Wednesday, June 08, 2005


Justice Janice Rogers-Brown (l) and Michael Jackson (r)

It never seems to take long in a political debate before it pops up: it's the race card. No matter what the issue, radical liberals eventually get around to accusing their opponent of racism. This week this wild card surfaced again in three different cases. But what makes it so outrageous is the instances in which they arose.

First, Janice Rogers-Brown was finally confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today (June 8) with a 56-43 vote in the Senate[1]; but not before she was attacked by liberals for, get this, racism. The NAACP accused Rogers-Brown, in a fax sent to Senators prior to the vote, of being "hostile to Civil Rights".[1] The irony of this statement is realized when you note that Janice Rogers-Brown is a black woman.

The second instance is the Michael Jackson molestation trial. Observers are complaining that there are no African-Americans on the jury, but these jurors were approved by Jackson's lawyers.[3] Why aren't they complaining? It seems to me that if there's any racism here, it's Jackson himself who has something against negros, since he turned himself into a white man in the late 1980's. Of course I'm being facecious, but you get the picture.

In the third instance, DNC Chairman Howard Dean jumped back into the limelight Monday (June 6) and stuck his foot in his mouth once again. This time, he said, "You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same.... It's pretty much a white Christian party."[4] He reiterated the sentiment on NBC's Today Show; that the Republican party is "a largely-white Christian party" and that "they don't include other folks."[5]

Okay, let's take a look at the facts. Dean makes these absurd and inflammatory allegations despite the fact that Ken Mehlman, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, no less, is a practicing Jew.[2] Remember Miguel Estrada, the the Hispanic-Republican nominee who was filibustered by the so-inclusive Democrats? And don't forget high-ranking Republicans Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, and the aforementioned Janice Rogers-Brown, who all happen to be African-Americans.

"I'm living proof that the (GOP) isn't what Howard Dean is trying to describe," Simi Valley Councilman Glenn Becerra told the San Francisco Chronicle during a telephone interview. "It's a sad day when Democrats don't have any ideas to put forward and they have to resort to race politics. President Bush didn't get 40 percent of the Hispanic vote (in 2004) because we're a monolithic, white Christian party."[4]

Maybe Howard Dean isn't really upset about the Republican's exclusiveness, but rather the fact that the public are starting to see through the Democratic Party's perpetual lie that they are the Party of the minorities, by the minorities, and for the minorities. Because more and more it's being exposed that the Democratic leadership does not speak exclusively for American minorities. Why do liberals make these absurd allegations when they're the ones that are attacking the minorities? Why do liberals accuse Conservatives of being racist when they're the ones that promote racism disguised as "Affirmative Action"? Maybe it's because they're the ones that are prejudiced.

What about Michael Jackson? A rich, successful black man who bleached himself white and has been labeled by the world to be the "King of Pop" is being persecuted because of his race? Maybe he's on trial because he's publicly admitted to suspicious behavior that indicates a proclivity toward the crime of which he's accused. Maybe it's because the evidence points to reasonable suspicion that he may be guilty. And maybe this case has nothing to do with race, but is, in fact, about justice. There is absolutely no evidence that there is any bias in the trial against Michael Jackson because of his race. If there was, then I'm sure his lawyers would have objected immediately. Why do liberals trump the race card when there's absolutely no evidence of racism? Maybe it's because they're the real racists, trying to incite racial warfare.

And what about Janice Rogers-Brown? A black woman who is racist against blacks? As Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Ut) said today, these allegations are "irresponsible rhetoric" which is "unfair... uncharitable... [and] without any real foundation."[1] Rogers-Brown may be opposed by the liberal NAACP, but she has been heartily endorsed by the Congress of Racial Equality, an African-American organization dedicated to Civil Rights.[1] If there's any bias here it's these Senators' liberal prejudice against Conservative Christians. That's the true common thread among the filibustered nominees, whether they're black, white, latino, or Martian. And maybe that's what this filibuster is really about. Because that's where the evidence points.

The allegation that Republicans are against minorities is absurd; the notion that Michael Jackson is being persecuted because he's black is insane; and the idea that Janice Rogers-Brown, a black woman, is prejudiced against black people, is just plain retarded. I guess common sense is often elusive when you're dealing with liberal activists, especially ones who don't want to be burdened with the facts. But that won't stop independent-thinking voters from seeing through their rhetoric and holding them accountable for their racist lies.


[1] "Special Report" w/ Brit Hume", Major Garrett reporting, FOX News Channel, Wed 06/08/05, 6 pm EST
[2] ibid., Brian Wilson reporting, FOX News Channel, Wed 06/08/05, 6 pm EST
[3] "On the Record" w/ Greta Van Susteren; commentary by Ted Williams & Jeff Brown, Criminal Defense Attorneys, FOX News Channel, Wed 06/08/05, 10 pm EST
[4] San Francisco Chronicle, "Dean: The mouth that won't stop roaring
Even some Democrats weary of blunt talk", Carla Marinucci, 06/08/05,
[5] "The Today Show", NBC, 06/08/05


Post a Comment

<< Home