Only a Liberal…

First let me start of by making something crystal clear:

The original video released by Andrew Breitbart did NOT take Sherrod’s comments out of context.

I don’t care what you heard from MSNBC and Fox last week… its total nonsense. Enter hot potato syndrome.

First, Breitbart via BigGovernment.com released the video to the public on Monday July 19. At this point, the hot potato was thrown to the NAACP and the White House.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_xCeItxbQY&feature=player_embedded

They saw this video, decided they didn’t want the potato, so the White House pressured Shirley Sherrod to resign IMMEDIATELY. Not to sleep on it, not to hear her side of the story, but for her to literally pull her car over and resign before 5pm EST, when Glenn Beck’s program came on Fox News. So Sherrod did. The NAACP released a statement condemning Ms. Sherrod’s racism unequivocally. Fox News reported her resignation and played the video.

Then comes Tuesday, where the coverage of the story takes a turn. The mainstream and left-wing cable media finds out that Sherrod not only didn’t work for the federal govt when her story took place, but that her story took place in 1986. Instead of simply clarifying that part of the equation, the media declared the entire video an out-of-context “fake” and threw the hot potato to Fox News and Andrew Breitbart. Fox News went with it, declaring they had made a mistake and praising the inspirational story Sherrod told, throwing the hot potato to Breitbart, who continues to defend himself today.

The coverage on Tuesday was an amazing display of Fox-News-attack journalism. Critics of Fox News found ONE hole in the delivery of the speech and tried to use it to damage the credibility of the entire network and the Tea Party as well (I guess because Breitbart is a member).The misconstrued timeline of the original video does not change the following statements:

• Shirley Sherrod is a racist to her core.
• Shirley Sherrod still sent the white farmer off to “one of his kind.”
• The NAACP audience at her speech still laughed and applauded when Sherrod told them she didn’t help the white farmer. They did not know the end of her story.

Let’s break down the original video bit by bit. It starts with two slides of text:

“On July 25, 2009, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack appointed Shirley Sherrod as Georgia Director of Rural Development. USDA Rural Development spends over $1.2 billion in the State of Georgia each year. On March 27, 2010 while speaking at the NAACP… Ms Sherrod admits that in her federally appointed position overseeing over a billion dollars… She discriminates against people due to their race.”

Sherrod did not admit to discriminating while in her recent position… she admitted to discriminating in the position she held in 1986. That’s it. That’s the only genuine out-of-context part of the video. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and others would have you believe otherwise, but they’re lying.

Critics of Andrew Breitbart and Fox News claim that the original video only showed Sherrod admitting to discrimination and that the video omitted her exculpatory comments where she learned she was wrong.

THIS IS 100% FALSE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_xCeItxbQY&feature=player_embedded#t=1m37s

That link will take you to 1:37 in the video… she makes two exculpatory statements before the 2:05 mark.

“That’s when it was revealed to me that.. y’all it’s about the poor versus those who have.”

There it is. The charges that her racist comments were completely out of context is a fabricated lie. You heard it here, not from Fox, cuz they don’t want the hot potato anymore. Who knows why. Sherrod continues:

“It’s not so much about white… it IS about white and black, but its not… you know… it opened my eyes. Because I took him to one of his own.”

Now if you listen to the cable news outlets, both MSNBC and Fox, you might believe the Shirley Sherrod is a former racist who learned the error of her ways, and she was victimized by Andrew Breitbart as well as Fox News.

SHE COULDN’T EVEN FINISH HER SENTENCE ABOUT IT NOT BEING ABOUT WHITE AND BLACK. Couldn’t do it. Not only did Breitbart’s video release include her exculpatory statements, her statements aren’t even that exculpatory.

Ok, back to her original story… you know the one where she’s an innocent bystander talking about her journey away from racism…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_xCeItxbQY&feature=player_embedded#t=0m21s

“The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm… he took a lonnnnnnng time talking, but… he… he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing.” [Audience member yells "That's right.]“

So let me get this straight… a white farmer who is afraid of losing his farm goes to the Georgia Agriculture department looking for help, sees a black woman there, and decides “screw the assistance I came here to get” for an opportunity to show a black person that he is superior. This woman is more paranoid than Hunter S. Thompson in bat country.

So at best, Sherrod was a racist kook once upon a time, but now she is color blind, right?

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/23/sherrod-breitbart-wants-to-take-us-back-to-the-days-of-slavery/

Comment from Andrew Breitbart read by Anderson Cooper: “If anybody reads the sainted, martyred Sherrod’s entire speech, this person has not gotten past black vs white.”

Cooper: Do you think you have gotten past black vs white?

