Something critical of the Obamessiah Obamaliar…from NPR?  Someone turn on the Weather Channel and see what the forecast for Hell is, pronto!

“Can someone raise questions about the experience of a candidate who’s only been a US Senator for four years and who does not have a prodigious legislative record without being stained as a bigot?”

I couldn’t make this crap up if I tried!  From Houston:

Leaders of the Black Cultural Council say volunteers and the black community felt “humiliated” after two health department food inspectors threatened to put a stop to a Juneteenth celebration over questions about food preparation for 600 free barbecue sandwiches.

Council President Jo Ann Davenport-Littleton said health inspectors told them it was illegal for the group to serve the sandwiches because they were not prepared at the site where they were served.

Gino Solla, the county’s top health official, said state law prohibits any food service operation from having food prepared in a private home for public consumption.

“I hate that it happened,” Davenport-Littleton said in a story for today’s edition of the Odessa American. “I wanted people to go away talking about how great the celebration was this year. All you heard was ‘They were going to deny us barbecue. Here we are in modern-day slavery again.’ “

Got that?  Food safety regulations is the same thing as forced labor!  Got it.  Thanks for the clarification.  Morons.

Just imagine the similarly colorful metaphors had a case of E. coli broken out among the BBQ consumers.  Why, we may have had a Tuskegee Experiment comparison!

Or, more accurately, his half-blackness.  Either way, the “great uniter” sure knows how to draw bitter, clingy white folks over to his side, doesn’t he?  He comes into my backyard and delivers this kind of drivel (from the AP):

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.

“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. …

Yeah, because that leap to $4+ gas and jump in unemployment happened over the last two years under the Dem Congress…but somehow that’s the GOP’s fault. Anywho, continuing:

…”We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.

“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
…
“We know the strategy because they’ve already shown their cards. Ultimately I think the American people recognize that old stuff hasn’t moved us forward. That old stuff just divides us,” he said.

If, by “old stuff”, you mean “that stuff that I just said and made up with no basis in fact”, then yeah…”old stuff”!  And I suppose that “you guys are a bunch of racists” is a tactic that doesn’t “divide us”, n’est-ce pas? 

The GOP isn’t going to hit him on his defeatist attitude, his pansy-#ss approach to fighting terrorism, his poor judgment of character (see Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, Jim Johnson, et al), his Marxist tendencies, or anything like that?  Nope…they’re going to try to point out something that only the visually impaired don’t already notice: his skin color.  Dumb#ss.

Liberal columnist Richard Cohen for the plummeting Washington comPost detests racism in this campaign…except for the kind that drives votes to Barry O.  Observe:

… I loathe above all the resurgence of racism — or maybe it is merely my appreciation of the fact that it is wider and deeper than I thought. I am stunned by the numbers of people who have come out to vote against Barack Obama because he is black. I am even more stunned that many of these people have no compunction about telling a pollster they voted on account of race — one in five whites in Kentucky, for instance. Those voters didn’t even know enough to lie, which is what, if you look at the numbers, others probably did in other states. Such honesty ought to be commendable. It is, instead, frightening.

I acknowledge that some people can find nonracial reasons to vote against Obama — his youth, his inexperience, his uber-liberalism and, of course, his willingness to abide his minister’s admiration for a racist demagogue (Louis Farrakhan) until it was way, way too late. But for too many people, Obama is first and foremost a black man and is rejected for that reason alone. This is very sad.

Well, thanks for throwing us that bone, RC!  But…

…Yes, voter participation is way up and in the end, the Democrats will choose a woman or an African American and, to invoke that tiresome phrase, history will be made. 

Hmmm.  Racism (and sexism) are bad, but it’s great that people are choosing a candidate because of race or gender?  Barry O has secured the votes of over 90% of black Americans this primary season, and only a fool would argue that these voters aren’t supporting him because he’s black.  Far more people are voting for him because he’s black than against him because he’s black.  But one may infer that according to Cohen, a vote for Obama because of his blackness is good, but a vote against him because of his blackness is abominable.  I agree with the latter conclusion, but certainly not the former.

Cohen rattles off a list of non-racial reasons that people (such as me and others here) will not vote for the Obamessiah.  I would add the following to that list: Obama’s lethal naivete, his defeatist attitude, his inability to recognize the enemies of this country, his pathological lying tendencies (or, for the more charitable, his “amazing tendencies to commit gaffe after gaffe”), his Marxist underpinnings, his moonbatty wife, his relationship with vermin…I could go on.  But what irks me is that Cohen acknowledges such reasons exist, yet he fails to accept the reality that 95+% of those who will vote against Barry O are doing so for these non-racial reasons.

While Capt. Crazy courts the racists, anti-Semites, and other hate groups, Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr tells them to take a long walk off a short pier.  From LGF:

LGF kudos to Libertarian candidate Bob Barr for doing what Ron Paul wouldn’t: telling the neo-Nazis to drop dead.

The Barr campaign is not going to be a vehicle for every fringe and hate group to promote itself. We do not want and will not accept the support of haters. Anyone with love in their heart for our country and for every resident of our country regardless of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation is welcome with open arms.

