RSS

Tag Archives: Uncle Tom

“Black confederate” Fool Meets Real confederate KKK

This clown has been running around for the past 20 years or so flying his confederate flag, dressed up in a confederate uniform. He is a favorite with racist groups throughout the South to parade up on the stage to cover their pharmacists we need to take up a collection to have Psychologists do research into “Uncle Tom Syndrome”, and possible cures.

HK Edgerton (James Scott/Facebook)

The Lawn Ornament in question…

Bystanders break up bizarre scuffle between angry KKK members and black pro-Confederate activist

A black pro-Confederate demonstrator was met by angry Ku Klux Klan members at a Florida park in a Dave Chappelle sketch come to life.

H.K. Edgerton, the former president of the NAACP chapter in Asheville, North Carolina, travels the South wearing a Confederate army uniform to promote his belief that the seditious government was not racist.

The 68-year-old Edgerton baffled his former colleagues by campaigning in favor of pro-Confederate groups and promoting their symbols — which many Americans perceive as antagonistic emblems of the slavery and racism.

He stood beside a Confederate monument in Asheville last year holding the “Stars and Bars” battle flag after vandals painted “Black Lives Matter” on the pedestal a week after a white supremacist who posed with the flag gunned down nine black worshipers at a South Carolina church.

He’s also made lengthy — and solo — marches across the South over the past 16 years to promote his belief that Confederate heritage was not necessarily racist, and he’s currently walking across Florida for the same purpose.

Edgerton, wearing a gray historical uniform, was paying his respects Monday morning at the Hemming Park Confederate Monument in Jacksonville when several members of an area KKK chapter confronted him, reported WTLV-TV.

The racist group argued with Edgerton until witnesses came to his defense and defused the situation.

The Southern Legal Resource Center, where Edgerton is a board member, said they weren’t sure why KKK members protested the black pro-Confederate activist’s demonstration.

Pro-Confederate groups rallied behind Edgerton, who has been accused by critics of “neo-Confederate revisionism,” demonstrating some of the complexities about race and southern heritage that the comedian Chappelle toyed with in his old Comedy Central series.

“Mr. H.K. and the other true Southerners in Florida can handle these ignoramuses,” said Facebook user Robin Foster Osorio-Pedraza. “I’m glad they’re all looking out for each other. We don’t like it when white supremists (sic) use our Confederate battle flag. It belongs to us, the descendants of those who served under it in the War of North Agression (sic).”

The administrator of one pro-Confederate social media page lashed out at the “freaks in the sheets” who protested Edgerton’s appearance.

“To those idiots in the dunce caps…. Y’all got your asses handed to you at Stone Mountain, beat down in Anaheim, and made a fool of on CNN by a black comedian. And now this. Y’all are more like the Keystone Kops than an organization of fear. Let it go and crawl back into your momma’s basement,” posted the administrator of the “We Support the Confederate Flag” page.

Edgerton argued against slavery reparations in a 2006 episode of Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit,” and he threatened a lawsuit in 2009 against a newly elected Asheville City Council member because he was an atheist.

 

 
2 Comments

Posted by on May 10, 2016 in Black Conservatives

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Conservatives Again Show Their Racist Behinds on Tubman Being Added to $20 Bill

The conservatives even trotted out their favorite Uncle Tom, Uncle Ben Carson…

Followed by his owner – Donald Trump

 

They only want to honor white men: The pathetic conservative meltdown over the Harriet Tubman $20 bill exposes the right’s petty identity politics

The only reason to be mad about the changes to the money is a belief that only white men should receive tribute

On Wednesday, the Treasury Department unveiled a plan to redesign the $20, $10, and $5 bills to better reflect American history, moving some of the (all white, all male) former presidents around on the bills and making room to put luminaries like Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King, and Eleanor Roosevelt on various bills. The biggest shift will be Tubman, who helped create and run the Underground Railroad for escaped slaves, gracing the front of the $20 bill, kicking Andrew Jackson to the back.

(Why Jackson, the Donald Trump of his time — except more genocidal — needs to stay on the bill is another question altogether.)

The Treasury’s decision should be non-controversial. After all, we all agree that history is made by more than presidents (plus, the $100 bill has a non-president on it, which confirms this is a shared belief), and that people other than white men exist and matter. Don’t we? You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who disagrees publicly with these contentions, except perhaps on some Twitter accounts that Trump keeps retweeting.

Yet, in a move that was entirely predictable, right wing pundits are in meltdown, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that, regardless of any surface claims to believe in equality, the reality is that they adhere to the belief that white men are the only ones who really matter and the rest of us are just the supporting cast.

The strategy that modern conservative propaganda uses, when called upon to rationalize overt racism and sexism, is to get conservative women and people of color to express the sentiments. It’s a cheap and obvious but unfortunately effective ploy, and one that was immediately employed by the folks at Fox News to appeal to their audience members who want to hear why they aren’t bigots, even though they revolt at women and black people on money.

Greta Van Susteren played her part to the hilt on Fox Wednesday night, even going so far as to say that she’s “a feminist”, before offering an opinion that disproved this contention.

“Rather than dividing the country between those who happen to like the tradition of our currency and want President Andrew Jackson to stay put and those who want to put a woman on a bill,” she argued.

Denying women the vote, keeping women from working, putting women in the stocks for having a sharp tongue, treating women as subhuman property of men are also “traditions,” you know. The whole point of being a feminist is refusing to accept that tradition trumps a woman’s right to equality. But beyond just that, appeals to tradition are considered a logical fallacy for a good reason. The idea that we should keep doing a stupid and harmful thing because we have done it that way in the past isn’t a grand and noble idea. It’s refusing to learn from experience.

Of course, no one actually buys this argument, not really. The folks waxing poetic about the impropriety of change when it comes to the currency probably aren’t writing their sentiments on parchment paper with quill pens. The only time they cling to tradition is if the tradition flatters their prejudices, in this case the prejudicial belief that only white men can be great Americans.

Van Susteren pretended to be open to compromise by arguing that Tubman should go on a new bill, recommending a $25 denomination. This gambit is quickly becoming a popular one for conservative pundits and politicians who are pandering to white men who think that having only white men on their money somehow makes them superior people by association.

Ben Carson, doing his duty of offering cover for racist opinions, argued on Fox News, “I love Harriet Tubman. I love what she did, but we can find another way to honor her. Maybe a $2 bill.”

Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump picked up this argument.

“Maybe we need to do another denomination — maybe we do a $2 bill,” Trump told Matt Lauer. “Yes, I think it’s pure political correctness — [Jackson’s] been on the bill for many, many years, and really represented someone who was really important to this country.”

If it’s not obvious what they’re doing here, let me spell it out for you: They’re pretending to be generous by offering to put Tubman on money that either doesn’t exist or people don’t use. The implication is that it’s only okay to honor women of color as long as you simultaneously assert that white men are still better...More

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Black Lawn Jockey Trump Preacher

Black people don’t exist! Yup – He says it right about the 8:50 mark.

Trump had to get a discount rate on this clown.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Faux News Rolls Out Their Lawn Jockey to Attack Chris Rock

As anticipated, yet another effort at putting a black race pimps face on racism…

 
1 Comment

Posted by on February 29, 2016 in Faux News, The Definition of Racism

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

With Scalia Dead, Uncle Tommie Clarence Speaks For the First Time in 10 Years

Amazing what no longer being required to have his nose up Scalia’s derriere has done for the man. He can actually take a breath and say something…

Clarence Thomas Just Asked His First Question in a Decade on the Supreme Court

For 10 years, Justice Clarence Thomas has sat on the bench of the Supreme Court through innumerable oral arguments without asking a single question. That all changed today.

On Monday morning, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Voisine v. United States, a complex and arcane case involving domestic violence and gun ownership. The case initially seemed to revolve around a technical question of criminal intent. Stephen Voisine was convicted of “intentionally, knowingly, orrecklessly caus[ing] bodily injury or offensive physical contact” to his girlfriend following a domestic dispute. As a result, he was stripped of his ability to own a gun, because United States federal law indefinitely bars individuals convicted of “a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from owning firearms. Voisine now argues that “recklessly” causing violence—as opposed to knowingly or intentionally—shouldn’t disqualify him from possessing a gun under federal law.

Arguments were somewhat dry until the last few minutes, when Ilana H. Eisenstein, an assistant to the solicitor general representing the federal government, was preparing to finish up and take her seat. Just before she left the lectern, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke up, asking his very first question from the bench in a decade. The entire court perked up. Everyone shifted forward in their seats, and there was a look of shock on many spectators’ faces. We in the press section nearly fell out of our seats, though the other justices kept admirably cool, with only Chief Justice John Roberts swiveling his head in evident surprise.

Thomas noted that a conviction under the federal statute in question “suspends a constitutional right”—the right of individuals to own guns, as established in 2008’s decision, District of Columbia v. Heller. The government argues, Thomas explained, that “recklessness” in using physical force against an intimate partner is “sufficient to trigger a misdemeanor violation that results in the suspension of what is at least as of now still a constitutional right.” (Thomas appeared to be extremely aware that Hellerwas a 5–4 decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, which could be on the chopping block if the balance of the court shifts to the left.)

