Friday, July 13, 2012

July 13, 2012

The Democratic Party as the Party of Race
by Roger L. Simon
July 13, 2012

As someone who was a sixties civil rights worker, wrote movies for Richard Pryor (successfully) and Whoopi Goldberg (unsuccessfully), and has had the pleasure of working with many talented African Americans at PJ Media for nearly seven years now, I think I have earned the right to write what should be painfully obvious to everyone — most of the racism in America today is from blacks (aided and abetted by white liberals) toward whites.

Much of the reason for this stems from the extreme dependency of the Democratic Party on race politics. With union membership dwindling, the party would literally disintegrate without the overwhelming support of African Americans and Hispanic Americans. Without at least the perception of racism, the Democratic Party has only marginal support. The party is forced to encourage it for its survival.

A whole network of connections, careers, and lifetyles has evolved from that, many of them largely counter-productive. Indeed, the argument can be made that the Democratic Party has destroyed the lives of minorities in order to save itself. Their programs, from the Great Society onwards, have done nothing substantial to improve minority lives, only to encourage dependency. The proof of this failure we see before us today in the dreadful statistics on black and Hispanic unemployment, far worse than the already horrendous national numbers. The more minorities are “helped,” the worse their lives become, the less equal we are.

The Democratic Party is then the true racist party, trapped in nostalgia for a time when genuine racism — Jim Crow, etc. — stalked the land. They have to assume significant white racism still exists because not to do so threatens the fabric of their being. A Tea Partier has to be a racist so you can dismiss his ideas without having to confront them or even think about them.

Is Obama's Brother a Closet Conservative?
by Paul Kengor
July 13, 2012

Here's an intriguing thought: is Barack Obama's brother a closet conservative? Might George Obama endorse Mitt Romney for president?

The thought -- mostly facetious, yes -- was prompted by Dinesh D'Souza's fascinating new feature film, 2016: Obama's America, just now being released. D'Souza trotted the globe in search of Obama's enigmatic roots -- like many of us, doing the job the pro-Obama mainstream media refuses to do. In one of the most compelling parts of the film, D'Souza sits down and interviews Obama's brother, George, who lives in a hut in Kenya. D'Souza's crew captured grim footage of the hut; it is indeed a hut. Actually, "hut" may be a charitable description.

And speaking of charity, Obama, who loves to lecture us about being our "brother's keeper," clearly isn't his brother's keeper. In fact, it appears Obama hasn't tossed his brother anything worth keeping, or barely living on. D'Souza asked George Obama about just that, and Obama's brother graciously harbored no hard feelings toward his wealthy American brother, who, when it comes to his kin, clearly isn't paying his fair share.

But most interesting is what D'Souza heard from George Obama when it came to African colonialism. Here, too, George had no hard feelings at all. To the contrary, Obama's brother blamed not Africa's European forebears for the continent's struggles, but instead -- in a deliciously politically incorrect sentiment unbefitting of an Obama -- native Africans themselves. George Obama told D'Souza that Kenya's colonial experience is not responsible for the poverty and economic struggles there. In the film, George compares Kenya to South Korea and even South Africa. When it comes to Kenya's economic development, Obama's brother insists that it would have been better for Kenya "if the whites had stayed longer."

Read more:

No comments:

Post a Comment