The Democrats: Too Old and Too White?

Leftwingers’ taunts in 2008 and 2012 have come back to haunt them. 

In the jubilation of the Obama election victories of 2008 and 2012, the Left warned Republicans that the party of McCain and Romney was now “too old, too white, too male — and too few.” Columnists between 2008 and 2012 ad nauseam berated Republicans on the grounds that their national candidates “no longer looked like America.” The New York Times stable crowed that the Republicans of 2008 were “all white and nearly all male” — not too long before McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running-mate. In reaction to the defeats of McCain and Romney, Salon and Harper’s ran stories on the “Grand Old White Party” and “Angry White Men.”

For Democratic progressives, Hawaiian Barack Obama could not be of mixed ancestry and decidedly middle class, but simply “black” or “African American” — as if he had shared the Jim Crow experience of Clarence Thomas. Nor was there any allowance that race itself had become hard to sort into neat categories in a nation of immigration, intermarriage, and assimilation, in which millions of Americans were one-half this and one-quarter that. Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King proved that well enough by successfully constructing themselves as white for quite a long time. 

Liberals had reversed the vision of Martin Luther King Jr.: The color of our skin, not the content of our character, is what matters. Superficial appearance, the ossified politics of the tribe — the curse of the world outside the United States, where corpses have piled up in the Balkans, Rwanda, and Iraq — alone mattered. Identity politics dictated that a shrinking white insular conservative party lacked the Democrats’ “inclusiveness” and “commitment to diversity.” Icons like Barack Obama were what mattered.

Via: National Review

Continue Reading....

MLK III Disgraces his Father

Here's a case of the fruit falling and rolling a long way from the tree.

Last Saturday, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, Martin Luther King III spoke. He echoed his father's words from fifty years ago about people not being judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

In the words of MLK III:

"The task is not done, the journey is not complete," he said. "The vision preached by my father a half-century ago was that his four little children would no longer live in a nation where they would judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

To that end, I would say that Dr. King was wildly successful. Certainly, Dr. King's children -- post 1964 -- have, increasingly, lived free from the pernicious discrimination (legal and social) that his father -- and his father's generation -- knew all too well.

But then MLK III, in step with race industry propaganda, which is encouraged by the nation's white liberal power structure, said this:

"However, sadly, the tears of Trayvon Martin's mother and father remind us that, far too frequently, the color of one's skin remains a license to profile, to arrest and to even murder with no regard for the content of one's character," he said, calling for "stand your ground" self-defense laws to be repealed in states where they have been enacted.

MLK III isn't a naïf. He knows better about Trayvon Martin's "character," given the details that have surfaced about Martin. What Martin's intentions were that awful night he was shot and killed as he passed through George Zimmerman's neighborhood are at question. But that he pounced on Zimmerman and beat him isn't. That Zimmerman acted in self-defense is plain. When one is being beaten, one tends not to be overly concerned about the content of the assailant's character. In fact, one viscerally -- and painfully -- may assume that one's assailant is, oh, character-deficient.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....