Undoctrination.org

I didn’t know if I was going to make it, but I survived another season of black holidays.  First MLK Day, then Black History Month… I’m not forgetting anything race-oriented that comes up in Spring or Summer, am I?  Because I don’t know that I could handle it.

It’s not that I’m racist, it’s that I’m sick of racism. Every January through February the racists come out in full swing.  Everything that goes wrong is because of “those people”.  No, I’m not talking about those eeeeeevil Tea Partiers, I mean black liberals. 

Turns out that Obama’s black, or something… I wasn’t sure if everyone knew or not. Anyhow, President Precedent has a bee in his purdy little bonnet about the Tea Party, and thinks that some sort of “subterranean racism” is behind our opposition to his agenda.  It doesn’t matter that True Conservatives™ (Copyright Sarah Palin) have been up in arms about fiscal insanity since the Democrats took control of the House in 2006, or that we take note that it was the Clinton administration’s policies forcing banks to make low-income and NPOI (no proof of income) loans which helped create the housing bubble.  No, no, we didn’t care about anything political until the First Black President came along.

His narcissism knows no bounds.  Aside from the feigned ignorance as to the reason why so many Americans are rallying together in the name of our Constitution and economic stability, it’s also incredibly arrogant to assume that the only possible reason for our anger could be that he’s (half-)black.  As usual, it’s all about him.

As much as it irritates me, I could cope with the Community Organizer in Chief’s inflated ego were he the only one trying to push the “You’re RAAAACIST” meme.  Now he’s got Eric Holder joining in the fun.

When Holder was getting grilled about why the DoJ refused to pursue the case against the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) and their voter intimidation, he claimed that it was not a “BFD” because it wasn’t as bad as what had happened to “his people”.  Um, what?! 

Last I checked, he doesn’t work for the NAACP, he works for us.  All of us.  Who are “his people” anyway?  Does he mean the blacks who were lynched for exercising their right to vote?  Probably not, since Republicans were lynched right alongside them for daring to register negroes to vote.  Maybe he means the Democrats, who started the Klan and—much like the NBPP—used weaponry and threats to remind those unlike them that there were consequences for interfering with their agenda.

It certainly makes more sense to think that Holder is referring to himself as belonging to the latter.  The doctrine of the current administration is perhaps the most racist one we’ve endured—including Lyndon “We’ll have these n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” Johnson’s.

Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Clarence Thomas, the Old Spice Guy… those are “my people”.  And yet, intelligent black men who learn the truth about the political parties and leave the plantation are called “Uncle Toms” and race traitors.

Thanks to the liberal agenda, blacks are aborting themselves out of existence—with more pregnancies ending in abortion than births.  The government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars paying for the radically disproportionate murder of black babies, and while there is a tax credit for having children, there is a tax penalty for having married the father of the child.  The nuclear family is virtually extinct in the black community, and it’s not the “Uncle Toms” like Thomas Sowell who did that—it’s people like Obama. 

His continual votes in favor of abortion (in addition to the murder of babies fortunate enough to have survived the procedure) make him complicit in the genocide of his own people.   More black babies have been killed legally since Roe v. Wade than Jews were killed in the Holocaust. 

If Obama is not a race traitor for continuing to perpetuate the destruction of black social stability, then Hitler wasn’t an anti-Semite. 

I find it hard to believe that he doesn’t see how queer it is that he—or Holder—could accuse anyone else of racism against blacks.  Even if he’s pissy about the rumors that he’s a Muslim (which is another blog in and of itself), what’s so racist about that?  He grew up in a predominantly Muslim country, and his name is Barack Hussein Obama.  If our president was named Patrick Malley O’Brien and spent part of his childhood in Ireland, it’d be a reasonable assumption that he was Catholic and enjoyed the occasional pint.  But that’s not racist, because you can’t be racist against whites—they haven’t suffered enough to matter.

Perhaps even more perplexing than the fact that blacks fall for this garbage is that white liberals eat it up with a spoon and beg for more. 

Anecdote time! 

For those who don’t know, I’m a Halfrican from the left-coast, and my darling husband is a blonde, green-eyed Southerner.  This is handy information for those trying to build a false narrative about me being some cross-burning race-traitor, but it’s actually important to the story, so stick with me.

Anyhow, my husband had an acquaintance from work who was an older, white, liberal woman.  She once asked my husband to tell me “To have a wonderful Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day.”  Okay, so, ignore the pretentiousness in saying his full name, as though she’s pronouncing the name of a king and not just a King. 

Cut to later that year when The Black Golden One was elected, and she asked my husband about how we spent election night.  He mumbled something about our disappointment, and she replied that “Surely Rachael is at least a little happy that he was elected, I mean, having the First Black President™!” 

Thank goodness I wasn’t there when she said this, because I wouldn’t have been able to help myself from doing a little Bo Jangles dance and saying, “Oh yes, Massa, I sho nuff is happy you put one’a my folk in dat White House.  Mighty thankful, Massa!”

Then, at a dinner party, she and several other friends from her demographic tried to explain to me the racism involved in electoral politics.  Because, in their minds, having spent their lives listening to NPR in their Volvos on the way to work qualified them to lecture a young, black woman on what it’s like to be… young and black.

This is what racism has reduced white liberals to.  In the name of some sort of black racial solidarity (which, in my not-so-humble opinion, has no place in a “post-racial America”), whites have been convinced that they owe something which cannot be repaid; that their happiness is a burden upon someone else; that their burden is a necessary suffrage for another man’s benefit.  They take black racism and pay-it-forward, telling blacks that whether they accept it or not they are victims, and will never be equal to their white counterparts. 

I refuse to co-sign the contract that makes me another man’s slave—whether it’s The Man or Uncle Sam.

Those old enough to remember the Civil Rights Era, who should know that Democrats made record-setting filibusters of every piece of Civil Rights legislation— including the longest one-man filibuster (over 24 hours by Strom Thurmond) in ’57, longest continuous filibuster of over five days in ‘60, and the remarkable 57 day filibuster headed by the longest-seated senator (Robert Byrd) in ’64—still insist that the Democrat agenda is the one under which blacks can finally receive equality.

Instead of acknowledging that the only party to feature negro/black equality in every single annual party platform since its creation (Yes, I’ve read all of them) is the GOP, they either employ double-think to ignore the facts, or they spout a bunch of nonsense about how the parties switched at some point.  It’s the latter argument that makes me want to beat my head against the monitor. 

Why would a party completely change into its opposition, while the other simultaneously did the same?  It makes no sense whatsoever, but I hear this argument all the time.  “You’ve been brainwashed by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to talk about how the Earth is round.  Well, yeah, it is now!  You’re just a kid, you weren’t around in the day, you don’t know that it used to be flat.  Yeah, that’s right, the Earth filled out and became round sometime in the ‘60s.”  Um, okay…

Just because I grew up during the cola wars instead of the Vietnam war, and watched Family Matters instead of All in the Family, doesn’t mean that I am politically ignorant.  And, as the ironic icing on the hypocritical cake, the same people who criticize me on the basis of my age (or my having married a white man, or anything else that they view as a crime against my ability to reason) ignore that we are discussing the effects of the past on the current political climate. 

If Obama’s agenda is about “Winning the Future”, shouldn’t it be those who grew up seeing the world that the Civil Rights Era created that have the most insight on how it worked out? 

Instead of the “post-racial America” we were promised throughout the ’08 campaign, all we’re seeing is the racial pendulum swinging to the other side, where now whites are having to apologize for who and what they are, and for what they believe.

My future second husband, Rand Paul, was torn to shreds when he stated opposition to restrictions within the ’64 Civil Rights Act that eliminated the right of businesses to deny service based on race.  He spoke out in defense of a business owner’s right to have his business succeed or fail based upon the merit of his decisions.  I support him fully and am anxiously awaiting my engagement ring in the mail so I can add him to my harem of politicrushes.

However, even a man of his principles could not withstand the propaganda machine.  They established a narrative so that in spite of their party’s filibuster of the Civil Rights Act for the purposes of segregation, it is in fact Rand Paul who is the racist for daring to suggest that the free market resolve these dilemmas without government intervention.  In the end, Rand offered a “clarification” (translation: backpedal) saying that he would, in fact, have voted for the Civil Rights Act of ’64. 