So let’s see if she did… here’s her response from last Thursday (not 1986):

“I know I’ve gotten past black vs. white…I think [Breitbart would] like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he’d like to see all black people end up again… I don’t even think it was the NAACP he was totally after. I think he was after a black President.”

She can’t even finish an interview without contradicting herself. This woman wants us to believe that Andrew Breitbart published an unedited video of some nobody black woman in the GA agriculture dept speaking at the NAACP in order to attack Barack Obama. Not only is she a racist, but she’s a paranoid kook.

The Anderson Cooper interview was last Thursday, not 25 years ago. She believes that Andrew Breitbart wants all black people to be slaves. Criticize her and the NAACP, make Obama look bad, and that is tantamount to wanting black slaves.

Here’s the full video. The original video made her look like a racist kook who abused her power. The full video makes her look like a racist kook who decided not to abuse her power fully, but still thought the white guy was talking down to her and wants to abuse her power for the class war instead of the race war. What a hero. I’m making fries.

Here it is… all 17 pages of it.

Synopsis: Arizona has passed a law that explicitly requires local law enforcement to attempt to enforce federal immigration laws. The law explicitly restricts “race, color, or natural origin” as a sole determinant for “reasonable suspicion” (no profiling). Open-border groups whose cause is hurt by this law have managed to convince otherwise reasonable people, who don’t want to see illegal aliens prosecuted if they are law-abiding, that Arizona has passed a racist law meant to target Latinos and Hispanics. This charge is 100% false, and these groups have zero proof to backup their claim. The political backlash to this law is what is unreasonable, not the law.

The first three pages of this bill contain 2 important things: the “reasonable suspicion” verbiage that has rocked the political world and numerous references to enforcing federal immigration laws.

Section 2 Article 8:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

This is what people claim has made them angry… what they claim will cause racial profiling. In response to this bill, the LA city council voted for a boycott of Arizona. This is the same Los Angeles that is located in California, where Section 834b of the CA penal code doesn’t even require “reasonable” suspicion: just suspicion.

Every law enforcement agency shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is SUSPECTED of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws… The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and DEMANDING DOCUMENTATION to indicate his or her legal status.

For weeks now, you’ve been hearing about Arizona profiling brown people, starting their own little Nazi Germany. All along, California had essentially the same law.

So are both CA and AZ racially profiling Latinos and Hispanics with this verbiage? Since the law prohibits profiling based on race, to assume profiling will occur assumes a breach of conduct by police, independent of the law.

Page 4 talks about enforcement of the law only being allowed for a “law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.” Another reference to the federal law.

Page 5 again mentions the term “reasonable suspicion” in regards to traffic stops for suspicion of human smuggling.

E. A peace officer may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law and THIS SECTION (smuggling classifications, definitions).

Turns out this type of verbiage is the rule, not the exception, of border state smuggling laws. In other words, SB1070 doesn’t really change anything in regards to human smuggling laws.

Page 6 makes it illegal to pick up day workers if your vehicle impedes traffic. So you can still pick up illegal alien workers, which is a crime, as long as you don’t impede traffic. I suspect the real effect of this section will be that a certain percentage of illegal aliens will be arrested due to their lack of awareness of this law, but most will simply avoid “impeding traffic.”

Page 7 talks about it being illegal to employ an illegal alien (nothing new). I would note that this section of the bill also states:

Section 6&7 23-12 B: The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.

Profiling based on race, color, or national origin is explicitly FORBIDDEN. Any opinion that assumes this law makes profiling legal or will increase illegal profiling is simply projecting unfounded racism upon Arizona cops. The law does not allow it.

Furthermore this section goes on to state:

A state, county or local official shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States. An alien’s immigration status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

In other words, in contrast to what LA Councilman Ed Reyes has claimed, you cannot be deported by an Arizona police officer who is “having a bad day” if you don’t have your passport. Arizona police may use their “reasonable suspicion” to turn you over to the Federal government, and only they can deport you. Arizona officials are not allowed to make a final determination of someone’s immigration status.

Reyes and other opponents of this bill would have you believe the Arizona police department is going to deport you if you don’t have papers. This is absolutely false.

27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE
30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

In other words, the Arizona police will turn people without papers over to the Feds. That’s it.

The rest of the bill talks about other legalities of illegal employment and impounding of cars with no mention of anything related to reasonable suspicion or checking immigration status.

The fact is reasonable liberals have overreacted to a reasonable bill that unreasonable open-border proponents oppose for various reasons, including the belief that south-west America belongs to Mexico. The fact of the matter is no civilized country in the world has an open-borders policy, and the United States has one of the most lenient policies in the world. Not only are our laws benign in comparison to some of our neighbors and allies (particularly Mexico) but we generally don’t enforce them, and some jurisdictions go out of their way to encourage law-breaking by calling themselves “sanctuary” cities and expressly prohibiting local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration officials.

