Posted by
Cary Wesberry on Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:40:06 PM
I’ve always believed that the United States of America had passed the time when a major candidate for president could garner millions of votes with a campaign based solely on bigotry.
I was wrong.
While Barack Obama has been spending hours defending his spiritual adviser, Rev. Wright, over his racially charged rhetoric, there is now overwhelming evidence that it is actually Hillary Clinton needs to explain her racist ties.
Consider the facts:
Bill Clinton claimed that Barack Obama’s campaign was based on a “fairy tale.” Is it possible that a former president believes a black man rising to a position of power based on his own hard work and intellect could only be a mythical fabrication? It’s not as far-fetched as you might think.
Remember, Hillary Clinton once insinuated that those of Indian descent, even those as accomplished and respected as Mahatma Gandhi, were capable only of running a “gas station down in St. Louis.”
If her language is that overtly racist in public, imagine the hate-filled vitriol she must spew behind closed doors.
Clinton has made universal healthcare a central part of her campaign, claiming her goal is to provide coverage for all. But this weak attempt at spin is made transparent by one very inconvenient truth: Hillary’s plan will benefit only one fourth the amount of African-Americans as other races — most notably (and least surprisingly) whites.
In fact, Hillarycare is nothing but a blatant attempt to funnel approximately $87 billion away from African-Americans. The country deserves better.
Hillary claims that pulling troops out of Iraq would be good for our soldiers. Really?
Or does she mean that it would be good for our white soldiers? After all, the facts are clear: Clinton’s Iraq policy benefits whites by an almost 3-1 ratio over African-Americans. Do we really want a president who will put racial bias ahead of our national security?
Clinton’s tax policy is no different. She wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and raise taxes on “the rich.” But who is she really targeting?
Well, look just at one of the major industries that, because of its preponderance of wealthy workers, would be affected: professional athletes. Of the top 10 highest paid athletes, seven are black and one is Hispanic. Minority players on the list would pay around $38 million extra in taxes, while whites would only pay an extra $8 million.
The highest paid positions in the NFL show similar and even more extreme examples of Clinton’s unfair targeting of minorities. Since the mid-1980s, close to 300 running backs have rushed for 1,000 yards, earning most of them huge paychecks that would be taxed severely by Clinton’s plan. Not one of those running backs was white.
Clinton has also outwardly criticized accomplished black leaders such as Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Clarence Thomas.
That shouldn’t come as much of surprise considering that her husband, known as the first black president, still reports himself in demographic surveys as Caucasian, denying his heritage.
In addition, it’s a little suspicious that all of Bill Clinton's alleged affairs have been with white women (that we know of). One can’t help but wonder if she would have divorced him had any of those women looked different.
Hillary routinely criticizes inexpensive energy sources that make it easier for poor recipients — disproportionately minorities — to heat their homes and transport their children to school. These energy sources — coal and oil — are exclusively black. A coincidence? Doubtful, considering her track record.
The scariest part of this clear racism is that none of it is new.
Back in Arkansas, the Clintons were more than happy to be involved in a real estate deal known as “Whitewater.” Yet when it came time to comment on the private defense company used in Iraq, which had the misfortune to be called “Blackwater,” the Clintons were suspiciously critical. So let me get this straight: they support WHITEwater and oppose BLACKwater.
Could this be any clearer?
The indisputable fact is that, yes, it could be a lot clearer. In fact, it would be nice if anything in this column made any sense at all. What you’ve just read was a ridiculous collection of wild accusations, half-truths, unwarranted attacks, and unfair characterizations — none of which I believe.
One could even say that in effort to try to bring down an ideological enemy, I sold my soul for political expediency.
To put it another way, I have just shown you exactly what will happen to conservatives in the coming months.
Glenn makes a fun point; read it all at NewsMax by following the link above. As well written and satirical as his examples are, if you don't know by now what the Democrats tactics are going to be once they stop eating their own then you most likely still don't get it after reading this column. Oh my do I have a shocking newsflash for everyone: John McCain also sold his soul for political expediency! The same cranky old fool that the pundits and radio hosts were once honest about is now their man of the hour, or election cycle as the case may be.
Let's discuss political expediency for a bit. It's been politically expedient for talk radio hosts and assorted idiot pundits to attack John McCain for well deserved reasons before he was the nominee because their audiences obviously distrusted and despised the man. Now, because he's the nominee and we're stuck with him thanks to you and me and everyone else allowing the media to choose him for us, these same radio hosts and pundits are being politically expedient in selling their souls to convince you there's no choice but to throw in lock, stock, and barrell with the Straight Talk to Conservative Hell that is John McCain's campaign. Is that not both political and expedient? Of course it is! And I'm disgusted by it to no end. When I'm listening to talk radio or other news and I hear the name "John McCain" I usually turn on music instead... or hit myself over the head with a toaster repeatedly depending on the availability at the time.
In my arrogant opinion, there are two kinds of voters at this point in the game. Honest voters who don't really care if we get McCain or Hillary, and downright retarded voters who've been brainwashed by B. Hussein Obama's special brand of Stalinist socialism. The other group, people who've chosen between McCain and Hillary aren't so much voters as they are soul-sold politically expedient puddles of gruel. So let's not include them in the comparison at all shall we? This is by far the worst election of my lifetime and my parent's lifetime. Calling all cave-people! Calling all cave-people! Does anyone have a hole to rent me for the next five years?