RSS

Tag Archives: Uncle Tom

Uncle Herman Cain, the Rapist Sez the Chumph Not a Racist

You know things are getting desperate when Herman “Where’s the white wimmin” Cain  crawls out from his thoroughly disgraced rock to endorse you. Cain’s entire platform last election was built around telling racist Tea Baggers they weren’t racist and sexually molesting women.

Herman Cain anoints ‘shucky ducky’ Donald Trump as ‘not a racist’ at Atlanta rally

Appearing at a Donald Trump rally in Atlanta on Wednesday, former GOP hopeful Herman Cain declared that the presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump was definitely “not a racist.”

“Aw, shucky ducky!” Cain shouted, warming up the crowd for Trump’s speech at the historic Fox Theatre. “This sounds like a shucky ducky kind of crowd on a shucky ducky kind of day, here to support an aw, shucky ducky kind of candidate!”

Taking a more serious tone, Cain announced that America was at a crossroads.

“This presidential campaign has been blurred by the liberals, blurred by the Democrats, blurred by the progressives — whatever they are — in order to try and label Donald Trump something that he’s not,” the conservative radio host opined. “Just in case the nightly news hasn’t heard or put this comment up there, I want to set the record straight.”

“Allow me to set the record straight about one of the biggest lies out there about Donald Trump — and I hope the liberals and the liberal media is listening — Donald Trump is not a racist!” Cain said, enunciating each syllable for effect.

Herman defending Tea Bagger racism…

Why Herman Cain had to disappear as a Republican Presidential candidate…

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 15, 2016 in Black Conservatives

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

CNN Panel on “My African-American” Gets Hot!

So now we are going to call them “African-American conservatives”…

Instead of Uncle Tom?

Personally I don’t see the media firestorm on this one. You got a Negro sitting up there in an all white crowd, made up in no small part by KKK, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis…Everybody already know what he is.

 
10 Comments

Posted by on June 4, 2016 in Black Conservatives, The Clown Bus

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

“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: , , , , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 227 other followers

%d bloggers like this: