Archive for Race

An Arm and a Leg

Among the more ghastly themes we return to here (and the competition is stiff) is the harvesting of Tanzanian albinos for body parts.

It’s been a while, but…

An albino toddler missing since Sunday has been found dead in northern Tanzania with all his limbs hacked off.

Yohana Bahati, aged one, was snatched from the house of his mother, who was cut with a machete.

His body was found a few miles away. Two people have been arrested in connection with the killing.

At least 74 albino children have been killed this century in Tanzania, where some witchdoctors use albino body parts to make their charms.

Why can’t we have just the good Africa, with rhinos and smiling children, and not the bad Africa, with animal poaching and mutilated albino toddlers? I’ve often wondered.

Last month the Tanzanian government placed a ban on all witchdoctors in the country. The ban is part of a nationwide operation to clamp down on attacks on people living with albinism.

The UN has condemned the attack and warned that 2015 could be a “dangerous year” for albinos. It fears that the forthcoming general and presidential elections will cause some candidates to turn to influential witchdoctors for help.

Come on, people—this is the 21st century! Do you think David Axelrod used body parts to get Obama elected (even though that would explain a lot)? Obama ate dog (tough), but that doesn’t mean anything.

Another albino toddle remains missing after being kidnapped in December.

Tanzanian police have offered a reward for information leading to the recovery of Pendo Emmanuelle Nundi, aged four. Police have arrested 15 over her disappearance, including her father.



Affirmative Action, Islam-Style

Equal opportunity martyrs:

In a Friday sermon delivered in Maarat Al-Nu’man, Syria, Saudi fighter Sheik Abdallah bin Muhammad Al-Muhayseni cited several hadiths glorifying martyrdom.

A black man came to see the Prophet Muhammad in one of his raids, and asked him: “What will I get if I fight those people with you?” The Prophet Muhammad said to him: “You will go to Paradise.” The man said “Oh Prophet of Allah, I am black, I smell bad, and I have no money. If I am killed, will I still go to Paradise?” The Prophet Muhammad said: “Yes. I swear by Allah.”

I hope Mohammed told the black guy with the inferiority complex that this is the desert—everyone smells bad.

They send their black guys to Paradise; we send ours to the White House. And ours are “clean”, according to Biden. I can’t say which is worse.


Leader of African Descent is Unpatriotic

No, not that leader of African descent! (Or not just.)

This leader of African descent:

It all started with a tweet. Following a ceremony commemorating the abolition of slavery, French Justice Minister Christiane Taubira was criticised by fellow politician Geoffroy Boulard for declining to sing the national anthem, La Marseillaise.

Boulard’s tweet says: “Taubira isn’t singing La Marseillaise under the pretext that she doesn’t know the words. Resignation!” This ignited a conversation which trended on Twitter for several days around the hashtag #LaMarseillaise. For some, Christiane Taubira is a controversial figure associated with the radical left, and she was accused of deliberately not singing to make a political point. Others argued that the attack was racially motivated and that Christiane Taubira was being unfairly singled out (she is black and was born in French Guyana).

Taubira herself defended her decision not to sing by telling her Facebook followers, “some occasions are more suitable for contemplation… than stage karaoke”. This didn’t defuse the tension. Instead, the hashtag #karaokedestrade (“stage karaoke”) began trending on Twitter and generated further criticism of Taubira.

Was race a factor in this discussion? “To be black or white is not the problem,” Geoffrey Boulard, the centre-right politician who started the discussion, told BBC Trending. “It’s not a racist tweet. It’s about national identity and national pride.”

In fact, rows about La Marseillaise are nothing new in France. French football players are regularly condemned for not singing along heartily to the anthem. For others, the real problem is the song itself. Written in 1792 to rally French troops battling foreign armies, the refrain includes the phrase “may impure blood water our fields”. The debate was revived on Wednesday when the French actor Lambert Wilson was asked about the most recent controversy. He described the lyrics as “terrible, bloody, racist and xenophobic” and called for them to be changed.

Wilson’s remarks meant the #LaMarseillaise hashtag continued to trend, with many agreeing with his view and others taking offence. One tweet said: “Those trendy liberals can spit as much as they want on #Marseillaise, people are still attached to it and we are in a democracy.”

What’s French for: “Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.

“I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism.”

