across a stage and asking politely for a signature.

Sure, the editorial looks fair on the surface, but in the end, and once again, the LHL is the one applying a double standard.

Democrat Alan Grayson Shames Himself With KKK Mailer

Florida democrat representative Alan Grayson sent out a fund raising email likening the TEA party to the KKK complete with a photo of a burning cross.

Now I'm not sure his fellow dems would agree, but this is far more disrespectful than telling the President "I can't even stand to look at you."  Of course, to the democrats, that comment was probably racist too.  Sheesh!

Blogger Argues That TEA Party And Shutdown Have Much In Common With Overt Racism

A guest blogger at Jonathan Turley has drawn some interesting parallels between the debate in Congress that led to the shutdown, and the way in which "racists" in the South tried to deal with the decision in "Brown vs. Board of Education" which declared Virginia's segregated schools unconstitutional.

Even the strategy followed by Republicans is largely a southern effort.  Approximately 60% of the Tea Party Caucus is from the South.  Nineteen of the 32 Republican members of the House who have been instrumental in orchestrating the shutdown are from southern states. It is hardly surprising therefore, that the current impasse is characterized by the time-honored southern belief in nullification theory as a proper antidote to disfavored decisions by a congressional majority.

What is the most insulting however is the ease by which the author calls southerners who oppose Obamacare, akin to the racists who opposed the de-segregation of schools. 

First of all, Obamacare is a bill passed by Congress.  It is not nor will it ever be elevated to the supreme law of the land as the Equal Protection Clause under which Brown was decided.

Second, Obamacare is still opposed by more Americans than approve of it.  It was passed without ever having been read, has failed in its initial launch and contains far more insidious provisions than the public ever knew about.  In addition the President himself has taken the liberty to exempt certain groups from its application in violation of the separation of powers.

Third, the idea expressed by the author that the influence of republican southerners in Congress, particularly those working with the TEA party are racists paints southern republicans as the ones who opposed de-segregation.  The democrats were the ones opposing de-segregation and the KKK was the grass roots effort that used violence and terror in support segregation.  In fact, the democrats in Congress used the filibuster to resist republican efforts to punish lyncing.

And the thinly veiled suggestion in the article that the current southern opposition to Obamacare has something to do with the color of the current president's skin is absurd. Here's what he says:

When the Brown decision was announced, the reaction in Virginia was shock, disbelief and anger. Reflecting the prevailing attitudes, the Richmond News Leader railed against “the encroachment of the Federal government, through judicial legislation, upon the reserved powers of the States.”  The Virginia legislature adopted a resolution of “interposition” asserting its right to “interpose” between unconstitutional federal mandates and local authorities under principles of state sovereignty.  And Sen. Byrd organized a campaign of opposition that came to be known as “Massive Resistance.”

There are striking similarities between Sen. Byrd’s failed plan of Massive Resistance and Republican efforts to prevent implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  There was widespread confidence among conservatives that the Supreme Court would declare the Act unconstitutional.  When that did not occur, legislators such as Michele Bachmann, quoted above, attempted to deny the legitimacy of the Court’s ruling.  Brent Bozell went further, denouncing Chief Justice Roberts as “a traitor to his own philosophy,” hearkening back to the days when southern roadsides were replete with billboards demanding the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren.

My point is very simply that while the similarities the author draws between the reaction to Brown vs. Board of Education and the reaction to Obamacare might be interesting, they are also potentially misleading.

His analysis in the original post is flawed to the extent that it is capable of being interpreted to mean that a large number of southerners oppose Obamacare because of lingering racist sentiments.

I doubt that this was an accident. He gives Southerners no credit for opposing Obamacare as a position consistent with their opposition to the cost and incompetence of a centralized government on many other fronts.

The same people he paints as racists harming the GOP stood up against drone use on American citizens, stood up for privacy against government snooping, want to bring our soldiers home, cut wasteful government spending and generally want more people to become engaged in the political process.

While I am certainly not a “Liberty Movement/Ron Paul” kind of guy, I am actually pretty happy that somebody is standing up against Big Brother, and I don’t think Big Brother is black, brown, yellow, pink, red, white, blue, or any other color.

We live in a world and in a time when issues of segregation and slavery are as irrelevant to this discussion as the price of buggy whips. It is a distraction that confuses and insults at the same time.

Bob Costas Stirs It Up Again

Bob Costas on Sunday Night Football went on another rant last night during the Dallas Washington game.  This time he sided with Barack Obama (surprise-not) in calling for the Washington Redskins to change their name.  His argument: The name is racist and insensitive.  Let's examine his argument.

He says that calling a team "redskins" would be akin calling a team "black skins", or "brown skins" or for that matter "pink skins", "tan skins", "white skins", "yellow skins" etc. etc.  He also made an issue of the team logo, a native American Indian.  He pointed out how many other college teams had changed their names to avoid the insult that "redskins", "braves",  "chiefs" and "warriors" in his view have leveled at native American Indians. Here's the video:

What do you think?

Race In Obama's America

The election of Barack Obama was historic.  The world took notice that in America a man of African heritage and dark skin could become president.  The nation looked for leadership that would heal the last remaining racial wounds in a process that began, as did Obama's campaign, in honor of Abraham Lincoln.

But in many ways circumstances seem to have gotten worse.  All opposition to Obama's agenda was shouted down as racism.  His snub of the British was explained by his hatred of "colonialism".  His pastor preached "black liberation" theology.  Trayvon Martin was held up as the symbol of oppressed black youth.  And as time goes by, the wounds do not seem to be healing.

Now this, from Gateway Pundit:

Raising his fist in a black power salute during his swearing in, the newly elected mayor of Jackson, Mississippi was true to his character as a former leader of the black supremacy group, Republic of New Afrika.  The group is dedicated to transforming five of the Southern states into an independent socialist black nation.  Jackson Mayor Chokwe Lumumba, born in Detroit as Edwin Finley Taliaferro, is a radical activist, and co-founder of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement.  He’s, also, being praised by the Nation of Islam, who wrote in their publication, Final Call, that ‘the seeds of a black nation are already taking root in Mississippi.

"E Pluribus Unum"?  Out of many,one.  "One nation under God, indivisible"?  Or is race actually dividing America?  What happened to the historic presidency that promised to give the world 'hope'?

It seems that things have gotten worse, and it has happened on his watch.

Raising his fist in a black power salute during his swearing in, the newly elected mayor of Jackson, Mississippi was true to his character as a former leader of the black supremacy group, Republic of New Afrika.  The group is dedicated to transforming five of the Southern states into an independent socialist black nation.  Jackson Mayor Chokwe Lumumba, born in Detroit as Edwin Finley Taliaferro, is a radical activist, and co-founder of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement.  He’s, also, being praised by the Nation of Islam, who wrote in their publication, Final Call, that ‘the seeds of a black nation are already taking root in Mississippi.’ - See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/#sthash.LXW2iSgO.dpuf