Romney Earned Zero Votes in 59 Philly and 9 Cleveland Voting Districts
That’s simply unprecedented voting wizardry right there – nothing to do with voter fraud.
Via Philly.com:
It’s one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch.
These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst, but such results may not be so startling after all.
“We have always had these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic,” said Jonathan Rodden, a political science professor at Stanford University. “It’s kind of an urban fact, and you are looking at the extreme end of it in Philadelphia.”
…
Still, was there not one contrarian voter in those 59 divisions, where unofficial vote tallies have President Obama outscoring Romney by a combined 19,605 to 0?
Weasel Zippers adds this graphic from Cleveland precincts:
Police Report: Obama Campaign Director Threatened NAACP Official
Apparently, an official from the NAACP wasn’t about to support the Obama campaign effort, because he didn’t feel that the President’s policies best represented the black community. And with African-American unemployment at record levels, especially at the youth range, who could blame him?
Obama official Louis Raymond didn’t take kindly to the lack of support, replying essentially with ‘we know where you live’.
A police report was filed.
Via Breitbart:
The Illinois political director of President Barack Obama’s campaign allegedly threatened a Chicago NAACP official because he did not support Obama’s reelection campaign.
David Lowery, the president of the South Suburban Branch of the NAACP, alleged to CBS Chicago that Louis Raymond, the Obama official, threatened him during a phone call because Lowery did not support Obama. Lowery felt Obama did not adequately address the concerns and issues of the black community.
“You know what? I know everything about you,” Raymond allegedly said, according to Lowery. “We’ve been watching you, and since you don’t support Obama, we’ll deal with you.”
Lowery filed a report with local police “in case something happens.”
The Obama campaign has dismissed the accusation calling it a “miscommunication”.
If true however, why would the campaign be so desperate to garner the support of one particular NAACP official? Democrats traditionally enjoy roughly 90% of the black vote. Are they concerned that the economy as well as the President’s support for gay marriage could cut into those numbers?
Over the last several months, Mitt Romney has been accused several times of pandering to the white vote, trying to get as many white people to vote for him as possible.
Is this more proof that the Obama campaign is doing the same with black voters?
The Blockbuster Video: Obama’s Racist Speech
The most striking thing about this video, other than the full-throated defense of the controversial Reverand Jeremiah Wright, is the manner in which Obama is speaking. This doesn’t even sound like the President who we’ve heard speaking over the last four years.
This is a Daily Caller exclusive, please read the full report here…
First, watch an edited version of the video (full version below) in which snippets of the President’s speech where he was forced to give to quell the controversy around the reverend, combined with snippets from the new video in which he lavishly praises Wright.
As the DC points out, the speech is charged with inherently racist tones and anger.
The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.
Obama also adds that Wright is, “my pastor, the guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He’s a friend and a great leader. Not just in Chicago, but all across the country.”
The reason this has never seen the light of day is because transcripts of the campaign speech do not match the actual rhetoric used. As the report indicates, Obama frequently goes off script and ad libs at length, injecting his own fiery sermon into the speech.
One such example:
In the prepared version distributed to reporters, Obama’s speech ends this way:
“America is going to survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, 15 years ago, thousands of years ago.”
That’s not what he actually said. Before the audience at Hampton, Obama ends his speech this way:
“America will survive. Just like black folks will survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, or 15 years ago, or 300 years ago.”
Obama of course, has been true to his word. Ge has not forgotten the ‘black folks’ from 300 years ago, introducing one of the most racially polarizing administration’s in American history.
Here is an excerpt from my AIM report on Obama’s racial agenda:
During a 2010 interview for the book, Family of Freedom: Presidents and African Americans in the White House, President Obama spoke of his desire to build a “race-neutral administration,” while also claiming that race doesn’t drive decision-making in the White House. When asked about race and how he conducts his business, the President responded, “You just don’t think about it, you really don’t.”
