Riley Cooper is still in trouble for shouting the "N-word", once, at a bunch of African Americans who were vocally harassing him.
The sports outlets seem to be doing their best to make a Federal case out of this, going around asking African American athletes what they think about Riley Cooper. Apparently using the word once, to a bunch of guys harassing him, means he's a died in the wool racist who thinks that all blacks are inferior and need to be driven off the planet.
It's just ridiculous!
Surely any white kid who has been in a football program in college any time in the last 30 years has been surrounded by 80% black players. As we know from Rap and stand up comedians, blacks call themselves the N word all the time, both common place and as an insult.
Is it too much to think that someone like Cooper who probably spent 4 years in college heard all this going on, was friends with his teammates, and the word just slipped out when he was angry?
Is using that word a single time - not going up to two blacks in a restaurant calming eating their food, for example, and calling them the "n-word' but rather using it towards a bunch of guys who were *harassing him* even if only verbally - does he deserve to have to grovel and apologize and go to "counseling" before his teammates accept him back?
Over on the Hannity message forums, there's a thread about some white college kid who wanted to start a Whites Only group on campus - which he was doing in response to the fact that there's a Black's Only student's group on Campus, and a Latino Only student group on campus. So if they can be exclusive and restrictive, why can't he have a White's Only group? But of course there was an uproar because *that* would be racist.
And someone on the Hannity boards, who *agreed* with that view, said "whites are under attack" in a joking manner. Since he apparently believes that it is only minorities who are under attack, and the whites that have all the power.
But really, do we? If we did, then Riley Cooper wouldn't be twisting in the wind right now because he used the "n-word" once to a bunch of guys who were harassing him. Michael Roberts' career wouldn't be over because of his -admittedly tasteless - lynching joke to a black heckler. Brian Griese wouldn't have been suspended for a week because in calling a college football game, he dared to suggest that a Latino player might be hiding somewhere eating a taco. (If he'd said it had been a hotdog, probably there would have been no repercussions. But to dare to say that a Latino player might actually be eating a Latino piece of food - racist!)
Yet Charlie Rangel can call the Tea Party a bunch of white "crackers" and there's no need for him to go to counseling. Rae Dawn Chong apparently called Oprah a "field N-word" and no one's calling her a racist because she's apparently a quarter black.
What is a "field-N-word" anyway? An African-American who speaks in an educated way with a Northern accent, interacts with whites as an equal and has accepted middle-classness (or in her case, of course, riches) .
Apparently 41% of young African Americans are unemployed. Is this because racist employers don't want to hire them, or is it because employers can't afford to hire people who can't speak properly, don't know how to do math, don't know any manners (a common complaint with all teenagers, admittedly), have tattoos everywhere, and go around looking angry all the time? (Although - it must be said that white teens are at 20% unemployment.)
There's a commercial on TV, some beer commercial, I actually forget the brand, but the black rapper Ice Cube, I think that's his name, is their spokesperson. Have you ever seen any of these commercials? He's done at least 3 of them,and in each one he's got this furious look on his face and struts around like he's angry and contemptuous and I'm, like, what have *you* got to be angry about? You're a multi-millionaire. Yet this is the guy, him and his vicious, angry attitude, that the beer companies are putting out there as normal behavior.
It may be one thing for a millionaire rapper to be able to go around looking like he'd like to stomp you into a coma all the time - he can still get a job apparently, but if a teenager does that, is it any wonder he's not going to get hired?
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Friday, August 2, 2013
The Morals of America
There's been a lot of discussion and op eds and stuff in the news in the past couple of weeks, ever since Anthony Weiner was revealed to have continued to "sext" women even after he'd stopped down from his congressman position in disgrace.
Now, he is trying to become mayor of New York and even though he must have known he was going to try to re-enter politics, he had been sexting yet more women.
And now this is known and he's refusing to step down.
Now, I haven't read any of the guy's interviews, and I haven't read any of the articles about him - I've just read the headlines and some of the op ed pieces.
But come ON.
Even if a person's sex life is their own business, and has nothing to do with politics, surely politicians must be ethical in that they mustn't LIE. They mustn't be STUPID.
How can anyone in this day and age who "sexts" and who is a public figure, think that he can get away with not being found out?????
Anthony Weiner is a stupid man, and we've already got too many stupid people in politics.
What puzzles me is why anyone continues to support this man. How can they not look at him and picture him taking a picture of his "junk" and then sending it - unsolicited, mark you - to women.
According to a poll Rush read a few days ago, women age 18-20 still support Weiner. Now that is a very sad statistic. Even if you're used to being "sexted" yourself - and I venture to say women "sext" men more often than the other way around - don't they see how demeaning that is?
Sadly, they don't.
Now, he is trying to become mayor of New York and even though he must have known he was going to try to re-enter politics, he had been sexting yet more women.
And now this is known and he's refusing to step down.
Now, I haven't read any of the guy's interviews, and I haven't read any of the articles about him - I've just read the headlines and some of the op ed pieces.
But come ON.
Even if a person's sex life is their own business, and has nothing to do with politics, surely politicians must be ethical in that they mustn't LIE. They mustn't be STUPID.
How can anyone in this day and age who "sexts" and who is a public figure, think that he can get away with not being found out?????
Anthony Weiner is a stupid man, and we've already got too many stupid people in politics.
What puzzles me is why anyone continues to support this man. How can they not look at him and picture him taking a picture of his "junk" and then sending it - unsolicited, mark you - to women.
According to a poll Rush read a few days ago, women age 18-20 still support Weiner. Now that is a very sad statistic. Even if you're used to being "sexted" yourself - and I venture to say women "sext" men more often than the other way around - don't they see how demeaning that is?
Sadly, they don't.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Racist reaction or media-caused assumption?
A few days ago, some baseball pitcher, whose name I can't recall, was reported at CBSsports.com to have been "jumped" by some folks in Cleveland. (The news has disappeared from the CBSSports site today and I don't want to go look for it.)
People who commented on the story did so under the assumption that it had been African Americans who had jumped the pitcher, who was white.
Why did they make that assumption? Well, because the race of the attackers wasn't given, and it happened in Cleveland. When the media reports on assaults or other types of crimes, and does not mention the race - which they invariably do if the crooks are white - more often than not the perpetrators are minorities.
So a day or so later more news came out about this pitcher - actually he hadn't been "jumped," he'd been in a bar, got into a fight, and apparently lost. Again we weren't told the race of the person whom he'd fought and lost to, but *then* the assumption was made that it was someone who was white, and all the comments were, "where are all the racist creeps now who were saying he'd been jumped by a black person? Don't they feel stupid now."
Well, perhaps they may feel stupid, but should they? Isn't it the politically correct media that is to blame whenever someone jumps t the conclusion that the attacker of a white person was black or Latino? Because - that is the way they consistently report news, as I stated above - if it's white on minority crime they are very quick to state that it's white on minority crime - if it's minority on white or minority on minority, not so much.
Case in point, this piece of news:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/uptown/pregnant-woman-assailant-stopped-drink-nypd-article-1.1413490
The article shares several photos of the alleged perpetrator, who is clearly African-American, but nowhere in the written article is this stated!!!!!
All we get is this description:
"The new video shows the assailant buying a drink at a nearby store. He wore a black or brown golf visor and a white T-shirt over a sagging pair of blue denim shorts, officials said. He is believed to be in his late 20s, about 6-feet tall and 180 pounds."
Well, gee, that description is just so helpful, isn't it. He's also African-American, and at the time of the assault had a close-shaved beard. Shouldn't at least one of those factors have been mentioned???
People who commented on the story did so under the assumption that it had been African Americans who had jumped the pitcher, who was white.
Why did they make that assumption? Well, because the race of the attackers wasn't given, and it happened in Cleveland. When the media reports on assaults or other types of crimes, and does not mention the race - which they invariably do if the crooks are white - more often than not the perpetrators are minorities.
So a day or so later more news came out about this pitcher - actually he hadn't been "jumped," he'd been in a bar, got into a fight, and apparently lost. Again we weren't told the race of the person whom he'd fought and lost to, but *then* the assumption was made that it was someone who was white, and all the comments were, "where are all the racist creeps now who were saying he'd been jumped by a black person? Don't they feel stupid now."
