Marc and Marx Prove Tea Party Racism

Well, it happened. Someone finally showed “proof” that the entire Tea Party is racist.

Last night on O’Reilly’s show, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill presented clear and simple facts to Bill that show the Tea Party as a whole has a racist agenda.

The various racist signs were shown, along with those thought to be racially motivated—but let’s just assume they are blatantly racist—and the tally comes in at about a dozen signs per the thousands at every event.

A normal Tea Party event with thousands of signs (We'll be nice here and give it a nice round number later) has a handful of questionable signs: the big-tooth, big-ear Obama, the "Why so Socialist?" Joker dig, and other other things thought basic insults when done about previous presidents. Then you do have the occasional N-bomb, monkey business, and other nasty signs. It's true. It takes about 20 cameras and 40 PI plants to find them, but they are there. Events of thousands produce around a dozen. Always.

So...

12/1,200 = 1%. That’s math – true science. But more on the latter later; right now, find peace in the fact that an educated man such as Dr. Hill and others basking in the glow of their own self worth see fit to call a miniscule percentage—and I’m being kind with the 1%—mainstream and not simply the fringe.

Per Hill’s reasoning, being, don’t forget, a supposedly well educated professor at a prestigious school, the “fringe” doesn’t show up to multiple events. The “fringe” becomes the actual movement if it does.

1% tops of all signs depicting racism means Tea Partiers, by and large, are racially motivated.

So, that means the 1% of signs at anti-war protests making threats of “Kill Bush!” make the entire anti-war movement criminal.

No? Well, why not? Oh, common sense rules all, you say? Not so fast. We haven’t got into the “social science” yet.

Hill cited a study conducted by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality. Okay. So it’s a survey—polling!—and not actually a legitimate study. Never mind that. Christopher Parker, who directed the study, did flesh it out and give postulation some purple prose to stand on.

According to this study, which isn’t really breaking news and has been out a while, Tea Party members have a “higher probability” of being racially resentful; they’re also supposedly all-around more racially motivated than other whites. “Whites” being the key “race” here, but more on that later.

First, what is social science? Well, it’s not science like most people know science. Social science is more of a philosophical approach to the sciences, using some strange techniques to create data where data is needed, and it works in one major way above all else: the Y is adjusted to fit the X.

Social science was brought along by individuals like Karl Marx.

Christopher Parker is a professor of social justice.

What do these things matter in terms of “science”?

How much “science” does anyone think is involved with a system crafted by Marx and employed by a social justice advocate? And not to bash on social justice, but that’s already a biased cause. That’s like asking the oil industry to assess its own safety rating on an oil rig. Oops.

Social justice, in the context of American society, already assumes all whites are advantaged compared to all minorities, and that wealth need be redistributed and that the economy need be taken over to level the playing field.

So, what was the “science” behind the study?

People were read statements like this, for example: “If blacks would only try harder, they could be as well off as whites.”

Your choices: agree or disagree. 73% of Tea Partiers read this statement agreed, thus they’re branded racists.

But that’s not a standalone statement—question—in this “scientific” study. (Okay, it’s a crooked poll aimed to trick people by asking questions Frank Luntz could ask way better. But let’s not quibble.)

Every question and statement was geared toward white vs. minority. The idea being, supposedly, to find out if a Tea Party already suspected of racism was really racist.

So, here’s my question: If you want to be truly impartial and at least attempt to make a Marx method ring true as science, then why not ask flat questions. How’s this – “Do you think all races are equal?” Or how about, “Can people achieve equally regardless of their race?”

Then, if they’re racists, they’ll answer accordingly.

Instead, however, the platform was set with questions making minorities appear the victim by singling them out specifically, and then presenting carefully worded statements about “blacks trying harder,” giving individuals with an already planted image of a struggling minority a choice on whether they agree or disagree.

Sorry. This is not science. This is not even close to science. Someone telling me otherwise better be ready to get dizzy from all the spin.

And not to bash Hill and Parker and these other individuals who have made their way in the world by being advocates for America’s supposedly oppressed, but there is absolutely nothing scientific about the way they approach social sciences. There isn’t. And if we weren’t so afraid to be politically incorrect in America, we would call this crap exactly what it is – glorified pollster spinning.

That’s all it is.

Anyone can do it. I’ll tell you how.

Start out with an agenda, first and foremost. Devise questions and statements that suit your agenda. Target a specific group of people and claim they’re a fair sampling of the whole. Ask your questions in a way which no answer is wrong (read: right). Compile the numbers afterward to mean whatever you want them to mean.

For example: I’ll ask you, “If blacks worked harder, could they be as well off as whites?”

Now, as the questioner and you the questioned, you’re assuming that I’m asserting blacks aren’t as well off as whites. Why? Because I am.

But if you answer yes, I will say you have racial leanings and think blacks aren’t as well off as whites. If you say no, I will say you have racial leanings and that you think blacks can’t be as well off as whites.

Yeah. It’s real “science” we’re dealing with here. Sarcasm alert!

Social sciences matter only in circles where empathy is so strong that logic superseding postulation and speculation actually seems cruel. It’s garbage, pure and simple. Al Gore’s science is really two grades above these “social” methods. And that’s saying a lot.

Is the Tea Party racist? If so, you wouldn’t think they would need to be coaxed into it. You wouldn’t think 1% would need to become the majority.

Funny how these “social” things work in America. No wonder most Americans—“most” meaning more than 1%!—don’t want anything “social” around us. We know it means bad news and more placating junk for empathetic purposes.

Get off his Back, Nuts

I might be a Boston Celtics fans and despise LeBron James on multiple levels, but this uberheartbreak going on over his departure from Cleveland is just pitiful.

On one hand, it’s easy to understand that the Cleveland faithful are upset. Who wouldn’t be?

But on the other hand, relying on James like a father is just pitiful.

One of the biggest criticisms I’m hearing is that James’ decision will cause businesses in and around Cleveland to shut down.

People who went into business for “themselves” put their eggs in James’ basket. In simple English, they rode his coattails to earn a living.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with that. But if your business is to rely on someone else, then you don’t have a business. You have a dependency. Your career is based on another career’s success, and will only be as good as the person you’re relying on to make it thrive.

On that level, how in the hell is it someone else’s responsibility to do what you want them to do so that your business—modeled to capitalize on their fame—stays afloat?

In all honesty, you might as well be on the government tit. You’re relying on someone either way.

It’s starting to remind me of how thousands upon thousands of people around Flint and Detroit and other areas of Michigan cried like babies and gave up because auto manufacturing plants started leaving. Granted, not all did. But enough moped and finger pointed and outright let their spirits die that it became then and still is a disturbing trend in that highly-government-subsidized area.

Rather than exploring their own free market sense and seeking to break through with innovation, they hung their heads, blamed the companies for leaving, and fell deeper and deeper into crime and poverty and are now part of a shameful place in America.

Ask Moore and it’s that dirty capitalism. Ask me and it’s simply not the responsibility of someone else to ensure you make a living – pure and simple. If you want that, again, just get on the government’s (read: mine and every other taxpayers’) tit.

What’s with the lack of innovation, lack of motivation and an unwillingness to find self reliance in the world? I can perfectly understand LeBron James’ presence becoming a person’s meal ticket. But why is he your only meal ticket?

If James failed to perform, your business would have suffered. And if Cleveland would have traded him—which, inevitably they would have had he dropped off—then your business would be bust.

If you want to bust the guy’s chops over being a coward, turncoat, phony, overhyped piece of shit who doesn’t hold a candle to Michael Jordan, then that’s fair. But blaming him for lost livelihoods is the true cowardly way to approach life.

Good Idea or More Evil White Racism?

Jan Brewer will undoubtedly go down in the liberal hall of shame as one of the most racially charged politicians of the modern era.
But to people not on the reactionary left, her decisions have been well worth examination to see where we stand as a country.

Do you follow the letter of the law or do you immediately see racial profiling? Should America enforce its immigration laws despite the fact that most illegal immigrants south of the border happen to be minorities in America? Do you feel we should give lawbreakers a permanent reprieve… because they’re minorities, maybe?

A host of questions come to the surface that we have not addressed as a county. We’re cowards, by and large, with most in America more than willing to stand down from their decent reasoning whenever a minority is upset.

This is how special interest has crept in – we let it. This is why mainstream media kowtows with an upset minority but puts the majority of their hit list. This is why a country like America is an oddity, wherein we allow anti-Americanism to be taught freely to children, where separating children and teaching them they’re different is somehow warped to wishful thinking of togetherness.