But the Obama administration’s agenda has been anything but race-neutral, and has to be considered race-driven when looking through a history of unprecedented prejudiced actions and rhetoric. Here is but a brief sampling:
In one of his more high-profile comments on race, President Obama waded into the charged waters of the Henry Louis Gates case, an incident which saw Gates, an African-American, arrested in his own home after reports of a possible break-in. Gates and police on the scene gave conflicting reports on the level of cooperation between individuals, and the facts of the case remained murky. That said, after confessing to being limited on facts, Obama acted as judge and jury, declaring that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” in their haste to arrest Gates. To back up the suggestion that the police officers had acted inappropriately, the President cited “a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”
The signature achievement of this administration, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is not devoid of racial components. In 2009, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights had already declared that the Obamacare plan was laced with race-based incentives, including giving “preferential treatment to minority students for scholarships,” and was littered with “sections that factor in race when awarding billions in contracts, scholarships and grants.” A few months after it was signed into law, the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) pointed out that the new healthcare reform had provisions in place to provide monetary rewards doled out on a criterion of racial preference. One such provision stated, “In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following:…Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”
As AIM has disclosed, even some of the Obama stimulus dollars have gone for racial purposes. Joshua Correll, a University of Chicago professor, received $154,563 in stimulus grant money for what is called a collaborative project at the University of Chicago which “outlines a series of studies investigating the role of individual differences in executive functions (EFs) in expression of implicit racial bias.” This appears to be academic jargon for identifying and naming alleged racists. In fact, Correll operates a “Stereotyping & Prejudice Research Laboratory” that has been working since 2000 to develop and refine a first-person-shooter video game that was originally designed to ferret out allegedly racist cops in order to re-educate them.
The President’s policy on terrorism seems to play the race card when convenient, but very inconsistently. In the summer of 2010, Obama suggested that race is what motivates the actions of Al-Qaeda, as opposed to blind, radical ideology. The discussion was in stark contrast to several months earlier, when the administration was unable or unwilling to mention race, religion, or creed when reporting on the motivations of Fort Hood terrorist, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The Pentagon had released a report on the shooting rampage which failed to mention the word “Islam” or “Muslim.” In turn, while Obama did not wish to stir up anti-Muslim sentiments in the Hasan case, he was more than willing to play up anti-Muslim sentiments when he claimed that Israel is suspicious of him because his middle name is Hussein.
The Latino community has frequently been targeted as a key demographic in elections, but has equally been targeted by this administration in their attempts to racially divide a group through government policies. When Governor Jan Brewer and the state of Arizona tried to defend their borders, the President quickly tried to demonize them, insinuating that racial profiling could result in someone without papers being harassed while engaging in the simple act of having ice cream with their family. This approach led former presidential candidate Newt Gingrich to proclaim that Obama had engaged in “a racist dialogue to try to frighten Latinos away from the Republican Party.”
In March of 2010, the Obama administration filed a brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that supported the University of Texas’ use of racial preferences in their undergraduate admissions process. The brief had been filed by then solicitor general and current Justice, Elena Kagan, and stems from a battle over a 2003 ruling that narrowly permitted race-conscious policies in public higher education. Such blatant support for the exploitation of race in education was panned by the National Review’s Roger Clegg, when he described the brief as “a full-throated endorsement of such discrimination.” The Supreme Court has opted to review the affirmative action case, which is expected to occur in October—placing it squarely in the minds of voters just weeks prior to the presidential election.
Here is the blockbuster video in it’s entirety…
Actual Headline: Will Romney Reach Out to Racists in Debates?
A publication known as The Root ran an analysis of the upcoming debate strategy for the Romney campaign, and asked the following question in it’s headline – Will Romney Reach out to Racists in Debates?
Upon first viewing the article in question, one might think that it’s just a leftist blogger on a small site asking an inane question.
However, The Root is a publication owned by the Washington Post and as such, the inflammatory headline actually ran on the home page of the Post on Saturday afternoon as a “Top Headline”.
In 2008 something remarkable happened: America elected a black man with a Muslim-sounding name president. The even more remarkable part? That he beat a white war hero from an American military dynasty.
But there are plenty of political watchers who believe this turn of events happened only because the war hero was not willing to engage in the political equivalent of nuclear warfare with his opponent.
As related in Game Change, the best-selling book about the 2008 presidential election, Republican nominee Sen. John McCain was pressured by his campaign advisers to exploit the controversy surrounding comments by then-Sen. Barack Obama’s longtime pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As told in the book, McCain — still haunted by some of the negative campaigning invoking his foreign-born, adopted daughter during the bruising 2000 GOP primary, in which he was eventually beaten by George W. Bush — eschewed their advice. The rest, as they say, is history.