Well, perhaps they may feel stupid, but should they? Isn't it the politically correct media that is to blame whenever someone jumps t the conclusion that the attacker of a white person was black or Latino? Because - that is the way they consistently report news, as I stated above - if it's white on minority crime they are very quick to state that it's white on minority crime - if it's minority on white or minority on minority, not so much.
Case in point, this piece of news:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/uptown/pregnant-woman-assailant-stopped-drink-nypd-article-1.1413490
The article shares several photos of the alleged perpetrator, who is clearly African-American, but nowhere in the written article is this stated!!!!!
All we get is this description:
"The new video shows the assailant buying a drink at a nearby store. He wore a black or brown golf visor and a white T-shirt over a sagging pair of blue denim shorts, officials said. He is believed to be in his late 20s, about 6-feet tall and 180 pounds."
Well, gee, that description is just so helpful, isn't it. He's also African-American, and at the time of the assault had a close-shaved beard. Shouldn't at least one of those factors have been mentioned???
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Who would still vote for Anthony Weiner?
Anthony Weiner was forced to resign a couple of years ago as congressman because he was sexting naked pictures of himself to women and was stupid enough to send these photos to his entire mailing list.
Then he *lied* and said his account was hacked before admitting that no, it was actually him.
(Why didn't he go to jail for lying about a crime - hacking is a crime!)
His wife forgave him, and stuck by him.
Then, he decided to run for Mayor of New York.
Surely it was in his mind all along to return to the political arena.
So you would have thought that he would have STOPPED sexting women!
If he needed an extra bed partner you would have thought he would have found one whom he could trust to be discreet. He'd pay her great sums for sex and in return she'd never come out into the open and ruin his political career. That'd be a risk, but it would be much less risk than CONTINUING to sext with women while you're working to get back into politics!!!!
On the one hand guys are guys. (And women are women). They have affairs. You'd think they'd be smart enough to handle their own birth control to ensure they don't impregnate their mistresses and thus have to spend the rest of their lives doling out child support for kids they'll never see. But that is apparently beyond most men.
Should a "cheating scandal" derail one's political career? Perhaps not.
But surely, SURELY, being STUPID should derail one's career.
Anthony Weiner was STUPID. He continued in the same behavior that got him caught before and he actually thought that the women he was setting wouldn't reveal all if they could get the right price from the National Enquirer?
As for his wife? Well..gee. If she wants to stick with that scumbag that's her business, but how anyone could respect her for being a doormat.... it didn't stop Hillary Clinton's rise to power and that has always puzzled me, I admit. But I've never had any respect for her and certainly have none for Weiner's wife.
Then he *lied* and said his account was hacked before admitting that no, it was actually him.
(Why didn't he go to jail for lying about a crime - hacking is a crime!)
His wife forgave him, and stuck by him.
Then, he decided to run for Mayor of New York.
Surely it was in his mind all along to return to the political arena.
So you would have thought that he would have STOPPED sexting women!
If he needed an extra bed partner you would have thought he would have found one whom he could trust to be discreet. He'd pay her great sums for sex and in return she'd never come out into the open and ruin his political career. That'd be a risk, but it would be much less risk than CONTINUING to sext with women while you're working to get back into politics!!!!
On the one hand guys are guys. (And women are women). They have affairs. You'd think they'd be smart enough to handle their own birth control to ensure they don't impregnate their mistresses and thus have to spend the rest of their lives doling out child support for kids they'll never see. But that is apparently beyond most men.
Should a "cheating scandal" derail one's political career? Perhaps not.
But surely, SURELY, being STUPID should derail one's career.
Anthony Weiner was STUPID. He continued in the same behavior that got him caught before and he actually thought that the women he was setting wouldn't reveal all if they could get the right price from the National Enquirer?
As for his wife? Well..gee. If she wants to stick with that scumbag that's her business, but how anyone could respect her for being a doormat.... it didn't stop Hillary Clinton's rise to power and that has always puzzled me, I admit. But I've never had any respect for her and certainly have none for Weiner's wife.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Zimmerman/Martin/Obama - Hannity Forums vs Huffington Post
It's interesting to see how people who have the exact same access to the exact same information can see things differently - and it can only be due to people's ideological beliefs.
Now, I didn't pay much attention to the Zimmerman trial, I admit. What I *did* see was that whenever the media showed a photo of Trayvon Martin, they showed one where he was 8 years old or so, not the 17 year old teenager he was at the time of his death. What I *did* see was the President of the US saying that if he had a son he could look like Trayvon Martin....etc. etc. What I did see was that Zimmerman, thanks to his name, was not characterized as a Latino but as a "white Latino."....etc. etc.
So, Zimmerman was voted not guilty - and I admit I don't understand why it was left up to only 6 people - and apparently all white women though I haven't seen this confirmed anywhere. I thought a jury had to have 12 people on it?
In any event, most folks - at least those posting on Hannity.com etc., see this as a fair verdict and are outraged that African-Americans are outraged and saying that Martin was the victim and it was a racist verdict, etc. and that the African American community sees nothing odd about castigating white America for the death of Trayvon Martin but don't say *anything* about the dozens of black kids killed practically every month in Chicago....by other blacks.
So the President didn't attempt to calm things down when he spoke a couple of days ago - he clearly thinks the verdict was an unjust one and that racism still exists in the USA - and of course to him and the African American community racism is only a "white" crime... and Hannity took him to task for that.
So I went to Huffington Post today which had an article about the "disgusting" things that Hannity had said about the President's speech - pointing out that 35 years ago Obama was doing drugs too - and every comment was agreeing with the HuffPo article that Hannity was out of line and that Republicans are racist and that the African American community is just one humongous victim of white America.
(This despite the fact that statistics show - if only those folks would read them - that 90% of all black deaths are not caused by whites murdering them but by *blacks* murdering them. Why are Sharpton and Jackson and the President not talking about *that*?)
I don't remember seeing the statistics of what percentage of white deaths are caused by blacks as opposed to whites...that'd be interesting to see, too. (Which is not to say that whites don't go around killing each other, obviously they do - I'm just talking about percentages.)
Sure, there are whites who are prejudiced against blacks - if you read the CBS Sports message boards that's on display every single day - but there is no *institutional* racism - that is out the window. After all, how many educational institutions give black athletes chance after chance after chance after chance to make good, as long as they are good football players. (And white players too, of course, Johnny Manziel (the idiot Heisman trophy winner who thinks that because he's 20 he should be able to get drunk whenever he feels like it, secure in the knowledge that because he plays football all of his pecadilloes will be glossed over ) being a prime example of someone who shouldn't have even been playing last year!). White firefighters can't get raises because not enough black firefighters did, test scores have to be lowered for various civil service jobs because not enough blacks were getting in so of course expecting them to know math was just racist....the list goes on.
Now, I didn't pay much attention to the Zimmerman trial, I admit. What I *did* see was that whenever the media showed a photo of Trayvon Martin, they showed one where he was 8 years old or so, not the 17 year old teenager he was at the time of his death. What I *did* see was the President of the US saying that if he had a son he could look like Trayvon Martin....etc. etc. What I did see was that Zimmerman, thanks to his name, was not characterized as a Latino but as a "white Latino."....etc. etc.
So, Zimmerman was voted not guilty - and I admit I don't understand why it was left up to only 6 people - and apparently all white women though I haven't seen this confirmed anywhere. I thought a jury had to have 12 people on it?
In any event, most folks - at least those posting on Hannity.com etc., see this as a fair verdict and are outraged that African-Americans are outraged and saying that Martin was the victim and it was a racist verdict, etc. and that the African American community sees nothing odd about castigating white America for the death of Trayvon Martin but don't say *anything* about the dozens of black kids killed practically every month in Chicago....by other blacks.
So the President didn't attempt to calm things down when he spoke a couple of days ago - he clearly thinks the verdict was an unjust one and that racism still exists in the USA - and of course to him and the African American community racism is only a "white" crime... and Hannity took him to task for that.
So I went to Huffington Post today which had an article about the "disgusting" things that Hannity had said about the President's speech - pointing out that 35 years ago Obama was doing drugs too - and every comment was agreeing with the HuffPo article that Hannity was out of line and that Republicans are racist and that the African American community is just one humongous victim of white America.