PS: Obama was right again, as usual. I looked up patriotism in the dictionary, and it really did say “speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security”. Of course, it was the Ayers-Alinsky Unabridged Dictionary for Radicals, Fugitives, and Community Organizers.


Ye sons of France, awake to glory,
Hark, hark! what myriads bid you rise!
Your children, wives and white-haired grandsires.
Behold their tears and hear their cries! (repeat)
Shall hateful tyrants, mischiefs breeding,
With hireling hosts, a ruffian band,
Affright and desolate the land,
While peace and liberty lie bleeding?

To arms, to arms, ye brave!
The avenging sword unsheath,
March on, march on!
All hearts resolv’d
On victory or death!

Now, now, the dangerous storm is rolling
Which treacherous kings confederate raise!
The dogs of war, let loose, are howling,
And lo! our fields and cities blaze! (repeat)
alt: And lo! our homes will soon invade!
And shall we basely view the ruin
While lawless force with guilty stride
Spreads desolation far and wide
With crimes and blood his hands embruing?

To arms, to arms, ye brave!…

With luxury and pride surrounded
The vile insatiate despots dare,
Their thirst of power and gold unbounded,
To mete and vend the light and air! (repeat)
Like beasts of burden would they load us,
Like gods would bid their slaves adore,
But man is man, and who is more?
Then shall they longer lash and goad us?

To arms, to arms, ye brave!…

O Liberty, can man resign thee
Once having felt thy generous flame?
Can dungeons, bolts or bars confine thee
Or whips thy noble spirit tame? (repeat)
Too long the world has wept, bewailing
That falsehood’s dagger tyrants wield,
But freedom is our sword and shield,
And all their arts are unavailing.

To arms, to arms, ye brave!…

PPPS: It is a bit “terrible, bloody, racist and xenophobic”, isn’t it? But then, so was the French Revolution.


The Most Important Book You’ve Never Heard Of

At least not in the pages of the New York Times:

Nicholas Wade, a British-born science reporter and editor for more than 30 years with The New York Times, is no longer with the newspaper — just days after the release of his latest book, in which he depicts blacks with roots in sub-Saharan Africa as genetically less adapted to modern life than whites and Asians.

Was The New York Times uncomfortable with Wade’s science or his conclusions? It’s unclear. Neither Wade nor his former employer returned requests for comment.

Wade’s last Times article appeared April 24. His Penguin Press book “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History” arrived in bookstores on Tuesday, May 6. In excerpts from his book posted by on Friday, he is identified as a “former science editor” of the Times. Until then, coverage of his book called him a current Times journalist.

Wade’s main thesis is that “human evolution has been recent, copious and regional.” He writes, “Though there is still a large random element, the broad general theme of human history is that each race has developed the institutions appropriate to secure survival in its particular environment.”

Blogs that focus on genetics — in particular those which see racialism as a given of life — have been anticipating the book’s publication since review copies were distributed in mid-winter. Some wondered if it would prove a cultural bombshell — “The Bell Curve” on steroids. That 1994 book argued that racial differences were key to understanding intelligence.

Yet to date, Wade’s book has drawn relatively little attention from the mainstream media and prominent pundits.

Fox Butterfield, is that you?

Charles Murray, the author of the aforementioned “Bell Curve” did put on his lead-lined oven mitts to review the radioactive work:

The reigning intellectual orthodoxy is that race is a “social construct,” a cultural artifact without biological merit.

The orthodoxy’s equivalent of the Nicene Creed has two scientific tenets. The first, promulgated by geneticist Richard Lewontin in “The Apportionment of Human Diversity” (1972), is that the races are so close to genetically identical that “racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.” The second, popularized by the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, is that human evolution in everything but cosmetic differences stopped before humans left Africa, meaning that “human equality is a contingent fact of history,” as he put it in an essay of that title in 1984.

Since the sequencing of the human genome in 2003, what is known by geneticists has increasingly diverged from this orthodoxy, even as social scientists and the mainstream press have steadfastly ignored the new research. Nicholas Wade, for more than 20 years a highly regarded science writer at the New York Times, has written a book that pulls back the curtain.

The title gives fair warning: “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History.” At the heart of the book, stated quietly but with command of the technical literature, is a bombshell. It is now known with a high level of scientific confidence that both tenets of the orthodoxy are wrong.


Let me emphasize, as Mr. Wade does, how little we yet know about the substance of racial and ethnic differences. Work in the decade since the genome was sequenced has taught us that genetically linked traits, even a comparatively simple one like height, are far more complex than previously imagined, involving dozens or hundreds of genes, plus other forms of variation within our DNA, plus interactions between the environment and gene expression. For emotional or cognitive traits, the story is so complicated that we are probably a decade or more away from substantial understanding.

The statistical tendencies (and they will be only tendencies) that differentiate groups of humans will be just as impossible to add up as the qualities of an individual. Vive les différences.

We don’t yet know what the genetically significant racial differences will turn out to be, but we have to expect that they will be many. It is unhelpful for social scientists and the media to continue to proclaim that “race is a social construct” in the face of this looming rendezvous with reality.

But you can be sure that they will:

The genetic findings that Mr. Wade reports should, in a reasonable world, affect the way social scientists approach the most important topics about human societies. Social scientists can still treat culture and institutions as important independent causal forces, but they also need to start considering the ways in which variations among population groups are causal forces shaping those cultures and institutions.

How long will it take them? In 1998, the biologist E.O. Wilson wrote a book, “Consilience,” predicting that the 21st century would see the integration of the social and biological sciences. He is surely right about the long run, but the signs for early progress are not good. “The Bell Curve,” which the late Richard J. Herrnstein and I published 20 years ago, should have made it easy for social scientists to acknowledge the role of cognitive ability in shaping class structure. It hasn’t. David Geary’s “Male/Female,” published 16 years ago, should have made it easy for them to acknowledge the different psychological and cognitive profiles of males and females. It hasn’t. Steven Pinker’s “The Blank Slate,” published 12 years ago, should have made it easy for them to acknowledge the role of human nature in explaining behavior. It hasn’t.

I don’t know any of this material to be true, but I can understand how it might be (evolution being what it is, and the timeline of racial separation being as long as it’s been). Now what?

My particular prejudice (if I amy employ that word here) is that the facts of life are conservative. People around the world, regardless of race, need the rule of law, lightly regulated capitalism, a modicum of decency and honesty among their elected or appointed or inherited leaders—stir gently, and then leave it alone. But my worldview doesn’t take genetics into account. How anti-science of me.

I should probably leave it to the intellectual titans to battle over this book and its thesis. But I reject the idea that any subject is taboo. If this theory is wrong, that should be proven in debate, not a shouting match.


Call My Cousin Vinnie on This Uncle Tom

What if Donald Sterling had said this? (He probably has.)

In an exclusive interview with CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash, Rep. Bennie Thompson doubled down on controversial remarks he made about race over the weekend.

The Mississippi Democrat had argued Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a black conservative, is an “Uncle Tom” who doesn’t stand up for African Americans.

Bash: When you said Clarence Thomas was an “Uncle Tom,” what did you mean by that?

Thompson: “Well if you look at his decisions on the court, they have been adverse to the minority community, and the people I represent have a real issue with an African American not being sensible to those issues.”

Bash: Isn’t that a racially charged term?

Thompson: “For some it is, but to others it’s the truth.”

Bash: Because looking at that and hearing that kind of language, that certainly wouldn’t be appropriate if it was coming from somebody who was white.

Thompson: “But I’m black.”

Bash: That makes it OK?

Out of respect for the office, if not the man, I will spare you his answer. I wouldn’t want to be accused of racism.

On to Obama:

Bash: The other thing you were talking about is the fact that you believe some of the opposition, maybe even much of the opposition, to the president is because of the color of his skin.

Thompson: “Well, I’ve been here a long time. I’ve seen a lot of issues come before Congress. I’ve never seen the venom put forth on another candidate or a president like I’ve seen with this president and that’s my opinion.”

Bash: Are there specific things that people have said that are racially tinged that make you say that, or are you reading the tea leaves of what’s going on?

Thompson: “I’ve seen quite a few State of the Union messages, I’ve never heard a president called a liar in a State of the Union message.”

Bash: You think Congressman Joe Wilson was race based?

Thompson: “Well, I’ve never heard it before, it was a stupid decision…statement, but it has no real bearing.”

It has no real bearing…yet he brought it up? I’m trying real hard to be racially sensitive here, but he’s not giving me much to work with.

Bash: Were Mitch McConnell’s comments were [sic] racist?