You’ve been lied to about the reality of this Arizona law. I don’t blame you, as there are hundreds of faces on television beating the same incorrect drum, and most people do not have the time or inclination to research it as I do. My advice: if something sounds ridiculous, it probably is. Look it up before you make a judgment.

File this under AYFKM… check out the two videos side by side and listen to this partisan dirtbag pretend there’s no difference between the two protests. I came across the video at Hotair.

watch?v=2HvqRWqClSc&feature=player_embedded

If there was a Tea Party video that even remotely resembled the Arizona immigration law protests, the left would be having a collective orgasm/shit fit. They don’t even try to hide the double standard anymore… its breathtaking.

50% Asian, 25% African

I am so sick of hearing people refer to Tiger as a black man. Does he have some African-American ethnicity? Yes, 25%. But he is 50% Asian (25% Chinese, 25% Thai). I don’t like people focusing on race at all, but I’ll be damned if I’ll sit idly by while the media pretends Tiger is a black man sleeping around with white women. HE IS ASIAN.

I chose to use the stereotypical color coding due to cultural familiarity. It would have been stupid to try to avoid this color-coding. If anyone wants to take exception with this, just know I would love to get into an intellectual discussion of craniofacial anthropometry, but just reading that phrase probably made a few people black out. The layman does not have time to learn the differences between Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Congoids, Capoids and other typically unknown scientific terms referring to ethnicity.

Stop referring to Tiger Woods as a black man. Yes, I recognize the significance of a darker-skinned man not only playing on a golf course but dominating it, which was prohibited well after the civil rights movement, but the time has passed. I find the whole characterization of his race in golf discussions as condescending. I find it despicable to even bring it up in regards to the drama of his tremendous infedelity. It is 100% IRRELEVANT. Its especially irrelevant to refer to his blackness as though it dominates who he is. He has mixed ethnicity, and the mix is mostly Asian. Did I mention he was Asian? HE IS ASIAN.

Robot Chicken did a skit about Tiger Woods being “Mostly Chinese” which is slightly inaccurate, but quite funny.

Tiger cheated on his wife multiple times. His infidelity is horrendous, and its even worse since there are two kids in the picture. His race doesn’t matter, but if you’re gonna talk about it, get it right.

Just came across an article on Yahoo about a white model who did a 14-page pictorial in blackface

Aside from the fact that models of many nationalities have gained a greater presence in the fashion industry and should have been used in this magazine, today in 2009 we should all know that white people dressing in blackface is offensive.

What is offensive about blackface makeup? I understand that painting your face black and then furthering extremely inaccurate stereotypes about black people could be offensive to some, but what is offensive about a woman taking pictures in blackface? Men used to be the only people who could be actors, so men dressed up as women and often acted ridiculous playing women’s parts. Men still dress in drag and don’t properly represent women, but no one cares. Its funny. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that ALL uses of blackface are offensive by definition.

Is whiteface offensive? Dave Chappelle did it multiple times on his show, as have many other black comedians. Is their representation offensive by definition? Of course not. Its comedy in a free country. If a black person is painted white and does a 14-page pictorial, that’s not necessarily offensive.

Hypocrisy

Recently Harry Connick Jr. got mad at some Australians who performed in blackface on a show he was judging. The problem is Harry Connick Jr. performed in blackface on Mad TV in recent years. The reason he took offense at it is because he thought he should take offense at it for some reason. Perhaps he has a lot of black friends and didn’t want to be on their bad side, so he had a knee-jerk reaction embodying the height of hypocrisy.

Calling all instances of blackface makeup offensive is irrational and stupid. Its as though so-called civil rights activists think that if they don’t prevent any and all portrayal of a minority group, suddenly the country or the world will revert back to pre-Civil War policies. It’s patently absurd.

I don’t know why French Vogue decided to do it, and I don’t care. Anyone who is offended by it needs thicker skin. YOU are the one with the problem, not French Vogue.

“WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor Thursday as the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court.” I expected this of the Democrats but you can see a list of the Republicans who voted for her here.

This woman is a certified racist that thinks her ethnicity makes her a better judge than a white judge. You Hispanics and Puerto Ricans out there that are “proud” for this day need to take a hard look at why you feel more familial with a racist Latina than you do with a color-blind white person. Is ethnicity such a strong uniter that you associate more with a racist with similar skin pigment than you do with a non-racist with different skin pigment? Same goes for American blacks who are proud of this day. Its like “Anything-but-white Appreciation Day.”

There might be a sparse few who actually know the judicial record of this woman and support her for that. While I disagree with them, at least they know what they’re talking about.

Identity politics

Unfortunately the vast majority of people fall under two categories: those who support anything Barack Obama does for racial or political reasons, and those that support any non-white who is given power in any arena in the name of “diversity.” I guess the hundreds of thousands of white people who died in the civil war for racial equality died for NOTHING. Nothing. Those two groups I named are pissing on their graves.

I found her nomination disgusting. I find her confirmation depressing. There is no question she has an impressive resume in the judicial arena, and Michael Vick is a really good football player. There is more to a job that a resume, and there aren’t many jobs where that is more true than one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices of the United friggin States. Lady Justice has lost her blindfold on the Supreme Court. Racism is officially under new management.

President Obama commented today on the arrest of African-American studies professor, Henry Louis Gates, stating that the Cambridge police “acted stupidly.” So what exactly happened?

Gates arrived at his home and found he couldn’t enter. So he and his driver broke into the house, including using a shoulder to break the door in. Naturally, an observant neighbor called the cops to report a possible break-in. Sergeant James Crowley responded to the call, and according to police reports, observed someone through a window at the front door, and calmly asked to speak with the man, who was Crowley. Let me clarify, at this time, all Crowley knows is that two black men may have broken into this home, and the man in the window was black. When Crowley told Gates he was there investigating a possible break-in, Crowley answered the door and said, “Why, because I’m a black man in America?”

Before I continue the story, I would like to address this nonsense. A white cop approaches the home of a black person, and IMMEDIATELY, the assumption is racism. Aside from the fact that the officer who responded to the call is an expert on racial profiling, appointed by a black police commissioner, this pernicious garbage is the primary reason racism still exists today. Black racism, not white racism. I’m not calling all black people racist, but there is a disturbingly high number of black racists of prominence, namely Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, whom are celebrated rather than scorned. I welcome any and all to name a prominent, powerful white racist in America.

Back to the facts of the case… Gates reportedly continued yelling and whining about the racism of Sgt. Crowley. Eventually Gates produced ID confirming he was the owner of the home, at which point, Crowley attempted to end the confrontation. Gates would have nothing of it. Gates continued to yell as he followed Crowley outside. At this point, Crowley warned Gates that he was acting disorderly. Gates ignored him. Crowley took out his handcuffs, and again warned Gates. Gates ignored him and continued to yell, at which point Sgt. Crowley placed Gates under arrest.

It doesn’t matter whether you think a man in his 50s with a cane needs to be handcuffed. People under arrest are always handcuffed for the safety of citizens and police officers. The only reason race became an issue in this instance was due to the preconceived racism that Gates projects to police officers.

President Barack Obama, without knowing all the facts of the case… simply pontificating on the subject based on his cursory knowledge of one version of the story, decided he would comment on a local police matter solely based on the fact that he knew the person arrested, and the race of the parties involved. A police officer did his job, but because he arrested a friend of the President who happens to be black, Obama’s first reaction is to play the race card. What the hell does the arrest rates of blacks and latinos throughout history have to do with this case? Do we have to address historical statistics every time a non-white is arrested?

“Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know, separate and apart from this incident, is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that’s just a fact.” He added later that the incident was “a sign of how race remains a factor in this society.”

Barack Obama has illustrated, once again, that he is black first, American President second. It was more important to him to quickly comment on the case of a black man being arrested in Cambridge by a white cop than to wait for the facts of the case to be determined, and for local law enforcement to handle the situation. This incident was none of his business, but because it involved race, he was incapable of remaining silent. The problem is race was not made an issue by the officer, but by the arrestee.

Obama’s knee-jerk racist reaction has understandably angered police unions (see story). Personally, I have about as much use for African-American Studies professors as I do white studies professors.  I am so sick of this constant, incessant race card playing by prominent blacks, including the half-black President. Professor Gates acted like a prick in his home, and then in public, and rather than calm down and behave, he decided to continue being disorderly. I submit, as did Rush Limbaugh, that Gates partially wanted to be arrested so he could create this controversy out of thin air. A cop came to make sure Mr. Gates’s home wasn’t being broken into, and Gates repaid him by accusing him of racism. And President Obama reinforced this behavior. It was unpresidential, and more importantly, racist.

This story is what Sharpton and Jackson should be angry about. In case my previous posts have left you thinking I’m some sort of closet white supremacist who ignores white racism, I submit this story. It is racist and disgusting.

A group of 60 black children campers were kicked out of a private swim club. According to the article, the camp paid $1900 to use the pool and when they jumped it, reportedly many of the white children left the pool.