(This despite the fact that statistics show - if only those folks would read them - that 90% of all black deaths are not caused by whites murdering them but by *blacks* murdering them. Why are Sharpton and Jackson and the President not talking about *that*?)
I don't remember seeing the statistics of what percentage of white deaths are caused by blacks as opposed to whites...that'd be interesting to see, too. (Which is not to say that whites don't go around killing each other, obviously they do - I'm just talking about percentages.)
Sure, there are whites who are prejudiced against blacks - if you read the CBS Sports message boards that's on display every single day - but there is no *institutional* racism - that is out the window. After all, how many educational institutions give black athletes chance after chance after chance after chance to make good, as long as they are good football players. (And white players too, of course, Johnny Manziel (the idiot Heisman trophy winner who thinks that because he's 20 he should be able to get drunk whenever he feels like it, secure in the knowledge that because he plays football all of his pecadilloes will be glossed over ) being a prime example of someone who shouldn't have even been playing last year!). White firefighters can't get raises because not enough black firefighters did, test scores have to be lowered for various civil service jobs because not enough blacks were getting in so of course expecting them to know math was just racist....the list goes on.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Rush on Eric Holder and the division of America
RUSH: The attorney general, Eric Holder, is moving on the stand-your-ground law. I tell you, folks, these people... It is really sad. I think it was the British historian Alistair Cooke (I think it was him) in his Letters to America who said that America would never overcome its "black problem." It was never going to happen. I'm struck here. We elected the first black president, and that was supposed to fix all of this, wasn't it, or at least make a huge dent in the race problem in this country?
Wasn't it?
The theory was that if America, with a vast majority white population and 12 to 14% black population, elected a black man president, "Why, that would speak volumes about how progressive and advanced America had become. It would go a long way toward healing the wounds that apparently remain from slavery and discrimination and all the other things." But seems it's got worse, to me. It seems that with the election of Barack Obama, racial strife in this country's worse than it's ever been since the Civil War.
Or as bad, at least.
Certainly it hasn't improved, let's put it that way. It has not improved. The country's more divided in more ways than I can remember in my adult lifetime, and I mean that. I've thought about that. I've gone back in my memory, and I've tried to remember when we may have been more divided on so many things, and I don't remember it. What I do remember is everybody saying -- and many people hoping and a lot of people believing -- that the election of Barack Obama would end a lot of it, and it hasn't.
It has just made it worse.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is Eileen in Clinton, Tennessee. Hi, Eileen. It's great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hello. Thank you for taking my call. I'm honored. When you mentioned that... I'm not sure exactly what. You mentioned something that made me think of a study that I had heard about Hispanics assimilating better than we would have thought. You know, there's a lot of talk about the rising Hispanic population and people saying, "We're gonna look like Mexico. They're gonna take over," and there are enclaves where you have to be Spanish speaking to do business in whatever. But as a whole, according to social scientists who measure things like generations talking Spanish over speaking English, they're assimilating much like my grandparents. All my grandparents were immigrants, much like other waves of immigrants have --
RUSH: Well, the Hispanics are, you're saying?
CALLER: The Hispanics. I'm wondering. I'm trying to understand this, because I don't think --
RUSH: Okay, let me understand. What you're saying is everybody's worried about immigration and amnesty and illegals because the Hispanics are not assimilating. But in fact, you read something that says they are and you also --
CALLER: Right, and that's just one study.
RUSH: Okay.
CALLER: But I'm trying to apply this to...
RUSH: Right.
CALLER: Oh, I know what it was! You're saying that after Obama got elected we expected better race relations.
RUSH: Yeah, everybody thought that. Everybody thought... Well, not everybody. I didn't. I thought that exactly what has happened, was going to happen. I thought racial relations would get worse. I thought racial relations would be exacerbated. I thought there'd end up being more friction in our society. Because I know liberals, and I knew what was gonna happen. "Okay, we got the first black president elected but that's not gonna count for anything.
"It's gonna be chalked up to people who didn't really mean it. They were just voting for the black guy so nobody would think they're racist, but they don't really love Obama." That was the first thing they were gonna say, and the next thing they were gonna do was this: Any time Obama's criticized, they were going to accuse the criticism of being racist in its orientation. Well, folks, there hasn't been a president alive who doesn't get criticized.
Presidents are criticized by more people every day than anybody else in society. But the left, the Democrats set it up so that any criticism of Obama had nothing to do with substance. It was all racist. The objective here was at least twofold, if not multifold. One was to silence any criticism by making those who would criticize Obama fearful of doing it, because they didn't want to be called racist. The second objective was to be able to call people racists, because it does matter.
If somebody calls you a racist and it sticks, you have a problem, particularly if you're in politics and are seeking people's votes. So that's why I think the next thing the Democrats are gonna do is try to find another first. The first female president. See, any criticism will be sexist. It will allow them to continue the War on Women, or maybe they'll find an Hispanic to run on their side that they think could be elected.
So then we have the first Hispanic president, and every criticism will be anti-Latino, and that's how they set it up. So it's twofold. It's to silence any criticism, but that criticism that actually survives will be characterized as racist or sexist or bigoted or what have you. And it's just a way... The overall purpose of this is for the left to silence and do away with any opposition, because that's their objective.
I was told that yesterday on MSNBC, they had a panel discussion, and the people on the show were literally having cows over my interpretation of them and their reaction to the Zimmerman verdict on Saturday. I approached the Golden EIB Microphone on Monday and I told you that their reaction was really not about Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
It was just they are a bunch of children that didn't get their way.
They've been getting their way on everything. In the last five, 5-1/2 years, they've gotten 99% of what they want. They didn't get this, and they were bellyaching. I accused them of having a temper tantrum. You would not believe how that was purposely misinterpreted and then mis-analyzed, which is something they always do. They limit all of the crucial context of any critic that they launch into. So what it became was... Folks, I don't remember. It was so insane, I don't remember how they interpreted it.
But I am a premier communicator. I say what I mean. I don't leave it up to chance. If somebody asks me a question, I answer it. I don't speak in riddles, and I said that what really had 'em ticked off about this verdict was that they didn't get their way. Somebody didn't let 'em have what they wanted. They wanted a guilty verdict. For whatever reasons, they wanted a guilty verdict. They didn't get it. (crying)
And then they launched into, "The country's racist," just 'cause they didn't get their way. Well, it... Eileen, I've not forgotten your question. This is all sort of a setup for my answer to your question, because she has observed and she's read that it's not so much that the Hispanics are not assimilating. It's actually blacks who are not only not assimilating, they appear to be regressing. There's actually an opinion piece about this at PJ Media.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: My friends, I can't tell you the number of people -- recently and over the course of my sterling professional career -- who've said to me, "You know, Rush, it's a lose-lose proposition to talk about race, even seriously, the way you try. You can't win. All you're gonna do is get yourself in trouble, and it isn't worth it. You ought to just leave it alone. Just make it one of these things where, when something comes up, you just discipline yourself to ignore it don't go there."
I've been told this... Gee, I don't know. Since probably the first time I mentioned Jesse Jackson's name on the radio back in 1983 in Kansas City. I hear it from close friends, people who say, "Rush, there's nothing to be gained." You know, my reaction to that's always been, "Why isn't there?" They may be right. There isn't there anything to be gained? Why is it a lose-lose proposition to discuss race?
I think it would be said not just of me but a lot of people who probably would be advised the same way. "Just leave it alone." The problem with that is that when you surrender it, you're surrendering it to who? Who are we letting discuss it and therefore shape opinion about it? In my mind, the answer to that question is: The people who have made a mess of this country and this culture for way too long, and that is leftists.
Of all races, creeds, stripes, religions. I don't care.
Leftists.
There is an ideology that has slowly been eating away at the foundational fabric of this country. I don't know whether it's race or whether it is any issue. I don't care what. I can't let it go. I care too much about the country, and I care too much about everybody that lives here. And I'm cursed. I am. I think I'm cursed. I'm cursed with a... Well, I have a hope, a desire that everybody in this country love it, that everybody in this country enjoy the life they've been given and the opportunity they've been given to live that life in this country.
I can't tell you how disappointed I feel when I run across people that don't and can't enjoy their life, and I think that's what this really comes down to. I mean, folks, the kind of anger and angst and tension on this and practically everything else that the American left cares about does nothing but make people miserable and nervous, and in some cases unhappy. Even the people they claim they're looking out for.
And maybe not just "even," but especially the people they claim to be helping. They claim to be the sole representatives. They claim to be the guardians. Those people that are under their wing are miserable, and that misery and angst and unhappiness is exacerbated by the left. It's amplified. Anything other than that isn't permitted. That just... Well, it bothers me, and in some ways, it honestly does break my heart. I have such a deep appreciation for the uniqueness of life.
We each only have one, and most people... Well, maybe not most. Way too many people don't even think about that for whatever reasons. They're too busy, too absorbed in things. But I've always kind of been in awe of it, and the fact that there's only one, and the fact that all we have on the other side of it is faith that there's more? Nobody can prove that. That's just faith, and so this is it. I've been very lucky with mine.
I've been extremely fortunate. I don't think that I'm anything special or unique. I think it's possible for everybody. But then I look around, and I see so many people that basically look like they're just unhappy to be alive. They're just miserable and angry all the time, and I looked at people making them feel that way because they are the same way. It infuriates me, so I just want to help.
I would like to be able to change attitudes and thinking in a positive way that would cause some people to reflect a little bit more deeply than they do, on the really rare opportunity that life in this country affords people. So this latest racial thing, this Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case and all the actors in it, Rachel Jeantel, people say, "Rush, don't go there! Rush, they're not gonna understand when you're trying to be lighthearted and funny about it.
"They're wound too tight. Everybody's just waiting to be offended and they're just waiting to be mad 'cause they want to shut you up, and you shouldn't give 'em ammo." I know all that. I just can't help myself sometimes. I just can't not talk about it. Now, our caller, Eileen, said that she saw something recently, and I found out what she saw. It's a Wall Street Journal editorial called, "America's Assimilating Hispanics."
The Journal claims that they have seen evidence that showed that Hispanics are following the path of earlier immigrants and are assimilating into a singular American culture. Now, Eileen believed it. She read it. She believed it. It's a 2007 editorial that is being re-circulated. You have to keep in mind when you read it, though, that the Wall Street Journal is very much a pro-amnesty organization. Not just the editorial page, but the entire newspaper is what I call "open borders."
They want this influx of people. They want the opportunity for cheap labor for whatever reason. "Can't find Americans to do the work. Too many are unemployed and not suffering from it so they don't want to work. They need the laborer labor pool." That's the Journal's constituency, and so that's who they serve. At the same time as this the article, there was another article then points out that while Hispanics are assimilating, African-Americans born in this country aren't.
In fact they're not only not assimilating, they're regressing. They are Balkanizing, if you will. Now, both of those assertions are fascinating. In the case of the first one, the Journal and the Hispanic assimilation, you do have to read that knowing full well that the Journal's in favor of amnesty and open borders. If all that assimilating is taking place, then why do we hear even more often in our society, "Press 1 for English"? Why is the audience for Telemundo and Univision, both those networks, growing?
Now, as to the other side, that African-Americans are regressing. Oh, yeah, yeah. I heard Eric Holder say we have to have the courage to talk about race. Nobody has the courage to talk about race. Everybody gets beat up for doing it, particularly if you happen to be effective or persuasive in changing people's attitudes that the left does not want them to have. If you are able to talk people out of the mind-set the left wants them to have, then you are really a target.
Most people don't like being targets. So Obama and Eric Holder are the first black president and first black attorney general. You know, it's interesting what's going on right now. The Congressional Black Caucus is having its convention. I think NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucasians are having conventions either at the same time or back-to-back, and in both places Holder and Obama are being pressured to do something about this Zimmerman thing and the travesty of justice.
Now, you would think that President Obama would try to rise above this and do what everybody thought that he was automatically going to do by virtue of being the first African-American -- and that's unite everybody. But he's not doing that. He's got this constituency to serve. He's got the CBC, the Congressional Black Caucasians. He's got the NAACP. Holder, the same thing. They're out there, and they're dangling a carrot in front of these people.
"Don't worry, Zimmerman's not off the hook yet."
We just had a jury trial, and we just had a verdict, and we just had everybody involved say race wasn't part of it. But because it didn't turn out the way the left wants, that's not the end of it. "No, we're not gonna stop until we get what we want. If we have to put pressure on Obama," and I don't know how much it will really take. "If we have to put pressure on Obama or Holder to get what they want, what are Obama and Holder gonna do?"
I find it funny that Obama and Holder are being portrayed as just innocent bystanders here, but they're really under a lot of pressure. The civil rights coalition makes a big move, a lot of pressure, to get Obama and Holder. I have to laugh at that because Obama and Holder lead that movement. They're not innocent bystanders waiting around to be influenced. But, see, even saying that is risky. Yeah, but Holder's out there saying we need courage to talk about race.
Let anybody try and see what happens.
They're lied about, taken out of context, mischaracterized, and people are set out to try to destroy them. So everybody's afraid. It may not be number one, but certainly one of the top three reasons the Republicans don't exist in Washington is because they don't want to be called racists. So the Republicans are caving on practically everything where Obama's involved 'cause otherwise they're gonna be called racists and the media's gonna pick up on it.
The lie will be spread far and wide, and the Republicans probably rightfully think there's nothing they can do about it. They can't stop it. They can't change anybody's thinking, particularly in the black community. The black community believes every Republican is racist, sexist, all that stuff -- and that's what's so frustrating. Not true. Nowhere near the truth. In fact, I would venture to say that most of the racism in this country's on the left.
Most of the oppression in this country stems and originates from people on the left. They're the ones that demand you think right. They're the ones that demand you behave the way they require. They're the ones who demand you live the way they tell you to live. They're the oppressors, if you will.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: "What Do You Do When the Oppressed are Their Own Worst Oppressors?" PJ Media, David Goldman. He starts this way: "My earliest memory is looking up at a circle of black and white faces. I was seated in the living room of the family home in Edison Township, NJ, and the group I saw was the local chapter of the NAACP. My association with the civil rights movement goes back to the age of two. The year would have been 1953 or 1954, and my parents were left-wing activists, among the very few white people involved at the time.
"Their activism was deep. In 1950, my father drove from New York with a group of Columbia University students to protest the impending execution of Willie McGee, a black man convicted and eventually electrocuted for the alleged rape of a white woman in Mississippi. I followed my parents' example: in my senior year of high school I organized and led a student civil rights demonstration and marched next to Andrew Young. You can look it up. I believe in civil rights as much now as I did then.
"That's why it's painful to watch the degeneration of the NAACP with its silly petition to persuade the Justice Department to bring a civil rights case against George Zimmerman. The leaders of what used to be a civil rights movement want to talk about everything but the main problem afflicting black people in the United States. That is the breakdown of the black family. Just 29% of black women over the age of 15 were married in 2010, according to the Census Bureau's comprehensive Current Population Survey.
"That compares to 54% of white women. At all ages, black women were about half as likely to be married as white women. That is an astonishing number," he writes. "The percentage of out-of-wedlock births has risen from 18% in 1980 to 40% in 2010. Twenty-nine percent of white births were non-marital, against 73% for black births. That's nearly three-quarters of all black births," occur outside of marriage.
"Young black men without a high school diploma are more likely to be in jail than to be employed, reports the Pew Institute," which did the scholarly research. So Mr. Goldman gets to his real point here in the lead sentence of the next paragraph. "The worst oppressors of young black men are older black men who abandon their children. And the second-worst oppressors of young black men are other young black men -- 94% of black murder victims are killed by blacks.
"The accelerating decline of the black family portends a much worse situation in the future. Why have civil rights organizations and black clergy wagered their reputations on the Zimmerman case? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the issues that really concern African-Americans simply are too painful to discuss," and there it is. You just can't talk about it, Rush. "Five years after the ultimate boost to self-esteem -- the election of the first black president -- things are getting worse faster.
"If black leaders -- from Barack Obama and Eric Holder on down -- can't talk about the real problems, the prospects for the future are frightening indeed," and he has a postscript here where he says, "Conservatives should view African-Americans’ emotional response to the death of Trayvon Martin with empathy. What makes the incident so hard to bear is that so many young black men die every day through involvement in violent crime." However, it's 94% black-on-black crime.