Goff then goes on to question if Romney will do what McCain was unwilling to – start questioning Obama’s relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Of course, this premise is flawed in a manner that a middle school student could see right off the bat. The argument only works if somebody believes that the only type of person that could call into question Obama’s relationship with the controversial (and racist) reverend, is a flat-out racist.
This is an unacceptable premise for a journalist. Jeremiah Wright, and by extension a man that sat in his church for twenty years listening to his racist, America-bashing, intolerant sermons, is fair game for exploration. Or at least should be by the media.
But this author simply puts any investigation into the controversial relationship into a category of racist.
That’s tunnel vision … in black and white.
Goff asks:
Now the Romney campaign finds itself at a crossroads. With just over a month to go before the election, the question becomes: Will he be willing to do what McCain wasn’t, in order to win at any cost? Will he give in to the temptation and begin lacing his ads and language with messages to appeal to those who miss the days of the Southern strategy — and the days of a white Republican president?
Sorry, but I’m willing to bet the southern strategy isn’t to put a white President back in office, but rather one who has the experience to get the job done, to improve the American economy and recover our standing as a revered country around the world.
There’s only one candidate in this race with that kind of experience, and it isn’t Mr. Obama.
It’s experience, not race Ms. Goff. And the fact that you can’t see past the President’s skin color to accept that fact makes you … a racist.
Peanut Butter and Jelly, Also Racist
What’s that lurking in your lunch box? Could it be a heaping helping of racism?
This, from the Portland Tribune:
Verenice Gutierrez picks up on the subtle language of racism every day.
Take the peanut butter sandwich, a seemingly innocent example a teacher used in a lesson last school year.
“What about Somali or Hispanic students, who might not eat sandwiches?” says Gutierrez, principal at Harvey Scott K-8 School, a diverse school of 500 students in Northeast Portland’s Cully neighborhood.
“Another way would be to say: ‘Americans eat peanut butter and jelly, do you have anything like that?’ Let them tell you. Maybe they eat torta. Or pita.”
Guitierrez, along with all of Portland Public Schools’ principals, will start the new school year off this week by drilling in on the language of “Courageous Conversations,” the district-wide equity training being implemented in every building in phases during the past few years.
Through intensive staff trainings, frequent staff meetings, classroom observations and other initiatives, the premise is that if educators can understand their own “white privilege,” then they can change their teaching practices to boost minority students’ performance.
Last Wednesday, the first day of the school year for staff, for example, the first item of business for teachers at Scott School was to have a Courageous Conversation — to examine a news article and discuss the “white privilege” it conveys.
Let’s just hope you’re not eating a PB & J in Chicago.
In the meantime, I will continue to take umbrage with the following product:
Report: Bill Clinton On Obama, "A Few Years Ago, This Guy Would Have Been Carrying Our Bags"
Don’t worry. This would only be considered newsworthy due to its racial overtone if Clinton were a Republican.
In a report chronicling the sometimes tumultuous relationship between former President Bill Clinton and current President Obama, the New Yorker reports that the two have patched things up a bit during this campaign season.
But it hasn’t always been so rosy…
Bill Clinton’s attacks hurt Hillary as much as they did Obama. The Times denounced Clinton’s fairy-tale comment as a “bizarre and rambling attack” and as exemplifying a campaign that was “perilously close to injecting racial tension” into the conversation. At a press conference in South Carolina the morning after Obama won the state, Bill Clinton seemed to dismiss the victory as a fluke of local demography. “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88,” he said. “Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.” Tim Russert told me that, according to his sources, Bill Clinton, in an effort to secure an endorsement for Hillary from Ted Kennedy, said to Kennedy, “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.” Clinton’s role in the campaign rattled Obama. He told ABC News in an interview that Clinton “has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling.”
Perilously close to injecting racial tension? Seriously? A white guy nicknamed ‘Bubba’ telling a black man he should be carrying his bags?
Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here?
Of course, the original account of the story had Clinton saying something similar about coffee.
“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,” Clinton told Kennedy, according to the book — a comment that angered Kennedy, who later endorsed Obama.
The comment is essentially the same – this man would have been working for us a few years ago, fetching us coffee or carrying our bags.
The media double standard is unreal.
Bill Clinton – “This guy would have been carrying our bags.”