The difference between Rand Paul and the men who filibustered the legislation is that one is stating opposition to specific parts on the basis of finding a practice morally inexcusable while seeing government intervention as ethically inexcusable.  The other stated opposition on the basis of the end result of the legislation: the prohibition of discrimination.  Nuances are inherently racist, though—so let’s just pretend I didn’t bother explaining that.

He’s still my favorite super-totally-not-racist politician (he even opposes the extermination of black babies), but I was tremendously disappointed that he bothered to make a follow-up statement regarding his hypothetical vote, when it was clear what he meant the first time he said it.

But what can you expect?  This is the most that the reparations-based political system will allow.  Charlie Rangle can make nonsensical remarks about how opposing collective bargaining is akin to supporting slavery, but it will not cost him a single vote from his constituents—most of which have never learned of unions’ racist history.

The aging RINOsaur John McCain fell victim to the same racist-until-proven-innocent mentality over his vote against making MLK Day (The Holy and Sacred Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, I mean…) a national holiday.  In actuality, he was supporting the separation of church and state—which the left values tremendously under other circumstances—by refusing to let the federal government acknowledge a man who never held office and whose occupation was that of being a minister.  None of that matters, though, because since he was later ran against a black man, this vote was just further evidence that McCain is an eeeeeeevil right-wing racist.

And if you think that the extent of this reaching our personal lives is dealing with preachy friends in conversation or hearing eye-roll-inducing soundbites from DC, you’re sadly mistaken.  The left coast is run by the aging flower children of yore—and in addition to refusing to arrest or prosecute people for traditional “black crimes”—unless they’re white—they’re also firing people based on how they decorate their personal property.

In Oregon, Kenneth Webber was booted from his job as a school bus driver because he had a Confederate flag with the word “Redneck” across the Stars and Bars on his own truck.  Even I have a limit to how much I am willing to piss liberals and populists off in a single post, so I’ll refrain from bombarding you with facts about the Confederate flag and the role of blacks in fighting for the Confederacy.  Even if you think it’s a racist symbol of hatred and slavery and blah blah blah, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Westboro Baptist Church, this is a brazen attack on the man’s civil rights.

If the so-called “church” (99% of Christians throw a major-league side eye at WBC laying claim to that word) has the right to protest at the funerals of dead soldiers on public property and can’t even be sued for it, how is it Constitutional that an employer could suspend a man from work because of what he chooses to put on his own truck?

Webber is fighting back and plans on suing, and good for him for refusing to back down against the PC Police.  I guarantee this school district has never suspended a student or employee for the “power to the people”/”black power” fist flag.  If the Southern Poverty Law Center’s argument against him is that regardless of how he views it, the Confederate flag is inappropriate because of “hate groups” using it, then the terrorists and black separatists using the latter flag makes it a symbol of hatred and violence, too. 

Except, wait a minute, when you go to the SPLC website and look up black separatists, they say that:

Although the racism of a group like the Nation [of Islam, and its founder Louis Farrakhan] may be relatively easy to understand, if we seek to expose white hate groups, we cannot be in the business of explaining away the black ones.

Relatively easy to understand?  Easy to understand?!  Yeah, it’s completely reasonable that a man like Louis Farrakhan would blame Jews for the Holocaust and exalt Hitler as “a great man” for trying to exterminate them; say that “They call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters,”; and call whites “unevolved humans”.  Quite understandable, indeed—at least to the black racist and his liberal apologist.  

The SPLC—the group used by our federal government in deciding what is and is not a racist organization—openly admits that they only bother to do their puff piece on black racism because they’re obligated to.  Even more peculiar, the only black separatists they mention are the Nation of Islam.  Nothing about the “we gonna have to kill some cracker babies” folks of the NBPP—all because Holden thinks that “his people” suffered more than whites have.  That might be true now, but with the way things are going, it won’t be for long.

For all the left’s talk about a post-racial America, it’s clear that they have no general interest in one.  When I hear about a country without racism, I feel like a cat staring out the window on a sunny day.  It’s right-freaking-there, if only there weren’t some invisible border keeping us from it. 

That border, the biggest thing keeping us from being a nation completely without racial bigotry, is that we only acknowledge racism when the alleged source is the Middle-American protesting big government; when it’s the cop arresting a black man; when it’s the man flying a Confederate flag; when it’s the blogger who abandoned her race to marry a white man. 

That border is the one imposed by black racists and their liberal apologists.