Anyway, I read this, and, again: This has stuff that you're not supposed to say.
You're supposed to leave this alone.
Wasn't it?
The theory was that if America, with a vast majority white population and 12 to 14% black population, elected a black man president, "Why, that would speak volumes about how progressive and advanced America had become. It would go a long way toward healing the wounds that apparently remain from slavery and discrimination and all the other things." But seems it's got worse, to me. It seems that with the election of Barack Obama, racial strife in this country's worse than it's ever been since the Civil War.
Or as bad, at least.
Certainly it hasn't improved, let's put it that way. It has not improved. The country's more divided in more ways than I can remember in my adult lifetime, and I mean that. I've thought about that. I've gone back in my memory, and I've tried to remember when we may have been more divided on so many things, and I don't remember it. What I do remember is everybody saying -- and many people hoping and a lot of people believing -- that the election of Barack Obama would end a lot of it, and it hasn't.
It has just made it worse.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is Eileen in Clinton, Tennessee. Hi, Eileen. It's great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hello. Thank you for taking my call. I'm honored. When you mentioned that... I'm not sure exactly what. You mentioned something that made me think of a study that I had heard about Hispanics assimilating better than we would have thought. You know, there's a lot of talk about the rising Hispanic population and people saying, "We're gonna look like Mexico. They're gonna take over," and there are enclaves where you have to be Spanish speaking to do business in whatever. But as a whole, according to social scientists who measure things like generations talking Spanish over speaking English, they're assimilating much like my grandparents. All my grandparents were immigrants, much like other waves of immigrants have --
RUSH: Well, the Hispanics are, you're saying?
CALLER: The Hispanics. I'm wondering. I'm trying to understand this, because I don't think --
RUSH: Okay, let me understand. What you're saying is everybody's worried about immigration and amnesty and illegals because the Hispanics are not assimilating. But in fact, you read something that says they are and you also --
CALLER: Right, and that's just one study.
RUSH: Okay.
CALLER: But I'm trying to apply this to...
RUSH: Right.
CALLER: Oh, I know what it was! You're saying that after Obama got elected we expected better race relations.
RUSH: Yeah, everybody thought that. Everybody thought... Well, not everybody. I didn't. I thought that exactly what has happened, was going to happen. I thought racial relations would get worse. I thought racial relations would be exacerbated. I thought there'd end up being more friction in our society. Because I know liberals, and I knew what was gonna happen. "Okay, we got the first black president elected but that's not gonna count for anything.
"It's gonna be chalked up to people who didn't really mean it. They were just voting for the black guy so nobody would think they're racist, but they don't really love Obama." That was the first thing they were gonna say, and the next thing they were gonna do was this: Any time Obama's criticized, they were going to accuse the criticism of being racist in its orientation. Well, folks, there hasn't been a president alive who doesn't get criticized.
Presidents are criticized by more people every day than anybody else in society. But the left, the Democrats set it up so that any criticism of Obama had nothing to do with substance. It was all racist. The objective here was at least twofold, if not multifold. One was to silence any criticism by making those who would criticize Obama fearful of doing it, because they didn't want to be called racist. The second objective was to be able to call people racists, because it does matter.
If somebody calls you a racist and it sticks, you have a problem, particularly if you're in politics and are seeking people's votes. So that's why I think the next thing the Democrats are gonna do is try to find another first. The first female president. See, any criticism will be sexist. It will allow them to continue the War on Women, or maybe they'll find an Hispanic to run on their side that they think could be elected.
So then we have the first Hispanic president, and every criticism will be anti-Latino, and that's how they set it up. So it's twofold. It's to silence any criticism, but that criticism that actually survives will be characterized as racist or sexist or bigoted or what have you. And it's just a way... The overall purpose of this is for the left to silence and do away with any opposition, because that's their objective.
I was told that yesterday on MSNBC, they had a panel discussion, and the people on the show were literally having cows over my interpretation of them and their reaction to the Zimmerman verdict on Saturday. I approached the Golden EIB Microphone on Monday and I told you that their reaction was really not about Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
It was just they are a bunch of children that didn't get their way.
They've been getting their way on everything. In the last five, 5-1/2 years, they've gotten 99% of what they want. They didn't get this, and they were bellyaching. I accused them of having a temper tantrum. You would not believe how that was purposely misinterpreted and then mis-analyzed, which is something they always do. They limit all of the crucial context of any critic that they launch into. So what it became was... Folks, I don't remember. It was so insane, I don't remember how they interpreted it.
But I am a premier communicator. I say what I mean. I don't leave it up to chance. If somebody asks me a question, I answer it. I don't speak in riddles, and I said that what really had 'em ticked off about this verdict was that they didn't get their way. Somebody didn't let 'em have what they wanted. They wanted a guilty verdict. For whatever reasons, they wanted a guilty verdict. They didn't get it. (crying)
And then they launched into, "The country's racist," just 'cause they didn't get their way. Well, it... Eileen, I've not forgotten your question. This is all sort of a setup for my answer to your question, because she has observed and she's read that it's not so much that the Hispanics are not assimilating. It's actually blacks who are not only not assimilating, they appear to be regressing. There's actually an opinion piece about this at PJ Media.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: My friends, I can't tell you the number of people -- recently and over the course of my sterling professional career -- who've said to me, "You know, Rush, it's a lose-lose proposition to talk about race, even seriously, the way you try. You can't win. All you're gonna do is get yourself in trouble, and it isn't worth it. You ought to just leave it alone. Just make it one of these things where, when something comes up, you just discipline yourself to ignore it don't go there."
I've been told this... Gee, I don't know. Since probably the first time I mentioned Jesse Jackson's name on the radio back in 1983 in Kansas City. I hear it from close friends, people who say, "Rush, there's nothing to be gained." You know, my reaction to that's always been, "Why isn't there?" They may be right. There isn't there anything to be gained? Why is it a lose-lose proposition to discuss race?
I think it would be said not just of me but a lot of people who probably would be advised the same way. "Just leave it alone." The problem with that is that when you surrender it, you're surrendering it to who? Who are we letting discuss it and therefore shape opinion about it? In my mind, the answer to that question is: The people who have made a mess of this country and this culture for way too long, and that is leftists.
Of all races, creeds, stripes, religions. I don't care.
Leftists.
There is an ideology that has slowly been eating away at the foundational fabric of this country. I don't know whether it's race or whether it is any issue. I don't care what. I can't let it go. I care too much about the country, and I care too much about everybody that lives here. And I'm cursed. I am. I think I'm cursed. I'm cursed with a... Well, I have a hope, a desire that everybody in this country love it, that everybody in this country enjoy the life they've been given and the opportunity they've been given to live that life in this country.
I can't tell you how disappointed I feel when I run across people that don't and can't enjoy their life, and I think that's what this really comes down to. I mean, folks, the kind of anger and angst and tension on this and practically everything else that the American left cares about does nothing but make people miserable and nervous, and in some cases unhappy. Even the people they claim they're looking out for.
And maybe not just "even," but especially the people they claim to be helping. They claim to be the sole representatives. They claim to be the guardians. Those people that are under their wing are miserable, and that misery and angst and unhappiness is exacerbated by the left. It's amplified. Anything other than that isn't permitted. That just... Well, it bothers me, and in some ways, it honestly does break my heart. I have such a deep appreciation for the uniqueness of life.
We each only have one, and most people... Well, maybe not most. Way too many people don't even think about that for whatever reasons. They're too busy, too absorbed in things. But I've always kind of been in awe of it, and the fact that there's only one, and the fact that all we have on the other side of it is faith that there's more? Nobody can prove that. That's just faith, and so this is it. I've been very lucky with mine.
I've been extremely fortunate. I don't think that I'm anything special or unique. I think it's possible for everybody. But then I look around, and I see so many people that basically look like they're just unhappy to be alive. They're just miserable and angry all the time, and I looked at people making them feel that way because they are the same way. It infuriates me, so I just want to help.
I would like to be able to change attitudes and thinking in a positive way that would cause some people to reflect a little bit more deeply than they do, on the really rare opportunity that life in this country affords people. So this latest racial thing, this Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case and all the actors in it, Rachel Jeantel, people say, "Rush, don't go there! Rush, they're not gonna understand when you're trying to be lighthearted and funny about it.
"They're wound too tight. Everybody's just waiting to be offended and they're just waiting to be mad 'cause they want to shut you up, and you shouldn't give 'em ammo." I know all that. I just can't help myself sometimes. I just can't not talk about it. Now, our caller, Eileen, said that she saw something recently, and I found out what she saw. It's a Wall Street Journal editorial called, "America's Assimilating Hispanics."
The Journal claims that they have seen evidence that showed that Hispanics are following the path of earlier immigrants and are assimilating into a singular American culture. Now, Eileen believed it. She read it. She believed it. It's a 2007 editorial that is being re-circulated. You have to keep in mind when you read it, though, that the Wall Street Journal is very much a pro-amnesty organization. Not just the editorial page, but the entire newspaper is what I call "open borders."
They want this influx of people. They want the opportunity for cheap labor for whatever reason. "Can't find Americans to do the work. Too many are unemployed and not suffering from it so they don't want to work. They need the laborer labor pool." That's the Journal's constituency, and so that's who they serve. At the same time as this the article, there was another article then points out that while Hispanics are assimilating, African-Americans born in this country aren't.
In fact they're not only not assimilating, they're regressing. They are Balkanizing, if you will. Now, both of those assertions are fascinating. In the case of the first one, the Journal and the Hispanic assimilation, you do have to read that knowing full well that the Journal's in favor of amnesty and open borders. If all that assimilating is taking place, then why do we hear even more often in our society, "Press 1 for English"? Why is the audience for Telemundo and Univision, both those networks, growing?
Now, as to the other side, that African-Americans are regressing. Oh, yeah, yeah. I heard Eric Holder say we have to have the courage to talk about race. Nobody has the courage to talk about race. Everybody gets beat up for doing it, particularly if you happen to be effective or persuasive in changing people's attitudes that the left does not want them to have. If you are able to talk people out of the mind-set the left wants them to have, then you are really a target.
Most people don't like being targets. So Obama and Eric Holder are the first black president and first black attorney general. You know, it's interesting what's going on right now. The Congressional Black Caucus is having its convention. I think NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucasians are having conventions either at the same time or back-to-back, and in both places Holder and Obama are being pressured to do something about this Zimmerman thing and the travesty of justice.
Now, you would think that President Obama would try to rise above this and do what everybody thought that he was automatically going to do by virtue of being the first African-American -- and that's unite everybody. But he's not doing that. He's got this constituency to serve. He's got the CBC, the Congressional Black Caucasians. He's got the NAACP. Holder, the same thing. They're out there, and they're dangling a carrot in front of these people.
"Don't worry, Zimmerman's not off the hook yet."
We just had a jury trial, and we just had a verdict, and we just had everybody involved say race wasn't part of it. But because it didn't turn out the way the left wants, that's not the end of it. "No, we're not gonna stop until we get what we want. If we have to put pressure on Obama," and I don't know how much it will really take. "If we have to put pressure on Obama or Holder to get what they want, what are Obama and Holder gonna do?"
I find it funny that Obama and Holder are being portrayed as just innocent bystanders here, but they're really under a lot of pressure. The civil rights coalition makes a big move, a lot of pressure, to get Obama and Holder. I have to laugh at that because Obama and Holder lead that movement. They're not innocent bystanders waiting around to be influenced. But, see, even saying that is risky. Yeah, but Holder's out there saying we need courage to talk about race.
Let anybody try and see what happens.
They're lied about, taken out of context, mischaracterized, and people are set out to try to destroy them. So everybody's afraid. It may not be number one, but certainly one of the top three reasons the Republicans don't exist in Washington is because they don't want to be called racists. So the Republicans are caving on practically everything where Obama's involved 'cause otherwise they're gonna be called racists and the media's gonna pick up on it.
The lie will be spread far and wide, and the Republicans probably rightfully think there's nothing they can do about it. They can't stop it. They can't change anybody's thinking, particularly in the black community. The black community believes every Republican is racist, sexist, all that stuff -- and that's what's so frustrating. Not true. Nowhere near the truth. In fact, I would venture to say that most of the racism in this country's on the left.
Most of the oppression in this country stems and originates from people on the left. They're the ones that demand you think right. They're the ones that demand you behave the way they require. They're the ones who demand you live the way they tell you to live. They're the oppressors, if you will.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: "What Do You Do When the Oppressed are Their Own Worst Oppressors?" PJ Media, David Goldman. He starts this way: "My earliest memory is looking up at a circle of black and white faces. I was seated in the living room of the family home in Edison Township, NJ, and the group I saw was the local chapter of the NAACP. My association with the civil rights movement goes back to the age of two. The year would have been 1953 or 1954, and my parents were left-wing activists, among the very few white people involved at the time.
"Their activism was deep. In 1950, my father drove from New York with a group of Columbia University students to protest the impending execution of Willie McGee, a black man convicted and eventually electrocuted for the alleged rape of a white woman in Mississippi. I followed my parents' example: in my senior year of high school I organized and led a student civil rights demonstration and marched next to Andrew Young. You can look it up. I believe in civil rights as much now as I did then.
"That's why it's painful to watch the degeneration of the NAACP with its silly petition to persuade the Justice Department to bring a civil rights case against George Zimmerman. The leaders of what used to be a civil rights movement want to talk about everything but the main problem afflicting black people in the United States. That is the breakdown of the black family. Just 29% of black women over the age of 15 were married in 2010, according to the Census Bureau's comprehensive Current Population Survey.
"That compares to 54% of white women. At all ages, black women were about half as likely to be married as white women. That is an astonishing number," he writes. "The percentage of out-of-wedlock births has risen from 18% in 1980 to 40% in 2010. Twenty-nine percent of white births were non-marital, against 73% for black births. That's nearly three-quarters of all black births," occur outside of marriage.
"Young black men without a high school diploma are more likely to be in jail than to be employed, reports the Pew Institute," which did the scholarly research. So Mr. Goldman gets to his real point here in the lead sentence of the next paragraph. "The worst oppressors of young black men are older black men who abandon their children. And the second-worst oppressors of young black men are other young black men -- 94% of black murder victims are killed by blacks.
"The accelerating decline of the black family portends a much worse situation in the future. Why have civil rights organizations and black clergy wagered their reputations on the Zimmerman case? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the issues that really concern African-Americans simply are too painful to discuss," and there it is. You just can't talk about it, Rush. "Five years after the ultimate boost to self-esteem -- the election of the first black president -- things are getting worse faster.
"If black leaders -- from Barack Obama and Eric Holder on down -- can't talk about the real problems, the prospects for the future are frightening indeed," and he has a postscript here where he says, "Conservatives should view African-Americans’ emotional response to the death of Trayvon Martin with empathy. What makes the incident so hard to bear is that so many young black men die every day through involvement in violent crime." However, it's 94% black-on-black crime.
Anyway, I read this, and, again: This has stuff that you're not supposed to say.
You're supposed to leave this alone.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
The African American Community Has its Priorities Messed Up
You'll hear this from Rush...maybe from Sean Hannity...and that's about it....
Chicago is the murder capital of the country...gang violence is rampant.... innocent bystanders are murdered every day.... but because it's black on black crime there's no "civil rights violations?"
And just what is wrong with "profiling?"
A black person has been seen to commit a crime (and no, it's not only blacks that commit crimes, i'm just using this as an example- whites, Latinos, blacks they all commit crimes because people are people!) but a witness dare not say that the person who committed the crime was black because that would be racist, and the cops can't put out an APB on a black suspect because that would be racist, and news reporters can't say the cops are looking for a black suspect because that would be racist.... so of course the guy gets away... and the black community who may know that he is indeed the perpetrator wont' call the police because that would be snitching.
I think the black community has more of a problem with itself and the culture of victimhood and "don't tell the police anything," than with one "white Latino" who saw a black kid in an all-white neighborhood and dared to "profile" him.
And here's what Rush had to say today about the racial component - or lack of it:
RUSH: An entirely new perspective on this whole sordid incident was provided by Rachel Jeantel last night on CNN. Everybody's been under the impression that Zimmerman was a racist, and that's why he went after Trayvon. I went to great lengths yesterday, folks, to break this down and tell you what I think this was really all about. I'm not gonna repeat that but it is at RushLimbaugh.com. Essentially, it was about economics.