Close to racism, but not quite.
Republicans – “President Obama is from Chicago.”
Raaaaaacist!
State Department Officer Explains Other Offensive Language For All You Closet Racists
Black and tan. Going dutch. Holding down the fort. Rule of thumb.
All racist.
This according to the Chief Diversity Officer at the U.S. Department of State.
In a column written for State Magazine, John M. Robinson provides a primer of phraseology that most people might not realize is racist.
Via the Daily Caller:
John M. Robinson, the Chief Diversity Officer at the U.S. Department of State, wants America’s diplomats to know that common phrases and idioms like “holding down the fort” are, in fact, deeply racist.
Robinson, who also serves as director of the Department’s Office of Civil Rights, used his “Diversity Notes” feature in the July/August issue of the official “State Magazine” to examine the hateful roots of everyday sayings. In one recent public relations kerfuffle at Nike, Inc., he wrote, the company torpedoed a sneaker called the “Black and Tan.”
“What a wonderful celebratory gesture and appreciation for Irish culture. Not!” wrote Robinson, an adult.
Remember that the next time one of you insensitive dolts heads out to a bar and orders a Black and Tan. Best part of that excerpt are the last two words – an adult. Not!
Robinson notes that “Black and Tan,” in addition to being an enjoyably robust alcoholic concoction, can refer to the brutal Protestant militiamen who ravaged the Irish countryside in the early 20th century — which is why Irish bartenders always get so upset when you order one.
In an effort to avoid offending those notoriously fragile Irish sensibilities, Nike pulled the shoe from stores.
Robinson would like us all to learn from the sneaker company’s inadvertent racism and really start watching what we say.
Read the rest of his column here…
And God forbid you ever go dutch on a black and tan in Chicago.
Chris Matthews and MSNBC Now Claim the Word ‘Chicago’ Is Racist
Chris Matthews was on Hardball tonight covering the Republican National Convention with guests Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and John Hielemann of New York Magazine. In what is seemingly the natural progression of things these days with Matthews, the subject of the ‘otherization‘ of the President was being discussed. Because, if you weren’t aware already, Barack Obama is black, and any time a Republican chooses to discuss the failure that is his administration, the media will be there to quickly remind you that they only feel that way because of his skin color.
But tonight’s episode of race-baiting with Chris Matthews was a bit odd in that the panelists somehow came to the conclusion that reminding people of the President’s roots in Chicago politics is racist. In fact, simply saying Chicago is racist. (Video below).
Robinson sets the racial tone by saying (h/t The Right Newz):
“It’s all part of this Barack Obama as ‘other’ sort of blanket campaign that has been waged by the Republican Party for some time now. It may be gaining some traction now, though I wonder why now as opposed to a bit closer to election.”
Matthews then demonstrates his mind-numbing ability to take an idiotic statement, amplify it, and subsequently make it exponentially more idiotic coming from his mouth, when he said this:
“Yea, well let me ask you about that gentleman. What about now, is this constant barrage of assaults, saying the guy is basically playing an old game of demagoguery politics, where you take the money from the worker bees and give it to the poor people to buy votes. That’s basically what they’re charging him with. Old big-style, big-city machine of 50 years ago.”
He added, “They keep saying Chicago by the way, have you noticed? They keep saying Chicago. That’s another thing that sends that message – this guy’s helping the poor people in the bad neighborhoods, screwing us in the ‘burbs.”
Hielemann helpfully interpreted Matthews statement, presumably for those too challenged to understand basic words (or as we in the business refer to them – Hardball viewers), by making this jaw-dropping statement:
“There’s a lot of black people in Chicago.”
Yes, because referring to the city of Chicago would have nothing to do with trying to link the President to a long, storied history of corruption. It simply has to be in reference to all of the black people living there.
By the way, Mr. Hielemann, there are a lot of black people in Chicago. Guess what, though? There are even more white people.
According to the Census Bureau in 2010, the percentage of African-Americans in the city of Chicago was roughly 32.9%. The percentage of whites? 45.0%.
Incidentally, any idea who else has linked the city of Chicago to government corruption? MSNBC.
In an article titled, Illinois Has Long Legacy of Public Corruption, MSNBC discussed the fact that nearly numerous elected officials had been convicted of wrongdoing since 1972 – in Chicago.