Tell the haters I said don’t let the door hit you on the backside on your way out!

Barr doesn’t stand a hubcap’s chance in Detroit of getting elected, but I give props to the guy anyway.

Right.  And I’m a ham sandwich.  Actually, I’m probably a racist ham sandwich for bringing this up.  Well analyzed by Allah (with video clip):

Via the Busters. It’s undoubtedly true — just like his decision to start wearing the flag pin again was personal, just like his decision to take a trip to Iraq and meet with Petraeus was personal, just like his climbdown from unconditional meetings with Iran was personal. The fact that all three coincide with the start of the general election campaign is but a happy whim of chance, much like him suddenly deciding that we needed a national conversation on race at the very moment his relationship with Wright was coming under a microscope. Behold the “new politics,” then: The same old crap with political stunts a-gogo, but adorned with half-hearted nonsense about “principle” and sheepish, shinola-eating grins like the one worn by this idiot. He actually uses the pat phrase “deeply personal” three times in about 60 seconds here, almost as if he’s trying to communicate just how scripted and insincere his talking point is. And why not? The media’s in the tank. Who’s going to call him on it?

I would say “Just how stupid does he think we are?”, but judging by the MSM’s blind acceptance of his assertion that the decision was not political, I can see why he would think that we’re stupid.

In reference to that nutjob white preacher that the Obamessiah “didn’t know” was a racist nutbar, the folks on MSNBC’s little-watched Morning Joe were weighing in.  Spokesbabe Mika Brzezinski opened her mouth and inserted her foot.  From Newsbusters:

CARLSON: If you describe this church as your spiritual home, the place that shaped you as a man, morally, and the congregation is on its feet cheering this kind of crap, what does that say.BRZEZINSKI: I want to hear from them.

CARLSON: I want an explanation.

BRZEZINSKI: I want to hear from them. I certainly don’t want to sit here—four white people—assessing this church.

CARLSON: Oh, I do! I think that’s totally fair. By the way, the preacher was white! I don’t think this has to do with race: it has to do with hatred.

BRZEZINSKI: I noticed that. Oh, God. [The screencap shows the flummoxed Mika ducking her head.]

This is the liberal mindset that says whites can’t condemn bigotry in a black setting—even when it comes from the mouth of a white preacher.

Next time, Sweetie…maybe try doing a little research.  I’m just sayin’…

D’oh!

With all of the crazy ideas Barry O has (such as negotiating with Ahmanutjob in Iran), and with all of the vile vermin with whom he associates (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, etc.), the Obamessiah is asking an awful lot from us to elect him based on his “judgment”!

The latest installment of “bathsh#t crazy people with whom I associate but you can’t hold me accountable for it” is this tool, Fr. Michael Pfleger.  He’s a white guy who is so consumed with racial guilt that he’s a disciple of Black Liberation Theology, which of course is a front for anti-white bigots like he and Rev. Wright.  Barry O’s judgment is so sharp that he’s immersed his whole family in this hateful environment.  Little wonder his wife hates America.

Naturally, Obambi is “shocked” and “deeply disappointed” to “just now learn” that a man with whom he’s associated for over 20 years is a flaming race-baiting bigot.  Is it just me, or does it seem like the Obamessiah doesn’t seem to truly know ANY of the unsavory people he’s been pals with for a couple of decades?

Van Helsing refers to this white version of Rev. Wright as “the Eminem of Black Liberation Theology”. Heh.

Exit question: Can the Obamessiah “no more disown him” than he could his white grandmother?

The poison that festers in these fools’ minds is toxic to America’s soul.  I’ve said numerous times that political correctness is lethal to America, and by God (insert politically correct deity here), these morons are proving me right.  Here’s the narrative:

Gay adoptions are good…

In a New York Times editorial responding to the Florida decision, Dan Savage, an author, syndicated columnist, and adoptive father, wrote, “The real choice for children waiting to be adopted in Florida and elsewhere isn’t between gay and straight parents, but between parents and no parents.”

By prohibiting gay and lesbian people from adopting, there are unquestionably fewer potential adoptive homes for children. “If people are going to hold a narrow opinion of who can adopt,” [Human Rights Campaign official Lisa] Bennett says, “they are sentencing some children to a life without a loving home.”

…and transracial adoptions are bad.

Minority children in foster care are being ill-served by a federal law that plays down race and culture in adoptions, a report released on Tuesday said.

The report, based on an examination of the law’s impact over a decade, said that minority children adopted into white households face special challenges and that white parents need preparation and training for what might lie ahead.  (Because apparently, kids with gay parents will not need to be prepared for “what might lie ahead”, right? - Ed.)

To summarize: “Sentencing some children to a life without a loving home” is only possible if both parents are queer, but not possible if the parents are of a different ethnicity.  Got it?

Just me mentioning this makes me politically incorrect…a badge of honor I wear proudly!