Thompson: “It had nothing to with that. The comments are insensitive. To say to a president that you’re going to oppose anything that he puts out there is just totally…”

Bash: You think it was race based?

Thompson: “Well I’ve never heard him say it to any other president.”

Mitch McConnell has been leader of the Senate Republicans since 2006. The only other president about whom he would have said anything is George W. Bush, a fellow Republican. And as we’re so frequently reminded, Barack Obama is the first black president of the United States. So, what, pray tell, is his point?

We’re told black people can call each other “ni**er”, and it has nothing to do with us. We have no business minding, even. I guess the same thing goes with “Uncle Tom”. Maybe between African Americans, it’s also a term of endearment.

What’s up, Uncle Tom?

Not much, n-word. What up with you?

Same old, same old, [racial epithet]. Keeping on keeping on.

I hear that, [vile slur]. How’s the old lady?

That [private body part]? She’s fine. Yours?

Oh, you know. Still [performing sexual act] on my [private body part]. Can’t complain.

I can’t help feeling I’ve gone too far, but I don’t know when I crossed the line. I’m out of my depth here. I apologize for any offense I may have caused.


Obama Heading Al Sharpton Event

Completely disgusting

President Obama is lending his political support to fellow community organizer Al Sharpton by headlining the MSNBC host’s National Action Network (NAN) conference this week in New York. Obama’s choice to headline the conference underscores the close ties of the two leaders and provides an increased sense of political legitimacy to the controversial leader and his much-maligned organization.

Sharpton’s conference is held in April “not just to commemorate the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination, but to honor his legacy by proactively engaging in dialogue that will spawn change.” The NY Daily News reports that along with President Obama, the conference will feature other high-profile liberal leaders, including US Attorney General Eric Holder, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Over the years Sharpton’s organization has been accused of engaging in questionable financial practices, including using the threat of boycotts to extort donations from corporations and land Sharpton consultant positions. As the New York Post reported in 2008, nearly 50 companies—including GM, Pepsi and Wal-Mart, and some labor unions—had donated to NAN. The NY Post attributes many of these donations to extortionist tactics:

Terrified of negative publicity, fearful of a consumer boycott or eager to make nice with the civil-rights activist, CEOs write checks, critics say, to NAN and Sharpton – who brandishes the buying power of African-American consumers.” In some cases, they hire him as a consultant.

(Incidentally, one of the panel discussions for this year’s conference is “How Can Corporations Collaborate to Affect Change in the Community.”)

As Breitbart News reports, Sharpton’s organization was charged in 2006 by the IRS for improperly reporting taxes. The organization still owes the federal government $1.9 million in back taxes and penalties.

The ties between President Obama and Al Sharpton are strong. The NY Daily News reports that Sharpton has visited the Oval Office several times during Obama’s tenure. In 2009, Sharpton and Michael Bloomberg met with Obama on education initiatives. In 2010, the president invited Sharpton back to discuss jobs and the state of the economy with other black leaders. Sharpton also took part in the First Lady’s 50th birthday celebration and supported the president’s young black and Hispanic men initiative.

This is the second time Obama has appeared at the NAN convention, also speaking at the event in 2011.

Sharpton is a race-baiter and an anti-Semite. He is one of the reasons that I am no longer a democrat. What a cesspool of a country we’ve become.


Boerish Behavior

Those who cracked even the merest smirk at the shenanigans surrounding Mandela’s funeral have been branded racists. (For the record, we think Mandela would have laughed hardest of all.)

Make room for one more racist:

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said that Nelson Mandela would have been appalled that Afrikaners were excluded from memorial services marking his death.

He highlighted the absence of the Dutch Reformed Church and the limited use of the Afrikaans language at the services.

Archbishop Tutu also strongly criticised the prominence of the governing African National Congress (ANC) during the week of events following Mr Mandela’s death on 5 December.

“I also believe it may have sent out a more inclusive message had the programme directors at the Memorial and Funeral – both national and State events – not both been senior office-bearers of the ruling party,” he said.

“We were amiss in not being as inclusive as Madiba [Mandela’s clan name] would certainly have been,” he said.

“To the extent that I can do so meaningfully, I apologise to our sisters and brothers in the Afrikaner Community,” he added.