The justice, speaking calmly but forcefully, then pointed out that under the federal law, a domestic abuser doesn’t actually have to use a gun against his partner to lose his gun rights. He need only commit some form of domestic abuse, with a firearm or without it. Thomas struck a tone of puzzlement with a tinge of irritation. “Therefore,” he said, “a constitutional right is suspended—even if [the domestic violence] is unrelated to the possession of a gun?”

Eisenstein retorted that individuals who have previously battered spouses have an exponentially higher risk of injuring their spouse with a firearm in the future. But Thomas dug in, asking whether any other law indefinitely suspended an individual’s constitutional rights for recklessly committing a crime. What if “a publisher is reckless about the use of children in what could be indecent displays?” he asked. Could the government “suspend this publisher’s right to ever publish again?” Is suspending First Amendment rights substantively different from suspending Second Amendment rights?

At that point, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer jumped in to help Eisenstein. (Kennedy joined Heller but isn’t a Second Amendment absolutist like Thomas; Breyer dissented from Heller.) Kennedy mentioned laws that indefinitely regulate sex offenders’ liberty, though it was a weak example, because those laws do not suspend any fundamental rights absolutely and indefinitely. Breyer veered away from Thomas’ question, noting that Voisine wasn’t directly arguing that the federal law violated his Second Amendment rights. (He had argued that earlier, actually, but the Supreme Court refused to consider that question when it agreed to hear the case.) Instead, Voisine pushed the doctrine of “constitutional avoidance”—essentially arguing that the federal law might infringe upon his right to bear arms, and so the court should rule for him on other grounds to avoid having to decide that vastly more monumental question.

 

 
1 Comment

Posted by on February 29, 2016 in Black Conservatives

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Uncle Jason Riley…Fueling White Racists

This on is two articles. A piece by Uncle Jason Tomming for the man about Black History Month, and a white racist defending racist statements because she got them for Jason Riley…SHowing just how black Uncle Tom’s like Riley enable white racists.

This from the Lawn Jockey himself. Here Riley argues that Jim Crow was good for black people, and if they knew their places they would be better off.

An Alternative Black History Month

History Month, which began as Negro History Week some 90 Februarys ago, was meant to be temporary. Its founder, historian Carter G. Woodson, envisioned a time when black history would be incorporated with American history and no longer require separate recognition. Woodson’s optimism was warranted.

Americans today are led by a black president in the fourth year of his second term. Martin Luther King’s birthday is a national holiday. The likeness of Harriet Tubman or Rosa Parks might soon grace U.S. currency, if the majority of people surveyed prevails. And it has been decades since school curricula excluded black perspectives and accomplishments. Black History Month’s sunset might seem long overdue, but the celebration is too useful politically for that to happen anytime soon.

Woodson died in 1950, a few years before the civil-rights movement found its stride. In the post-1960s era, black leaders turned that movement into a lucrative industry, and Black History Month helps keep them relevant. February is not simply about highlighting the achievements of people like voting-rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer or the Buffalo Soldiers who served in the Spanish-American War.

It is also about using racial identity to advance groupthink and to discourage black individuality. It is about presenting the history of blacks as the history of their victimization by whites up to the present day—which explains racial disparities in areas ranging from school achievement and household income to rates of unemployment, incarceration and single-parent homes.

The irony is that black history in the first half of the 20th century is a history of tremendous progress despite overwhelming odds. During a period of legal discrimination and violent hostility to their advancement, blacks managed to make unprecedented gains that have never been repeated. Black poverty fell to 47% from 87% between 1940 and 1960—before the implementation of Great Society programs that receive so much credit for poverty reduction. The percentage of black white-collar workers quadrupled between 1940 and 1970—before the implementation of affirmative-action policies that supposedly produced today’s black middle class.

In New York City, the earnings of black workers tripled between 1940 and 1950, and over the next decade the city saw a 55% increase in the number of black lawyers, a 56% increase in the number of black doctors and a 125% increase in the number of black teachers, according to political scientist Michael Javen Fortner’s new book, “Black Silent Majority.” The number of black nurses, accountants and engineers grew at an even faster clip over the same period. “There are signs that the Negro has begun to develop a large, strong middle class,” wrote Time magazine in 1953.

You don’t hear much about this black history during Black History Month (or any other month, for that matter) because it undercuts the dominant narrative pushed by the political left and accepted uncritically by the media. The Rev. Al Sharpton and the NAACP have no use for empirical evidence of significant black socioeconomic gains during the Jim Crow era, because they have spent decades insisting that blacks can’t advance until racism has been eliminated. If racism is no longer a significant barrier to black upward mobility and doesn’t explain today’s racial disparities, then blacks may have no use for Mr. Sharpton and the NAACP. The main priority of civil-rights leaders today is self-preservation.

Many factors could plausibly explain black progress in the first part of the 20th century. The post-World War II economy was booming, and blacks were steadily increasing their years of education, which increased their levels of compensation. Mass migration from the South meant that more blacks had access to the higher-paying jobs in the North.

The black family was also more stable during this period. Every census from 1890 to 1940 shows the black marriage rate slightly higher than the white rate. In 1925 five out of six black children in New York City lived with both parents. Nationally, two out of three black children were being raised in two-parent homes as recently as the early 1960s. Today, more than 70% are not.

Black nuclear families used to be the norm. Now they are the exception. Jim Crow did less damage to the black family than well-intentioned Great Society programs that discouraged work and marriage and promised more government checks for having more children. But that black history is also kept largely under wraps by those who have a vested interest in blaming the decimation of the black family on slavery and discrimination.

Much of what ought to be studied, duplicated and celebrated in black history is often played down or willfully ignored. And so long as the media allow civil-rights activists and liberal politicians with their own agendas to speak for all blacks, that won’t change.

Now – the white racist School Board member…

School board member kicks off Black History Month by telling blacks they are ‘their own worst enemy’

Illinois school board member is under fire for kicking off Black History Month by posting a racist message on the board’s official Facebook page, the Daily Herald reports.

Elgin Area School District U-46 board member Jeanette Ward, wrote the post on Feb. 1 that began with the line: “Blacks have become their own worst enemy, and liberal leaders do not help matters by blaming self-inflicted wounds on whites or ‘society.’”

Ward was quoting from author Jason L. Riley’s book “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed.”

Ward’s post continued, “The notion that racism is holding back blacks as a group, or that better black outcomes cannot be expected until racism has been vanquished, is a dodge. And encouraging blacks to look to politicians to solve their problems does them a disservice.”

At a Monday night board meeting, speakers tore into Ward’s post, calling it “racist speech” and labeling it as “irresponsible,” particularly on the first day of  Black History Month.

“When we honor Black History Month, we ought to know what black history is all about,” stated Myrna Becker before adding that she was appalled by what she read.

According to Ward, who is white,  she felt she was offering different perspective on Black History Month.

Danise Habun, a member of the Elgin Human Relations Commission, disagreed.

“There was nothing respectful toward or celebratory of Black History Month contained in the passage posted by Ms. Ward,” Habun said. “If her words and the quoted passage from the book is indeed to offer a fresh perspective, it appears as if there has been a failure to communicate. It continues to blame the victim, and ignores institutionalized racism. As an official elected to represent all members of the U-46 school district, Ms. Ward is to be held to a high standard of behavior and conduct.”

Ward refused to back down following the public comments, but did state that the entire board should not be held accountable for what she wrote.

She also defended the post by pointing out that original author Jason Riley is black.

“I want all people to succeed. There is one race — the human race. Did I not honor that African-American author by quoting him? I stand by quoting Jason L. Riley,” she said.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 10, 2016 in Black Conservatives

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Black Bimbo Battle for Prime Lawn Jockey Spot o Faux

Let’s see last week we had Stacey…Who?

This week we have Crystal Trite.

The battle for the black bimbo Lawn Jockey position is heating up at Faux News!

Crystal Wright, founder of the Conservative Black Chick blog, told Fox News that African-Americans were behaving like slaves to the Democratic Party.

Fox & Friends hosts Steve Doocy and Anna Kooiman asked Wright on Monday if there was a Republican candidate who could take away a significant number of black votes from Democrats.

“It’s Donald Trump!” Wright exclaimed. “Because Donald Trump is the only person bothering to talk to black people and ask for their vote.”

Wright noted that Trump had a black spokesperson and had promised to help the black community find jobs by deporting undocumented immigrants.

According to Wright, many blacks supported Democrats because the candidates were essentially “buying” their votes.

“I think it’s so sad when it comes to the black vote,” she lamented. “Blacks have shown a slavish support for the Democrat [SIC] Party for over 50 years.”

“And part of me wonders if the Republican Party should even bother asking for the black vote,” Wright added, “because black Americans seem to like being political dummies. We’re the only race that has voted lock, stock and barrel for the same party for over 50 years.”

The blogger argued that Hillary Clinton was “owning the black vote.”

“And I think she is owning it because, ‘Oh, she was married to the first black president,’” Wright said. “That’s all Democrats have to do. It’s a sad state of affairs for blacks when all they have to do is pander and insult black Americans decade in and decade out, and we keep coming back for more misery.””

“A black candidate like Carson, Herman Cain, you can just kiss the black vote goodbye,” she insisted. “Because automatically, blacks are going to call you an Uncle Tom.”

“It’s that pathetic? Can’t we do better?”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 1, 2016 in Black Conservatives

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 226 other followers

%d bloggers like this: