Mr. Trump needs a running mate.

I wonder what our friend David Duke is up to these days. The Donald could sure use him right about now. My man must be thinking that he will be needing a running mate soon since there is a very good chance that he could win the GOP nomination for president.

Lately Donald has been acting like Duke's soul-mate, and he has been doing his best to reach the same base that almost carried Duke to the Governor's mansion in Louisiana.

The latest sign that Donald is either a flat out racist or someone who is embracing the Lee Atwater school of political strategy is his ignorant and bigoted tweet about crime created by some American Nazis. Or, better stated, the tweet endorsed by his campaign.

Here is what Mother Jones had to say about it:

"The fascinating thing is that instead of a blaming the tweet on a subordinate—something they haven't been shy about doing in the past—the campaign has chosen to stay silent about it. They have apparently made the political calculation that it would be worse for Trump to acknowledge not sending the racist tweet than to endure a few days of stories about how racist he is. 
It's 2015, and if you're running for the Republican nomination for president, saying racist things doesn't hurt your poll numbers. "

Yep, that's kind of scary.

Now might be a good time for a little cut and pasting of Paul Waldman's article in the Washington Post:

"As you’ve probably heard by now, Donald Trump had quite a weekend. First he claimed on Saturday that “I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as [the World Trade Center] was coming down.” Confronted with the fact that this is completely false, Trump insisted on Sunday, “There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey where you have large Arab populations…that tells you something.

Then on Sunday he (or someone from his campaign) tweeted out a graphic with phony statistics purporting to show how murderous black people are (and illustrated with a picture of a young black man with a bandana over his face, pointing a gun sideways, gangster-style).

Both of these happenings are receiving plenty of attention in the media today. The problem is that the media doesn’t know how to handle this kind of blatant race-baiting from a leading politician.
And just to be clear, it is race-baiting, and nothing else. In neither case is there even the remotest connection to some kind of legitimate policy question. When Trump says falsely that thousands of people in Jersey City (which has a large Muslim population) were celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center, he isn’t making an argument about Syrian refugees. He’s simply saying that you should hate and fear Muslim Americans. When he tries to convince people that most white murder victims are killed by black thugs (again, false), he isn’t arguing for some policy approach. He’s just trying to foment racism and convince racists that he’s their guy.

So how do the media deal with this? One thing they don’t do is call it by its name. The first approach is to report on it as just another campaign controversy (“Trump takes heat for tweet about black murder rates“). That kind of story sticks to the who-what-where-when approach: Trump tweeted this, he was criticized for it, here’s how it was inaccurate, here’s Trump’s response. Any value judgments that appear will be spoken by Trump’s critics (though not his primary opponents, who for the most part are dancing around any criticism of what Trump said).

The second approach the media takes is to address Trump’s comments through fact-checking, something we have gotten pretty good at. Interestingly enough, fact-checking as a formal genre of journalism can be traced to another campaign that prominently featured Republican race-baiting, the 1988 election. In the wake of that election, many news outlets felt they had been manipulated by George H.W. Bush’s campaign into not only focusing on distracting issues that had little or nothing to do with the presidency, but also into becoming a conduit for ugly attacks with little basis in fact. Over the following few years, many decided to institutionalize fact-checks, at first for television ads in particular, and later for all kinds of claims made in politics. Eventually sites like Politifact and FactCheck.org were created, and major news organizations like this one devoted staff solely to fact-checking.

In the process, journalists acquired both an understanding of how to separate the accurate from the inaccurate from the subjective, and a language to talk about different kinds of claims. While there’s plenty of slippage — you still see claims that have been proven false referred to as “controversial” or “questionable” — the existence of the fact-checking enterprise has allowed reporters to be clearer with their audiences about what is and isn’t true.

So if you want a fact-check of Trump’s claims, you’ll have no trouble finding it (here’s the Post’s). What you’ll have to look harder for is reporting that puts what Trump said in a context that goes much deeper than the campaign controversy of the week.

To be clear, I’m not arguing that there’s a simple template reporters should follow, one that will allow them to easily separate the merely “controversial” from the clearly racist (though wherever the line is, passing on phony statistics about murderous black people from neo-Nazis is definitely on the other side of it). But they wouldn’t violate any reasonable conception of objectivity by making the nature of Trump’s arguments clear.

When David Duke nearly won the governorship of Louisiana in 1991, it was reported in the national media as a story about racism, with a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan garnering a majority of the white vote as he lost a runoff election. Few in the media hesitated to call Duke a racist, in large part because even at the time he was perceived as representing yesterday’s racism,antiquated for its explicitness (even if Duke did try to clean up his views for the campaign).

Trump represents one face of today’s racism (though not by any means the only face). It simultaneously insists that Muslims can be good Americans, and accuses them of hating America and says their places of worship ought to be kept under government surveillance. It says that some Mexican-Americans are good people, and says most of them are rapists and drug dealers. It says “I think I’ll win the African-American vote” and then tries to convince voters that black people are murdering white people everywhere."[More]

That sums up Mr. Trump to a tee. If he becomes President Trump America Americans will get  just what they deserve.

Pic from salon.com/By Burt Steel of the Associated Press. 

Lee Atwater would be proud.

Now this from N****r lover, Tim Wise:

"For the most part, I’ve tried to be restrained.

Although conservatives accuse those of us on the left of thinking that all critiques of President Obama are rooted in racism, this has certainly never been my argument. Indeed, I’ve written two books highly critical of Obama’s positions on a number of issues (from a place well to his left), and am fully aware that decent, honest people can disagree with Barack Obama from the right, too, without their disagreements serving as proof of some latent, let alone blatant, bigotry or anti-black bias.

That said, what I have also long maintained — and what seems increasingly evident as we move into the heart of the 2012 campaign — is that the style of opposition, its specific form, and its particular content are too often embedded in a narrative of white racial resentment, white racial anxiety, and a desire to “other” the president in ways that go well beyond the politically partisan. It is not that criticisms of Obama are quantitatively racist, per se, but rather that they are qualitatively so in too many instances; a distinction, yes, but one that does not alter the underlying reality.

In other words, it is one thing to disagree, even mightily, with a president’s policies. It is quite another to suggest that that president is really a foreign imposter: over, and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. And to accept no proof, no matter how extensive, that he really is an American after all.*" [Read More]

Read more of the story with the link I provided. Wise goes on to give some excellent examples of racist republican dog whistles and what seems to be a Lee Atwater style campaign to reach out to the darker souls in their party. (Lots of those.)  

Anyway this climate of hate is creating more and more stories like the following:

"LUDOWICI, Ga. (AP) — Four Army soldiers based in southeast Georgia killed a former comrade and his girlfriend to protect an anarchist militia group they formed that stockpiled assault weapons and plotted a range of anti-government attacks, prosecutors told a judge Monday.

 

Prosecutors in rural Long County, near the sprawling Army post Fort Stewart, said the militia group composed of active duty and former U.S. military members spent at least $87,000 buying guns and bomb components and was serious enough to kill two people — former soldier Michael Roark and his 17-year-old girlfriend, Tiffany York — by shooting them in the woods last December in order to keep its plans secret.

"This domestic terrorist organization did not simply plan and talk," prosecutor Isabel Pauley told a Superior Court judge. "Prior to the murders in this case, the group took action. Evidence shows the group possessed the knowledge, means and motive to carry out their plans."

One of the Fort Stewart soldiers charged in the case, Army Pfc. Michael Burnett, also gave testimony that backed up many of the assertions made by prosecutors. The 26-year-old soldier pleaded guilty Monday to manslaughter, illegal gang activity and other charges. He made a deal to cooperate with prosecutors in their case against the three other soldiers....

In a videotaped interview with military investigators, Pauley said, Aguigui called himself "the nicest cold-blooded murderer you will ever meet." He used the Army to recruit militia members, who wore distinctive tattoos that resemble an anarchy symbol, she said. Prosecutors say they have no idea how many members belong to the group.

"All members of the group were on active-duty or were former members of the military," Pauley said. "He targeted soldiers who were in trouble or disillusioned."

The prosecutor said the militia group had big plans. It plotted to take over Fort Stewart by seizing its ammunition control point and talked of bombing the Forsyth Park fountain in nearby Savannah, she said. In Washington state, she added, the group plotted to bomb a dam and poison the state's apple crop. Ultimately, prosecutors said, the militia's goal was to overthrow the government and assassinate the president." [Source]

Maybe that Judge in Texas was on to something. The sad thing is, of course, that when the war actually starts, people like Mitt Romney and his monied puppet masters will be watching from the sidelines and counting their money, while the stiffs on the battle field will be figuratively (and literally) shooting at each other.

*Pic from Addicting Info.

It has served them well.

"For the last 40-plus years we had a ‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.” ~ Michael Steele~

I am not an educator, and I do not have a degree in history. But every now and then when I post I feel that I have to give my friends in A-merry-ca a history lesson. Why? Because some folks just never seem to learn. Or, it's just really convenient for them to forget. I was inspired to give tonight's lecture because of the following tidbit from an oped by a wingnut named Billy Hallowell writing for some website called The Blaze.

"..Then, last night, Chris Matthews made a startling association — that Rick Perry is like “Bull Connor with a smile.”

For those who don’t know, Connor was a Democrat and the Commissioner of Public Safety for the city of Birmingham, Alabama during the civil rights era. He infamously directed the use of fire hoses and attack dogs against peaceful, African American protestors — extreme brutality that was rooted in sheer racism.
This bizarre statement came after Matthews’ guest, Wayne Slater of The Dallas Morning News, reacted to Perry’s criticisms of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Slater explained that entitlements are only the beginning in the push for “states rights.” According to The Daily Caller, he said:

“The question is the attack on Perry is ‘Social Security is a Ponzi scheme,’ ‘Medicare needs to be changed or potentially abolished,’ which is not precisely what he said. Raising questions about the Voting Rights Act saying it is just a tool for gerrymandering in the South and the Civil Rights Act — the terms under which we’ve established — this has the look of someone who when he talks about states’ rights, states’ rights, states’ rights could make some voters, again — very nervous.” [Source] 

OK, let's try this again for the...oh, I don't know...millionth time.

Yes, Bull Conner and others like him were dumbocrats. In fact, most of your white southern racist during the Jim Crow era were dumbocrats. That fact is undisputed. What is also undisputed is that most (if not all)of those racist southern whites, fled the dumbocratic party in droves and became....wait for it wait for it..... REPUBLICANS! And this was done, thanks in part, to a wonderfully crafted political ploy called "The Southern Strategy." It was where white politicians exploited the racism felt towards blacks by fellow whites to vote against the political party which had now become the party of African Americans.

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."^]


That was Richard Nixon's version of David Axelrod giving us a little insight into the strategy that now works so well for the "party of Lincoln."

Of course it all started before that, when Southern dumbocrats like Richard Russell and Herman Talmadge boycotted the 1964 party convention in Atlantic City. All because Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. Many of the southern delegates at that time refused to support the national ticket because of Johnson's actions. Throw in our boy, Barry Goldwater, --who joined the southern dumbocrats to filibuster the Act-- and the rest, as they say, is history.

That is your republican party today, the one that ran away from all things civil rights and never looked back. So no matter how much you hear wingnuts try to revise and revisit history, just remember who they were back then and why they switched. It's why every time ninety percent of the time you see something like this, and like this, taking place on the national landscape; it involves a republican.

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.” ~ reublican strategist, Lee Atwater~

Some things never change.

 

If you think I am "shadowboxing" step into the ring.

Here I am trying to enjoy my holiday season with family and friends. And then, for some reason, (lord only knows why) I log on the Internet to see what's jumping off on the web.


This of course is when I see this: An open attack and challenge to the field from one of my black re-puke-lican friends.

Poor cobb, he loves and embraces the conservative movement, but the feelings aren't mutual. He and those of his ilk have chosen sides, and they can't turn back now. They are stuck with the conservative movement for better or for worse. Unfortunately for cobb and his friends, when it comes to black folks,it has been for the worse. He just can't admit to himself that there are nefarious forces in his party working to keep us out, and who would use the race- card and other wedge issues to stay in power.

No wonder the black conservative is always so angry and so shrill. He has declared his allegiance and he can't go back now. So instead, he tries to create illusions and straw- man arguments to justify his erroneous and misguided beliefs. He refuses to face the reality of Nixon and his Southern Strategy; Ronald Reagan, and his Philadelphia Mississippi, moment. George Bush, 41 and his Willie Horton moment. The racist original puppet master, Lee Atwater .(may his miserable soul rot in hell) The new school racist, puppet master, Karl Rove. The racist speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich. The racist "commander the thief", George Bush, 43, who made sure that his "Southern strategy" of embracing Bob Jones was fully in place when he ran. And of course, we can fast forward to the current crop of re-puke-lican candidates for the highest office in the land. They have even expanded their "Southern Strategy" farther south. (Think Mexico, and their Paul Revere style cries that the brown people are coming) Yes cobb, there are plenty of those and more where they came from. But time doesn't permit me to get into it here as much as I would like, because I still have to enjoy my vacation.

Sorry cobb, your straw man argument about a bunch of irrelevant conservative bloggers who are high on a phony ass food chain is just ludicrous. -As if they would actually come out on their blogs and endorse a perceived racist strategy by their party- They would never openly admit to such a strategy. And you and I both know that. Do you think it's an accident that everyone associates the "Southern Strategy" with your party?

At the end of the day cobb, I feel sorry for you. You attack my site and the people that post here by calling them a bunch of "synchophants" (that's a big word, maybe woozie can interpret it for me). Yet we have nothing but love for you, because even though you don't, we still consider you one of us. Don't blame me or the people who come to the fields because you cannot juxtapose your political beliefs with the racist history and the political reality of the party you embrace. That's not their fault. You should be working within your party to try and change it, you should be using your considerable writing talents to enlighten them and make them understand your race and your people. You should not be making excuses for them and attack the people of your race for not embracing them. "Shadowboxing"? If you think I am shadowboxing always feel free to step into the ring with me. And as for being a "blight to the spirit of the blogosphere"; my question to you would be what spirit? Over here our spirits are fine, because in spite of the victimology tag, we know where we stand politically and socially in A-mery-ca. Unlike you, our conscience is free.

Anyway cobb, I hope I could help to enlighten you , and that I answered some of the questions in your challenge. Hopefully this will better help you to understand what us black folks think of your party, and why we feel--and more importantly vote-- the way that we do.


BTW, you can send the $20 you owe me to the Boys and Girls Club of Los Angeles. I don't need the money.