It included this statement:
“Chicago, with its long history as a center of vice and organized crime, has had its share of official graft.”
Oh, those racists!
Yahoo News Chief Caught Saying Romneys "Happy to Have a Party When Black People Drown" Update: Fired!
This is the prevailing attitude of your modern mainstream media. Presented without much commentary, as it pretty much speaks for itself.
Via NewsBusters:
During live coverage of the Republican National Convention here in Tampa, Yahoo News Washington bureau chief David Chalian provided the perfect example of the pervasive anti-Republican bias Mitt Romney faces in his bid to unseat President Barack Obama.
In video broadcast Monday night by ABC and Yahoo over the Internet, Chalian can be heard claiming that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his wife Ann are unconcerned about the fate of residents of the New Orleans area who are currently being hit by Hurricane Isaac.
“They aren’t concerned at all,” Chalian can be heard on the live broadcast. “They are happy to have a party when black people drown.”
That line elicits laughter from several employees listening in on the joke.
“David Chalian’s statement was inappropriate and does not represent the views of Yahoo!. He has been terminated effective immediately. We have already reached out to the Romney campaign, and we apologize to Mitt Romney, his staff, their supporters and anyone who was offended.”
Busted: Obama Campaign Releases ‘Republican Women For Obama’ Video, Featuring Long-Time Democrats
Recently, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley accused the Republican presidential ticket of sending out coded messages and making up “totally false ads“. The intent was to paint the Romney campaign as trying to create lies about the President, and by extension sending out racial messages.
So when the Obama campaign creates a “totally false ad”, the Democrat ticket must also be sending out coded racial messages, correct?
Well, the Obama campaign has been caught in a doozy of a lie (I just wanted to say the word ‘doozy’).
They’ve released this video called “Republican Women for Obama”, which tries to convince viewers that they are interviewing several women who are Republicans, but are somehow so appalled by Mitt Romney’s stance on women’s issues, that they’ve switched sides to support President Obama.
At least one of the women who pose as “Republican women for Obama” is a long-time Democrat.
Her name is Maria Ciano, and BuzzFeed finds that she has been a registered Democrat in Colorado at least since 2006.
A little detective work on Facebook reveals that Ciano isn’t just your middle-of-the-road Democrat. Here are a list of some of her Facebook likes…
* Democracy For America
* Tar Sands Action
* Amy Goodman
* Barack Obama
* Costoftaxcuts.com
* Being Liberal
* MoveOn.org
* Bernie Sanders Tells You A Secret the GOP Would Rather You Didn’t Know
* Miss Piggy Delivers the Best Takedown of Fox News We’ve Seen All Month
* Think Progress
* The Best Quote From Barack Obama We’ve Seen This Week
* Dow and Monsanto Join Forces to Poison America’s Heartland
* Climate Reality
* Grist.org
* The Amazing Victory Scored With Obama That More People Should Be Talking About
* The Sierra Club
* The Buffett Rule
* Obama For America–Colorado
* UniteWomen.org
* Denver Young Democrats
* Obamacare
* Latinos For Obama
* Michelle Obama
* Veterans For Obama
* I Love It When I Wake Up In the Morning and Obama Is President
* Obama Truth Team
* Democratic Party
Wait, here comes the best part. A second woman in the video is Ms. Ciano’s mother, a huge Rachel Maddow fan who likes to refer to Republicans as “idiots”. Worse, she may actually have involvement with the Obama campaign itself:
Ms. Ciano’s Facebook page also reveals that she was part of a small group that met with Michelle Obama when Mrs. Obama was in Colorado on August 11, presumably indicating that she has some stature in the Obama campaign.
So obviously, neither Maria Ciano nor her mother Delia is a “Republican woman” who is crossing over or changing her mind to vote for Obama. How about the others in the ad?
The people on Team Obama need to stop with their incessant whining about ads that feature alleged falsehoods, when they are constantly being rated as liars by fact-checking organizations, have accused Mitt Romney of being a felon who killed a man’s wife, and are consistently caught making stories up at nearly every turn.
What’s more, they call the other side’s alleged falsehoods ‘coded language’ designed for dog-whistle racism. If lying about your opponent is racist, then the Obama camp has a lot of explaining to do as to why they hate white Mormons.
Mental Recession 