We don’t have much use for Tutu in Bloodthirstan. His statements on foreign policy—particularly Israel—are hateful and ignorant. But of his own turf he speaks with a degree of authority.


Enough With the Racism Already!

I am outraged! I am offended!! I am… what the…?

[T]he ad is not referring to some Americans’ stubborn distrust of Obama’s assertion that he’s actually Christian. The campaign’s creative director, Abolaji Alausa of Nigerian agency Noah’s Ark, explained his Obama-Islam connection to Business Insider in an email.

“Simply put, the bleaching power of Hypo has a force that attracts the most unlikely characters to love wearing white regardless of their strong social beliefs,” he wrote.

The “Damn good whites” slogan is meant to hit as the punchline, whether it’s referring to America’s uneasy relationship with much of the Muslim world or the fight waged against apartheid by South African civil rights leader Desmond Tutu, whom Hypo dressed up a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

Oh no they di-unt!

Oh yes they did:

Alausa said the idea behind the campaign was a simple one Nigerians would understand, and it’s based off of the bleach brand’s association with the color white.

“…In every part of the world, white signifies peace, and it’s not any different in the minds of Nigerians, therefore our primary audience understood the message of putting hate aside despite our different beliefs,” he wrote.

Hey, he said it, not me.


Stay Classy, Liberals!

Nation’s only African American Senator not invited to speak at MLK celebration

Sen. Tim Scott, R.-S.C., the only African American serving in the United States Senate, wasn’t invited to the event commemorating the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s march on Washington, though a host of Democratic luminaries spoke on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

“Senator Scott was not invited to speak at the event,” Greg Blair, a spokesman for the South Carolina lawmaker, said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. “The senator believes today is a day to remember the extraordinary accomplishments and sacrifices of Dr. King, Congressman John Lewis, and an entire generation of black leaders. Today’s anniversary should simply serve as an opportunity to reflect upon how their actions moved our country forward in a remarkable way.”

The event organizers didn’t completely exclude Republicans from the event — former President George W. Bush, for instance, received an invitation, but he couldn’t attend as he is recovering from surgery — but the slate of speakers was filled with names such as former President Clinton, Gov. Martin O’Malley, D-Md., Oprah Winfrey, Jamie Foxx and others.

The Democrat Party owns the votes of African Americans, and until African Americans decide otherwise, this kind of stuff will continue to happen.

– Aggie

Comments (4)

PhD: Philosophically Dead

Do I know how much immigration “reform” (i.e, amnesty) will cost? I do not. But common sense (which President Obama likes to cite all the time) tells me it will cost us more than it will repay us.

Do I know if the IQs of illegal immigrants is lower than native-born Americans? Again, no, but common sense (again!) suggests that they might be.

But woe betide you if you suggest either one:

American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray suggested on Friday that former Heritage Foundation analyst Jason Richwine, whose doctoral dissertation at Harvard included evidence that Hispanic immigrants have lower IQs than non-Hispanic whites, had been railroaded and forced to resign by people without integrity or “balls.”

Richwine was recently the co-author of a polarizing report on the cost of mass legalization. But it was his older Harvard dissertation on race and IQ that attracted intense criticism in recent days, with Heritage stressing that it did not endorse Richwine’s thoughts on the topic.

But evidently Harvard did endorse those thoughts—no, not “thoughts”: findings.

Richwine received his doctorate in public policy in 2009 from Harvard University’s prestigious Kennedy School of Government. He holds bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and political science from American University. Before joining Heritage in 2010, he worked at the American Enterprise Institute on a dissertation fellowship.

The thesis analyzes social policy consequences of these findings and uses a model of the labor market “to show how immigrant IQ affects the economic surplus accruing to natives and the wage impact on low-skill natives.”

No researcher or academic institution is safe if this smear campaign succeeds. Richwine’s dissertation committee at Harvard included George Borjas, Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy. The Cuban-born scholar received his PhD in economics from Columbia. He is an award-winning labor economist, National Bureau of Economic Research research associate, and author of countless books, including a widely used labor economics textbook now in its sixth edition.

Richard J. Zeckhauser, the Frank P. Ramsey Professor of Political Economy at JFK, also signed off on Richwine’s dissertation. Zeckhauser earned a PhD in economics from Harvard. He belongs to the Econometric Society, the American Academy of Sciences, and the Institute of Medicine (National Academy of Sciences).

The final member of the committee that approved Richwine’s “racist” thesis is Christopher Jencks, the Malcolm Wiener Professor of Social Policy at Harvard’s JFK School. He is a renowned left-wing academic who has taught at Harvard, Northwestern, the University of Chicago, and the University of California, Santa Barbara. He edited the liberal New Republic magazine in the 1960s and has written several scholarly books tackling poverty, economic inequality, affirmative action, welfare reform, and yes, racial differences.


So all of these achieved and highly acclaimed scholars reviewed Jason Richwine’s doctoral thesis and granted him approval, and not one of them at the time they reviewed it accused him of racism or bigotry or prejudice or bias. He sailed through the doctoral program. But because his work has been cited in the Heritage Foundation on the Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill, he is now targeted for destruction. And joining this attempt to destroy him are several Republican establishment members, several RINO Republicans who are part of this cabal that thinks the Republican Party needs to go out and support amnesty in order to get Hispanic votes to have any chance of winning future elections.

And it’s funny because everybody’s out there demanding honest discussions. We must have honest discussions about race. We must have honest discussions about immigration. Well, here is one. Here’s an honest discussion, a doctoral dissertation, and it is under attack because it is honest. It’s entitled, “IQ: An Immigration Policy.” We’ve put the link at There are three parts. Part 1 reviews the science of IQ as the foundation and basis for what follows. Part 2 delves into the empirical research comparing IQs of native born American populations with that of immigrant groups with the Hispanic population broken out, and then he explores the causes of an immigrant IQ deficit that appears to persist among Hispanic immigrants to the US through several generations.

He didn’t make it up. He didn’t invent it. This is not some premise. This is not like global warming, where these guys have a premise, go out and do research and then fake it. He had a premise, he researched it, and this is what he found. And when it was published, nobody had a problem with it. But now that it’s in the Heritage report criticizing the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill, all hell has broken loose. Poor guy, Jason Richwine, I don’t think he had the slightest idea what was gonna happen to him. He’s like so many on our side. He’s now under assault, and I guarantee you not one person in his life has ever accused him of racism, bigotry, any of that. And he’s sitting there scratching, “What the hell?” He’s getting his taste of it now. This is what happens to conservatives in America today.

The Left fancies itself as the defender of science, common sense. But really, it’s all about faith to them, cultish faith. You can’t reason away faith, you can’t use logical argument. This is what befalls you if you try.

Evidence and analysis show that immigrants may have lower IQs, and that those immigrants may cost society. The correct answer is “so what?” Not “ra-a-a-cism!” We all support immigration; a great many of us are first, second or third-generation Americans ourselves. But can we at least acknowledge the facts before making an informed decision?

That’s a joke, actually. Washington doesn’t make informed decisions.


Racist MSNBC Doesn’t Air Any Speech Given By Minority At RNC

Their obsession with race is a projection. It is obviously racist to refuse to show any of the speeches given by African Americans or Latinos. Is this our future?

One of the left’s favorite attacks on the Republican Party is that it is the party of old white people, devoid of diversity and probably racist.

If you were watching MSNBC’s coverage of the Republican National Convention in Tampa on Tuesday night, you might believe those assertions, since missing from the coverage was nearly every ethnic minority that spoke during Tuesday’s festivities.

In lieu of airing speeches from former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, a black American; Mia Love, a black candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Utah; and Texas senatorial hopeful Ted Cruz, a Latino American, MSNBC opted to show commentary anchored by Rachel Maddow from Rev. Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes and Steve Schmidt.

Throughout this convention, Matthews has accused the Republicans of playing dog-whistle racist politics while on scene in Tampa. It isn’t clear, however, if Matthews will hurl accusations of racism at Davis, Love or Cruz for speeches his network failed to broadcast.

I missed the Cruz and Love speeches but caught Artur Davis giving one of the most intelligent, witty speeches I’ve ever heard. It is a shame the liberals who only watch MSNBC missed it. Being a liberal is its own punishment.

– Aggie


Biden Plays The Race Card

It’s all they got.

I saw an interview with an Obama spokesperson defending this. I am so grossed out.

– Aggie

PS from BTL: Aggie, that may not even be the most idiotic thing he said:

It’s hard to keep all 57 states straight. Especially from the 99th North Dakota congressional district.

Comments (2)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »