Archive for the ‘racism’ Category

Ah, the subtle racism (or not-so-subtle racism) of the modern white ultra-conservative, unsuccessfully shrouded in claims of fairness and voter fraud. When Eric Cantor lost his primary election to a Tea Party challenger, who spent less on his entire campaign than Cantor did on restaurants, the Tea Party was re-invigorated, several thinking they could now finally do what they dreamed: Unseat every “establishment” Republican they could.

One of the nastiest races this primary campaign season for the Republicans has been in Mississippi. For a little bit on how low it went, supporters of the Tea Party challenger snuck into a nursing home where the challenge-e’s wife resides due to Alzheimer’s in some attempt to smear the guy character-wise. And one of them later committed suicide.

But after Cantor’s loss, it looked like the Tea Party challenger, Chris McDaniel, was going to beat the current Senator, Thad Cochran. In the last few days before the election, Cochran decided to start to reach out to the “black vote.” Apparently, the laws are such that in Mississippi, there is no party affiliation for primary elections, and so long as you did not vote in the other party’s election that was before this one, you can vote.

In response, McDaniel’s Tea Party was talking about putting in election monitors, bringing allegations of voter intimidation. WND didn’t report on that, but they did report on “NAACP Monitoring Tea-Party Poll Watchers.”

And in the end, McDaniel lost. Tea Partiers rallied against it, claiming their own voters were intimidated, that there was fraud, that Cochran bought the vote with Democrats, and so that, yes, in the 21st century, we are talking about the legitimacy of Americans of African decent’s right to vote.

Meanwhile, token black female (I was corrected last time — there are one or two other black writers that WND publishes) Star Parker wrote about this in what, at least tag-line-wise, is sensible: “How McDaniel Blew It in Mississippi;” the tagline is, “Star Parker: Conservative Republicans ignore blacks to their peril.”

Here is her thesis:

Incumbent Republican Sen. Thad Cochran’s successful game plan, which drove his run-off victory over tea party challenger Chris McDaniel for Mississippi’s Republican Senate nomination, was unconventional.

But most incredible was the success of this game plan – to reach out to liberal black churches and get Democratic black voters to turn out and vote for Cochran – despite being executed in broad daylight.

Soon after Cochran lost to McDaniel in the primary, necessitating a run-off because McDaniel fell short of getting 50 percent of the vote, papers reported the intent of Cochran’s team to turn out black Democrats to overcome the thin margin by which Cochran lost.

McDaniel knew exactly what to expect. The Cochran campaign told him. Yet he remained a spectator through it all. His counter strategy was no counter strategy; he just continued what he was already doing – appealing just to Mississippi’s conservative, white electorate.

I generally agree with the basic idea: If you ignore a large constituency, you’re not going to win.

Many WND commenters disagree. Take the top-rated comment by “Rene Girrard,” who ranted: “Star, I’ll bet you voted for Obama. I’ll bet you’re part of the great hypocrisy in the black community. The black people are a strong church going culture and conservative by nature, but 90% still vote democrat. Somehow financial benefits and special job slots for blacks trump their Christian convictions? So what does it matter what McDaniel might have said to the black community?”

“ramblindon” claimed that there was voter fraud. “palinwhitehouse2016” (shudder) is actually musing about restricting the votes to whites-only, though I’m having a hard time determining if it’s a Poe or not:

It seems to me that America was a much more glorious and God-blessed country in a time, in living memory of some of us, when low information individuals were prevented from voting, across a lot of the country but certainly in the South, including Mississippi. Would it be so hard to re-introduce such laws again? Liberals might complain, but there is no doubt that we would be making a step back towards an America that readers of this site would love again.

While Star’s column was published on Friday, June 27, Leo Hohmann wrote his a day later: “Call for Volunteers to Overturn Mississippi Vote.”

As you may have inferred from the description above, it’s voter fraud that they think may have cost them the election. Remember, if a voter voted in the primary election for Democrats – which was held earlier – then they can’t vote in the Republican primary. So, that’s what they think (or are saying, but want to back up) happened:

McDaniel’s campaign said it is finding significant evidence of voter irregularities in Tuesday’s election and is mulling legal options.

