[ About | Archive | Network | Latest | RSS/XML Feed]

Harry Reid, Racemonger

January 12, 2010 6:06 PM

Yesterday I wrote about the fact that Harry Reid, uncharacteristically, told the truth about how he views Barack Hussein Obama. The media and the political spokesmen immediately reacted. The "Democrat" response was that Reid "misspoke" or used a "poor choice of words." The Republican response was exemplified by the statements of Michael Steele, a Black American born and raised in Washington, DC, who is now chairman of the Republican National Committee. Steele said, in essence, that Reid should be step down. I agree with Michael Steele one hundred percent.

As for the response of the "Democrats," I disagree one hundred percent. Reid did not misspeak. He said what he meant and he meant what he said: Obama could be elected President because he is light-skinned (after all, half his family is white) and he speaks without what Reid called "Negro Dialect," unless he wants to use it for political effect. In yesterday's article I said that I thought Reid spoke the truth, and it appears that conservative pundit George Will agreed with that perception. Of course, nobody knows whether "Democrats" would ever support, by majority vote, a Presidential candidate with dark skin, or who grew up speaking African American Vernacular English, or both. Historically, they have never done so. When the dark-skinned Shirley Chisholm was running for President, most "Democrats" did not support her.

Reid, apparenly did not think the white people who voted Barack Hussein Obama into office would have voted for a dark-skinned man, or one who speaks less "white" than Obama, and I consider it very possible, as George Will did, that Reid was right about such voters. However, George Will said there was "not a scintilla of racism" about Reid's remarks, which turned out to be an uninformed assessment of Mr. Reid's attitude.

After I wrote and published yesterday's blogpost, some historical facts quickly came to light: Reid publicly, gratuitously and openly had called Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas an "embarassment" to the court. He made the outrageous claim that Justice Thomas writes like an eighth-grader and is not capable of a reasoned Supreme Court decision. Justice Thomas, as you all know or should know, is Black.

I ask myself, to whom were Reid's remarks directed? To law professors, perhaps? To supreme court historians? To Constitutional scholars? Uh… no, no, and no. Reid's remarks were directed to the kind of people who would like to think of Justice Thomas as an incompetent Supreme Court justice. And what kind of people is that? Supporters of the current agenda of the self-styled "Democratic" party.

In my opinion, Reid's remarks were directed to "Democrats," power-seekers who use race to advance their cause, and have no hesitation to use racemongering attacks on Blacks and others for the same purpose. Bigots. People, like the elderly former Kleagle (recruiter) of the Ku Klux Klan, Robert Byrd, revered and beloved by "Democrats." 

In my opinion, Harry Reid is a racemongering demagogue. He does not belong in the US Senate, nor for that matter in the senates or assemblies of any of the 50 states, or even on any school board in this great nation.

Reports of Reid's verbal assault on Justice Clarence Thomas jogged my memory, because it reminded me of one of the most vicious, racemongering attacks by "Democrat" hacks that I witnessed since my childhood, when I took a family trip to Florida with my family and saw "Whites Only" and even "No Nigra Allowed" signs everywhere in the deep South. 

During the confirmation hearings for Justice Thomas, the "Democrats" recycled an old tactic from their segregation-era playbook, which was to accuse Black males of being rapists and/or sex fiends. During the heyday of lynching, such an accusation was sufficient to justify the murder of the accused, and if and when the murderers went to trial, they were always acquitted by all-white, all-"Democrat" juries.

During Justice Thomas' confirmation hearings, instead of finding a pliable white teenager to accuse Justice Thomas, they made use of a pliable, ambitious, Black woman named Anita Hill, who later became a "social justice" activist. Her charges against Justice Thomas were vague. As I recall from watching the proceedings on TV, she accused him of making some kind of statement about a pubic hair on a can of Coca-Cola. The term that was thrown around loosely by the "Democrats" was "sexual harassment." No evidence was ever presented that Justice Thomas harassed Anita Hill or anyone else. It was old-fashioned "Democrat" character assassination.

Another public figure led the charge against Justice Thomas: Senator Joe Biden, the same Joe Biden who famously described Barack Hussein Obama as a "clean" (a code word for not dark-skinned), and "articulate" (a code word for no Black dialect) potential candidate for President. Funny how great "Democrat" minds think alike.

Justice Thomas, at the time, described the proceedings as a "high-tech lynching." Unlike the lynchings of an earlier time, however, Justice Thomas was not hanged. The "Democrats," as we all know, were unsuccessful at keeping him off the Supreme Court. In the mid-2000's, when Reid made his racemongering "embarrassment" remarks, the Bush Administration reportedly had been supporting an appointment to Chief Justice for Justice Thomas.

Reid is a disgrace to the US Senate, he is a disgrace to all Americans who believe in justice, and, although he has been partially successful at hiding that he is a racemongering demagogue, that fact is now out in the open and beyond dispute. It is "transparency" that "Democrats" experience only in their worst nightmares.

Reid should not just give up his leadership post in the Senate. He should go back to Searchlight, Nevada, and stay there.

[Keywords: impeach-them-all.org court democrat democrats justice obama reid thomas ]