Leave it to the Kos kooks to lower the bar in political discourse.  You guys thought I could be bad sometimes?  Pffff.  I’m a rank amateur compared to these nutjobs.  From LGF:

Daily Kos: The New Improved Southern Strategy

Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:25:14 am PST

As Barack Obama bashes the Tennessee GOP as “low class” for criticizing his wife, the Daily Kos Kidz show Tennessee what “class” really means.

They’ve since removed the image but not the post.  And to think the Dem presidential candidates actively court these mouthbreathing knuckledraggers!

Does anyone recall a time where a candidate who has all but locked up a nomination was squashed this badly heading into the home stretch of a campaign?  I mean, it’s bad enough that Barry O lost by 41% in WV, but to have lost every single county?

What’s funny is the narrative that the MSM is pushing to explain away the Obamessiah’s loss is “Well, those inbred hicks in WV are racist!”  They DO know that these are Democrats they’re talking about, right?  Suddenly, identity politics doesn’t seem to have the same flavor that it used to, right?

It’s come to this, my friends:

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”…

Exit question: Anyone else feasting on the delicious irony of watching the party of identity politics being harmed by it today?

Preach on, Brother Moonbat!  The more you open up that construction accident known as your cakehole, I get giddier than Ellen DeGeneres at an Indigo Girls concert!

First, he tells us what most of us already knew (and what I had already said): Obama agrees with him, but has to pretend like he doesn’t (which shoots that whole “sincerity” snake oil O’s been peddling all to hell).

Then, not only does he not renounce his nutty “we had 9/11 coming to us” poison, he orders a double shot.

Now (I can’t say “finally”, because I don’t think he’s nearly done flapping his gums yet), we get some of his “Condemnation of ‘God damn America’ = attacking the black church” mantra that will resonate with the race hustlers of the left…which, judging by the reaction of the National Press Club, that number is quite high.

But hey…Barry O can no more disown him than he can his own family, right?

Of course, CNN “journalist” Roland Martin (not to be confused with the bass angler) abandons all pretense of objectivity engages in some embarrassing #ss-kissing to the Cardinal of Kookville.

Pastor Pinko may finally be able to do what Her Highness and Juan McLame have thus far been unable to do: sink the Obamessiah’s campaign.  Time will tell, of course, but polls are beginning to turn against Obama and in the Hildebitch’s direction.

When I first read the headline of the following piece at Hot Air, my first question was “Is there anything that doesn’t qualify as racism when inspecting a minority politician’s record, beliefs, etc.?”  I noticed that my question winds up being the exit question in the piece.  From Allah:

A new breakthrough towards the left’s unified field theory of how all criticism of Obama is essentially racist. The last great advance came from Harvard prof Orlando Patterson, scanning Hillary’s pedestrian 3 a.m. ad on Obama’s inexperience and finding the lost sequel to “Birth of a Nation.” Now comes David Shipler, thesaurus in hand, following a trail of synonyms that leads straight to the darkest heart of racist AmeriKKKa:

[W]hen his opponents branded him an elitist and an outsider, his race made it easier to drive a wedge between him and the white, rural voters he has courted. As an African American, he was supposedly looking down from a place he didn’t belong and looking in from a distance he could not cross.

This could not happen as dramatically were it not for embedded racial attitudes. “Elitist” is another word for “arrogant,” which is another word for “uppity,” that old calumny applied to blacks who stood up for themselves…

Furthermore, casting Obama as “out of touch” plays harmoniously with the traditional notion of blacks as “others” at the edge of the mainstream, separate from the whole.

If you take this tool seriously, there’s quite literally no good-faith way to accuse a member of a minority group of being snobbish or condescending. Every road through Shipler’s copy of Roget will lead inevitably back to “uppity,” no matter how circuitous the route may be. He’s also playing games with the definition of “out of touch,” a term typically applied to Republicans not to suggest that they’ve been marginalized from mainstream society but that they’ve become so consummately mainstream and establishment that they no longer relate to average people. The classic example of being “out of touch” is George Bush not knowing how much a gallon of milk costs. “Otherness” is practically 180 degrees from the concept.

But that’s all prelude. Here’s the master stroke, reminding us once again that for people for whom racial stereotypes are supposedly such alien concepts, progressives’ thoughts seem to turn awfully quickly to them:

When Clinton mocked Obama for the supposed emptiness of his eloquence, the chiding had a faint historical echo from Thomas Jefferson’s musings in “Notes on the State of Virginia” that “in music they are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time,” but “one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid.”

Hillary tells Obama he’s a blowhard and this guy hears Ralph Bellamy in “Trading Places” talking about what a “musical people” blacks are. QED.

Exit question: What doesn’t qualify as a racist term? Exit answer: See the end of this Perfunction post to find out.

Apparently, only whites can be “elitist”…who knew?  By the way, this Shipler guy who thinks “elitist = racist” apparently has no problem referring to blue-color white folks in the Rust Belt as, to quote the Democrats’ Senate Klansman Robert Byrd, “white n##gers”!  And he wants to lecture us on racism?

Barry O has it made, doesn’t he?  He could get on TV and call us a nation of white devils (or some other Rev. Wright-like drivel), and if I took offense to it, I would be the one branded a racist! There is nothing he can do that won’t elicit a response of “you racist!” from his defenders in the MSM if we question his deeds. Nothing.

Who knew that the laws of physics operated differently around those with different skin pigmentation?  But hey, don’t try and tie such moonbattery to Obama, m’kay?  From Gateway Pundit:

More Dirt on a Dirty Church–
Obama’s Church published anti-Semitic articles claiming Jews were working on “ethnic bombs.”

Sweetness and Light and American Thinker discovered this “Open Letter to Oprah” today from Obama’s church newsletter the Trinity United Church of Christ. The letter describes how Israel was working on an ethnic bomb that would kill Arabs and Blacks:

[ pictures of the newsletter here ]

Carl from Jerusalem reported this ethnic bomb:

Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs.

Arabs have always supported the dismantling of this racist government. In 1962, African-Arab Sudan granted Mandela a passport to travel with to gain international support in his struggle to free his people. Libya, among other Arab states, provided Mandela and other African liberation movements, political as well as material support. As a result, Libya was designated by the White House as a terrorist rogue state. What a great honor!

That’s going to be hard to explain.
Obama was not only listening to a nutty racist anti-American preacher but he was reading anti-Semitic literature from the church bulletin.
It looks like its time for Bambi to start working on another race speech.
Maybe he can blame white America for this, too. 

I’m sure Barry O didn’t know anything about this, just like he didn’t know his pastor was a barking bigoted moonbat (before he confessed that he did know), right?

Excellent observation by Garnering Right Ideas:

On February 29th 2000 Democrats pushed for a resolution to condemn Bob Jones University because of its religious beliefs and the fact that George W. Bush had spoken there. Bush was forced to apologize despite the fact that he did not share the beliefs of Bob Jones. Thus it is only fair that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi push a resolution to condemn Trinity United Church of Christ and their Reverend Wright. 

I guess they filled their “condemnation of bigotry and expecting a subsequent apology from someone else for something that he didn’t say” quota for the decade.

From the “hallowed” halls of IUPUI:

Keith John Sampson never thought he could get in trouble for reading a book, especially not on a college campus. But that’s what happened. Sampson is a man in his early 50s. He does janitorial work for the campus facility services at IUPUI, where he’s been gradually accumulating credits for a degree in communications studies. He has 10 credit hours to go.
…
At the time, Sampson was reading a book he had checked out from the public library. Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan, published in 2004, features a photograph of the University of Notre Dame’s famous golden dome on the cover. Its author is Todd Tucker, the publisher is Loyola Press of Loyola University in Chicago.

The book is about how for two days in May 1924, a group of Notre Dame students got into a street fight with members of the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan was meeting in South Bend for the express purpose of sticking a collective thumb in the eye of the country’s most famous Catholic university. Notre Dame vs. the Klan was a Notre Dame Magazine “Pick of the Week” and garnered an average customer review of 4.5 stars on Amazon.com. In its review, The Indiana Magazine of History noted that Tucker “succeeds in placing the event in a broad framework that includes the origins and development of both the Klan and Notre Dame.”

Sampson recalls that his AFSCME shop steward told him that reading a book about the Klan was like bringing pornography to work (WTF? - Ed.). The shop steward wasn’t interested in hearing what the book was actually about (Remember, to the left, feelings trump facts! - Ed.). Another time, a coworker who was sitting across the table from Sampson in the break room commented that she found the Klan offensive. Sampson says he tried to tell her about the book, but she wasn’t interested in talking about it (Remember, to the left, feelings trump facts! - Ed.).

A few weeks passed. Then Sampson got a message ordering him to report to Marguerite Watkins at the IUPUI Affirmative Action Office. He was told a coworker had filed a racial harassment complaint against him for reading Notre Dame vs. the Klan in the break room. Sampson says he tried to explain to Watkins what the book was about. He says he tried to show her the book, but that Watkins showed no interest in seeing it (Remember, to the left, feelings trump facts! - Ed.).

Then Sampson received a letter, dated Nov. 25, 2007, from Lillian Charleston, also of IUPUI’s Affirmative Action Office. The letter begins by saying that the AAO has completed its investigation of a coworker’s allegation that Sampson “racially harassed her by repeatedly reading the book Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan by Todd Tucker in the presence of Black employees.” It goes on to say, “You demonstrated disdain and insensitivity to your coworkers who repeatedly requested that you refrain from reading the book which has such an inflammatory and offensive topic in their presence … you used extremely poor judgment by insisting on openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black coworkers.” Charleston went on to say that according to “the legal ‘reasonable person standard,’ a majority of adults are aware of and understand how repugnant the KKK is to African-Americans …” (Where do these morons get off telling anyone about a “reasonable person” when they’re being so incredibly unreasonable in this situation? - Ed.)

Sampson was ordered to stop reading the book in the immediate presence of his coworkers and, when reading the book, to sit apart from them.

“I feel like I’ve been caught up in a 21st century version of catch-22,” says Sampson, who has never been given the opportunity to officially face any of his accusers. When I tried calling the Affirmative Action Office, I was told their policy is to never speak to the media.