Noel Fritsch, communications director for the McDaniel campaign, said the campaign is in heavy-duty research mode right now and will be making a decision soon on whether to file legal action.

“We’re examining all the data we are able to get a hold of, but we are having a hard time getting all of the data we need right now because about half of the circuit clerks are not cooperating with our requests,” Fritsch told WND. “Despite that, based on the data we do have, we have found a lot that is heartening for us. Our preliminary findings certainly indicate that a thorough examination is warranted.”

He said that as soon as the campaign has completed the research phase, “we will decide at such time whether any legal action will be taken.”

The article is much longer than that, going into lots of unsubstantiated allegations. In what many described as the nastiest primary in the country this year, I think it’s only going to get nastier. And, I think that it is going to cost Republicans – and especially the Tea Party – the black vote. In their 2012 post-mortem, the Republican party clearly recognized that they are, in general, the Old White Men party and they need to reach out to non-caucasians. It’s stuff like this that further alienate that growing demographic that may NOT be happy with Democrats … but when the Republicans are questioning their very right to vote, well, it’s a fairly clear choice.

Edited to Add (July 1, 2014): WND’s James Simpson points out that, “Mississippi GOP, State Sued Over Vote Fraud,” with some interesting allegations that – gasp! – a federal law about voting trumps a state law! I wonder if the hypocrisy was recognized here, since these folks are usually all about the “over-reach” of the Federal government into States’ affair.s

Edited to Add (July 3, 2014): Time is reporting that McDaniel is mounting a legal challenge to the primary election results.

Edited to Add (July 14, 2014): Washington Post reports that the conspiracies are being debunked, and McDaniel’s legal ground for a challenge to the vote is pretty much non-existent.


This should be a lesson to conservatives: Most old white men with strong anti-government sentiments who don’t have media savvy are not good to hang your hat on. Cliven Bundy seemed to have it all: He had a ranch, just mindin’ his own business, and the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) wanted to fine him several $million. Why? Because he let his cattle graze on public lands.

And, marshals went in to try to enforce the order, and Cliven Bundy had a militia waiting. Or something like that.

He became a conservative darling practically overnight, a case study of apparent federal government over-reach upon the most sacred thing a man can have: his land. Tea Partier after Tea Partier, including media figures, FOX “news,” Congressmen and Senators, all fawned over him. And then he opened his mouth.

Adam Nagourney of the New York Times had him on tape stating:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Yeah, so blacks were better off as slaves because now they’re all on welfare. Turns out the old conservative white man is a racist. Probably not the best thing to say when you’re surrounded by media, either.

Politicians deserted him, and the media lit up. But his militia is still there. An African-American who was his (former?) bodyguard said that he would still take a bullet for him. And World Net Daily went all out attacking his detractors:

The April 25 poll, now with 543 voting, shows only 3 voters (<1%) said that his comments were racist, 8 said it was hard to say because Americans are hyper-sensitive to the issue, 23 said that they don't care because the feds are overreaching, and all the rest (509, or 93.7%) said that they were not racist. I would hazard to guess that the majority of those voting – since you have to be registered with WND, are the stereotypical ultra-conservative … old white male.

Getting into what all the WND folks wrote is beyond the scope of this post, and I honestly don't really care anymore. It's just post-hoc rationalization and digging themselves even deeper. Bundy's remarks are stereotyped, offensive, and wrong.

I just mentioned two posts ago (macro-post on climate change stuff) that one topic I would not talk about anymore on this blog that WND publishes frequently on is the “black mob violence.” I did one post on it back in September regarding how WND was cherry-picking random stories with at least a weekly cadence to try to show that “black mobs” were attacking “whites” and hence there is an epidemic of racial violence against the poor innocent whiteys.

This post is not about a WND article about it. It’s about a few WND articles about a development late last week where they are being warned by Google to back off on the rhetoric:

To quote Joseph Farah:

Recently, WND, my news organization, was accused by Google of spreading hate speech through the use of a two-word term – “black mob” in stories about, well, black mobs.

But this wasn’t just an accusation. It was also a threat to punish WND materially by the removal of Google ads and, more importantly, the suspension of an account that allows us to use Google’s technology to serve ads from other clients.

It all began two years ago when WND made the decision to begin tracking what appeared to be a rise in unprovoked black on non-black violence. Through the reporting, WND first alerted the nation to “the knockout game,” in which perpetrators seek to render unconscious innocent and unsuspecting victims usually with a single blow to the head. We reported on coordinated riots and seemingly spontaneous uprisings occurring in major cities and small towns from coast to coast.

[…] On Feb. 7, 2014, Google notified WND of its intent to begin blocking ads on the site. WND decided to take the pre-emptive action of removing Google ad tags on all stories and columns in which the phrase “black mobs” appeared, pending an appeal of the misguided decision.

But there’s an issue here that should be noted by all who value free expression and honest journalism that some may find offensive. Google’s policy attempts to censor words and phrases that are truthful and accurate from First Amendment-protected media on the basis of political correctness and faulty algorithmic methodology.

[…] Google is clearly assigning motives to our reporting on the basis of the linking of two words – black mobs. Euphemisms for two perfectly accurate words must now be found because Google has determined that the linking of these two words is hate speech. When one of the most powerful media companies in the world starts banning words and phrases and imposing its speech police standards on all those it does business with, we are headed down a dangerous, Orwellian slippery slope.

The term “black mobs” as used in WND is not a pejorative term.

It is not hate speech. In fact, it is the reporting of facts – facts that have been substantiated and reported by many other news sources since WND began reporting on the trend two years ago. WND Books’ “White Girl Bleed A Lot” is carried in bookstores across the nation and on What’s next – burning the books?

I don’t think this is worth commenting on. I think the denial speaks for itself. And, while on this blog I have many times respected the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of the press, both of those come with responsibilities and come with consequences. Google is a company, not a government-owned organization. I may be wrong (I’m not a First Amendment lawyer), but I’m fairly sure they are allowed to make decisions about whether they choose to advertise on a certain site or not based on whatever criteria they want to set, including censorship of certain words.

It’s really not worth going into the ~500 comments across these stories. Nor is it really important to get into the denial in the other three. Perhaps relevant – or by way of summary – is to say that WND did a poll on the last one, asking, “Do you find the term ‘black mob’ unfair, racist or offensive?” With 301 responding, 52% said, “No, I find black mobs unfair, racist and offensive,” while 32% said “No, it would be racist to refuse to report the race of perpetrators in mob attacks across the country.” The token two people said it was unfair/racist/offensive or insensitive.

Brian C. Joondeph wrote a column for WND, published on February 2, 2014, entitled, “Immigration Speech John Boehner Should Give.” I have no idea why it has no comments, for it seems right up an ültra-conservative’s alley. I reproduce it here in full for commentary purposes:

My fellow Americans, the majority of you believe that our current immigration system is broken and in need of major change. Now 92 million of you are not part of the American workforce. With the best interests of America in mind, particularly those who are not working, House Republicans propose the following changes to our immigration laws.

Going forward, the U.S. will only welcome foreigners who will be useful to American society, contributing to national progress. They must have the necessary funds to support themselves and their dependents. Foreigners will be barred from the U.S. if they are detrimental to our economic or national interests.

If they are not good citizens or have broken laws in their home country, they will be denied entry into the U.S. Furthermore, they must be physically and mentally healthy before entering the U.S.

A national registry will keep track of the entire U.S. population, with foreign tourists and immigrants assigned a unique tracking number. Foreigners with false immigration documents will be fined or imprisoned, as will any foreigner falsifying their signature on a government document.

Any foreigner who is deported and who re-enters the U.S. without authorization may be imprisoned for up to 10 years. Foreigners working in the U.S. without a proper work permit can also be imprisoned. Transportation companies bringing undocumented foreigners into the U.S. will be fined.

Non-U.S. citizens will be prohibited from participating in American political life, including protests and demonstrations and any public expression of political opinion. Foreigners may not own American land within 60 miles of a national land border or within 30 miles of the coastal border. To serve in the military, one must be American by birth. This also holds for captains, pilots, engineers and mechanics.


Just … wow.

