Rand Paul addresses the students of Howard University. As brilliant as he is, he confesses he can’t figure out why the GOP has a certain reputation regarding race.

What gets lost is that the Republican Party has always been the party of civil rights and voting rights. Because Republicans believe that the federal government is limited in its function-some have concluded that Republicans are somehow inherently insensitive to minority rights. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Perhaps Rand is on to something. Maybe there’s been a misunderstanding over philosophy. The drive to limit the scope of government makes it look as if conservatives don’t care, as if they don’t want to extend a hand to the unfortunate. Victims of racism, for example. The perception has made for some bad public relations.

My father was a die-hard conservative actually. Back in the 80′s, when he learned there would be a Martin Luther King day in January, he asked, “Why did they give that n*gger a holiday?” Meaning, “Another federal mandate that will encumber business and squander taxes.” To the untrained ear, rhetorical flourishes like these are easily misconstrued.

Ronald Reagan once made a similar argument. He’d been asked to veto the MLK holiday legislation by limited-state activist and good friend Governor Meldrim Thomson:

Mr. Thomson called Dr. King “a man of immoral character whose frequent association with leading agents of communism is well established.”

Reagan was similarly daunted by the implications for government. Employing a familiar Libertarian argument, he replied:

“I have the same reservations you have, but here the perception of too many people is based on image, not reality.”

That the want to check federalism looked exactly like racism was a tragedy. Reagan apologized to Dr. King’s widow, then he played a round of golf at whites-only Augusta National. Which was misunderstood as well.

Unfortunately, the beat goes on. Only today I read a piece by Larry Elder, the self-proclaimed “Sage of South Central.” In it, he goes to great length to reacquaint the misty minded with Richard Nixon’s civil rights resume:

In the Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba Linda, Calif., records show considerable handwritten notes and correspondence between Nixon and King. This includes a 1957 letter from King acknowledging their previous meetings, which thanked Nixon for his “assiduous labor and dauntless courage in seeking to make the Civil Rights Bill a reality,” and praised him for his “devotion to the highest mandates of the moral law.”

But what’s your race-impression of Nixon? Probably nothing good.

Never mind that in 1956 Nixon revealed he was an honorary member of the NAACP. Or that Nixon pushed for passage of the ’57 civil rights bill in the Senate. Or that Time magazine wrote that Nixon’s support for civil rights incurred the wrath of one of his segregationist opponents, Sen. Richard Russell, D-Ga., who sarcastically called Nixon the NAACP’s “most distinguished member.”

Who knew? Not you. And the upshot?

But the GOP-is-racist meme can be heard nightly on MSNB-Hee Haw and in political science and history classes all over the country.

Very sad, oh my. But permit me? Perhaps this tragedy of historic perception arises from something like disbelief. A well-earned unease. A suspicion among African Americans that Republicans are rarely what they pretend to be. Example.

In earlier tapes released by the National Archives, Nixon told Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, “Henry, let’s leave the niggers to Bill and we’ll take care of the rest of the world” while working on his first presidential address to Congress. Nixon repeatedly referred to blacks as “niggers” and “jigaboos” in other conversations with Kissinger. Nixon later complained to Erlichman that Great Society programs were a waste “because blacks were genetically inferior to whites.”

The Nixon tapes bore the suspicion out. With Donald Rumsfeld:

“The second point is that coming out — coming back and saying that black Americans aren’t as good as black Africans . . most of them, basically, are just out of the trees. Now, let’s face it, they are.”

That Elder would try to lionize Nixon reaffirms the need for skepticism. That he would do it while the internet is still up and running speaks to stupidity, or disrespect. Perhaps we should say, regarding matters of race, that Republicans would prefer to be philosophically awkward or misunderstood. But they’re worse than that. To be kind.

Touré Neblett is an MSNBC co-host of The Cycle. He caught Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained yesterday and he blogs it favorably.

Django Unchained is a heroic love story

. . Django is heroic not just for rescuing his wife but also for spreading justice by putting slavemasters in the grave. It’s honestly baffling to me that smart people could find Django’s slavemaster killings as anything other than heroic. The moral calculus between slave and master is clear and unambiguous . .

For the descendants of slaves, who live in a world still tangibly doused in slavery’s residue, watching Django kill his oppressors could possibly feel cathartic. If murder can ever be morally justified by the presence of clear, undiluted, sustained evil — and I believe it can — then it is justified when a slave kills a master.

Touré is smart. And his opinion is hardly crazy, I’m glad he said it. But I’m pretty sure he knows it will be controversial because America is still messed up, race-wise. See the Washington Times:

– “Toure unhinged: Murder can be ‘justified’”

Weasel Zippers:

–“MSNBC’s Race-Obsessed Toure: Blacks Killing White Slaveowners Morally Justified…”

–And Lucianne Goldberg’s blog monkey:

Of course with morons like this guy it depends completely on your race. Those people at MessNBC have totally gone off the rails.

Comment:

The actual slaves who actually lived in the USA were more decent than these idiots. They did not massacre their owners like the slaves of Haiti had done.

Remember when our slaves were law-abiding? That was nice. Unlike you, Touré. They knew right from wrong. If the War of Northern Aggression hasn’t thoroughly disgraced us, oh me. Look who feels similarly — the white supremacists at Stormfront:

“I think it’s okay for Black people to murder White people. Kill Whitey, y’all.”

Earlier this week at The Corner:

In his opening monologue last night on Saturday Night Live, host Jamie Foxx joked that President Obama would be “extra black” in his second term. He went on to tell the audience that “I get to kill white people” in his upcoming film Django Unchained, and asked, “How great is that?”

There you have it, an entire post. 51 words. The late-night monologue was something the preeminent conservative intellectual website felt noteworthy. Oddly, they wouldn’t tell anybody why.

Don’t worry, their readers got the point. Comedy is weighty stuff.

The suicide cult we call the American left laps this stuff up because they think it makes them the height of cleverness and sophistication. After all, all the cool kids want to shed this mortal coil. What better way to end it all than to have a noble black man take you out in a race tinged rage?

I hate myself. Can Jamie kill me?

So any of the leftists here actually want to defend saying it’s great to kill white people? And that at the same time it’s bad for a white person to say it’s great to kill black people? The one is a “joke” right, the other hate speech?

By the way, Romney actually got, I believe, a slim majority of white voters under thirty. Maybe those are some of the whites Jamie Foxx would like to kill?

Jamie wants to kill you too.

Yes, when black people do it, that’s different, because white people “deserve it”.

Apparently presumed innocent and the right to a fair trial is something the left does not understand. Groups can be guilty of things based on what individuals within similar groups (except a hundred years ago) did – and never mind that Jamie Foxx is more likely to be descended from a slave owner than most whites, who are more likely descended from Ellis Island immigrants who got here forty or sixty years after slavery ended. Never mind that the logic doesn’t even tally up; it’s still fun to kill – not “slaveowners” but “whites”.

If you don’t think “whites” deserve killing, then the joke is not funny.

Jamie thinks you should die.

Fourteen years ago, my white child was bullied by black kids.

I pulled out a copy of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Had A Dream” speech and lectured my kid about not making generalizations.

I expect my good-faith efforts to be reciprocated. If you want a world where we are judged “not by the color of our skin”, then stop justifying this sort of behavior. It’s hateful and it’s unacceptable, and so are people who think it’s ok.

Why can’t Jamie love you?

10 days left. Smart sophisticated people look at the polls and think smart thoughts:

So here’s a prospect worth contemplating: What if Romney carries the popular vote, but Obama regains the presidency by winning 270 votes or more in the electoral college?

“I think it’s a 50/50 possibility — or more,” said Mark McKinnon, who was a political strategist for President George W. Bush.

“If the election were held tomorrow, it wouldn’t just be a possibility, it would be actual,” added William A. Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution . .

Oh the clownery visited upon us occasionally by the electoral college. The Founding Fathers may have been funnier than how they were painted. But this, no, is not another one of those ‘excelsior the popular vote’ posts. This is cleverer than that. This is the Washington Post:

No incumbent president seeking a second term has ever won the electoral college and lost the popular vote.

Every modern president to be reelected — Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush — has gotten a bigger share of the vote in their second bid for office than their first, and with it, a chance to claim a mandate.