But, Sampson says, this episode could be an opportunity. He would welcome the chance to participate in a moderated forum that might use his experience for a larger discussion dealing with intellectual freedom on the IUPUI campus.

That’s a good idea. For Sampson’s sake, I hope ideas still count at IUPUI.

Ideas never count at public universities anymore. Feelings are more important.

By the way, this was at the end of the story:

Editors note: At press time we learned that Sampson received another letter from IUPUI’s Affirmative Action Office, postmarked Feb. 21. We will continue to follow this story.

How ironic that a program like Affirmative Action, which is based on discriminating against one ethnic group in favor of other ethnic groups, is complaining about discrimination!

How’s this for blue-on-blue action?  From Politico:

African-American superdelegates said Thursday that they’ll stand up against threats, intimidation and “Uncle Tom” smears rather than switch their support from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama.

“African-American superdelegates are being targeted, harassed and threatened,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), a superdelegate who has supported Clinton since August. Cleaver said black superdelegates are receiving “nasty letters, phone calls, threats they’ll get an opponent, being called an Uncle Tom.

“This is the politics of the 1950s,” he complained. “A lot of members are experiencing a lot of ugly stuff. They’re not going to talk about it, but it’s happening.”

After civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) switched his support from Clinton to Obama earlier this week, other black superdelegates have come under renewed pressure to do a similar about-face. A handful have bowed to the entreaties in recent weeks, including Georgia Rep. David Scott, but many say they are steadfast in their support for Clinton and resent strong-arm tactics to make them change. 

Obama’s “audacity of hope intimidation” is inspiring, n’est-ce pas?

Sucks, doesn’t it?  Think about it next time before whipping out the “Uncle Tom” smear against a black who happens to think differently from the moonbat groupthink that is so pervasive today.

Ray Nagin should have put a patent on his “Chocolate City” expression before Rep. Dianne Watson (D-CA) stole it for her own demagoguery.  From a Black History Town Hall meeting last night in D.C. at Howard University:

Did you know your representatives can not vote? They can only vote in the committee as a whole. So what you’re going to have to do is declare the District [of Columbia] something like a state so they can have a proportional representation who vote. But that would give this district two senators and there are a lot of people on that floor who don’t want to see that occur because if there’s a chocolate city, this is it.

That must be it!  Whitey doesn’t want any “chocolate” folks in the Senate.  Way to spread that message to college kids, moron.

Michelle Malkin reminds us of what the Chocolate Lady said about Ward Connerly (a black man) for marrying outside of his race:

He’s married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn’t want to be black. I said that.

Does that mean that all black men who marry white women are trying to “be white”, or only those who stray from the liberal massah’s plantation?

You stay classy, Watson!

Borrowing a page from the O.J. Simpson trial, the Muslim USF students who were found with explosives materials in their car are arguing that the material can’t be used against them because the arresting officers are racist.  Ignoring the fact that Islam is a religion and not a race, and ignoring the fact that evidence doesn’t incinerate upon succesfully proven claims of racism, we see this from Jihad Watch:

Naive Kids Update: it seems that the arresting officer in South Carolina, who found pipe bomb materials in the trunk of the car being driven by Ahmed Mohamed and Youseff Megahed, said, “Damn terrorist. I think they’re part of the **** Taliban….Maybe they’re gonna practice the suicide bombing here.”

He also evidently noted their race as “Islamic,” which should endear him to the politically correct crowd that continues to insist that opposition to the global jihad constitutes racism, but in this case it has gotten him in hot water, because — as the newscaster says, in probably the first time this has been acknowledged in the mainstream media — “of course we all know that’s not a race, that’s a religion.”

Question: If this cop is a vile Bull Connor-type racist, does that make the pipe bomb evidence vanish?

Meanwhile, Ahmed Bedier of the Council on American Islamic Relations is speaking out here. He is affiliated with an organization that was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case, has had several of its officials convicted on terror-related charges, and was founded by members of an organization that was named by a Muslim Brotherhood operative as part of its “grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ’sabotaging’ its miserable house.”

Here, he is saying that the pipe bomb evidence should be thrown out because apparently the police officers found a Qur’an in the car and thought that suspicious, while they would not have thought a Bible in the car to be suspicious. Of course, Bedier would not want you to recall that Muslims all over the world are committing violence and justifying it by reference to the Qur’an, that suicide bombers pose with rifles and the Qur’an before they go to kill and be killed for Allah (cf. Qur’an 9:111), and that the Qur’an, unlike the Bible, contains open-ended commands for believers to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers (cf. Qur’an 9:29). Just forget all that, and chant “racism…racism…racism,” and pretty soon you’ll have come around to the illustrious Mr. Bedier’s point of view. 

Were the case in Los Angeles and one of the arresting officers Mark Fuhrman, they may have had a chance.  But with a lawyer who works for a terrorism front group, their chances at beating the rap are slimmer than Ted Kennedy’s chances at sobriety.

I didn’t go out on a limb with this prediction about a ready-made excuse for an Obama loss back in December, now did I?  From the AP:

Gov. Ed Rendell, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most visible supporters, said some white Pennsylvanians are likely to vote against her rival Barack Obama because he is black.

