Smack dab in the middle of “Black History Month”, after our first “actual” black President (Actually, part black..) (Lilly white, red nose pinko Bill Clinton does not count.) has been elected and after our first minority (black) attorney general (Bush’s Alberto Gonzalez doesn’t count either, not minority enough..) has taken office, attorney general Eric Holder has struck a chord that won’t play well with the tone deaf liberals.
First, lets set the backdrop for attorney general Eric Holder. Holder was immersed in the Marc Rich/Bill Clinton “Pardongate” which involved the whirlwind “pardon party” of 177 convicts that took place as the Clinton administration, also known as the “Clinton Keggers”, busied themselves trashing the White House as they skulked out in 2001. Holder was also involved in the reduction of the sentences of the sixteen members of the Boricua Popular Army, an FBI identified terrorist organization, a move endorsed by Clinton. In 2004, Illinois Governor Rod “Show me the money” Blagojevich, hired Holder’s law firm, Covington & Burling, to “investigate” the Illinois Gaming Board. (My guess is that Blago didn’t think that he was being “compensated” fairly enough..) One of Covington & Burling’s finest examples of “pro bono” work is their representation of seventeen terrorists “detained” at Guantanamo Bay.. Let’s look at the bright side, at least the attorney general appears to know how to do his taxes!
Holder, while speaking at the Justice Department, said, “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards..” He continued on, “..we must feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us.”
First off, let me say that it is hard to take this type of an invitation seriously from a political party headed by a man who for twenty years, sat in the front row of the Trinity United Church of Christ wearing his “WWJD?” (What Would Jeremiah Do?) shirt, raptly listening to the bombastic bile of a clearly unhinged racist “Pastor”.
Michael Meyers, executive director of the New York Civil (snivel) Rights Coalition, identified as a “multi-racial network of organizations that try to promote racial harmony and oppose all forms of bigotry” (except the liberal kind..) said, “I don’t think Barack Obama believes that or would say that..” I agree. No Democrat would EVER consider “having frank conversations” about race and racism because the inherent and reflexive racism of the liberals themselves would have to be “addressed”.. The idea of “frankly” discussing racism with a liberal, whether he or she be an elected official or from any snivel rights group, would be about as well received as the idea of discussing a twelve-step program with Joe Biden or the idea of discussing gastric bypass surgery with Al Gore..
Meyers said that “Holder’s speech signals to him that this attorney general is profoundly left in the dark and in the past about race..” Meyers meant to say, “Any speech about race has to be about the past.. and the stuff about the Democrats and their habitual racism, keep that in the dark..”
In an article entitled, “Attorney General’s Remarks Ignite Debate Over Race Relations”, Barack Obama is mentioned giving “a major speech on race” where he said that “mutual racial resentments remain over the legacy of slavery and affirmative action”.. “Mutual”? The “resentment” rests upon the side of those who must appear appropriately aggrieved in order to expedite their requests for remuneration. There was an old saying that went, “Love means never having to say you’re sorry..” With the “racist resenters” like $harpton and Jack$on, “race” means “always having to say you’re sorry for something that you had nothing whatsoever to do with..”
What “mutual” resentment is there about the discriminatory practice of “affirmative action”? (Liberal Definitional Inversion: “affirmative” means discriminatory..) The ” real victims” of affirmative action “resent” the obvious discrimination and the “bogus beneficiaries” of the affirmative action should but don’t resent the condescension of the liberals and their “you are helpless/you can’t make it without us” handout mentality.
“Frank discussions” about “race and affirmative action”? Obama said that he urged the nation to “break a stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years” and he “bemoaned” the “chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races”. Race racketeers like $harpton and Jack$on have too much to lose if the “stalemate” is broken. Blacks who try to break such “stalemates” are usually branded as “Uncle Toms” or “Oreos”.. For example, presenting the proof that the liberals and their “affirmative action”, as well as their putrid public schools, are actually the perpetual purveyors of racist ideology gets you the resounding two hundred decibel reminder that you are in “denial”..
Whenever anyone from the left says they want to have a “frank conversation”, what that means is they expect you to admit to some alleged wrongdoing that they themselves are actually responsible for and they demand that you apologize profusely.
Just recently, the loyal opposition wanted to have “frank discussions” about the nearly one trillion dollar “economic stimulus package” with the Democrats. They were all but locked out during a stimulus bill conference on February 10th, the President responded with, “I won” and the Speaker of the House called the Republicans “acrimonious” and called any disagreement with their bloated bill, “extraneous process arguments”..
Holder called America “a nation of cowards”. I agree. The blacks who have allowed themselves to be victimized by the Democrats, who stand idly by as the disgrace of black on black crime escalates and who accept the ignominious liberal racism without a word of disagreement or outrage would all fit rather nicely into that category.
Holder is right. However, I will say that he is right for all the wrong reasons because he and the members of the collectivist caliphate are not prepared to have “frank conversations” about anything, let alone anything remotely resembling an honest discussion of the relations between the races.
If they claim that they are “prepared” and if they are willing to make the first move in the spirit of “good faith”, then I would suggest that they turn their backs upon the historically racist liberal lice..
Is that “frank” enough for you?