We’re too fucking scared to speak out and say that teaching children that America is occupied Mexico and that white people are the enemy and that minorities will always be treated as second-class is NOT how to bring about change in American attitudes.

We’re absolutely petrified that a group of minorities will be told to be offended and subsequently paint the rest of us as racists. So we hide our heads in the sand while millions of American children are taught that they’re not only different, but that they’ll never be considered worthy.

We ignore revisionist history being taught. We look the other way while 66% of this country is branded as bigots, while we’re held responsible for the actions of our ancestors.

We pretend it’s not even happening when failed revolutionists from a previous generation indoctrinate our children and feed them selected, outdated garbage so that they might finish the job they never even started.

Personally, I’m glad that someone’s out there putting their foot down when it comes to teaching children that they’re different – that they’re entitled. I’m ecstatic that Arizona wants to stand against teaching children that Americans are land thieves living in what should be their country.

How long will we continue to do this in America? How many individuals need to be thrown into groups and have their own version of truth taught to them before we realize it’s the single-most divisive thing we do in America?

What’s the difference in a crazy old southerner teaching his children that black people aren’t really people and an ideologue school teacher telling children their enemy wears a white face and waves a liars flag over stolen land?

Race be damned, we’re not even raising men and women in America these days. We’re raising cowards and sissies. One side yelling that they’re owed and the other side placating so the screaming stops.

I’m not entirely sure I agree with Arizona 100%. I have to look into it more. But I’m certainly thrilled that someone’s finally standing against this ironically accepted teaching of anti-Americanism and racism.

Agreeing for Different Reasons

The more I watch hardcore, unapologetic ideologues in media, the more I’m convinced that any schmuck can make it in America if they’re selling something another person wants.

A lot of people want President Obama’s head on a platter. To that end, habitual foot-in-mouth hacks like Monica Crowley find themselves more popular than ever for illogically bashing the opposition.

On Bill O’Reilly’s “Barack in a Hard Place” segment, Monica Crowley, uberconservative, and Alan Colmes, Ayers’ more radical twin brother, duke it out continuously over who’s right – Republicans or Democrats.

Colmes, of course, uses liberal logic to make points too dull to stab butter. Crowley, in her brilliance, always manages to find negativity in a rainbow.

Last night’s segment was especially difficult to watch. As Crowley wailed on about how naming our enemy instead of being “PC” is important, O’Reilly chimed in to ask why. But instead of saying anything of value, Crowley dropped the ball by claiming that a failure to call radical Islam radical Islam is hindering our war efforts and affecting the way we approach terror. (Maybe “they,” but not “we.”)

I wholeheartedly agree with her on one part: We should call our enemies exactly what they are! But if you don’t know the reason why, then you shouldn’t bother opening your mouth. Smearing the President for the sake of smearing is counterproductive. I’ll smear Obama and company over their PC attitude and renaming of terror and terrorists as not to offend, but I actually know why it’s important to lose this PC crap.

Monica, listen up. We call terrorists out and name names because we’re Americans. The United States of America does not cower to threats. We do not slip silently under our desks and pretend true evil isn’t always prevalent in every corner of the world. We do not placate those meaning us harm, those looking to tear down our freedom and devastate our will. We do not avoid truth for the sake of empathy and the benefit of the easily offended.

Americans let the enemy know that we know exactly who they are, where they are, why it is they mean us harm, and even exactly how we aim to stop it – with deadly force whenever necessary.

We, as Americans, spit in the face of all terrorists and are not timid about calling attention to any religion, race, creed or culture if the enemy fights under that flag. Radical Islamic mujahideen are out there in numbers and trying to annihilate our way of life. We stand tall, look them in the eye, and let them know we’re coming. To do that, we say exactly what it is we’re after and why. America doesn’t pussyfoot around.

We do this not for political or strategic advantage, but because it is the true essence of the American spirit – fearless perseverance in the face of adversity. We’ll leap unimaginable hurdles to make our way up any mountain.

I am positive that President Barack Obama does not feel this way at all. Neither do his minions and fellow progressive toolboxes feel as if America should somehow “inflame” an enemy by standing our ground. And evidentially, some disagreeing with an Obama-like stance on terror are also missing the point. They’re in opposition exclusively to be in opposition.

Get a clue. The Tea Party isn’t planting bombs. Christians aren’t killing non-believers. Folks opposed to healthcare and illegal immigration aren’t committing terrorist acts. And for the Crowley types, it’s not just good enough to mention the ridiculousness of placating evil. You have to know why, or else your Kool-Aid is just as tasty as theirs.

Oh, For Fuck’s Sake!

So, because Democrats may lose seats for pursuing other unpopular measures, they’ve decided to not even take on problems from here to the election results are in.

There’s no time for immigration issues. Instead, politicians need all available time to go around campaigning. What this means to anyone with a brain is, instead of risking losing power and money by actually solving problems in America, it’s more prudent to fly around on the taxpayer dime and feed voting blocs more bullshit about government-control being a godsend and all opposition being racist.

No, our elected officials—those fuckwits supposedly working in our employ—will no longer even pretend that they’re trying to do the right thing. They’re so comfortable now that they’ll outright admit that WORKING puts their reelection in jeopardy.

On this one, I’ll actually stick up for President Obama a bit. And it’s not because I feel he’s any different at all than previous presidents and current politicians. He certainly doesn’t want to lose any seats; he’s probably more than happy to ignore issues while infighting over existing policy keeps everyone polarized.

But since he’s not up for reelection, it’s not his fault that his fellow inept hacks in power are refusing to do what they were fucking elected to do. He just has to step out front and bear the brunt on this one, while trying to talk around it by saying ridiculous shit like, “I don't want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn't solve the problem." (Hypocrisy much?)

If Congress decided that they would also forfeit pay and stop spending taxpayer money until after the elections, then I’d view it as noble and sensible. But they won’t – and they will continue to live the life we provide.

Arizona is bearing the brunt of federal ridicule for acting in the feds’ prolonged absence, and even still, the federal government refuses to take on the issue.
Fine. I hope every border state does the exact same thing as Arizona. For all the freedom walkers and “racism” criers and folks fearing profiling, well, they’ll just have to complain. Because if the people SUPPOSED to find solutions are deciding that their individual livelihoods are more important than the citizens providing it, then what other possible choice do the states have? Honestly!?

Not only are these politicians refusing to help the American people in favor of illegal immigration reform, but they’re also refusing to help the American people feeling that Arizona’s measure isn’t right. They’re turning their backs on everyone in favor of themselves.

From the AP: “Democrats hold a 254-177 majority in the House, with four vacancies. But 48 are in districts where Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain did better than Obama in the 2008 elections.”

Enough said.

Anybody still in favor of voting for these cowardly fucks?

When all Else Fails, Create the Hate

I’m over being insulted for my suspected racism. I went from fighting mad to mildly insulted to now nonchalantly thumbing my chin at every accuser and rolling my eyes. I’m at the point where I don’t even feel like standing against real racism if folks are so willing to create it out of thin air. What’s the point?

Even still, I can’t help but strongly feel half the country is being completely duped with this idea of “social justice” the accusers are pressing for.

Just take a sound, impartial look at it.

With social justice, personal responsibility is never involved. All downtrodden are victims of circumstances beyond their control. It’s the fault of capitalism, racism, oppression, greed, whites, Republicans, and, without fail, it becomes society’s responsibility to correct for the victim.

But looking at it a little closer, it begins to get cloudy. After all, “progressive” is to progress – to go forward. And in order for people to want new scenery, something has to be wrong with the old view. Progress logically needs an enemy, or else the progress is pointless.

If you really, really wanted to bring about social justice, you would have to show that the enemy is growing and gaining ground. There would need to be a sense of urgency. If not, minor adjustments would speak as common sense to people and major overhauls would seem unnecessary.

This isn’t to say that folks advocating for social justice don’t honestly believe in the principle of one-world, one-class, one-race togetherness. But at the same time, anyone with such views would want their ideology pushed on people as soon as possible.

This brings up an important question for anyone willing to think outside of their box: Would such an ideologue use minorities to their advantage to stoke the fires of racial hate in order to instill a sense of urgency in the panicked, a genuine need for freedom from oppression?

In a few weeks, after the fire dies down from the Arizona law, all opposing Puerto Rico’s statehood will undoubtedly be called racists. And this is even considering Puerto Rico itself has denied it on many occasions and will be tricked into voting yes.

We’ll be cruel and bigoted greed-mongers looking to keep more brown people out from under our flag. Take it to the bank.

You’re already the enemy of progress for opposing Obama. A racist! Think that illegal immigration is a crime and that most emigrating from Mexico are Mexicans? Oh, you’ve done it now. You’re certainly the enemy, you damn, dirty racist! And what about standing against unions, government-controlled healthcare and finance and failed liberal policy? Shit, you might as well put a hood on.

Truthfully, I do not know the last time when an incident of true racism took place. The media has been so flooded with accounts of suspected racism that nothing else can get through.

And personally, I would think minorities would be more outraged at created racism than we who put up with being called racists at every turn. All that minorities struggled through, all they’re still struggling through, and the effort has been stolen from its rightful owners and is now used as a political rally-cry to bring about change. Not change that will enrich minorities, mind you, but change that will transfer class at the upper echelon, making government Wall Street and Wall Street obsolete and replace personal responsibility and freedom of choice with government intervention.

Through all the many years liberal Democrats and progressive advocates have been claiming to help, how much have they done? Is your house as nice as theirs? Can you afford the cars they drive, the food they eat? Most of the folks they call the enemy are in the same financial boat as the folks they call victims.
Yet, without fail, they claim everyone not sharing the ideology is the enemy and that the enemy is at the doorstep.

It may very well be. But it looks like the enemy is the one you’re about to let in the house and not the one you’re running off your property.

Really Reaganesque

I’m still hearing a lot of exaggerated rhetoric being spewed from the left side of the aisle about how President Obama’s vision turned legislation will have positive effects on the everyday person in America.

This big legislation is supposedly helping people find jobs, save money and live all-around better lives. This is the generalization of hope and change. To come, we’ll still have the real bits of socially just legislation to contend with.

Why is that a scary prospect? The legislation thus far is proving to be quite counterproductive for small businesses and the private sector in general. So using common sense, the problems will be magnified once the scope of government is magnified.

I’m not very fair with the man always. I admit. I believe he’s a social progressive whose sole intent is to nationalize the private sector and to have the federal government exercise more control over American lives.

For this view, I’ve been called everything from a racist and hatemonger to an ignorant moron who cannot see the good Obama and liberal Congress is doing due to blind contempt.

Okay. I’ll eat that. But, then, oh, ye brilliant one, explain to me how this healthcare legislation’s forcing small businesses to close shop is actually a good thing.

My mother lost her job due to immigrants taking lower wages way back in 1996. With a good education, she tried for over a year to land a decent job. But nothing was happening. Eventually, she swallowed her pride and went to Burger King.

She’s a manager now and has been for years, making decent money with decent insurance.

The owner of this Burger King franchise is the quintessential American entrepreneur. He bought into one successful restaurant and eventually opened three.

With his three stores, he employs hundreds of people, offers well above minimum wage, has good healthcare plans, pays a lot into unemployment so anyone laid off has a chance to stay on their feet, and is the proverbial fair boss.

Because of this new and supposedly economic-saving healthcare legislation, however, this proud business owner must pay $180,000 in new taxes. One-hundred-eighty-thousand!

So, fair and honorable as he may be, his hands are absolutely tied. He’s successful, making over Obama’s targeted number for higher taxes, but including overhead, he’s certainly not the fabled well-to-do fat-cat that liberals have been attacking for decades.

This business owner drives an American made car, has one house, and has been earning less and less money due to recession.

Now he has to close up one of his franchises due to the 180k fee, meaning over 60 employees will lose their jobs.

On the bright side, I guess, these employees, including my mother, will be accepted with open arms by His Highness into the subsidies pool, where they can suck mismanaged tax dollars from business owners instead of working for a living.

And before anyone gets it in their heads that, “oh, it’s only one store from one business owner,” ask yourself how many more just like this guy will have to lay off employees or completely close up shop due to much higher taxes.

Then, I guess, new legislation will arise for small business owners – they’ll receive their very own “high-risk” pool to swim in.

We’re going up the ladder, sucking more and more from the people with money. This is wealth redistribution personified.

So, if anyone knows about any poor people out there hiring and creating America’s jobs, please, let me know so I can give Burger King’s employees a heads up. They’re going to need it.