“You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate,” Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday’s paper.

To buttress his point, Rendell cited his 2006 re-election campaign, in which he defeated Republican challenger Lynn Swann, the former Pittsburgh Steelers star, by a margin of more than 60 percent to less than 40 percent. 

Rendell won a Democrat state in a year when Dems swept into power, but it was because Republican Lynn Swann was black?  Whatever, dude.

Here’s what I don’t get: Rendell supports the Hildebeast, ergo he presumably wants her to win.  If she loses, he’s pissed.  If she wins, then she wins because she’s not black…which would make him pissed.  Either way, he’s going to be madder than Dan Rather with a 1970’s Texas memo.

If he’s in Her Highness’ camp, why is he challenging Pennsylvanians to look past race, which would benefit Hilldawg’s primary opponent and thus hurt her?  Because he’s a dumb#ss?

Here’s a tip to those who are kicking around the idea of crying “racism” in the future: get the facts straight before you do.  I know, I know…”facts” to the left is just crazy talk!  Anywho, from the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin:

Fliers distributed last week for a party at Claremont McKenna College were denounced as “racist and sexist” by Scripps College Dean of Students Debra Wood in an e-mail sent to Scripps students.

The fliers advertised a “white party” - organizers said it referred to suggested party attire - and pictured a white man wearing a white-colored disco-era suit and two black women wearing tight-fitting shorts and bikini tops.

In her e-mail, Wood said the fliers promoted a “racist party theme.” She urged Scripps students to boycott the party and write letters of protest to student leaders and campus newspapers.

“I am saddened and dismayed, and angered, that students in the year 2008 would use this kind (of) advertising to promote a party,” said Wood in the e-mail sent Friday. “It harms not only women and African Americans, but all of us here at the colleges and undermines our educational efforts.”

The party, hosted by the Associated Students of Claremont McKenna College, was held Saturday night in a large tent erected on one of the campus fields.

The disc jockey who performed at the event and contributed the images on the flier said he was “kind of astounded” when he learned of Wood’s objections.

Tim Scarne, who performs as DJ Timbo, said the “white party” theme “meant you were supposed to wear all white because there were supposed to be black lights.” 
…
Claremont McKenna freshman Charles Johnson said the issue has been a topic of conversation on campus.

“There’s a pretty big outrage that she basically assumed that there was a racist and sexist element of the student body going around distributing fliers,” said Johnson, who has commented extensively on the issue at his blog, the Claremont Conservative.

“There are much worse fliers put up all the time, and this really is much ado about nothing,” Johnson said. “I think it is instructive of a breakdown in communication.”

Note the black females in the poster.  That wouldn’t exactly conjure up images of a Robert Byrd birthday bash, now would it?  Besides, one wonders what the educrat’s response would have been if the Gay & Lesbian Student Organization put up posters for a “Crisco and Village People” or “Tuna Extravaganza” party.  I’m guessing the outrage would have been quieter than a Dennis Kucinich 2008 victory party.

Part 1 of Dick Morris’ prediction came true today, as Barry O stomped a mudhole in the Hildebeast.  Bubba ticked off a lot of black South Carolinians there.  Morris predicts that this will help Billary galvanize white voters to vote for Shrillary in FL and beyond.  Time will tell.

This is one of the richest desserts ever made: a huge double scoop of irony, drizzled with hypocrisy, and sprinkled generously with shamelessness.  From Dick Morris:

Hillary Clinton will undoubtedly lose the South Carolina primary as African-Americans line up to vote for Barack Obama. And that defeat will power her drive to the nomination.

The Clintons are encouraging the national media to disregard the whites who vote in South Carolina’s Democratic primary and focus on the black turnout, which is expected to be quite large. They have transformed South Carolina into Washington, D.C. — an all-black primary that tells us how the African-American vote is going to go.

By saying he will go door to door in black neighborhoods in South Carolina matching his civil rights record against Obama’s, Bill Clinton emphasizes the pivotal role the black vote will play in the contest. And by openly matching his record on race with that of the black candidate, he invites more and more scrutiny focused on the race issue.

Of course, Clinton is going to lose that battle. Blacks in Nevada overwhelmingly backed Obama and will obviously do so again in South Carolina, no matter how loudly former President Clinton protests. So why is he making such a fuss over a contest he knows he’s going to lose?

Precisely because he is going to lose it. If Hillary loses South Carolina and the defeat serves to demonstrate Obama’s ability to attract a bloc vote among black Democrats, the message will go out loud and clear to white voters that this is a racial fight. It’s one thing for polls to show, as they now do, that Obama beats Hillary among African-Americans by better than 4-to-1 and Hillary carries whites by almost 2-to-1. But most people don’t read the fine print on the polls. But if blacks deliver South Carolina to Obama, everybody will know that they are bloc-voting. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton.