You've got a bunch of people in this community that are barely hanging on. They've worked very hard to get where they are and there are all kinds of robberies and things, and they're just tired of being stolen from, and they've got a Neighborhood Watch and so forth. It's about the Obama economy. But the media and everybody has been saying since this happened, "Zimmerman's a white racist!"
You know as well as I do they've been doing everything they can to portray this as Zimmerman chasing a guy because he was black. Well, Zimmerman's the guy that got beaten up in this. Everybody forgets that. Zimmerman is the guy who got beat up. Now we know why, from a witness for the prosecution who was on CNN last night, Rachel Jeantel. Race wasn't even a factor. When she was asked to define "creepy ass cracka," and "n-i-g-g-a," it wasn't racial.
Not one definition she gave for any of these terms being used had to do with race.
"Creepy ass cracka"?
That's "a police."
"N-i-g-g-a"?
That's "a male."
You gotta say n-i-g-g-e-r to make it racist. There wasn't any race. The jury didn't deliberate race. The race aspect was totally manufactured by the media. So listen to Rachel Jeantel's answer to Piers Morgan. The question, "But you felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the 'creepy ass cracka' and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man -- you didn't know who he was at the time, but this man -- was pursuing him? And he was freaked out by it?"
So Piers Morgan is asking Rachel Jeantel, "Why was Trayvon Martin 'freaked out'?" Now, everybody has been led to believe that Trayvon was freaked out because some white guy was chasing him, but let's be honest. Zimmerman's not a white guy! It was raining. It's nighttime. He's of dark complexion. He's an Hispanic. This "white Hispanic" is a media creation. There wasn't any racial component here, folks. This is what's crucially important.
The racial component is a pure media fabrication because of the existence of their narrative that this nation is still, essentially, a slave state. But Trayvon Martin wasn't thinking about race, and we know this because Rachel Jeantel talked to him. So, again, Piers Morgan's question: "But you felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the 'creepy ass cracka' and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man -- you didn't know who he was at the time, but this man -- was pursuing him? And he was freaked out by it?"
Why was he freaked out by it, Rachel?
JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely. After I say, "Might be a rapist." For every boys or every man, every who's not that kinda way, see a grown man following them, would they be creep out? So you gotta take as a parent. You tell a child, "You see a grown person follow it you, run away," and all that.
Folks, there's no race in there.
There's no inference.
You can't infer race from what she said. There's certainly no racial implication that she made. Well, here's what she said, "Definitely. After I say" to him... She's reporting and recounting her telephone call. (paraphrased) "Definitely. After I say to Trayvon, 'Zimmerman might be a rapist!'" I'm translating for you. "Zimmerman might be a rapist. That makes him gay." He's a guy, folks. Male rapist. Rachel is telling Martin... This guy's chasing him. He doesn't know why he's chasing him.
Rachel, says, "He may be a rapist, Trayvon," and then she said, "For every boys or every man, every who's not that kinda way," that means who's not gay, "you see a grown man following 'em, you be creep out." So she was saying, Trayvon is straight; he's got this adult male chasing him. She's put the idea out that this adult male might be a rapist, and Trayvon "be creep out" by being chased by a gay guy.
And then she went further. "So you gotta take as a parent. You tell a child, 'You see a grown person following you, run away,' and all that."
Grown person.
Not racial. Not "white person." "Grown person." You, as a kid, "You see a grown person following you," as a parent, you tell your child, "run away." Then she also said, "And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there." You need me to translate that? Okay. She has put in Trayvon's mind that Zimmerman is gay. Zimmerman might be a rapist, and a predator.
What are we to think? "Grown man." When she says Trayvon's a male, Zimmerman's a male, and she says rapist, what are we talking about here? We're talking about a gay predator. She has put the idea in Trayvon Martin's head that this might be a gay predator chasing him. Then she said on Piers Morgan last night, "And people need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get..."
Trayvon's staying at his father's girlfriend's house, and she is saying people need to understand Trayvon didn't want Zimmerman, that potential rapist, "that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get," and then she paused, and said, "[M]ind you, his little brother was there." So she was saying that Trayvon wouldn't want this gay predator chasing him down to his house where there is a little kid inside. Nowhere in any of this is race mentioned.
Jeantel also said this about Zimmerman being a rapist on the witness stand, under oath. It wasn't just last night with Piers Morgan on CNN. She also alluded to this. So, folks, do you understand? We have been, the country has been entirely fooled. (The jury wasn't, by the way.) There was no racial component in this at all. Rachel Jeantel didn't talk about race. She wasn't talking about race at all. She wasn't worried. She didn't tell Trayvon to run away from a white guy. "Creepy ass cracka" is police.
So maybe, in their minds, Zimmerman is a gay male predator hiding behind a badge, which gives him access to little boys. I mean, this is the way certain people think, and we already know that she believed that Zimmerman was a rapist, or potential rapist, and put that thought in Trayvon's head, and Trayvon didn't run away. He turned around and started beating up on Zimmerman. Not because Zimmerman was "a white Hispanic." He didn't even know what he was!
I mean, it's dark and rainy. Zimmerman's of dark-complexion, too. The race angle in this has been absurd from the get-go. So essentially Rachel was saying... When she says, "And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there," she is saying that this guy, this rapist, after finishing with Trayvon, might then go after his little brother.
She told Trayvon to run, run, run.
I thought, when I heard this last night, that that's all anybody'd be talking about today, because this throws this thing 180 degrees out of phase. So now Trayvon Martin, who is the recipient of full-fledged, 100% victim status? It turns out could well be a gay basher, and the left has been defending him. So what do they do? They have two interest groups here that they represent and champion: African-Americans and homosexuals, and in this incident, the object of their affection (in this case, Trayvon Martin), might have thought he was being pursued by a gay guy and beat him up, or tried to.
I figured they'd be very conflicted today.
But that hasn't come up anywhere.
Now I think I understand why. It's precisely because nobody wants to get near it. Nobody wants to get anywhere near this. Those words of Rachel's are gone, into the ether, never to be remembered until the EIB Network kicked off at noon. Now, one sound bite here before we go to the Obscene Profit Break. This morning on CNN's Newsroom, the anchorette, Carol Costello, is speaking with criminal defense attorney Mark NeJame about Martin's friend Rachel Jeantel's appearance on Piers Morgan Live.
This is one of the well-educated, pseudo-intellectual analysts that CNN offered today talking about how wonderful Jeantel is, and they were just filled with sadness that she had not appeared this way on the stand. So Carol Costello said to Mark NeJame, "If the jurors had seen the Rachel Jeantel that was on Piers Morgan last night," explaining the definition of "cracka," explaining the definition of "n-i-g-g-a," the "creepy ass cracka," and all that. "If the jurors had seen the Rachel Jeantel that was on Piers Morgan last night, instead of the Rachel Jeantel at trial, could it have made a difference?"
NEJAME: It coulda made a difference. This is just another failure on behalf of the state to properly represent Trayvon Martin. That woman last night was a sweet, funny, engaging person. That's anything but what people saw when she took the stand. People need to understand that we do have a cultural divide, and in fact what the jurors saw, uh, when she appeared on the stand was because of her, in my opinion, her lack of preparedness by the state attorney who prosecuted this case! That woman last night, if she had been on the stand, and the juror (sic) would have seen that, they would have come away with a completely different impression, in my opinion, about who Trayvon really was.
RUSH: Yeah?
I'm gonna tell you something, Mark.
If you had really been listening to what Rachel Jeantel said on Piers Morgan, you would be reexamining the entire way you're looking at this event.
Chicago is the murder capital of the country...gang violence is rampant.... innocent bystanders are murdered every day.... but because it's black on black crime there's no "civil rights violations?"
And just what is wrong with "profiling?"
A black person has been seen to commit a crime (and no, it's not only blacks that commit crimes, i'm just using this as an example- whites, Latinos, blacks they all commit crimes because people are people!) but a witness dare not say that the person who committed the crime was black because that would be racist, and the cops can't put out an APB on a black suspect because that would be racist, and news reporters can't say the cops are looking for a black suspect because that would be racist.... so of course the guy gets away... and the black community who may know that he is indeed the perpetrator wont' call the police because that would be snitching.
I think the black community has more of a problem with itself and the culture of victimhood and "don't tell the police anything," than with one "white Latino" who saw a black kid in an all-white neighborhood and dared to "profile" him.
And here's what Rush had to say today about the racial component - or lack of it:
RUSH: An entirely new perspective on this whole sordid incident was provided by Rachel Jeantel last night on CNN. Everybody's been under the impression that Zimmerman was a racist, and that's why he went after Trayvon. I went to great lengths yesterday, folks, to break this down and tell you what I think this was really all about. I'm not gonna repeat that but it is at RushLimbaugh.com. Essentially, it was about economics.
You've got a bunch of people in this community that are barely hanging on. They've worked very hard to get where they are and there are all kinds of robberies and things, and they're just tired of being stolen from, and they've got a Neighborhood Watch and so forth. It's about the Obama economy. But the media and everybody has been saying since this happened, "Zimmerman's a white racist!"
You know as well as I do they've been doing everything they can to portray this as Zimmerman chasing a guy because he was black. Well, Zimmerman's the guy that got beaten up in this. Everybody forgets that. Zimmerman is the guy who got beat up. Now we know why, from a witness for the prosecution who was on CNN last night, Rachel Jeantel. Race wasn't even a factor. When she was asked to define "creepy ass cracka," and "n-i-g-g-a," it wasn't racial.
Not one definition she gave for any of these terms being used had to do with race.
"Creepy ass cracka"?
That's "a police."
"N-i-g-g-a"?
That's "a male."
You gotta say n-i-g-g-e-r to make it racist. There wasn't any race. The jury didn't deliberate race. The race aspect was totally manufactured by the media. So listen to Rachel Jeantel's answer to Piers Morgan. The question, "But you felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the 'creepy ass cracka' and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man -- you didn't know who he was at the time, but this man -- was pursuing him? And he was freaked out by it?"
So Piers Morgan is asking Rachel Jeantel, "Why was Trayvon Martin 'freaked out'?" Now, everybody has been led to believe that Trayvon was freaked out because some white guy was chasing him, but let's be honest. Zimmerman's not a white guy! It was raining. It's nighttime. He's of dark complexion. He's an Hispanic. This "white Hispanic" is a media creation. There wasn't any racial component here, folks. This is what's crucially important.
The racial component is a pure media fabrication because of the existence of their narrative that this nation is still, essentially, a slave state. But Trayvon Martin wasn't thinking about race, and we know this because Rachel Jeantel talked to him. So, again, Piers Morgan's question: "But you felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the 'creepy ass cracka' and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man -- you didn't know who he was at the time, but this man -- was pursuing him? And he was freaked out by it?"
Why was he freaked out by it, Rachel?
JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely. After I say, "Might be a rapist." For every boys or every man, every who's not that kinda way, see a grown man following them, would they be creep out? So you gotta take as a parent. You tell a child, "You see a grown person follow it you, run away," and all that.
Folks, there's no race in there.
There's no inference.
You can't infer race from what she said. There's certainly no racial implication that she made. Well, here's what she said, "Definitely. After I say" to him... She's reporting and recounting her telephone call. (paraphrased) "Definitely. After I say to Trayvon, 'Zimmerman might be a rapist!'" I'm translating for you. "Zimmerman might be a rapist. That makes him gay." He's a guy, folks. Male rapist. Rachel is telling Martin... This guy's chasing him. He doesn't know why he's chasing him.
Rachel, says, "He may be a rapist, Trayvon," and then she said, "For every boys or every man, every who's not that kinda way," that means who's not gay, "you see a grown man following 'em, you be creep out." So she was saying, Trayvon is straight; he's got this adult male chasing him. She's put the idea out that this adult male might be a rapist, and Trayvon "be creep out" by being chased by a gay guy.
And then she went further. "So you gotta take as a parent. You tell a child, 'You see a grown person following you, run away,' and all that."
Grown person.
Not racial. Not "white person." "Grown person." You, as a kid, "You see a grown person following you," as a parent, you tell your child, "run away." Then she also said, "And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there." You need me to translate that? Okay. She has put in Trayvon's mind that Zimmerman is gay. Zimmerman might be a rapist, and a predator.
What are we to think? "Grown man." When she says Trayvon's a male, Zimmerman's a male, and she says rapist, what are we talking about here? We're talking about a gay predator. She has put the idea in Trayvon Martin's head that this might be a gay predator chasing him. Then she said on Piers Morgan last night, "And people need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get..."
Trayvon's staying at his father's girlfriend's house, and she is saying people need to understand Trayvon didn't want Zimmerman, that potential rapist, "that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get," and then she paused, and said, "[M]ind you, his little brother was there." So she was saying that Trayvon wouldn't want this gay predator chasing him down to his house where there is a little kid inside. Nowhere in any of this is race mentioned.
Jeantel also said this about Zimmerman being a rapist on the witness stand, under oath. It wasn't just last night with Piers Morgan on CNN. She also alluded to this. So, folks, do you understand? We have been, the country has been entirely fooled. (The jury wasn't, by the way.) There was no racial component in this at all. Rachel Jeantel didn't talk about race. She wasn't talking about race at all. She wasn't worried. She didn't tell Trayvon to run away from a white guy. "Creepy ass cracka" is police.
So maybe, in their minds, Zimmerman is a gay male predator hiding behind a badge, which gives him access to little boys. I mean, this is the way certain people think, and we already know that she believed that Zimmerman was a rapist, or potential rapist, and put that thought in Trayvon's head, and Trayvon didn't run away. He turned around and started beating up on Zimmerman. Not because Zimmerman was "a white Hispanic." He didn't even know what he was!
I mean, it's dark and rainy. Zimmerman's of dark-complexion, too. The race angle in this has been absurd from the get-go. So essentially Rachel was saying... When she says, "And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there," she is saying that this guy, this rapist, after finishing with Trayvon, might then go after his little brother.
She told Trayvon to run, run, run.
I thought, when I heard this last night, that that's all anybody'd be talking about today, because this throws this thing 180 degrees out of phase. So now Trayvon Martin, who is the recipient of full-fledged, 100% victim status? It turns out could well be a gay basher, and the left has been defending him. So what do they do? They have two interest groups here that they represent and champion: African-Americans and homosexuals, and in this incident, the object of their affection (in this case, Trayvon Martin), might have thought he was being pursued by a gay guy and beat him up, or tried to.
I figured they'd be very conflicted today.
But that hasn't come up anywhere.
Now I think I understand why. It's precisely because nobody wants to get near it. Nobody wants to get anywhere near this. Those words of Rachel's are gone, into the ether, never to be remembered until the EIB Network kicked off at noon. Now, one sound bite here before we go to the Obscene Profit Break. This morning on CNN's Newsroom, the anchorette, Carol Costello, is speaking with criminal defense attorney Mark NeJame about Martin's friend Rachel Jeantel's appearance on Piers Morgan Live.
This is one of the well-educated, pseudo-intellectual analysts that CNN offered today talking about how wonderful Jeantel is, and they were just filled with sadness that she had not appeared this way on the stand. So Carol Costello said to Mark NeJame, "If the jurors had seen the Rachel Jeantel that was on Piers Morgan last night," explaining the definition of "cracka," explaining the definition of "n-i-g-g-a," the "creepy ass cracka," and all that. "If the jurors had seen the Rachel Jeantel that was on Piers Morgan last night, instead of the Rachel Jeantel at trial, could it have made a difference?"
NEJAME: It coulda made a difference. This is just another failure on behalf of the state to properly represent Trayvon Martin. That woman last night was a sweet, funny, engaging person. That's anything but what people saw when she took the stand. People need to understand that we do have a cultural divide, and in fact what the jurors saw, uh, when she appeared on the stand was because of her, in my opinion, her lack of preparedness by the state attorney who prosecuted this case! That woman last night, if she had been on the stand, and the juror (sic) would have seen that, they would have come away with a completely different impression, in my opinion, about who Trayvon really was.
RUSH: Yeah?
I'm gonna tell you something, Mark.
If you had really been listening to what Rachel Jeantel said on Piers Morgan, you would be reexamining the entire way you're looking at this event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)