The Conservative Papers » IOC

Democrats Employ Race-Baiting for Political Gain

kalel — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:54:24 +0000

Pitching Chicago for the 2016 Summer Olympics, President Obama promised that visitors from around the world would “come away with a sense of the incredible diversity of the American people.”

Obama referred to his own election as a moment when people gathered in Chicago to see the results and celebrate that “our diversity could be a source of strength.”

Obama’s emphasis on diversity is a central theme of the Democratic Party. But rather than encouraging acceptance of all races regardless of skin color, the emphasis on race actually undercuts the goal of a color blind society, setting back the cause of civil rights.

Real diversity is a good thing — diversity of opinion, of culture, of country, of origin. But promoting race as a symbol of diversity suggests that the color of one’s skin has some kind of significance.

It is akin to referring to an acquaintance as black when race has no relevance to the conversation. It is the same as referring to an individual as Jewish in a context where religion is irrelevant.

In making such a gratuitous reference, the speaker suggests that the individual is of a different class, promoting rather than discouraging prejudice.

“Obama and the Democrats know full well what they are doing when they use ‘diversity’ rhetoric,” Frances Rice, chairman of the National Black Republican Association, tells me. ”The Democratic Party consistently uses race-baiting for partisan political gain,” says Rice, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and lawyer. “The Democrats’ goal is to keep blacks dependent on government handouts and encourage them to see themselves as victims.”

In fact, Rice says, Republicans have done the most to help blacks.

“The socialist policies of the Democrats have turned black communities into economic and social wastelands,” she says.

Rice points out that it was Republicans who pushed through much of the groundbreaking civil rights legislation in Congress, while Southern Democrats fought it. She says most blacks are not aware that from its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, the Republican Party has been at the “forefront of the struggle for civil rights, which is why Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican.”

Republicans fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote, she notes.

“It was the Democrat public safety commissioner, Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor, in Birmingham who let loose vicious dogs and turned the fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators,” Rice says.

Democrat Georgia Gov. Lester Maddox “brandished an ax handle to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant,” Rice adds. “Democrat Alabama Gov. George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama school house in 1963 and declared that there would be segregation forever. In 1954, it was Democrat Arkansas Gov. Orville Faubus who tried to prevent the desegregation of Little Rock public schools. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who sent the troops into the South to desegregate the schools and who appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown versus Board of Education decision.”

Now, she says, Republicans stand for empowering blacks to help those who are in poverty. The Republican philosophy is to teach a person how to fish, so he can feed himself for a lifetime, whereas the Democratic Party’s philosophy is “give a man a fish, so he can eat for a day,” Rice says.

That is the reason Condoleezza Rice switched from being a Democrat to being a Republican, she observes.

Watching the 1984 Democratic National Convention that nominated Walter Mondale for president, Condoleezza Rice became turned off by an endless refrain of appeals to “women, minorities, and the poor, which basically means helpless people and the poor,” she has said. She did not see herself as a victim in need of government help. She decided that she would “rather be ignored than patronized” and became a Republican.

“Victim-mongering is a key part of the Democratic Party’s play book,” Rice says. “That is why Obama felt quite comfortable playing the race card when seeking to attract the Olympics to Chicago.”Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

The Disingenuousness of Leftist Claims About the Olympics

kalel — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 06:26:18 +0000

Posted by Erick Erickson

The Democrats are in full push back against conservatives who cheered Barack Obama’s defeat at the hands of the International Olympic Committee.

During the Bush era, Republicans from Karl Rove to Joe Wilson questioned — in ways both veiled and overt — the patriotism of Democrats who challenged the administration’s Iraq policy, pre-war intelligence and surveillance programs.

But the joyous reaction in some GOP quarters to the International Olympics Committee’s snub of Chicago — coupled with the party’s rapid-fire reaction to bad economic data – has some Democrats turning the tables and asking if Republicans are the ones cheering against America now.

At the 4:30 mark in this video, you can hear Texas Democrat candidate John Sharp, running for the Senate, attack RedState for cheering Obama’s defeat.

This is the most bogus crap I’ve ever witnessed. Leave it to a sympathetic media to egg it on.

For eight years we have witnessed the left cheer every defeat in war, say “screw them” about America deaths in Iraq, have elected Congressmen declare our soldiers war criminals, have an elected United States Senator compare our soldiers to Nazis, and now have the Chairman of the Democratic Party encouraging Virginia to deny our soldiers the right to vote and the President of the United States begin a systematic effort to undermine our successes in Afghanistan after embarking on a seven month long world tour to apologize for America.

That the left would call conservatives unpatriotic and un-American for cheering Obama’s defeat at the IOC means they have a bastardized idea of what patriotism means and does nothing to wash the blood of our nation’s freedoms and soldiers off their hands.

I love America, therefore I must cheer this Obama defeat — and it was an Obama defeat.

Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Obama Has Lost A Valuable Thing

kalel — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 05:36:02 +0000

Posted by Dan McLaughlin

So, Chicago was eliminated in the first round of bidding for the 2016 Summer Olympics, despite (I assume despite) President Obama’s personal lobbying for the Games.

Now, as a New Yorker, I really would not want the Olympics anywhere near my city, and the Olympics don’t exactly have a grand history of making money for the host city (ask Montreal) or necessarily good press (ask Munich), but I take at face value for the moment that Chicagoans really wanted this one and felt it would be good for the city. Certainly great effort and expense was put into the bid, and many hopes seemed to be riding on it.

I’d questioned Obama’s priorities in making the trip, but now he has a much bigger problem. It’s one thing for the President to make a phone call or two to lend a subtle hand to this sort of effort; that would have been fine with me. But by the President and First Lady both making personal appearances and elevating this to the top news story of the day and a test of personal and national prestige, Obama stood a significant chance of being humiliated, and doing so for what is hard to describe as a critical national interest. Most of us on the Right assumed, whatever we thought of the trip, that Obama would never be fool enough to make it if he didn’t already have deals done to get this in the bag for Chicago. Apparently, we overestimated him.

This is why you don’t publicly stake your prestige on something that’s not (1) hugely important (2) a done deal or (3) ideally, both. All presidents suffer defeats and embarrassments, but you generally don’t walk right into one on an issue of purely local importance to your home city. Obama’s and the nation’s standing in the world can’t help but be chipped away by this; the next time he goes jetting off to a summit or some other international event, people won’t be so quick to assume that he has all figured out in advance how he’s going to get what he wants. That aura, that mystique is a thing of value that the President is supposed to husband carefully for when the nation really needs it. Bush was impotent by the end of his presidency because he’d burned that up, but he had it for the better part of five years. Obama’s losing it already.

What a waste.Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Did Michelle Obama lie to the IOC?

alpineski — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:34:42 +0000

During her presentation Michelle Obama claimed
that some of her fondest memories were sitting on
her Dad’s lap watching Carl Lewis in the Olympics…

Uh… Michelle… you were 20 years old!

http://tinyurl.com/yas8gnq

Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)