“There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club,” John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club said in a statement.

John Duesler the racist, enjoy your email and voicemail this month.

Now that I have reported that, I want to address the civil rights, nay, black rights advocates like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. When you have a knee-jerk reaction to interaction between whites and blacks, you spit on the memory of Martin Luther King. When a real case of white-on-black racism comes along, like this story from Philadelphia, people are less likely to listen to you, because you have cried wolf so many times before.

My disgust for racism is as colorblind as ever. Kicking children out of a pool that they paid to use because of their skin color is ignorant, hateful nonsense. Assuming one race has less rich experiences than another race is ignorant, hateful nonsense. Assuming one group of kids raped someone with no evidence simply because it helped your cause is ignorant, hateful nonsense. I don’t care who is dishing out the racism. And I’m angry that I had to cover this in the wake of the racism committed against these innocent kids, but it was necessary.

A video of Sonia Sotomayor has been found where she said this:

I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am a Puerto Rican, born and raised in the South Bronx … With my academic achievement in high school, I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates. And that’s been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that. There are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects.

I have actually seen blog posts and reviews of this quote PRAISING her comments. As though her success is the ultimate justification for the disgustingly racist practice of affirmative action. Rather than just say she didn’t test well, she blames the test.

I am amazed at the number of people, of every skin pigment, who spend every waking minute making excuses for failure rather than spending their time finding ways to succeed. Among non-whites, a common excuse seems to be that its not their fault; it’s someone else’s fault. The test is biased, or the white guy is biased. I scoured the internet looking for an example of a “culturally biased” test QUESTION, let alone an entire test, and found nothing. Just vague assertions that “everyone knows” culturally biased tests are common. I guess if one non-white group scores lower than a white group, then, by definition, some assume the test is “culturally biased.” This is illogical. To prove a test is culturally biased, show me the question and explain the bias. There are three possibilities when investigating a correlation. A caused B, B caused A, or their correlation is a coincidence. In this instance, either the person caused the score for the test to be low, the test caused the score for the person to be low, or its a coincidence. You must provide proof, not weak vagueries.

Even if you accept the premise of a culturally biased test, Sonia Sotomayor was born and raised in America. Her culture should have been American, same as the people who made the test, so any bias against her would have been self-inflicted, by her mother to be exact. Choosing to culturally diversify yourself from the main culture of a country is a sure-fire way to fall victim to a test if, accepting the false premise, you come across a test question with bias against your particular culture.

And did we check the skin-color of the test-creator? Seems to me that would be an EXTREMELY relevant variable in determining the validity of a test, rather than simply relying on the resulting scores of the test.

Back to her admission… Sonia Sotomayor has admitted she was not qualified to go to Princeton, and the only reason she got in is because admissions looked past her test scores to her skin color. The fact that she appeared to excel there proves nothing. Just because a rule has an occasional exception does not make the rule invalid.

Standardized test scores are an objective and invaluable way to predict the success of students in college. The alternative is subjective criteria, such as personality, personal connections, and race. Once upon a time, colleges subjectively chose students based on who their daddy was, and whether they were white. That was racist and unfair, and so is affirmative action for EXACTLY the same reasons.

Another link to read…

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/sotomayor-in-her-own-words-on-tape/

Between the election and inauguration of President Obama, Maggie and John Anderson vowed they would try to patronize only white-owned businesses. The “Ivory Experiment” has forced John to suffer with a stomach ache a little longer, and Maggie to not use the brand-name shampoo she wants. “We kind of enjoy the sacrifice because we get to make the point.”

Racist right? And it would be racist if I switched out black for white, ebony for ivory, right? Oh, I hope I didn’t lose you there. Turns out, that is the case. Fox News is reporting the Anderson family’s “Buy Black Experiment.” The funny thing is they bought the domain name, www.ebonyexperiment.com, but have started calling it the “Empowerment Experiment.” I guess “ebony” experiment is less marketable than “empowerment” experiment. At least they dont have to change the EE acronym to mask their racism.
Maggie Anderson summed up her racism with this quote: “It’s like, my people have been here 400 years and we don’t even have a Walgreens to show for it.”

Maggie, no one is standing in the way of black people owning Walgreens, and “your people” are supposed to be Americans, not black Americans. If “your people” does not include white Americans, or any other color than black, then you can be classified as more racist than any white person I have ever met in my life.

I have yet to observe a white person who is as racist as this Maggie Anderson and her husband, or Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Oprah Winfrey, or Michelle Obama. Not only are they vicious racists, but they’re PROUD OF IT. They wear it as a badge of honor; “black power! look how confident I am!”