A win in the electoral college that is not accompanied by one in the popular vote casts a shadow over the president and his ability to govern.

Remember how George W. Bush was hamstrung by this issue in 2001? Lost to Al Gore, won the office? Dead on arrival, he was. No I don’t remember that. So it is that incumbents only can zombify our politics. Incidentally, this has never happened before so it’s a fairly sure thing.

Gosh and golly smart people. I wish Karen Tumulty had been less cerebrum-riot-y and more look-at-the-country-y when she’d written this. There’s a bigger issue pointed out by the tight polling. All anyone had to do to see it was look at the politics clearinghouse site Memeorandum today. Here is a story by the AP:

Racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since the United States elected its first black president, an Associated Press poll finds, as a slight majority of Americans now express prejudice toward blacks whether they recognize those feelings or not . .

In all, 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 percent, up from 49 percent during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell . .

The AP surveys were conducted with researchers from Stanford University, the University of Michigan and NORC at the University of Chicago.

Americans are more racist now than they were in 2008. Hooray! No wonder President Spearchucker can’t kill the hapless Romneybot (*click-clack* nothing can kill Romneybot *whirr* only Romneybot can kill Romneybot *click*). The polls are this close because half of the country is insane. Responding to Romney spokesman John Sununu, who accused General Colin Powell (blah person) of being Afro-racist, here’s Larry Wilkerson in an interview with Ed Schultz:

My party, unfortunately, is the bastion of those people — not all of them, but most of them — who are still basing their positions on race.

Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists. And the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as Commander in Chief and President, and everything to do with the color of his skin. And that’s despicable.

That’s Republican Colonel Larry Wilkerson, on the Republicans. Those jerks are voting more vigorously against the Black Candidate than they are for the Man Who Stood For (insert here). Mitt would win their votes as a hologram as long as he was programmed Navajo white. And then this, the creme de la ruses:

It’s the birth of Barack Obama! Probably the pranksters should not have casted Big Jim Slade in the starring role, probably. But there are explanations. We know this because someone asked:

–Well, that baby is massive. It looks like it’s at least a year old.

Babies are born heavy all the time. I see no issue with that. And I assure you, most of the general public has no idea how big infants are in Kenya.

–What?

You might think the US is a fat society, but in Kenya they are born big and then they become light. Which is evidenced by the fact that today, Obama is really light and fit. That’s just the way it is.

That makes sense. Now if he could tell us why the tad Obama keeps flicking cigarette ashes from his beard. We wonder. Why he’s wearing a houndstooth jacket and a fez, reading Kerouac and slugging a bottle of absinthe, we’re curious to know. If the fool over there—> hadn’t blown the con with his multiple production tells, he’d probably have had a million people in the streets calling for grown Obama’s resignation. Does anyone doubt that?

And it’s not like the rural rubes are the only trogs. The congressional Republicans have repeatedly called him a communist and Marxist and terrorist and death on two legs. Have opposed every proposal he brought to the table, particularly if they themselves proposed it first. Screamed “You lie!” while he tried to speak to them. Filibustered the legislation he supported more than three hundred sixty times, a record. They don’t like him? They’d like to abolish even the memory of an Obama.

Karen Tumulty should open her eyes. It’s very neat and swell to opine about a hobbled presidency on the horizon. But this one was dented by racism from the start. With polling in the swing states currently running in the President’s favor, it brings up the likelihood that Obama will win. Hence the trolls will gnash their fangs, and they’ll jam a burning cross in the wheels of Congress, again, and clever Karen will say “I told you so.”

PIERS MORGAN: Colin Powell has decided to opt for President Obama again despite apparently still being a Republican. Is it time he left the party, do you think?

JOHN SUNUNU: . . frankly, when you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder whether that’s an endorsement based on issues or whether he’s got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama.

Sununu points out that we have only Powell’s endorsement to consider, which is unfair. John thinks we might ignore his decision and turn our attention elsewhere. We might consider Colin Powell himself. I mean, who is this guy anyway? If we all had a photograph of him, or a charcoal sketch, we could “take a look at” the guy. Maybe then we would learn something.

MORGAN: What reason would that be?

SUNUNU: Well, I think that when you have somebody of your own race that you’re proud of being President of the United States — I applaud Colin for standing with him.