It’s nice that this guy is putting this out there so everyone can see how much of a xenophobic hypocritical racist bigot he is. Why do I level those charges? Well, let’s see …

  • To get in, you have to be “useful” and monetarily stable. So much for the plaque on the Statue of Liberty*.
  • We’re going to do a background check on you and you can’t have gotten into any trouble before.
  • We’re going to have our doctors check you out to make sure you’re physically okay. And not hearing voices … unless those voices are God, Jesus, or Angels.
  • We’re going to track each and everyone one of our citizens.
  • We’re going to track every foreigner who’s here.
  • If you’re not a citizen (remember, we track everyone, so we know who you are, what your status is, and where you are), you can’t go to protests or demonstrations of any public or political nature. So much for the First Amendment (freedom of assembly).
  • If you’re not a citizen, you can’t buy any property here. Guess that means we’ll be nationalizing all coastal holdings by BP, Shell, all those buildings owned by Saudis, etc.
  • We have a problem with army recruitment, but we’re going to restrict signing up to just people born here. Not just fightin’ folks, but EVERYONE.

Wow. So, that’s why I call him a xenophobic hypocritical racist bigot. The hypocritical part comes in because conservatives allegedly hate Big Government (except in peoples’ bedrooms), but this guy wants the government to check everyone out mentally and physically and keep track of every single person, where they go, who they are, etc.

*“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

After a search of my blog, this is the fifth story from Todd Starnes of FOX “News” that is fake, and yet WND has posted it as though it were real. The story this time is, “School: You Can’t Celebrate America.”

See folks, this is why critical thinking is important: This story smells fishy. It seems wrong. And when you read the three-paragraph excerpt, more red flags are raised … just kinda hairs on the back of your neck thinking, “this seems off to me.”

Students and parents at a Colorado high school are outraged after administrators turned down their request for a spirit week day honoring America because it might offend non-Americans.

“They said they didn’t want to offend anyone from other countries or immigrants,” a 16-year-old member of the student council told me. “They just really did not want to make anyone feel uncomfortable.”

The student council at Fort Collins High School had proposed having a day to celebrate the United States during next week’s Winter Spirit Week. The young people pitched “’Merica Monday” – and invited their classmates to dress in patriotic colors. Their proposal was promptly shot down by administrators.

The story was copied to WND on February 4, 2014. That same day, Right Wing Watch posted explaining, “Another School District Forced to Clarify Todd Starnes’ Misinformation. The school district issued a statement explaining that Starnes was lying (the column “could not be further from the truth”). Here is their statement:

We regret that the recent decision regarding My Country Monday was viewed as not patriotic. This could not be further from the truth. The original intent of Spirit Week at Fort Collins High School was to unify the student body.

When students first proposed Merica Monday, building administrators felt that it was against this unifying theme and disrespectful to our country. Merica is a slang term that is often used in a negative, stereotypical way to describe life in the United States. This is what led administrators to discuss alternatives with students.

We were surprised that our community interpreted these actions as anti-American. Fort Collins High School is a proud public school in America and supports many activities to celebrate this great nation. Due to this outpouring of sentiment and misinterpretation of intentions, school administrators have decided to rename the first day of Spirit Week America Day as opposed to Merica Day.

We look forward to enjoying the creativity and energy of FCHS students as they celebrate their patriotism next week.

Right Wing Watch also helpfully points out that Starnes has assured us that he is “sharing with [us] accurate information.” Un huh.

Now, some time between Feb. 16 and Feb. 18, WND took down its article rating system, so I can’t tell you anymore how much WND readers liked or disliked the snippet. I can tell you that it’s only gotten about 69 comments so far, pretty much all of them lamenting the downfall of America to the new politically correct.

I lament the downfall of America due to the idiots making things up and getting people in a tizzy over it. And idiots in general.

I really don’t know what World Net Daily hopes to accomplish other than drumming up continued support for its extreme right-wing conspiracy-minded readership (and staff). Bob Unruh’s article on December 13, “‘Universe-Shattering’ Twist in Obama Birth Probe,” is yet another in a long line of articles (which really began with WND) that President Obama was not born in the United States.

This one, in particular, is really just an announcement article of things to come. Which never did. Especially something “universe-shattering.” The claim this time appears to be centered around the death of Hawai’i state Health Department chief, Loretta Fuddy, from a plane crash. The clear implication being that she was going to reveal something. The obvious question being, if she had any information about this, why would she be killed five years after President Obama’s election when he has no further elections for which to run? Seems kinda like the King Tut “curse” (supposedly, everyone involved with the excavation died because of the “curse,” except that the vast majority died decades later of natural causes).

However, I suppose the article accomplished its goal. As of this writing, or last reloading of the article, there were 1,492 ratings for an average of 4.82/5 stars. Pretty high – the most I’ve seen. Similarly, there are 1755 comments, the highest one getting 101 up-votes, another indication of how much this was read. I guess it’s pretty clear what WND readers tend to like to read on the site.

Meanwhile, a few weeks later on January 2, 2014, Bob Unruh put out another article trying to, yet again, make a mountain out of a molecule: “White House Nightmare: Eligibility Case Still Alive.” Except it’s not. And the “universe-shattering” information is not revealed, though the promise of it persisted:

Arpaio’s lead investigator, Mike Zullo, told WND only weeks ago that the investigation continues, and is getting close to results, as sheriff’s investigators now are officially helping the volunteer Cold Case Posse.

“When this information is finally exposed to the public, it will be universe-shattering,” Mike Zullo told WND. “This is beyond the pale of anything you can imagine.”

Zullo explained that because it’s an active investigation that could produce criminal charges, he’s unable to reveal details at the moment.

Something tells me that President Obama is not having nightmares about this in anticipation. But, the article again achieved the goal of driving up the faithful: It garnered 837 ratings (a whopping 4.86/5 average, one of the highest I’ve seen with >100 ratings), and 1246 comments.

It seems like so long ago that this came up, but I’ve had it in my queue and so have been staring at the page now for the last six weeks, so by golly I’m gonna talk about it. On Wednesday night (that would be Wednesday, December 11), FOX “news” anchor Megyn Kelly, “declared on her … show that both Santa Claus and Jesus were white.” Clearly, outcry ensued. The Friendly Atheist has a post on it, (well, actually two), and it even inspired a lovely meme, copied below for fun.

Megyn Kelly's Reality

Megyn Kelly’s Reality

I’m posting about this because I found it a bit odd that World Net Daily “only” chose to post three links to other news sources and two articles on the issue, milking it for almost a week. And because I’ve had one them open for several weeks. They are:

The commentary by WND’s writer (John Rocker) can perhaps be summarized by his third paragraph:

Stupid, idiotic, heavy eye role, whatever category you would like to put this conversation into, it’s an actual conversation nonetheless. Try as I might I can’t help but choke on the obvious irony of this ridiculous topic. The left, in its relentless pursuit of a colorblind America, constantly leaps to any scenario no matter how actual or presumed where skin pigmentation is made to be the sole focus.

Joseph Farah’s story, instead of arguing the points or the social phenomenon, chose to perhaps be more offensive than he normally is, using “Santa” as a clear term for President Obama. Here’s a sampling:

Santa Claus is not white – nor is he a mythical figure, as you claimed in your clarification of your original comment.

He’s real, and he is of mixed race.

He does, however, currently live in a white house, at taxpayer’s expense.

There are, indeed, some mythological aspects of the Santa legend that need clarification:

  • He does not manufacture toys and gifts at his plant in the North Pole. That is untrue. In fact, Santa doesn’t manufacture anything – except debt and executive orders. In fact, Santa has no record of manufacturing anything in his life. Manufacturing in the U.S. has been plummeting since he began his Santa Claus act five years ago.
  • … He takes wealth by force from about 40 percent of the population of the U.S. and redistributes it as he sees fit to empower himself and Santa’s “helpers.”

… There are some similarities in the real Santa and the mythological character:

  • No one knows for sure where they come from. But it’s safe to rule out the North Pole for the real one.
  • No one knows for sure when they were born or exactly how old they are. Reliable documentation is lacking in both cases.
  • There is mystery about where and how the mythological Santa got his education. Same for the real Santa.

… Yes, Megyn, there is a real Santa Claus. It’s time to report the ugly truth about him.

I was thinking it might be worth discussing some of the comments (across all of the posts, there are hundreds), but then again, I’m thinking not. The very top-rated comment, on the first link, is from “NatanElias” (17 up-votes, 1 down-vote), who wrote, “MLK was black and I feel uncomfortable. I want a caucasian one.” That was when I decided that it wasn’t worth going into these comments.