I’m not a big Newt fan, but dude, this one almost gave me a Matthews-like leg tingle.  As Rush points out, you would think that Williams, having been fired from NPR over saying something interpreted by NPR brass as politically incorrect and bigoted, would be loathe to whip out the race card himself.  Then again, you would think…and Williams clearly does not.

Ron Paul wrote a series of newsletters back in the day that dealt with economics, foreign policy, and…those darned blacks, gays, and Jews.  Details:

For years, Ron Paul published a series of newsletters that dispensed political news and investment advice, but also routinely indulged in bigotry. Here’s a selection of some especially inflammatory passages, with links to scanned images of the original documents in which they appeared. …

There are examples of his bigotry and paranoia at this site, and a helluva lot more than what he says:

PAUL: Well, the newsletters were written, you know, a long time ago. And I wrote a certain portion of them. I would write the economics. So a lot of what you just mentioned… his would be material that I would turn in, and it would become part of the letter. But there were many times when I didn’t edit the whole letter, and things got put in. And I didn’t even really become aware of the details of that until many years later when somebody else called and said, you know what was in it? But these were sentences that were put in, a total of eight or ten sentences, and it was bad stuff. It wasn’t a reflection of my views at all. So it got in the letter, I thought it was terrible, it was tragic, you know and I had some responsibility for it, because name went on the letter. But I was not an editor. I’m like a publisher. And if you think of publishers of newspapers, once in a while they get pretty junky stuff in newspapers. And they have to say that this is not the position of that newspaper, and this is certainly the case. But I actually put a type of a newsletter out, it was a freedom report, investment, survival report — every month since 1976. So this is probably ten sentences out of 10,000 pages, for all I know. I think it’s bad that happened but I disavowed all these views, and people who know me best, people of my district, have heard these stories for years and years, and they know they weren’t a reflection of anything I believed in, and it never hurt me politically. Right now, I think it’s the same case, too. People are desperate to find something.

Check out the first link.  That’s a boatload more than “8-10″ sentences.

Allah sums it up best:

The question isn’t whether Paul’s a racist, it’s whether the racist elements in the newsletters point to a more broadly paranoid worldview that Paul does appear to hold in some respects.

Paul may or may not be racist, anti-Semitic, or a conspiracy nutjob.  But the fact that he attracts so many of them and doesn’t discourage them nor distance himself from them (and in fact flirts openly with them) says a lot about his judgment and of the kind of person that these unsavory miscreants think he is.

OK, I just laid the bait for the Paulistinians.  Let’s see how many of them bite! 

Veteran activist the Rev. Jesse Jackson compared the global anti-capitalist movement to the U.S. civil rights struggle, the battle against apartheid in South Africa and the fight for Indian independence during a visit to an Occupy camp in London on Thursday.

“Jesus was an Occupier, born under a death warrant, a Jew by religion, born in poverty under Roman occupation,” the two-time candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination told a crowd near Saint Paul’s Cathedral. ”Gandhi was an Occupier, Martin Luther King was an Occupier, (Nelson) Mandela was an Occupier.”

Look, Jess, Jesus never stayed where he wasn’t welcome.  He still doesn’t.  The Occupy trash, on the other hand, is defined by their insistence on staying where they aren’t welcome.

Additionally, comparing the Occupy vermin to Jesus, MLK, and Gandhi is appallingly offensive.  Jesus died for the sins of the world, while MLK and Gandhi were willing to die (and did so) for their cause.  There is not a SINGLE Occupy scumbag who would die for his/her cause…especially since they have NO FRIGGIN’ CLUE what their “cause” is, other than to commit acts of crime in their zealous attempts to avoid responsibility for their own lives and to live off the public teat in perpetuity.

Jess, I say this with all the love that this Christian can muster: You suck.

You would expect to find such a disjointed absurd contention from a moonbat rag or MSNBC (pardon the redundancy).  But this is from a rabbi, of all people, at The Jewish Week:

If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants.  While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably. 

Um…okay.

See, Christians didn’t burn mosques, attack gays, or try to force immigrants (legal? illegal? doesn’t say) out of America after 9/11.  No, instead the proverbial straw to break the camelhumping jihadist’s back would be…a Super Bowl win?  By a team with a QB who espouses the exact opposite behavior of that predicted by the rabbi.