He’s like the President in being of a rare and different race. That’s why the General isn’t interested in foreign policy or the war in Afghanistan. He’s unconcerned with the complexities of politics and such. Can you blame him? Of course not. Like Governor Sununu, I only applaud Colin Powell for his racism. It’s okay, black people are like that.

This would not be George Will’s best column. No I don’t know of an example of his decency, column-wise. I’m just stating what must surely be fact. It’s really rotten. This is as two-faced as a WaPo editorial gets, and the sneer is poorly hidden.

As George is the grand purveyor of the perfumed pooh-pooh, perhaps it’s to be expected. He has a long history of picking up with thumb and forefinger whatever you tossed onto his plate, moderately speaking, and fairly vomiting. How this is appalling and shabby and insulting. He does not near his nose with trash. Though it fascinates him that you would be so enamored of this blackened banana peel your mongrel dog has been using for bathroom tissue. Is it true? Are you still fond of this Obama? Oh Dear.

Obama’s administration is in shambles, yet he is prospering politically. This may not, however, entirely be evidence of the irrationality of the electorate. Something more benign may be at work.

Now would be time to pull out the black ballplayer references. Let’s start with Frank and Jackie Robinson, shall we? UGH. No I didn’t see this coming. I didn’t think he had the nerve, frankly. Nobody should have this kind of nerve, excepting daytime art thieves. Frank Robinson was the first black manager hired by Major League Baseball, and he was also the first fired.

The fact that the Indians felt free to fire Robinson — who went on to have a distinguished career managing four other teams — showed that BLAH BLAH . .

Someone else around here is a first black person, I wonder who.

That Obama is African American may be important, but in a way quite unlike that darkly suggested by, for example, MSNBC’s excitable boys and girls who, with their (at most) one-track minds and exquisitely sensitive olfactory receptors, sniff racism in any criticism of their pin-up.

I don’t see anything sinister, honestly. I see George Will with his baseball-love can’t transcend the existence of American racism. Nor can he erase the four years of vicious bigotry hurled at this president. By wincing at its mention, he of course reminds us of its existence. This makes him not elitist in a way to be bigoted, only to be entirely dismissive. That’s why George is tempted to crush the ants of MSNBC. And to remind us of the excitable girls with one-track minds and sensitive snoots ogling Frank Robinson. Which is not to diminish Frank, and so Frank’s diminished. George can be angry with the people who call out racists in public life, but it only makes him a divining rod for racism. What a smartypants.

Instead, the nation, which is generally reluctant to declare a president a failure — thereby admitting that it made a mistake in choosing him — seems especially reluctant to give up on the first African American president. If so, the 2012 election speaks well of the nation’s heart, if not its head.

The More You Know. Cue glockenspiel.

I am so sick of reading this revisionist crap.

Drop the Racial Rhetoric
Obama should blow his own dog whistle and tell his partisans to desist.
By Deroy Murdock | National Review

Congressman-for-Life Charles Rangel blah blah . .

Oh I’m sure the President has got a dog whistle of his own he can blow. Ugh. And everyone will know it’s time to stop the bigoted anti-racial farce or something. Anyway, here comes the lying again.

Biden’s comments were just a bizarre and crude effort to scare black people into voting Democrat, again. . .

While one may disagree with Romney, his running mate Paul Ryan, and every Republican on Capitol Hill, the notion that the GOP is itching to re-enslave blacks is an outrageous, disgusting lie that utterly mutilates American history. As most students learn in junior high school, abolitionists launched the Republican party to end slavery. Republicans defeated the Confederacy and then spent Reconstruction trying to incorporate blacks into American society. Democrats fought them at every turn.

After the War of Northern Aggression, after the waves of cursed reconstructionists and carpetbaggers receded, the Republican Party was unwelcome in the South. All politics was conducted through the Democratic Party. It was both conservative and liberal, left and right (but mostly waaay right). During the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 21 of the 22 senators that represented the South were Democrats. 87 of 94 Southern members of the House were Dems.

Saying your party wasn’t guilty of Southern racism while your party was exiled from the possibility is no argument at all. Murdock plays games with words like “Democrat.” The Southern Republican may have barely existed but the familiar reactionary conservatism was certainly there. To this point, look at the differences between voting patterns North and South regarding that historic act:

On the Senate version, the Northern Democrats voted 45 -1 for it and the Southern Democrats voted 20 -1 against it. It didn’t particularly matter what party you said you belonged to, once you got below the Mason-Dixon line you were a right winger. And do you remember the powerful voting bloc the Southern politicians composed at the time?

In the United States, the conservative coalition was an unofficial Congressional coalition bringing together the conservative majority of the Republican Party and the conservative, mostly Southern, wing of the Democratic Party. It was dominant in Congress from 1937 to 1963 and remained a political force until the mid 1980s, eventually dying out in the 1990s.

These were America’s most conservative politicians: Southern Democrats. To say they were or are linked to liberal or progressive politics in any way is to lie. These were the racist white supremacists, like Strom Thurmond, that the GOP received with open arms after the successes of the civil rights movement.

And the “Southern Manifesto,” remember that?

The Declaration of Constitutional Principles (known informally as the Southern Manifesto) was a document written in February and March 1956, in the United States Congress, in opposition to racial integration of public places. The manifesto was signed by 99 politicians (97 Democrats) from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The Congressmen drafted the document to counter the landmark Supreme Court 1954 ruling Brown v. Board of Education, which determined that segregation of public schools was unconstitutional.

How’s that for Originalist States’ Rights Tea Party activism?

The Southern Manifesto accused the Supreme Court of “clear abuse of judicial power.” It promised to use “all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.” The Manifesto suggested that the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution should limit the reach of the Supreme Court on such issues.

Tenthers. You get my point. Back to hooray! Deroy:

President Ronald Reagan named General Colin Powell to be America’s first black national security adviser and authorized the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. national holiday.

My butt. Presidents authorize no such thing. They either sign or veto the legislation, and Reagan wanted to veto it.

Reagan staunchly opposed the King Holiday bill. And he did not oppose it as later historical revisionists claim solely for cost reasons, that is that the federal government couldn’t afford to give federal employees another day off. This is the politically palatable cover.

At a press conference October 19 two weeks before he grudgingly signed the bill he quipped that he’d sign it only “since Congress seemed bent on making it a national holiday.” It took every ounce of the congressional bent that Reagan ridiculed to get him to put his signature on the bill. Congress passed the bill with an overwhelming veto-proof majority (338 to 90 in the House of Representatives and 78 to 22 in the Senate).

And don’t forget:

Reagan revealed even more of his true thinking about King in a letter to ultra-conservative former New Hampshire governor Meldrim Thompson. He unapologetically told Thompson that the public’s view of King was “based on image, not reality.” Reagan was roundly criticized for besmirching King, and he subsequently publicly apologized to King’s widow, Coretta Scott King. In assailing King, Reagan simply followed the well-worn ultra-conservative and racist script that King was a radical, racial agitator, and a closet communist.

Got it, Deroy? Reagan had to apologize to Mrs. King for being a stupid ass. For being your typical commie-baiter of the conservative Republican sort that is still found flogging his race jitters today. All of a dozen days ago Rep. Todd Akin said he was open to repealing both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. So enough of your garbage, Murdock.

ADD . . This is good:

Mr. Reagan’s letter replied to one he received from former New Hampshire Gov. Meldrim Thomson, who asked the President to veto the bill. In the letter, Mr. Thomson called Dr. King “a man of immoral character whose frequent association with leading agents of communism is well established.”

Mr. Reagan replied, “I have the same reservations you have, but here the perception of too many people is based on image, not reality.”

Mr. Reagan telephoned Mrs. King before leaving for a weekend of golf at the Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia, which has no black members.

Yes, your precious Ronnie really cared about the likes of you Deroy.

Earlier today, Charles Johnson asked “Is Mitt Romney Buying Twitter Followers?”

Check the number of followers, then watch as it increases by a hundred or so every time you reload the page. If you look at all these followers, they seem to have major trouble with spelling simple English words, have names that sometimes seem to be random assortments of syllables, and have no (or very few) followers themselves.

At the current rate, he’s adding about 10,000 followers every hour.

I thought that was interesting. So I looked at the account, and sure enough it’s full of bogus followers. People with bizarre names like Doubtful Horrendous and Landlocked Acrimony are ‘following’ Mitt. It’s laughable.

What’s funnier, if not nastier, is the African American presence in Mitt’s bogus account. Black women are young, foul-mouthed and incapable of spelling (see the previous post). If Team Romney thought that these were your typical black people, they’re overwrought. And they’re disastrously out of touch with reality. All you have to do is look into who these people additionally follow on Twitter, and it’s obvious these ‘fans’ are manufactured. They all follow the same four or five accounts. It’s a statistical impossibility. A poorly run scheme. A clumsy ruse.

But it gets better. The African American ‘men’ that follow Mitt Romney are especially bizarre. Whoever is running the scheme either has a sense of humor, or is unfamiliar with what’s a typical name for an American male. Perhaps Romney is outsourcing his scams as well. Would it surprise anyone? Let’s take Marybeth Owen, for instance.

She’s a simple girl from Ireland. With an aggressive pituitary tumor. She follows Mitt.










As does Heloise. She likes Mittens.









islandbowy22, or Emilee, does as well.









Apparently, scores of America’s sexiest momen love Mitt Romney.

It’s true! Look:

Continue Reading »

Mitt Romney is a liar. That’s what we’ve learned this presidential election. Mitt will say anything. Mitt will do anything. The man has no conscience.

That’s politics, you might think. But the bullshit’s gotten a little extreme, don’t you think? Accusing Obama of apologizing for America, that’s pretty bad. Charging the president with outsourcing jobs, preposterous. Saying the Affordable Care Act will worsen the debt, an outright falsehood. It’s all in a day’s work for Romney.

But how about this? Mitt Romney’s Twitter account is bogus. I was reading Charles Johnson’s site this morning when I came across this post: Is Mitt Romney Buying Twitter Followers?

Check the number of followers, then watch as it increases by a hundred or so every time you reload the page. If you look at all these followers, they seem to have major trouble with spelling simple English words, have names that sometimes seem to be random assortments of syllables, and have no (or very few) followers themselves.

At the current rate, he’s adding about 10,000 followers every hour.

Charles is right, it’s made up. We’ve seen this before – Newt Gingrich bought his account. His fragile ego couldn’t stand having less than a million followers, so he made a few hundred thousand up.

I guess Mitt’s got the same problem. Team Romney are pouring thousands of bogus followers into the candidate’s account. How can you tell? You check who Mitt’s ‘followers’ are following. You’d need a far more sophisticated program than the Romney people are capable of producing or buying to generate a web of followers that aren’t laughably synthesized. The names aren’t even plausible. They’re barely English. Covalent Purposive, Automat Souffle, Shaven Colloidal, Sediment Corroborate, Niagra Influent, Anaheim Sandman, Fifteen Alfresco, Declaim Deluxe, Synoptic Servicemen, and Hardware Wheeze all follow the former governor. Yes, the Romney group are that stupid.

It gets worse. Mitt’s supposed followers are conspicuously young, black and foul-mouthed. The young women are especially free-wheeling and sassy. A sampling of 250 of Romney’s Twitter fans will get you about 10 ‘fuck’s and 7 ‘nigga’s in followers’ self-descriptions. An equivalent sampling of Obama’s followers will get you maybe one of each. We are to believe that the people who need to read Romney’s Twitter feed are 10 times more ‘urban’ than Obama’s.

It’s too obvious what’s going on. Mitt Romney is a big hit with African Americans. This must be the case as those folk, you may well know, struggle with talking, typing or tweeting in sentences. This is patently insulting and hilarious good news for the Republican. One hundred ‘ethnic’ followers later, I have yet to find one that doesn’t appear to be manufactured. For your perusal, a few of Mittens’ fans:

Note the other Twitter accounts ‘Ginevra’ is following:

Look up a second young woman, and a pattern emerges.

The charade goes on and on . .

Continue Reading »

Mitt Romney, The Candidate Who Wasn’t There, defied conventional wisdom and common sense — beggared belief, really, given his dislike for African Americans — and appeared yesterday before the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. What he thought he might get out of this is anyone’s silly guess. Given the two centuries where NAACP members’ forebears were charged with keeping entire plantations up and running without electricity, or money, or human dignity or the least of respect, maybe he figured they’d take some pity upon him and overhaul the Romneybot 2.0 clusterfuck. By the looks of their faces, he was betting they could do it in their sleep.

This was a good move: telling the assembled he’d destroy Obamacare.

I can’t remember a presidential candidate getting booed for 15 seconds by a well-dressed, respectable crowd. So congratulations, Governor, you’ve produced your first perhaps historic moment in this election.

Why try this? It makes no sense. Unless, of course, he’s some sort of ass with an ulterior motive.

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday suggested that that the 103rd convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had booed GOP hopeful Mitt Romney just because he was a white man.

This is yer discourse. Rush was happy to reward the gambit. Slowly rolling Limbaugh aside, we see white people you may know have actually spoken to the NAACP before. The venerated civil rights organization ain’t exactly the Ku Klux Klan. President Clinton has addressed them many times, but they never firebombed his house.

“So Romney takes advantage of the occasion. He goes there and makes a speech that is really, I think, is over these people’s heads, in the sense that his audience was much larger than just inside the conventional hall.”

The Dittoheads get that going ‘big’ and ‘smart’ are the same thing. Which is to say the Kardashians’ pockets are cramped with Nobel Prizes because they can’t climb stairs or eat with utensils. If there were any more millions of people enthralled with the K-clan’s doings, the bunch would grow those pulsating Star Trek samovar brains and project videos of drunken sex directly into your cortex. Lucky, lucky. It is amusing that a guy named ‘Rusty’ who got as far as high school figures the NAACP for stupid. Which brings us back to Willard, just a few hours later. Mittens ain’t really dumb:

“When I mentioned I am going to get rid of Obamacare they weren’t happy, I didn’t get the same response. That’s ok, I want people to know what I stand for and if I don’t stand for what they want, go vote for someone else, that’s just fine. But I hope people understand this, your friends who like Obamacare, you remind them of this, if they want more stuff from government tell them to go vote for the other guy-more free stuff.”

This is post-modern politics, wingnut style. When you’ve got a problem with a particular constituency, you don’t play straight with them. No, you use them. Like this: Gee I tried to be nice, you all saw it. But just screw those civil rights people. They’re a bunch of dumb ole’ racists looking for government cheese.

After a routinely-fired shitnozzle launched a lucrative enterprise by provoking an unarmed Negro to kick his Pillsbury ass, shooting the teen point blank and then jacking internet dollars from fantasy teamers too cowardly to do the same, a post-modern legal quandary did arise.

How should a stodgy justice system dictate to web entrepreneurs? A man with a vision and a business model is hardly a criminal. He’s just a job creator. And knowing full-well the online sympathy market for nigger-shooters is hardly a reason to arrest him. These people, alive and dead, pose no threat to polite society. So what does it matter how the Zimmermans run their business? There’s no compelling interest for courts to bother with a company’s liquidity.

Prosecutors say the Zimmermans used a rudimentary “code” to discuss the money in recorded jailhouse phone calls — referring to $100,000, for example, as “$100.” At least two of the calls, the state alleges, were made while Shellie Zimmerman and her husband’s sister were at a local credit union making the transactions.

Zimmerman told his wife to “pay off all the bills” with the money, prosecutors said, including an American Express card and a Sam’s Club card. He also instructed her on how to pay his bail.

According to the affidavit, after her husband was released on bond days after the hearing, she transferred more than $85,000 back into his account.

Shellie was supposed to tell them about George’s hundreds of thousands worth of racist donations, but she lied. Understandably, freedom. So they arrested her for perjury. For a time, the Bill Gates and Paul Allen of hip-hop mud-duck target shooting for-reals LLC, a spontaneous venture, were imprisoned yards from each other. The exercise quad and the stoolies pen, to name but two.

Maybe this piece that Mark Steyn wrote for National Review got away from him. But maybe not. Maybe Mark feels the President is ‘The Other.’ You know: The N*gger President.

It starts off snotty and contemptuous (even for Steyn). Taking for granted the President is a dog-eater, it goes:

Cuisines from My Stepfather
By Mark Steyn

A couple of days ago, Obama-campaign top dog David Axelrod threw in the towel on the dog war. “I thought it was a little absurd to talk about what the president had done as a ten-year-old boy,” he sniffed to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell . .

Employing the lighthearted elan of asshole, Steyn plays coy with his Obama disgust. He lightens his piece with dog breeds and canine metaphors. It’s all so cute, all for larrffs, woof. But it’s obnoxious for getting wound up in spite of the truth: Barack was a boy. Good lord, Mark. But Steyn’s getting paid, so:

Confronted by the revelation that his preferred candidate only swings by the Humane Society for the all-you-can-eat buffet, [Jeremy Funk] huffs that this is “false equivalence.” “A six-year-old with no choice in the matter” is not the same as a grown man choosing to place his dog on the roof of his vehicle. My Canadian compatriot Kate McMillan, a dog breeder, advised Mr. Funk to “try this experiment–sit a normal, American 6 year old down at a plate and tell him it’s dog meat. Watch what happens.”

See? The guy’s not normal. There’s something . . wrong.

Meanwhile, back in the female-friendly party, Obama’s father was a polygamist; his grandfather was a polygamist; and his great-grandfather was a polygamist who had one more wife (five in total) than Romney’s great-grandfather. It seems President Obama is the first male in his line not to be a polygamist. So, given the “gender gap,” maybe those 86 percent of American women are way cooler with polygamy than Governor Schweitzer thinks. Maybe these liberal chicks really dig it.

This Barack is the first non-polygamist in his family for maybe thousands of years. And if you think that rehabilitates him, watch him eat your pets. See?

But comedy aside, let’s get to the matter, friends. This is where Mark really begins:

This is nothing to do with young Barack being six or ten years old and meekly eating whatever was put in front of him. He was 34 years old when he wrote the passage quoted above and ten years older when he recorded the audio edition. And, as both versions make plain, he thinks it’s kinda cool, and he knows that to the average upscale white liberal it has the electric frisson of the exotic other.

This is where differences matter. He’s used otherness to thrill the white liberal voter. And that’s how America ended up with a n*gger president. Good golly. Look at what it’s done to the country:

Obama is correct that certain cultures believe a man takes on the powers of whatever he eats. In Liberia, where presidential contests are somewhat more primal than in this effete republic, Samuel Doe was captured by some of his eventual successor’s, ah, campaign staff, who cut off President Doe’s ears and then fed them to him. They then removed His Excellency’s genitals and wound up in a fight over who should get them, believing that the still not quite yet late president’s powers would be transferred to whoever got to chow down on the crown jewels. I’m not suggesting that President Obama has eaten a human penis, because, if he had, he’d almost certainly have boasted about it to the impressionable NPR ninnies who gobbled up his memoirs. But I am suggesting that Mitt Romney might like to consider it for next year’s Inauguration Day.

Cannibalism, etc. Africa as well. Liberals have opened wide the barn doors of America. We might vote for a shit-eating pig, or a crow with a gizzard full of road kill. When candidate Obama mentioned his fierce tribalism, we swooned over what good white Southern gentility and grace fought for years. We’ve forgotten there are uncivilized forces that intrude upon politics. Cock sushi, for one.

. . any revulsion to dog-eating is trumped by revulsion to criticizing any of the rich, vibrant cultural diversity out there in Indonesia or anywhere else. Most polygamy in the developed world is nothing to do with Mormons: It’s widely practiced by Western Muslims, whose plural marriages . .

You get the drift.

. . 57 percent of Pakistani Britons are married to their first cousins, with attendant increases in their children’s congenital birth defects. Bur the comics save their inbreeding jokes for stump-toothed West Virginians enjoying a jigger of moonshine and a bunk-up with their sisters . .

And you get the drift.

. . Ayatollah Khomeini produced a hierarchy of “the uncleans”: Dogs are at Number Six, Infidels are at Number Eight, and Number Eleven is “the sweat of an unlawful ejaculation.” In the liberal hierarchy, conservative infidels are at Number One, dogs are somewhere between Eight and Eleven, and the sweat of an unlawful ejaculation isn’t on the list . .

It all goes back to Obama. See what dog-eating has done?