Obama has done everything he possibly could to keep race out of this election. And the Clintons attracted national scorn when they tried to bring it back in by attempting to minimize the role Martin Luther King Jr. played in the civil rights movement. But here they have a way of appearing to seek the black vote, losing it, and getting their white backlash, all without any fingerprints showing. The more President Clinton begs black voters to back his wife, and the more they spurn her, the more the election becomes about race — and Obama ultimately loses. … 

Got that?  The party that has, for the last couple of decades or so, convinced black Americans that the GOP is racist and doesn’t have their best interests at heart is now engaged in a full blown race war, pitting white Democrats against black Democrats.  “Vote for Hillary, because she’s not black!”

Predictable exit question: If a Republican had adopted the same strategy (”Vote for me, because I’m white!”), wouldn’t the media howl louder than Ted Kennedy after a dozen amaretto sours?

I absolutely love this new term from Rush:

As a follow-up to my post about Dr. Paul being a magnet for various nutbars and scumbags (as laid out by TNR), we now see where Krazy Ron’s Kook Minions are attempting to deny reality and blame their Jim Jones’ nuttiness on conspiracy theories.  From the anti-Paul site Revolusion 2008:

Ever wonder what goes on inside the head of a Ron Paul supporter who isn’t a giant racist and actually has to rationalize supporting a blatantly lying candidate? Here you can have a look at how a Ron Paul supporters off the Ron Paul forums reacts to the revelations about the newsletters, tries to cope with it and adopts a “party line” which he doesn’t really believe himself.

It’s an instructive look not only inside the Ron Paul campaign but inside a mind warped by propaganda and finding no choice but to “learn to love big brother” in the form of Ron Paul.

It’s a story told in screenshots of how the human mind adapts to believing in lies.

You really ought to see the screenshots (pictures) to get a good feel for how Daron Westbrooke goes from “Wow, this is bad news!” to “Ron’s a victim of Th’ Man’s conspiracy!”  Comedy gold, I’m telling you.

As one commenter there astutely puts it:

DaronWestbrooke:

All we got now is the signatures, but the point is to repeat it over and over. we can make the thought reality.

Joseph Goebbels:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it…”

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” 

If Dr. Demented weren’t polling in the single digits, I’d be frightened at the guy.  Instead, he’s just a bigoted Bircheresque crank with similar minions doing his bidding.  The Paulnuts are a cult.

Come on and fess up: How many of you actually thought the race card would be played against other Democrats?  We all knew that the Republican nominee would get a heaping helping of it in the general election (and he still will), but this blue-on-blue action is almost hot enough to thaw Hillary’s heart.  From Financial Times:

Much like Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy”, which brought southern white voters over to the Republican party after Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights victories of the 1960s (with the help of Republican Senators, who stopped Democrat filibusters - Ed.), the messages are implicit yet hard to misinterpret. Take congressman Jesse Jackson Jr’s comments following Mrs Clinton’s victory in New Hampshire last week.

“Those tears have to be analysed,” said Mr Jackson, who, like his father, has endorsed Mr Obama. “They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of hurricane Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina.” Few of South Carolina’s black voters will have missed the implication. Since most of Katrina’s victims were black, Mrs Clinton is therefore presumably unfeeling towards the black community.

There have been other small spats, none of which equate to a Bush-McCain moment but which, taken together, imply that Iowa’s voters may not have had the last word on the subject. That the Clintons – of all people – are being accused of racial insensitivity underlines that America has a long way to go before it moves beyond the tensions of the past.

Crowned as “America’s first black president” by author Toni Morrison, Bill Clinton was still accused last week of using racial undertones when he dismissed as a “fairy tale” Mr Obama’s claim to have spoken out consistently against the Iraq war. Mrs Clinton was also accused of insensitivity after she pointed out that Martin Luther King needed LBJ in order to get civil rights legislation enacted.

Her apparent point was that Mr Obama’s message of “hope” (in whose aid he often cites King) was not enough by itself to bring about the “change” that he promises. The business of politics was also important, she implied. But her point backfired and both Clintons were forced to clarify what they had meant. 

Here’s the swing since Iowa, via ABC News:

Like McCain, Obama’s gains have come more among independents than among his party’s regulars, and he remains notably vulnerable on experience. But he’s also soared in a key Democratic group — African-Americans, who’ve switched from favoring Clinton by 52-39 percent a month ago to an even larger preference for Obama, 60-32 percent, today. 

Not everyone in the black community agrees, especially the founder of BET:

Robert L. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, who is campaigning today in South Carolina with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, just made a suggestion that raised the specter of Barack Obama’s past drug use. He also compared Mr. Obama to Sidney Poitier, the black actor, in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.”
…
A former Clinton campaign official in New Hampshire had to resign last month after he publicly suggested that Republicans would probably use Mr. Obama’s drug use in his youth, which he first wrote about in his memoirs, against him.

Clever, Hilldawg.  Get someone who’s NOT on your campaign staff to kick around the “Obama the junkie” meme.  Nice.

Exit question: Why is it that when black folks have different points of view (as opposed to blind groupthink) among Democrat choices, that’s “diversity of thought” and is to be applauded, but when black folks have different points of view and come to Republican/conservative/libertarian choices, those folks are “sell-outs” and “Uncle Toms”?  I guess “diversity of thought” only matters if they narrow their scope to the liberal sphere, huh?