Look, as an FSU guy, I’m not the biggest Tebow fan by anyone’s definition, and the tears he always childishly cried after a loss were rich and delicious.  That said, I more than respect the guy for his faith, character, and behavior.  Anti-Christian bigotry is one thing.  But the rabbi here is really stretching to create some bigotry here.

UPDATED (12/15/2011 – 08:22 AM EST): WOW!  The entire column has been scrapped, removed from the rag’s web site.  Down the memory hole, as if it never really happened!  I’m guessing the online fishwrap got more than its fair share of vocal criticism, and it wanted the mess to go away post haste.  Words have consequences, pal! 

In other news, actual Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV) was unavailable for comment.

The Obama administration on Tuesday will wade into the increasingly divisive national debate over new voting laws in several states that could depress turnout among minorities and others who helped elect the president in 2008. …

With the presidential campaign heating up, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. will deliver a speech Tuesday expressing concerns about the voter-identification laws, along with a Texas redistricting plan before the Supreme Court that fails to take into account the state’s burgeoning Hispanic population, he said in an interview Monday.

Holder will speak at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Libary and Museum in Austin, Tex., which honors the president who shepherded the 1965 Voting Rights Act into law. …

When it comes to voting fraud, some conservatives have long argued that it is a serious problem, although others say the number of such cases is relatively low. Studies of the issue have reached different conclusions on the extent of the problem.

“You constantly hear about voter fraud . . . but you don’t see huge amounts of vote fraud out there,’’ Holder said.

…as opposed to this:

You’re not seeing things.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) has  given 99% of its campaign money to Democrats (according to ElectionLawCenter.com,  citing OpenSecrets.org). Democrats, including Obama administration Attorney  General Eric Holder, who will be in Austin, Texas tomorrow supporting the  rejection of voter-ID laws and, according  to the Texas GOP, “NAACP plans to involve the United Nations on (sic) US  elections,” abhor the idea of making voters bring some form of photo  identification to the polls.

Yet the IAM in the instance photographed required a photo ID of all who  wished to vote in a contract ratification election. From the looks of the  professionally made sign, the photo-ID requirement in the union’s elections  would appear to be far from an isolated instance. Gosh, I wonder why?

Doug  Ross’s reaction: “Needle on Hypocrisy-Meter Breaks Off.”

At some point during all these years of covering the voter-ID issue, you  would think that someone in the press, much of which is unionized (specifically  the Associated Press, which has the credit for the photo above), would have  noted that unions at least occasionally and likely far more than occasionally  require that members present a photo ID to be able to cast their ballots. Nope.  How typically irresponsible.

Translation: Requiring picture ID in order to receive Social Security, Medicare, welfare, a library card, a driver’s license. are totally cool, and requiring picture ID to vote in certain (i.e. union) elections is only sensible.  But requiring picture ID for the most sacred act of our republic is racist.  Or something.

Details:

On Martin Bashir’s television program this afternoon, Democratic strategist and MSNBC analyst Karen Finney said that Republicans are supporting Herman Cain because of his race…

“One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy,” Finney said. “I think he giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he’s a black man who knows his place. I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me.”

“Thank you for spelling that out,” Bashir responded.

Fortunately, this was on MSDNC, so this shameful bigotry was limited to only their viewers…both of them.

But what really struck me was the small number of black and brown people among the marchers. I had to hunt for Brian Johnson, a 40-year-old African-American male who was surrounded by a group of college-age white males wearing bandanas.

Johnson said he is committed to doing whatever it takes to support this cause.

“If we would pay attention to this movement, we would understand that it is not about young white people. It is about all of us,” he said. “A lot of people are struggling when they don’t have to.”

Zakiyyah S. Muhammad was the only African-American female I spotted.

“I’m here because this has gotten the attention of the people who make policy, but I don’t think enough of us has gotten involved,” she told me.

“It’s a funny thing to see white people marching and black people sitting around talking,” Muhammad mused.

 “White people are marching for change like we used to do and black people are complaining.”

 To paraphrase Kanye West: The Occupy Wall Street type doesn’t care about black people.  Or the homeless, either. 

Herman Cain Endures Lecture on Blackness from MSNBC White Guy

Heh.

If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a Jew, uh, as a janitor makes me a warrior for the working class, I wear that with a badge of honor. I have no problem with that.

I guess all Jews and janitors look alike to him, huh?

As John points out at the link, imagine if a Republican had made such a gaffe.  MSNBC would interrupt their non-coverage of Solyndra to make it their talking points du jour.

“Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party — the Tea Party holds the Congress hostage. They have one goal in mind, and that’s to make President Obama a one-term president,” Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) said at a Miami town hall with constituents.

Yep, when she’s not busy blaming the current level of black unemployment on racism, she likes to pass her time uncovering America’s “real enemy”.  The enemy is not a socialist, anti-American president who has done his level best to destroy our economy and crush the employment prospects of the very people for whom she purports to stand.  The enemy is not bloodthirsty camel-humping jihadists trying to attack us again like they did a decade ago (sidebar: for those of you on the left, feel free to Google “9-11-2001″ if that doesn’t ring a bell).

No, indeed.  The “real enemy” is a group of American citizens who believe that the federal government ought to live within its means just like every American family (nay, every family on God’s green Earth) must do.  The “real enemy” is a group of American citizens who have the gall to be loyal to the same Constitution that Congresscreeps like Wilson have sworn to uphold and defend.  The “real enemy” is a group of American citizens who actually don’t want their kids and grandkids to inherit a nation that is substantially weaker and bleaker than the one we’ve grown to know and love since its inception.  These cretins, of course, are the “real enemy”.

Remember when Chairman Zero said to Latinos that they need to “punish our enemies”?  That may be one point on which he and I agree.  Vermin like ObaMao and his minions like Wilson must be punished at the ballot box by Normal America, and relegated to the dustbin of history when it comes to their policies.  They have inflicted enough damage to the country I love, and they must be stopped before they achieve their goal: permanent American irrelevance.

Does anyone have the heart to tell her that The Village People are not holding auditions?  Or maybe she’s attending a memorial to the late Macho Man Randy Savage of which I’m not aware?

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.  How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.  He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.

And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor.  It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

More:

True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be?  As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate.  All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.  What could this breed if not the sort of empty  narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

Again, read it all!

DAVID GREGORY, HOST: What, what about jobs? Jobless rate now at 9 percent. You gave a speech on Friday in Georgia, and you said the following about this president:

(Videotape)

NEWT GINGRICH: You want to be a country that creates food stamps, in which case frankly Obama’s is an enormous success. The most successful food stamp president in American history. Or do you want to be a country that creates paychecks?

(End videotape)

GREGORY: First of all, you gave a speech in Georgia with language a lot of people think could be coded racially-tinged language, calling the president, the first black president, a food stamp president.

Gingrich wasn’t having it:

GINGRICH: Oh, come on, David.

GREGORY: What did you mean? What was the point?

REP. GINGRICH: That’s, that’s bizarre. That–this kind of automatic reference to racism, this is the president of the United States. The president of the United States has to be held accountable. Now, the idea that–and what I said is factually true. Forty-seven million Americans are on food stamps. One out of every six Americans is on food stamps. And to hide behind the charge of racism? I have–I have never said anything about President Obama which is racist.

Numbers are racist.  So are stats.  And statistical numbers.  And numerical statistics.  Racist, all of them.  And if you look at numbers, you’re a racist, too.

This has been the m.o. of the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) since the man-child announced he was running in 2007: any criticism of his policies or the havoc they have wreaked upon this country will automatically and reflexively be chalked up to racism.

That’s one of the many things I’ve always loathed about modern liberalism: for an ideology that fancies itself to be intellectually nuanced, its adherents sure are a bunch of emotional twits devoid of any real rational thought or critical thinking skills.  Just like my blog’s subtitle says about liberalism: Why think when you can feel?

As for NBC and Gregory: nope…no liberal media bias!

A fiery President Obama insisted Tuesday that if he and congressional leaders couldn’t reach a deal to avert a government shutdown, “I want a meeting again tomorrow here at the White House.”

“I will invite the same folks that we invited today,” he added. “And if that doesn’t work, we’ll invite them again the day after that. And I will have my entire team available to work through the details of getting a deal done.”

Well, at least it’s good to see that he’s not voting “present” this time.  Nope, instead, he’s voting “absent”!

Obama’s team may not include the president himself. Despite the impasse in Washington over federal spending, the president as of early Wednesday was scheduled to give two speeches outside of Washington: one on energy in the Philadelphia suburbs, then another Wednesday evening to a group of black political activists in New York.

But hey, I’m sure he’s got a good reason for not taking a leadership role in heading off a government shutdown.  Yeah…”good reason“:

Obama will be speaking Wednesday for the first time as commander in chief at the annual convention of the National Action Network and standing with its founder, the Rev. Al Sharpton – whom the President largely ignored before his 2008 election.

The symbolic speech at the Sheraton in midtown – coming just days after the President held two events in Harlem – indicates that Obama, who is battling slipping poll numbers, is trying to bolster his standing among African-Americans, political scientists said.

Why take an active role in breaking a budgeting impasse when you’ve got race-hustling poverty homeys to hang with for fundraising, right?

But Obama, in his most candid moments, acknowledged that race was still a problem. In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent “Tea Party” movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn’t helping them nearly enough, he said. A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to “take back” their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn’t dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a “subterranean agenda” in the anti-Obama movement—a racially biased one—that was unfortunate.

So if “take back America” is racist, then how’s about a convention of bigots on the left where Obama has spoken TWICE?

Busted.

Hypocrisy and bigotry: crunchy and good with ketchup.

Black lawmakers on Monday said GOP-proposed budget cuts would move the country in the opposite direction of the civil rights movement.

The lawmakers, all members of the Congressional Black Caucus, used the last day of Black History Month to argue the GOP-backed cuts would fall hardest on black Americans.

“It’s really especially poignant that this year during Black History Month, the Republican leadership has proposed a budget for fiscal year 2011 that will fall most heavily, mind you, on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society: African Americans, Latinos, and poor, those who have been shut of the American dream,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who described the cuts as ill-timed and destructive.

“At a time when we should be remembering and uplifting the accomplishments and contributions of African Americans, to the history, culture, civil rights and economy of America, we are literally during this month debating steps that will severely undercut and undermine that legacy,” she said.

Lee also criticized Republicans for saying “so be it” when asked their reaction to the idea that cuts to government spending might hurt U.S. job growth. “So be it,” she repeated. “That’s not what the Civil Rights movement was about.”

Nope, apparently “what the Civil Rights movement was about” was federal spending into insolvency and making black Americans slaves to the federal government.  I don’t recall seeing that in my history books growing up.  Guess I should Google it.

Anyway, just last night, I was trying to balance my checkbook, and I decided that with gas and groceries being more expensive, it wouldn’t be a good idea to buy those Starbucks mochas every day.  I didn’t realize that I was being racist for exhibiting financial common sense like that.  That sucks.

Idiots.

The story of Barack Obama’s rise is familiar enough not to warrant repeating. What is unusual about Remnick’s version is that he tells it through the lens of race. As an American boy growing up in Indonesia and Hawaii in the aftermath of the civil rights movement, Obama was in a confusing position. He looked black, but he didn’t know any blacks. He was descended from slave owners but not from slaves. Most disorientingly, Hawaii—where he was brought up by his white grandparents—lacked even those lingering remnants of racism, the exposure and expunging of which was, by the 1970s, the main preoccupation of the burgeoning establishment that had grown out of the civil rights movement.

In a way that strikes Remnick as both “touching” and “awkward,” Obama began “giving himself instruction on how to be black.” He wrote letters to his father that went unanswered. He sought out military servicemen to play basketball with, in hopes of learning their slang. In college, Obama read deeply in black literature and history. He gravitated towards community organizing in poor black neighborhoods on the South Side of Chicago. At law school he took a lot of classes in civil rights law, and then spurned a lucrative career track to take up civil rights work at Davis, Miner, which Remnick calls “a classic liberal ‘good-guy’ firm.” As a lecturer at the University of Chicago, he taught a course (by all accounts superb) called Current Issues in Racism and the Law. He sought out as a mentor the fiery advocate of “black-liberation theology,” Jeremiah Wright.

As Maetenloch puts it:

He was born only half black, didn’t grow up in a black family, and didn’t really know any black people until he was nearly an adult, yet now he’s considered the epitome of the successful American black man. This was not an accidental transformation.

Yet 53% of the American public were duped, especially the 95%+ of black Americans who voted for him, thinking “He’s one of us.  He gets us!”  I have never understood why skin pigmentation had anything to do with fitness for public office in any capacity.

Here’s what I find funny, though:

Two thoughts:

1.  Considering that Republicans control both chambers of the FL legislature, plus they own the governorship, it’s clear they will redraw districts in such a way as to favor West (despite the two new redistricting amendments that passed last month).

2.  Why do Democrats hate black people?  (Two can play that game, huh? )

Video clip at The Right Scoop, and it’s funny (and classic Rush).