It’s a good thing that Democrats said this, otherwise the MSM would be all over this like Hillary on a box of Kleenex.  Observe:

In a fierce counterattack, Ms. Clinton has tried to prick the ballooning support for Mr. Obama, conceding he is “a truly inspirational speaker” but adding he has “not done the kind of spade work” to back up the promises. 

Wow.  No outrage from the black community?  Anywho, Hillary shill Andrew Cuomo decides to join the “Foot in Mouth” game, too:

”It’s not a TV-crazed race. Frankly you can’t buy your way into it,” Cuomo said. “You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference,” he added. “All those moves you can make with the press don’t work when you’re in someone’s living room.” 

Fortunately for Her Highness and Cuomo, Al Sharpton is busy going after a Golf Channel anchor at the moment.  If it weren’t for double standards, the left would have no standards at all.

UPDATES AT BOTTOM.

I’ve been saying for quite some time that Dr. Doofus and his Merry Moonbat Legion are a cadre of conspiracy nuts, Aryans, anti-Semites, etc. Many of the literate and articulate Paul supporters (yes, they do exist) argued that he can’t be held responsible for the kooks that he attracts. I somewhat agree and disagree with that position (how Kerryesque of me, I know), but I’ve often wondered what is it about Crazy Ron that makes him appealing to these miscreants.

Perhaps now we know. From Pajamas Media:

A damning New Republic expose on Ron Paul shows the “libertarian” Republican candidate to be a racist, a homophobe and an anti-Semite. Will his diehard supporters continue to defend a man who called Martin Luther King a gay pedophile? Daniel Koffler, a former Paul sympathizer, has a compendium of the Texas congressman’s creepiest hits, pulled straight from his decades-old newsletter.

There’s more there, so please read it.

I want to emphasize that the original piece was written by The New Republic, who we know stood steadfastly by the slanderous anti-Iraq work of fiction written by fabulist (and since discredited) Scott Beauchamp. As such, feel free to take the original story with a huge shaker of salt. That said, LGF makes this point better than I ever could:

The Only Man Who Can Save America tries to save himself from The New Republic’s article: Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters.

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

The problem for Dr. Paul is that there was a lot of this stuff. It stretches credulity to the breaking point to believe he had absolutely no idea what was being published in his name for that long. Doesn’t pass the sniff test.

And the newsletter isn’t the only source of the odor. There are Dr. Paul’s numerous appearances on the whacked-out conspiracy radio show hosted by 9/11 Troofer Alex Jones—and there are all those Nazis and New World Order types hanging around, who somehow, somewhere got the impression that Ron Paul was their kind of candidate.

I’ve laid out the bait for the Paulbots. Let’s see if I can catch any with it.

UPDATE (1/08/2008 - 9:02 P.M. EST): If you can put up with a couple of F-bombs, go over to Ace and see him completely annihilate the apologists who try to argue that Dr. Nutso didn’t write this claptrap himself. Awesome!

Ever the champion of democracy, the Old Gray Hag says that the IA caucus and NH primary shouldn’t be allowed to exist, since they’re way too caucasian.  Observe:

… Watching the campaign in cold, snowy and mostly empty Iowa, we were hoping for something else — that this year’s Iowa-New Hampshire rush to judgment will be the last.
…
Keeping this race alive so significant numbers of Americans in more populated states can participate would begin to make up for the ludicrous spectacle of the past year, which enriched the television networks and the political consultants (some $300 million already spent) far more than it enriched the political dialogue. We hope both parties will wake up and end the undemocratic system in which the choice of a new president rests far too heavily on nonbinding votes in January by voters that don’t necessarily represent the rest of the country.

We don’t question the enthusiasm or the commitment of the people of Iowa and New Hampshire. But Iowa, where a huge turnout amounts to less than 10 percent of the population, is about 92 percent white, more rural and older than the rest of the nation. New Hampshire has a non-Hispanic white population of about 95 percent. … 

Quips Michelle Malkin:

Yes, white, rural, elderly voters turned out in droves for black candidate Obama and rejected white, union-backed hacks Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

This must be stopped! 

Diversity at the expense of democracy?  Friggin’ brilliant.  As if the Hag weren’t done with her moonbattery, she threw in a little ignorance of how our system of government works:

…None of this has led us to a choice in the nominating contests, never mind for the presidency. The majority of Americans are in the same position. That’s why they should be allowed to see and hear more of these candidates, and not have to settle for the judgments of the people of Iowa and New Hampshire.

I think they meant that no one should have to settle for Whitey’s judgment, right?

I don’t know how to break it to the geniuses (genii?) of the NYT, but no one is forced to settle with IA and NH’s choice!  See, all states in the union get to have primaries, thus avoiding having to “settle” with early states’ picks.  In 2000, McCain won NH by about 19%, yet lost the very next state (SC) by 11%.  He won some, and he lost some.  That’s kinda how that whole complicated “voting” thingy works, fishwrap.